Summary report, 8–25 April 1997

CSD-5

The fifth session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-5) convenedat the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 8-25 April 1997 to completepreparations for the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) that is to reviewimplementation of Agenda 21 in June. The fifth session began with a High-LevelSegment and a review of reports from its Ad Hoc Intersessional Working Groupand the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. At the end of the first week, a series ofdialogues with the major groups began in parallel meetings to negotiations on the text tobe adopted by UNGASS. Negotiations took center stage during the final week, with twoDrafting Groups and numerous informal groups meeting late into the night. CSD-5 ChairMostafa Tolba (Egypt) and Vice-Chair Monika Linn-Locher (Switzerland) alsoconducted consultations on a draft political statement for the signature of Heads of Stateand Government expected to attend the Special Session.

Delegates continued to identify the emerging priority issues that they considered at theCSD’s Intersessional Working Group: freshwater, energy/atmosphere and forests assectoral foci, and poverty eradication and changing consumption and production patternsas cross-sectoral foci. The voluminous amendments to the text generated some concernthat the three weeks of negotiating time at CSD-5 would be too short. Nevertheless,delegates rose to Chair Tolba’s challenge not to leave the UN before reaching agreementon almost everything and adopted a text with fewer brackets than some thought possible.Critical debates on whether to move forward with a forests convention, how to balancefinancial resource language, and the as-yet-unnegotiated political statement of Heads ofState and Government were left pending for consideration at UNGASS.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CSD

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was envisioned in Agenda 21, theprogramme of action adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED). Agenda 21 called for the creation of the CSD to: ensure effective follow-up ofUNCED; enhance international cooperation and rationalize intergovernmental decision-making capacity; and examine progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the local,national, regional and international levels. In 1992, the 47th session of the UN GeneralAssembly set out, in resolution 47/191, the terms of reference for the Commission, itscomposition, guidelines for the participation of NGOs, the organization of work, theCSD’s relationship with other UN bodies and Secretariat arrangements.

The CSD held its first substantive session at UN Headquarters in New York from 14-25June 1993. Amb. Razali Ismail (Malaysia) was elected the first Chair of the Commission.Delegates addressed, inter alia: the adoption of a multi-year thematic programmeof work; the future work of the Commission; and the exchange of information on theimplementation of Agenda 21 at the national level.

The second session of the CSD met in New York from 16-27 May 1994. TheCommission, chaired by Klaus Tpfer (Germany), discussed cross-sectoral chapters ofAgenda 21, including: trade, environment and sustainable development; consumptionpatterns; and major groups. On the sectoral side, delegates considered health, humansettlements, freshwater resources, toxic chemicals and hazardous, solid and radioactivewastes.

The CSD held its third session from 11-28 April 1995 in New York. The revised formatof the Commission, which included numerous panel discussions, enabled the participantsto enter into a dialogue. The Day of Local Authorities, combined with the NGO andgovernment-sponsored panels and workshops throughout the session, enabled the CSD toexamine the local aspects of implementing Agenda 21. Chaired by Henrique Cavalcanti(Brazil), CSD-3 examined the second cluster of issues according to its multi-yearthematic programme of work: planning and management of land resources; combatingdeforestation; combating desertification and drought; sustainable mountain development;promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development; conservation of biologicaldiversity; and environmentally sound management of biotechnology. The Commissionalso established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF).

CSD-4, held from 18 April-3 May 1996, completed the Commission’s multi-yearthematic programme of work and began considering preparations for UNGASS. TheCommission, chaired by Rumen Gechev (Bulgaria), examined: financial resources andmechanisms; consumption patterns; technology transfer; education and training; capacity-building; trade, environment and sustainable development; combating poverty;demographic dynamics; information for decision-making; major groups; institutionalarrangements; international legal instruments and mechanisms; national reporting; andprotection of the atmosphere and oceans. In reference to the Special Session, mostdelegates agreed that the CSD should continue and that it should not conduct anotherreview of Agenda 21. Suggestions as to its future work varied from concentrating oncertain sectors (e.g., oceans) to cross-cutting issues (e.g., poverty) and specific problems(e.g., megacities). Many held out hope that the CSD could redefine its role and accelerateprogress in achieving the promises made in Rio.

The CSD’s Ad Hoc Open-Ended Intersessional Working Group met from 24February-7 March 1997 in New York. The Working Group focused on the format andsubstantive contents of the document to be considered at UNGASS. The main output wasa draft “Proposed Outcome of the Special Session” prepared by Co-Chairs Derek Osborn(UK) and Amb. Celso Amorim (Brazil) after feedback from delegates on a first draft. There-draft provided a basis for consultations prior to CSD-5. Most delegates highlightedfreshwater, energy and transport, forests and oceans as issues of new or priority concern.Delegates noted the importance of the cross-sectoral issues of poverty and changingconsumption and production patterns.

REPORT OF CSD-5

CSD-4 Chair Rumen Gechev (Bulgaria) opened CSD-5 on Tuesday, 8 April. He calledfor a reconfirmation of the definition of “sustainable development” as it emanated fromRio and for a balance of actions so the economic, social and environmental componentscan reinforce each other. Delegates elected Dr. Mostafa Tolba (Egypt) as CSD-5 Chair.He noted that the concept of sustainable development is still open to interpretation, andidentified challenges with regard to climate change, biodiversity, desertification, officialdevelopment assistance (ODA), technology transfer, protection of the ozone layer,consumption patterns, population and poverty.

Joke Waller-Hunter, Director of the UN Division for Sustainable Development, said theSpecial Session must reaffirm the highest levels of support for sustainable development,recognizing the interdependence of its economic, social and environmental componentsand reaffirming the developmental dimension of sustainable development. She saidUNGASS should emphasize to the UN system, the World Bank, IMF and WTO the needfor partnerships at national, regional and global levels.

Delegates elected to following Vice-Chairs: Monika Linn-Locher (Switzerland) from theWestern European and Others Group, John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) from the LatinAmerican and Caribbean Group, Bagher Asadi (Iran) from the Asian Group and CzeslawWieckowski (Poland) from the Eastern European Group, who served as Rapporteur.

Following a number of introductory reports on the Ad Hoc Intersessional WorkingGroup, the IPF, the High-Level Advisory Board, UNEP, GEF and the Earth Council’sRio+5 Forum, delegates launched into a three and one-half day High-Level Segment,during which ministers, ambassadors and NGOs offered statements on the reports of theAd Hoc Intersessional Working Group and the IPF. During the second week of theCSD, delegates offered amendments to the Co-Chairs’ draft outcome of the SpecialSession, prepared during the Intersessional Working Group. Dialogues with major groupstook place in parallel sessions. Two Drafting Groups and numerous informal groups werecreated during the final week as delegates attempted to craft the document their Heads ofState or Government will adopt at the United Nations General Assembly Special Sessionin June.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The High-Level Segment was held from 8-11 April. Many delegations emphasizedfinancial issues and offered a range of views, particularly on declining ODA and theeffect of globalization on sustainable development efforts. TANZANIA, on behalf of theG-77/CHINA, called on developed countries to reaffirm at UNGASS their commitmentto reach the target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA by 2000. He cautioned against theassumption that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can substitute for ODA and stressed theneed to ensure that FDI reaches marginalized and least developed countries. He called fora multilateral regime for FDI to assist in the pursuit of environmentally sustainabledevelopment. A number of developing country officials, including MOROCCO,GABON, INDONESIA, MOZAMBIQUE and NICARAGUA, echoed these concerns andnoted that: private sector resources only assist some countries; ODA is the only source ofexternal financing for many countries; and a flexible approach to debt relief is needed toassist heavily indebted countries in implementing sustainable development.

The WORLD BANK highlighted the need for changes in the pattern and efficiency offinancing and market transformation through partnerships. FINLAND stated that ODAshould be channeled to the poorest countries and used to improve the enablingenvironment for private sector operations. The US said the CSD should make clear to theprivate sector that investment must aim for sustainable development while encouragingsustainable capital investment. JAPAN stated that developing countries should bear theprimary responsibility for their own development with the assistance of developedcountries.

MALAYSIA proposed adding globalization as a cross-cutting issue for annual CSDconsideration. PANAMA called for consideration of globalization in any CSDexamination of progress in implementing Agenda 21. NORWAY said social andenvironmental concerns must be taken into account by the global trading system, andliberalization should not be allowed to weaken environmental standards and agreements.EGYPT noted developing countries’ concern that environmental protection not be used asa guise for protectionism. CUBA said there would be no equity in sustainabledevelopment if countries focus only on privatization and pursuit of the perfect market.

On energy, the EU called for a common strategy for a sustainable energy future. The USsaid the CSD should lead an effort within the UN system to develop a programme ofaction for sustainable energy use. NORWAY and ICELAND called for increased use ofrenewable energy sources. SWITZERLAND and DENMARK proposed anintergovernmental panel on energy. The WORLD BANK noted the need to reform theenergy sector. HUNGARY suggested that the CSD coordinate and synthesize existingenergy sector initiatives and programmes within the UN. The NGO ENERGY CAUCUScalled for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and increased programmes for energyefficiency.

The EU, supported by FRANCE and AUSTRIA, proposed a global freshwater initiativeto ensure access to safe drinking water and sanitation for all within ten years. Otherministers and ambassadors highlighted: the need for a multilateral fund to support effortsin water resource management, technology transfer and information exchange; disparitiesin access to clean water and sanitation in many African countries; and freshwater as aCSD priority. They also emphasized sustainable production and consumption patternsand noted: eco-efficiency; codes of conduct for promoting sustainable development;internalization of environmental costs of production at the international level; anddisparity in national efforts to modify consumer behavior. The EU also called for a newinitiative on eco-efficiency to address unsustainable production and consumptionpatterns.

On atmosphere, delegates focused on the desired outcome of the third Conference of theParties (COP-3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and stressed:the importance of reaching agreement on legally-binding commitments for greenhousegas (GHG) reductions at COP-3; realistic, achievable and legally-binding emissionstargets for developed nations, including maximum flexibility in reaching targets and theparticipation of all countries; and implementing early and substantial reductions in GHGemissions.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) called on the international community toactively support the Barbados Programme of Action for Small Island Developing States(SIDS). SPAIN, ALGERIA and EGYPT emphasized the importance of addressingdesertification. Other issues highlighted included: UNEP restructuring, GEFreplenishment, toxic chemicals and confirmation of the CSD as the central coordinatingbody on oceans issues.

Several countries supported the recommendation that the CSD establish anIntergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to elaborate a global convention onforests. The EU, supported by PORTUGAL, FRANCE, GERMANY, AUSTRIA andGREECE, said a convention could: fill gaps in existing forest-related instruments;address trade in products from all types of forests; offer a framework for improvedmobilization and more effective use of resources and technology transfer; strengthennational and international policies for sustainable forest management; enhance thepriority of forestry in national budgets and among the donor community; enable countriesto leverage more funding from multilateral organizations; and be completed by the year2000. CANADA said the CSD should recommend launching negotiations this year. Shenoted that a convention would help coordinate ODA and promote new and innovativesources of finance and technology transfer. MALAYSIA supported seeking consensus ona time-bound schedule leading to an equitable and comprehensive global forestconvention. RUSSIA favored a convention, even if such an instrument could not workperfectly.

BRAZIL, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, NEW ZEALAND, JAPAN, the US,AUSTRALIA and the GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT suggested that the CSDestablish an open-ended intergovernmental forum on forests that is transparent andparticipatory and focuses implementation and follow-up of the IPF’s recommendations.INDIA emphasized countries’ sovereignty over their resources and, with URUGUAY,COLOMBIA, PERU, CHILE, ARGENTINA and ECUADOR, did not support aconvention until its basis is fully established and necessary consensus emerges on itsobjectives. Many delegations, such as the PHILIPPINES and VENEZUELA, said anypossible convention must include all types of forests and reflect varying nationalcircumstances.

DIALOGUES WITH MAJOR GROUPS

For the first time at the CSD formal dialogue sessions were convened with each of themajor groups identified in Agenda 21. These dialogue sessions took place in parallel tothe negotiations from 11-18 April.

YOUTH: Speakers from youth-based NGOs highlighted: local environmentalinitiatives; youth NGO networks; educational seminars; local fund-raising drives;scientific research projects; and a children’s version of Agenda 21. Delegates commentedon a number of issues, such as: employment, education and political empowerment foryouth; action on AIDS and drugs; influence through voting; malnutrition; and the work ofRescue Mission on sustainable development indicators. When asked what youth wouldlike to result from UNGASS, many panelists responded that they seek access toinformation, increased support for awareness, skill-sharing and empowerment, andsupport for new and innovative ways of actively involving youth and NGOs in thesustainable development debate. In the final Plenary, delegates adopted the summaryreport of the dialogue session with youth (E/CN.17/1997/L.2).

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES: Panelists in thedialogue session with scientific and technological communities considered NGOmechanisms for international cooperation in science and technology and highlightedpartnership programmes, including the World Climate Research Programme. Panelistssaid sustainable development depends on scientific knowledge and domestic capacity,local solutions and local experts, and full and effective participation of scientificcommunities from both North and South. Other statements focused on: bio-resources asan opportunity for developing countries to increase their wealth; the responsibility ofengineers in sustainable development; programmes on capacity-building strategies; andscientific support for policy formulation. Panelists proposed that UNGASS engage in a“real” dialogue session. They also called for support for international research andnational-level scientific education. In the final Plenary, delegates adopted a summaryreport of the session (E/CN.17/1997/L.3).

WOMEN: Panelists highlighted a number of issues, including poverty,globalization, free trade and biotechnology. CSD delegates were asked to: call for 1-2%of developed country aid and World Bank funding to be set aside for micro-credit; resistthe language of “agricultural sustainability” associated with export-driven agriculture;uphold the right to food rather than its commodification; identify “hot spots” of industrialcontamination; address the effect of commercial advertising on unsustainable productionand consumption; and examine practices to better integrate women into local councils incities and towns. Topics addressed during the dialogue included: changing the way menperceive their own roles in society; links to the Commission on the Status of Women;nuclear contamination and women’s reproductive health; the precautionary principle;human rights abuses; transboundary movements of hazardous materials; national effortsto include women in government; and reflecting the “paradigm shift” of the BeijingConference at UNGASS. The summary of the session is contained in documentE/CN.17/1997/L.5/Rev.1.

TRADE UNIONS: This session focused on, inter alia, sustainabledevelopment through “collective engagement,” a process of education and action thatputs workers at the center and promotes action. Panelists provided examples concerning:a national accord reached through consultation that helped thousands of workers sufferingfrom benzene contamination; a case study on workplace and community partnerships thatincorporated environmental concerns into all aspects of production; and health and safetytraining programmes that build environmental awareness. Panelists also highlighted:environmental remediation programmes and recycling; cooperation with local authoritiesand local communities to research and address housing and unplanned urban growth;ratification of ILO conventions; and initiatives on eco-labelling for computers and greenand ergonomic offices. The dialogue session focused on a number of other topics,including: the relationship of eco-auditing and the ISO 14000 approach to environmentalmanagement; the adaptability of the auditing system to developing countries; and“informal” economies. The summary of this session in contained in E/CN.17/1997/L.4.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: Panelists noted that the Intersessional Co-Chairs’text failed to reflect the lack of progress on critical issues of concern to indigenouspeoples. They stressed, inter alia: the need for political empowerment, self-determination, and control over natural resources; the problems of poverty, homelessnessand unemployment; recognition of indigenous political institutions, ancestral lands andintellectual property rights (IPRs); and mechanisms for participation in decision-makingbeyond “tokenism.” Panelists called for: corporate responsibility for transnationalcorporations (TNCs); priority for the draft Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples; a permanent UN forum for indigenous peoples; expanding the scope of theindigenous peoples’ fund for participation; inclusion of indigenous peoples on a par withindustry in the CSD’s work; and a moratorium on bio-prospecting until IPR are protected.They also called for: coordination with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and the Center for Human Rights during review of the Trade-Related IntellectualProperty (TRIPs) agreement; establishment of a CSD body to examine mining issues;examination of the effect of globalization on indigenous peoples; and conclusion of abiosafety protocol. In final Plenary, delegates adopted the summary of the session(E/CN.17/1997/L.6).

NGOs: On Agenda 21 implementation in the South, panelists noted thatgovernments are treating the superficial manifestations of unsustainable practices ratherthan the underlying causes. They stressed: mechanisms for NGO consultation andcollaboration; capacity-building; lack of awareness about environmental issues; andpromotion of community-level initiatives. Proposals included: developing a green creditsystem to assist environment projects; providing documentation on all initiativesproposed at the CSD; viewing poverty eradication as a global problem; and prioritizingeducation. On national and regional implementation, panelists reported on progress inEurope and South Africa. Presentations on the CSD’s role in the next five years focusedon: trade, environment and sustainable development; a forest convention versus strongerimplementation of the CBD; and TNC accountability. One panelist noted that the CSD isperhaps the most appropriate international institution to address globalization. In finalplenary, delegates adopted the summary of the session (E/CN.17/1997/L.7).

LOCAL AUTHORITIES: Panelists in the dialogue session with local authoritiesshared experiences in developing Local Agenda 21s in Dubai, London, Marrakech,Barcelona, Cajamarca (Peru) and Leicester (UK). They highlighted partnerships betweenlocal authorities, decentralization and local governance and the progress of the LocalAgenda 21 movement. Panelists proposed that the CSD focus on: the human settlementssector and the Habitat Agenda; application of Agenda 21 principles by TNCs; capacity-building; harmonization of policies between different levels of government; initiatives toimprove coordination of agencies; and developing local authority networks. Panelists alsocalled for: a meeting between local authorities and global leaders; a global target forLocal Agenda 21s; partnerships on all government levels dealing with freshwater issues;a study prior to CSD-6 to investigate barriers to local sustainable development imposedby central authorities; and language pertaining to local authorities. In the final Plenary,delegates adopted the summary of the session (E/CN.17/1997/L.9).

FARMERS: The dialogue session on farmers included representatives from theUS, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, India and Russia. Panelistsdiscussed: farm management techniques and voluntary programmes; partnerships;farmers’ organizations; and priorities and strategies. Discussants highlighted: farming asan economic activity; environmentally-friendly production measures; the impact ofagriculture on water use and conservation; industrial encroachment into prime farmland;poverty among small-scale farmers, especially women; the public image of farmers; therole of organic farming; the definition of “sustainable agriculture;” and local productdistribution. Discussants also noted: the implications of international trade and privatesector investments on production; long-term land tenure as an incentive for sustainablepractices; and the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some discussants notedproblems with equitable distribution of food as opposed to its production. Delegatesadopted the summary of the session in the final Plenary (E.CN.17/1997/L.8/Rev.1)

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY: The dialogue included panelists from a range ofindustries and covered: business concepts; company management practices; small- andmedium-sized enterprises; new business opportunities; transparency and commitments;awareness-raising in business; and partnerships and cooperation. In discussing futureaction, participants considered the role of business, government frameworks for changeand business strategies. Panelists described: recycling and waste minimization; thechemical industry’s “Responsible Care” initiative; independent verification ofenvironmental management schemes; environmentally-oriented investment funds; and theInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Business Charter for SustainableDevelopment. Panelists also discussed: capitalizing on the ability of business to adaptrapidly; “command and control” versus “performance-based” regulations;environmentally-damaging subsidies; cost internalization of environmental damage; taxreform; and technology transfer. In the final Plenary, delegates adopted the summary ofthe session (E/CN.17/1997/L.10).

After the nine dialogue sessions, the CSD convened a synthesis session to review thecomments and recommendations made during the week. In the final Plenary, delegatesalso adopted a summary report of the synthesis session (E/CN.17/1997/L.11).

DRAFT OUTCOME OF THE UNGA SPECIAL SESSION

Delegates negotiated the draft outcome of UNGASS in two Drafting Groups andnumerous informal groups. The Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Intersessional WorkingGroup, Derek Osborn (UK) and Amb. Celso Amorim (Brazil), chaired Drafting Groups Iand II, respectively. Drafting Group I considered text on “Sectors and Issues” and“Assessment of Progress Reached After Rio.” Drafting Group II considered text on“Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental Objectives” and “Means ofImplementation.” After the first reading of the text developed by the Co-Chairs of theIntersessional Working Group, a compilation text containing all amendments was issued,which formed the basis of negotiations for the second reading.

Vice-Chair Monika Linn-Locher conducted informal consultations on the statement ofcommitment/declaration, drafts of which were informally circulated during the final weekof negotiations. On the basis of input to the draft, Chair Tolba and Vice-Chair Linn-Locher presented a “proposed draft political statement” on 24 April, which was added tothe report of CSD-5 as a Chair’s draft. Informal groups on forests, institutionalarrangements and the CSD programme of work, chaired by Vice-Chairs Bagher Asadi(Iran), John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) and Czeslaw Wieckowski (Poland),respectively, met regularly during the final week of negotiations and contributed text onthose issues to the draft final document that CSD-5 delegates adopted during the closingPlenary. The following discussion elaborates on the positions taken at CSD-5 andsummarizes the agreed text and bracketed issues that delegates will revisit in theCommittee of the Whole during UNGASS.

PROPOSED DRAFT POLITICAL STATEMENT

The draft statement for Heads of State and Government and other Heads of Delegationattending the Special Session expresses deep concern that the overall outlook forsustainable development is not much better today than it was in 1992, especially in theleast developed countries (LLDCs). The accelerating pace of globalization, poverty andthe growing gap between developed and developing countries are stressed, and UNCEDcommitments are reaffirmed.

The statement contains commitments to: move from words to deeds; promoteinternational cooperation and work at the national level; ensure good governance andhuman rights; support empowerment and full participation of major groups, in particular,women; change patterns of production and consumption based on cultural, moral andenvironmental ethics; reduce by half the numbers living in absolute poverty by the year2015; support the establishment of achievable time-bound goals and targets within thenext five and ten years for moving towards sustainable development; expeditiouslyconclude ongoing international environmental negotiations, e.g., climate change;mobilize domestic resources for sustainable development; provide support fromdeveloped countries for developing countries and countries with economies in transitionusing adequate financial resources from all sources; reaffirm the target of 0.7% of GNPfor ODA; work to ensure that investment, including domestic and foreign directinvestment, contributes to sustainable development; provide assistance of developedcountries to facilitate EST transfers; integrate sustainable development within theframework of the WTO and the multilateral trading system; and promote the CSD as amain UN forum for ensuring full integration of economic and social developmentconsiderations with those of environmental protection.

The Statement ends with the call: “Time is of the essence. We need every hand to reversethe deterioration trend” and a commitment to ensure that the public at large feelsownership of the outcome of the Special Session.

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REACHED AFTER RIO

The Assessment describes the effects of: globalization; economic, social andenvironmental trends; major group activities; recent international environmentalagreements and conferences; finance and ODA trends; and technology transfer. The finaldraft contains no brackets.

The 15-paragraph assessment notes the accelerated pace of globalization and the unevenimpact of recent globalization trends on developing countries. The EU called for nationaland international environmental and social policies to ensure that globalization trendshave a positive impact on sustainable development. CANADA added that manydeveloping countries still require international assistance for sustainable development,and the least developed in particular continue to be heavily dependent on decliningvolumes of ODA. BELARUS highlighted the need for international support to helpeconomies in transition become integrated in the world economy.

The text recognizes that although economic growth has allowed some countries to reducethe proportion of people in poverty, marginalization has increased for others. Too manycountries have seen economic conditions worsen, public services deteriorate, and the totalnumber of people living in poverty increase. However, population growth rates havedeclined, access to education has expanded, infant mortality has declined and lifeexpectancy has increased in most countries.

The state of the global environment has continued to deteriorate. Overall, pollutingemissions have increased, only marginal progress has been made in addressingunsustainable production and consumption patterns, and insufficient progress has beenmade in environmentally sound management of hazardous and radioactive wastes.Conditions in fragile ecosystems are deteriorating and renewable resources continue to beused at unsustainable levels.

Extensive efforts have been made by governments and international organizations tointegrate environment and economic and social objectives into decision-making. Themajor groups have demonstrated what can be achieved by taking committed action,sharing resources and building consensus, reflecting grassroots concern and involvement.

Achievements since UNCED include: entry into force of the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (FCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and theConvention to Combat Desertification (CCD); conclusion of the agreement on straddlingand highly migratory fish stocks; the adoption of the Programme of Action for SmallIsland Developing States; the elaboration of the Global Programme of Action forProtection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Activities; and the restructuringand replenishment of the GEF. The G-77/CHINA added a reference to the insufficiencyof GEF replenishment.

Progress has been made in incorporating the principles contained in the Rio Declaration,including common but differentiated responsibilities, which forms the basis ofinternational cooperation, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle invarious legal instruments. UN organizations and programmes have played an importantrole in the implementation of Agenda 21. However, much remains to be done to activatethe means of implementation set out in Agenda 21, in particular in the areas of financeand technology transfer, technical assistance and capacity-building. ODA levels havedeclined, but there has been a sizeable expansion of private flows of financial resources toa limited number of developing countries and efforts in support of domestic resourcemobilization have also occurred. The debt situation remains a major constraint onachieving sustainable development. Similarly, technology transfer and technology-relatedinvestment from public and private sources has not been realized as outlined in Agenda21.

IMPLEMENTATION IN AREAS REQUIRING URGENT ACTION

The introductory paragraph to this section states that Agenda 21 and the Rio Declarationon Environment and Development established a comprehensive approach to sustainabledevelopment. Underlining national responsibility, this paragraph calls for reactivation ofinternational cooperation and a major effort to implement UNCED goals [particularly][including] cross-sectoral matters. The US and NORWAY objected to a G-77/CHINA-proposed reference to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, whichwas altered to note that international cooperation is essential, recognizing, inter alia,the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as stated in Principle 7 ofthe Rio Declaration.

INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES

This paragraph recognizes a mutually reinforcing relationship between economic,social and environmental objectives. The text calls for full sharing of the benefits ofgrowth, guided by equity, justice, social and environmental considerations. It alsoaddresses: policy-making integration; the responsibility of industry, agriculture, energy,transport and tourism for their impact on human well-being and the environment;elaboration of national sustainable development strategies by 2002; and country-specificpolicy instruments.

Bracketed text includes a G-77/CHINA proposal noting that sustained economic growthis essential to the economic and social development of all countries, in particulardeveloping countries, and an EU proposal noting the indispensable nature of democracy,respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. SWITZERLAND proposed texton labor rights, which also remains bracketed.

[Enabling International Economic Environment]: This new section, based on aG-77/CHINA proposal, calls for a mutually supportive balance between the internationalenvironment and the national environment, under conditions of globalization. The EUobjected to a G-77/CHINA amendment that globalization has tilted the balance ofresponsibility for development toward the international level. Delegates agreed torecognize that external factors have become critical for developing country efforts.

Eradicating Poverty: Poverty eradication is stated to be an overriding theme ofsustainable development for the coming years. During the final Plenary the US withdrewan amendment referring to implementation of the “relevant portions” of the BeijingPlatform for Action. The text calls for: implementation of the Programme of Action ofthe World Summit on Social Development, including the 20/20 initiative, and access tosustainable livelihoods and basic social services. Brackets remain around references toinvolving people in poverty in monitoring and assessing strategies and reflecting theirpriorities, and, at ARGENTINA’s request, to implementation of the Beijing Platform forAction [consistent with the report of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women].

Changing Consumption and Production Patterns: This paragraph identifiesunsustainable patterns of production and consumption, particularly in the industrializedcountries, as the major cause of continued environmental deterioration. Discussionaddressed policies to: encourage changes in consumption patterns (US); encourageconsumer awareness (CANADA); and reduce damaging subsidies (NORWAY). The G-77/CHINA objected to a CANADIAN amendment to address consumption patterns in“rapidly industrializing countries.” The G-77/CHINA and the US deleted references totimetables and targets. The text calls for action on the polluter pays principle,encouraging producer responsibility and consumer awareness, eco-efficiency, costinternalization and product policies.

Brackets remain around references to: meeting basic needs in developing countries;higher income group consumption in some developing countries; full cost pricing ofnatural resources; environmental and social audits; core indicators [particularly in theindustrialized countries]; [targets, goals, or actions]; proposals to increase resourceproductivity by factors of 10 and 4; a lead role for developed countries; and avoidingnegative impacts on exports.

Making Trade and Environment Mutually Supportive: This paragraph identifiesa need for the establishment of macroeconomic conditions enabling all countries tobenefit from globalization. The G-77/CHINA introduced concerns about discriminatorytrade practices. A European Community (EC) proposal on using the General System ofPreferences to enhance market access was deleted. The text calls for: system-wide effortsinvolving the UN, WTO and Bretton Woods institutions and governments; removal oftrade obstacles to resource efficiency; environmental management policies alongsidetrade liberalization; and full implementation of the Uruguay Round and the WTO Plan forLLDCs.

Bracketed text includes references to: elimination of discriminatory practices affectingdeveloping countries; “sustainable development and trade liberalization should bemutually supportive;” and an entire subparagraph calling for WTO action to ensure thattrade rules do not prevent or undermine environmental policies.

Population: This relatively short paragraph states that the impact of therelationship between economic growth, poverty, employment, environment andsustainable development has become a major concern. The paragraph calls forrecognition of the critical linkages between demographic trends and factors andsustainable development.

The US, CANADA, the EU and NORWAY called for language on reproductive healthcare. ARGENTINA and MALTA preferred the original text on family and maternalhealth care. Both options remain in brackets.

Health: This paragraph notes that an overriding goal for the future is to enable allpeople, particularly the world’s poor, to achieve a higher level of health and well-being,and to improve their economic and social potential. The paragraph prioritizes protectionof children from environmental health threats and infectious disease, eradication of majorinfectious diseases, improvement of basic health and sanitation and safe drinking water.The G-77/CHINA bracketed US text on the effects of lead poisoning on children and ontobacco awareness strategies.

SECTORS AND ISSUES

The introductory paragraph notes that all sectors covered by Agenda 21 are equallyimportant and thus deserve attention by the international community on an equal footing.It notes the importance of integration in all sectors, particularly energy and transport,agriculture and water use, drought and desertification, and management of marineresources. Delegates added a G-77/CHINA-proposed reference to the need forinternational cooperation and support of national efforts, within the context of theprinciples of UNCED, including, inter alia, the principle of common butdifferentiated responsibilities.

Freshwater: This section contains a chapeau, eight subparagraphs and anadditional paragraph on a freshwater initiative. The one bracketed reference in the sectionoccurs in this final paragraph.

The chapeau highlights: widespread lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation;the importance of water for satisfying basic needs in developing countries; concern aboutincreasing stress on supplies caused by unsustainable use; and the need to ensure optimaluse and protection of freshwater resources so the needs of all can be met. The chapeaualso stresses that given the growing demands on water, it will become a limiting factor onsocioeconomic development unless early action is taken, and calls for the highest priorityto freshwater problems.

Subparagraphs stress the need to: formulate and implement policies for integratedwatershed management; strengthen cooperation for technology transfer and financing ofintegrated water resource programmes and projects; ensure continued participation oflocal communities in management of water resource development and use; provide anenabling environment for investments to improve water supply and sanitation services;consider gradual implementation of pricing policies; strengthen information collectionand management capabilities; support developing country efforts to shift to higher-value,less water-intensive modes of agricultural and industrial production; encouragedevelopment of international watercourses to attain sustainable utilization and appropriateprotection thereof and benefits therefrom.

The final paragraph containing the EU proposal for a freshwater initiative states that,considering the urgent need for action in the field of freshwater and building on existingprinciples and instruments, arrangements, programmes of action and [sustainable]customary uses of water, governments call for a CSD dialogue to begin at CSD-6. Thedialogue will aim at building consensus on the necessary actions and in particular ontangible results and the means of implementation in order to consider initiating a strategicapproach for the implementation of all aspects of sustainable use of freshwater.

The G-77/CHINA said the EU proposal should: mention the means of implementationbefore mentioning results; include a reference to water for social and economic uses; andplace safe drinking water and sanitation as the priorities for action. EGYPT said that“customary use” carried a specific legal implication and “sustainable customary use” wasan unknown term. The US noted that not all customary uses are sustainable and those thatare should be distinguished, and bracketed the reference. In the final Plenary, the USwithdrew the brackets on the understanding that customary uses of water can besuperceded by customary international law and treaties. Delegates discussed at length theincorporation of the G-77/CHINA proposal on international cooperation. They agreed inthe final Plenary to add to the text that the intergovernmental process will only be fullyfruitful if there is a proven commitment by the international community for the provisionof new and additional financial resources for the goals of this initiative.

In a subparagraph on investments to improve supply and sanitation, delegates agreed toproviding an enabling “national (US) and international (G-77/CHINA)” environment forinvestment and added G-77/CHINA language on commitments to support developingcountries’ efforts to provide access to safe drinking water and sanitation for all, with thedeletion by the EU and the US of “time-bound” commitments.

In a subparagraph on pricing policies, delegates agreed to an EU proposal recognizingwater as a social and economic good. The G-77/CHINA added that economic valuation ofwater should be seen in the context of its social and economic implications. Delegatesagreed that gradual implementation of pricing policies could be considered in developingcountries when they reach an appropriate stage in their development. The US added thatstrategies must include programmes to minimize wasteful consumption.

Oceans and Seas: This bracket-free section contains a chapeau and sevensubparagraphs. The chapeau highlights: progress in the negotiation of agreements toimprove the conservation and management of fishery resources; declining fish stocks;rising marine pollution; and the need to improve decision making on the marineenvironment. Subparagraphs stress the need to: ratify or accede to relevant agreements;strengthen implementation of existing marine pollution agreements; identify globalpriorities to promote conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment;cooperate to support strengthening of regional agreements for protection and sustainableuse of oceans; prevent or eliminate overfishing; consider subsidies’ impacts; and improvescientific data.

Although the section has no brackets, TURKEY stated in the final Plenary that theyplanned to revisit it in the future. Delegates debated fair access to marine resources,overcapacity of fishing fleets and subsidies at length.

In the chapeau, text on assisting developing countries to implement relevant agreements“with a view to securing fair access to marine resources” was changed “to participateeffectively in the sustainable use, conservation and management of their fisheryresources” by the US. The MARSHALL ISLANDS, ICELAND, AOSIS, PAPUA NEWGUINEA and JAMAICA supported this amendment. The G-77/CHINA preferred the fairaccess language, but ultimately agreed to the amendment, noting strong dissent within theG-77 on its implications.

Based on proposals by the EU and CANADA, the issues of eliminating or reducingexcess fishing capacity and of subsidies were separated into distinct paragraphs.

After a lengthy debate on overfishing and excess capacity, the Chair prepared acompromise formulation calling for the elimination or prevention of overcapacity(CANADA) through the adoption of management measures and mechanisms to ensure(NORWAY) the sustainable management and utilization (G-77/CHINA) of fishery (US)resources (ICELAND) and to undertake programmes of work (JAPAN) to achieve thereduction of wasteful fishing practices wherever they occur, especially in relation tolarge-scale industrialized fishing (G-77/CHINA). NORWAY, JAPAN, CANADA and theUS emphasized that these problems are not applicable only to developed countries. TheG-77/CHINA noted the need to increase developing countries’ fleet capacity.

Delegates accepted CANADA’s subparagraph stating that governments should considerthe positive and negative impact of subsidies. The G-77/CHINA said they are opposed tophasing out subsidies in developing countries.

The G-77/CHINA, supported by the MARSHALL ISLANDS, added language oninstitutional links between mechanisms developing and implementing integrated coastalzone management. Language was added on strengthening implementation of existingagreements on marine pollution toward better contingency planning and liability andcompensation mechanisms.

In a subparagraph on government action, NORWAY, supported by CANADA, addedlanguage on, inter alia, improving the quality and quantity of scientific data andgreater international cooperation to assist developing countries. The G-77/CHINA addeda call for assistance to developing countries, particularly SIDS, to operationalize datanetworks for information-sharing on oceans.

Forests: Delegates negotiated the forests text informally in a contact group. Thefinal draft, which contains bracketed text, has three preambular paragraphs, stating theimportance of forests for sustainable development, noting progress in sustainable forestmanagement since Rio, particularly through the IPF, and calling for political commitmentto encourage and facilitate the intergovernmental policy dialogue. The text also containssix subparagraphs stressing the need for: implementation of the action proposals; nationalforest programmes; enhanced international cooperation; further clarification of issuesarising from the IPF; continued collaboration through the Interagency Task Force onForests; and guidance for international institutions to incorporate the IPF’s actionproposals into their work programmes.

Delegates debated at length whether the subparagraph on further clarification of issuesshould identify issues “arising from the IPF” or solely issues that remain unresolved fromthe IPF, and which issues should be highlighted. It was ultimately agreed to use“international cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer and trade andenvironment in relation to forest products,” the IPF report’s chapter headings underwhich unresolved issues appear. Several developing countries preferred adding traditionalforest-related knowledge to this list, but some developed countries objected to specifyingissues other than those unresolved from IPF, so this reference remains bracketed.

While the paragraph on institutional follow-up was not negotiated, a G-77/CHINAposition was presented in the contact group. Some G-77 countries expressed theirreservations. The final draft contains two of the three options from the IPF report plus theG-77/CHINA proposal: establish an Intergovernmental Forum on Forests to promote andmonitor implementation of the IPF action proposals and either consider and advise on theneed for other mechanisms, including legal arrangements, or build consensus for andelaborate possible elements of a legally-binding instrument and report to the CSD in1999; establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a forest convention assoon as possible; or establish an Intergovernmental Forum to, inter alia, considermatters pending by the IPF and to identify possible elements of arrangements andmechanisms or a legally-binding instrument, reporting to the CSD in 1999 (G-77/CHINA). These three options, along with a footnote on developing terms of referencefor an intergovernmental process, remain bracketed, as does the earlier reference totraditional forest-related knowledge.

Energy: The chapeau on energy notes that: fossil fuels will continue to dominatethe energy supply situation and international cooperation is required to reduceenvironmental pollution and local health hazards; sharp increases in energy services arerequired in developing countries; the situations of countries highly dependent on fossilfuel exports or those vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change should beconsidered; and advances toward sustainable energy use are taking place. The final draftcontains several brackets and subparagraphs on: intergovernmental work and asustainable energy future; provision of adequate energy services in developing countries;policies and plans; increasing the use of renewables; promoting renewable energytechnologies; technology in the context of fossil fuel; and energy pricing and subsidies.

In the chapeau, the US, CANADA and AUSTRALIA proposed deleting the G-77/CHINA’s call for enhanced international cooperation in the provision of concessionalfinance for capacity development and technology transfer. The reference is bracketed.

An EU proposal for a high-level CSD forum on environment and energy to prepare anupcoming CSD session dedicated to establishing a common strategy for a sustainableenergy future was not supported by the US, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and the G-77/CHINA. An alternative formulation, calling for expert meetings to prepare fordiscussion in an upcoming CSD session, which, in line with Agenda 21, shouldcontribute to a sustainable energy future, was supported by JAPAN, SWITZERLAND,the G-77/CHINA, VENEZUELA, IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA. Both options arebracketed.

In a subparagraph on energy policies, delegates accepted revised G-77/CHINA text onpromoting policies and plans that take into account economic, social and environmentalaspects of production, distribution and use, bearing in mind the specific needs andpriorities of developing countries.

In a subparagraph on renewables, the G-77/CHINA’s call for “[time-boundcommitments]” to transfer relevant technology to developing countries to enableincreased use of renewables is bracketed. The agreed text calls on countries tosystematically increase the use of renewables according to their specific social, economic,natural, geographical and climatic conditions and to improve efficiency in energy-intensive industrial production processes.

A G-77/CHINA-proposed subparagraph was added on further research, development,application and transfer of technology in the context of fossil fuels. The G-77/CHINAopposed the US’ insertion of “cleaner and more efficient” technology, and the final draftcontains brackets, qualifying “technology, [preferably] of a cleaner and more efficientnature.”

In a subparagraph on pricing policies, the EU, the US, JAPAN and AUSTRALIA deleteda reference to eliminating subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy within ten years.CANADA deleted nuclear energy and added movement towards energy pricing thatreflects full economic and environmental costs. JAPAN preferred “reduction” rather thanelimination of subsidies. The G-77/CHINA preferred deleting the entire subparagraph. Areformulation, which encourages movement towards energy pricing that better reflectseconomic, social and environmental costs and benefits, including reduction and gradualelimination of energy subsidies inhibiting sustainable development, taking into accountspecific conditions of developing countries and respecting their special and differentialtreatment agreed in the WTO regarding subsidies, remains bracketed, along with abracketed call for its deletion.

A subparagraph calling for the development of a reference framework for bettercoordination of energy-related activities within the UN system is also bracketed, alongwith a bracketed call for its deletion.

Transport: The final draft notes that the transport sector and mobility in generalhave an essential and positive role to play in economic and social development. It notesthe need for: promotion of integrated transport policies that consider alternativeapproaches; integration of land use and rural and urban transport planning; measures tomitigate the negative impact of transportation on the environment; and the use of a broadspectrum of policy measures to improve energy efficiency and efficiency standards in thesector.

The final text contains a bracketed EU proposal for an international tax on aviation fuel,following opposition from the G-77/CHINA, the US, AUSTRALIA, CANADA,RUSSIA and JAPAN. A proposal calling for an accelerated phase-out of leaded gasolineremains bracketed in light of the G-77/CHINA’s statement that it must be accompaniedby technical and economic assistance to developing countries. The text also containsbracketed language on promotion of guidelines for environmentally friendly transport andactions for reducing vehicle emissions, preferably within the next ten years.

Atmosphere: Discussions centered on the message that should emanate fromUNGASS regarding the desired outcome of COP-3 of the FCCC. Delegates debatedevery line of the paragraph on this issue. The final text contains a bracketed referencenoting that insufficient progress has been made by the developed countries in meeting theaim to return GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, stemming from a disagreementbetween the US and the PHILIPPINES on whether the lowered emissions represent anaim or a commitment. A sentence on the Berlin Mandate contains a bracketed referencenoting that the FCCC commitments are inadequate (US) and a reference specifying thatcommitments in Articles 4.2 (a) and (b), which apply to developed countries, areinadequate (CHINA).

The final text also contains a “menu” of five bracketed proposals for consideration atUNGASS. The US proposed language noting that UNGASS should recommend that theFCCC accelerate negotiations, produce a satisfactory result and recognize the globalnature of the problem. The EU, supported by SWITZERLAND, proposed specificemissions reduction targets (15% reduction below 1990 levels by 2010). AOSISunderscored its protocol (20% reduction below 1990 levels by 2005) as consistent withthe Berlin Mandate. JAPAN called for agreement on quantified objectives for emissionreductions and agreement to elaborate on policies and measures. The US, AUSTRALIA,JAPAN, CANADA, COLOMBIA, IRAN, RUSSIA, VENEZUELA, NIGERIA andSAUDI ARABIA objected to including specific negotiating positions in the text andcautioned against prejudging the COP-3 outcome. In the final Plenary, the US added aproposal to the “menu” that urges: member States to adopt the strongest possibleagreement, including legally-binding budgets or targets for developed nations; maximumflexibility in reaching budgets or targets; and participation of all countries in takingmeaningful actions to address the problem.

This section also contains a paragraph on ozone, which states that the ozone layercontinues to be severely depleted and the Montreal Protocol needs to be strengthened.The EU proposed a specific reference to methyl bromide and earlier phase-out indeveloping countries. The G-77/CHINA said the prioritization of issues should be left tothe COP and noted the failure to include language on providing resources. Delegatesaccepted an EU reformulation mentioning that the Multilateral Fund was recentlyreplenished to provide funds for, inter alia, the earlier phase-out of methyl bromidein developing countries. The text also notes that future replenishment should be adequateto ensure timely implementation and calls for a focus on capacity-building programmesin developing countries.

Toxic Chemicals: Delegates made a range of proposals on toxic chemicals in theDrafting Group as well in informal consultations. The final text, which contains nobrackets, states that all those responsible for chemicals, throughout their life cycle, bearresponsibility for achieving sound chemical management. It notes substantial progresssince UNCED, particularly the establishment of the Intergovernmental Forum onChemical Safety (IFCS) and the Inter-organizational Programme for the SoundManagement of Chemicals (IOMC). The text also notes that much remains to be doneand that particular attention should be placed on cooperation in the development andtransfer of technology of safe substitutes and in the development of capacity for theirproduction. A reference to the decision of the 19th session of the UNEP GoverningCouncil on the sound management of chemicals should be implemented in accordancewith the agreed timetables for the negotiations on PIC and POPs conventions. The textnotes that inorganic chemicals possess roles and behaviors that are distinct from organicchemicals.

Hazardous Wastes: Delegates discussed this issue in the Drafting Group and ininformal consultations. The final text, which contains no brackets, highlights Baselinitiatives on illegal traffic, regional training centers and the “proximity” principle, underwhich hazardous wastes are treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source oforigin. It also calls on States to complete work on defining hazardous chemicals andnegotiate a protocol on liability and compensation from damage resulting fromtransboundary movements and disposal of hazardous wastes. The text also states that landcontaminated by disposal of hazardous wastes needs to be identified and remedial actionsput in hand.

Radioactive Wastes: Delegates discussed this issue in the Drafting Group and ininformal consultations. In final Plenary, RUSSIA stated its reservation to all paragraphson the issue. The final text, which contains no brackets, states that each country has aresponsibility for radioactive wastes that fall within its jurisdiction and that export to orstorage of radioactive waste in countries where no storage facilities exist is undesirable.Governments are called upon to finalize negotiations under the IAEA on the JointConvention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of RadioactiveWaste Management. The text also states that transportation of irradiated nuclear fuel,high level waste and plutonium by sea should be guided by the INF-Code. The text callsfor further consideration of potential transboundary environmental effects of activitiesrelated to the management of radioactive wastes and the question of prior notificationwith States that could be effected. Technical assistance to developing countries todevelop or improve procedures for disposal of radioactive wastes should be provided.

Land and Sustainable Agriculture: The final draft highlights the need to, interalia: combat or reverse soil degradation; continue poverty eradication efforts byimproving food security and providing adequate nutrition; formulate policies thatpromote sustainable agriculture; and implement the World Food Summit commitments.

Delegates agreed on the need for an integrated approach to the protection and sustainablemanagement of land and soil resources, as stated in decision III/11 of the CBD COP,including identification of land degradation that involves all interested parties. Areference to indigenous people[s], as one of the interested parties, remains bracketed. TheEU added action to ensure secure land tenure and access to land.

The G-77/CHINA opposed NORWAY’s call for measures to improve food security forthe urban poor. Brackets remain around references to both “sustainable food securityamong both urban and rural poor should be a policy priority” (NORWAY) and“developed countries and the international community should provide adequate resourcesand technical assistance to developing countries to this end” (G-77/CHINA).

The EU, JAPAN and the REPUBLIC OF KOREA objected to an AUSTRALIANproposal for continued WTO work to liberalize international trade and remove distortionsto sustainable development in agriculture. In the final draft, three options are bracketedon the need to: continue WTO work to liberalize international trade in agriculture, topursue food and overall trade policies that encourage producers and consumers to useavailable resources in an economically sound and sustainable manner taking account ofthe special and differential treatment for developing countries, especially LDCs and netfood importers (AUSTRALIA); further analyze the benefits of removing trade restrictions(JAPAN); or effectively implement the WTO agriculture agreement (REPUBLIC OFKOREA).

Desertification and Drought: This section urges governments to ratify, accept,approve and/or accede to and implement the UN Convention to Combat Desertification(CCD), and to actively participate in the first COP in September 1997. The second,almost entirely bracketed paragraph contains optional references to the globalmechanism. The G-77/CHINA called for the global mechanism to “have the capacity toincrease the effectiveness and efficiency of and ensure new and additional financialresources.” The EU, supported by CANADA, AUSTRALIA and the US, called for theinternational community to support the global mechanism in its work to facilitate themobilization of adequate financial resources. The G-77/CHINA’s text calling for thetransfer of “environmentally sound, economically viable and socially acceptabletechnologies” also remains bracketed.

Biodiversity: The final draft, which contains no brackets, emphasizes the needfor conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and fair and equitable sharing ofbenefits from genetic resource utilization. It calls for action to, inter alia: ratify andimplement the CBD; facilitate technology transfer; rapidly complete the biosafetyprotocol; recognize women’s role in biodiversity conservation; and strengthen nationalcapacity-building.

In a subparagraph on technology transfer, the G-77/CHINA proposed language fromCBD COP-3 calling for “special attention to the need to provide new and additionalfinancial resources for the implementation of the CBD.” The US agreed provided it wasstated in a separate subparagraph. In a subparagraph on equitable sharing of benefitsarising from traditional knowledge, the EU deleted the G-77/CHINA’s addition of“including, where appropriate, payment” and the US added “consistent with the CBDprovision, in accordance with the COPs’ decisions.” Delegates did not supportSWITZERLAND’s call for the elaboration of national biodiversity action plans by 2002.

Sustainable Tourism: This section, which contains no brackets: highlights thegrowth of the tourism industry and the increasing reliance of developing countries on it;calls for international assistance to broaden tourism to include cultural and eco-tourism;recommends strengthening national policy development and capacity in physicalplanning, impact assessments and the use of economic and regulatory instruments; callson the CSD to develop an action-oriented international work programme; and stresses theneed for international cooperation to facilitate tourism development in developingcountries.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS): The final draft, which contains nobrackets: reaffirms commitment to implementation of the Programme of Action for theSustainable Development of SIDS; outlines CSD’s review of the Programme; and callsfor effective financial support for implementation and for the operationalization of theSIDS information network and technical assistance programme.

Natural Disasters: The final draft, which contains no brackets: notesdisproportionate consequences for developing countries; calls for higher priority for theimplementation of the 1994 World Conference on Natural Disaster Reductioncommitments; and stresses the need to promote and facilitate transfer of early-warningtechnologies to countries prone to disasters.

Delegates highlighted the disproportionate consequences for SIDS and countries withextremely fragile ecosystems, and emphasized the need for capacity-building for disasterplanning and management in particular to developing countries and economies intransition. Delegates accepted revised G-77/CHINA text acknowledging the need forfurther work, particularly further assistance to developing countries to: strengthenmechanisms to reduce the effects of natural disasters and integrate natural disasterconsideration into development planning; improve access to relevant technology andtraining with hazard and risk assessment; and provide support for disaster preparednessand response.

[Technological and Man-made Disasters]: Delegates agreed to add a separateparagraph using UKRAINE’s text, which notes that such disasters impede theachievement of sustainable development in many countries. The text also calls forintensifying cooperation on disaster reduction, relief and rehabilitation. ThePHILIPPINES bracketed “technological and man-made disasters,” stating that thereference should conform with agreed language from the UNGA decision on natural andsimilar disasters with adverse impacts on vulnerable communities, including theirenvironments.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Financial Resources and Mechanisms: This section notes the key role of financialresources and mechanisms in implementation of Agenda 21 and elaborates on: ODA, theGEF, private sector investment and FDI, domestic resources and innovative financialmechanisms. The initial proposals offered by delegates from developed and developingcountries were divergent and lengthy. The G-77/CHINA stressed the need to fulfill allfinancial commitments in Agenda 21. The EU and US stressed the importance of nationallegal and financial systems. The EU also called for “satisfactory” replenishment of GEFresources, with a view to equitable burden sharing. The US noted that, in general,financing for Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors.

Bracketed text includes references to: a catalytic role for ODA in encouraging country-driven policy reform efforts; the need for the effective use of an increased level ofresources; World Bank and IMF collaboration with UNCTAD and the UN Secretariat toconsider the relationship between indebtedness and sustainable development; and subsidyreductions “bearing in mind the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.”The US, supported by AUSTRALIA, added a reference to an intergovernmental processon finance in the paragraph on innovative financial mechanisms after the initialcompilation of amendments was prepared. The G-77/CHINA expressed concern about thelate addition of the new proposal. MALAYSIA offered a similar proposal during theclosing Plenary. Chair Tolba said the proposals will appear in the CSD report, but not asbracketed amendments to the text. Also during the closing Plenary, NORWAY andMALAYSIA reserved their right to revisit the innovative financial mechanisms paragraphat UNGASS. A paragraph on domestic resource mobilization was agreed to adreferendum during the Drafting Group, but individual members and the G-77/CHINA’s spokesperson indicated during the closing Plenary that it did not adequatelyreference the need for international cooperation. The EU and US supported the paragraph,which was bracketed.

The agreed text calls for the urgent fulfillment of all financial commitments [andobjectives] (EU) of Agenda 21. It notes that the underlying factors that have led to thedecrease in ODA should be addressed by all countries. Donor countries are “urged toengage in providing new and additional resources, with a view to an equitable burdensharing, through the satisfactory replenishment of the GEF.” Consideration should begiven to exploring the flexibility of the GEF’s mandate and efforts should be made tostreamline the decision-making process. To stimulate higher levels of private investment,governments should aim to ensure macroeconomic stability, open trade and investmentpolicies and well-functioning legal and financial systems. Debt relief is suggested in theform of debt rescheduling, debt reduction, debt swaps and, as appropriate, debtcancellation. Consideration of innovative funding mechanisms is encouraged, but they arenot spelled out.

Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs): The section regardingtechnology transfer addresses: relevant UNCED agreements; the role of governments; anenabling environment for transfer; the role of public-private partnerships; South-Southcooperation; and global electronic information.

The G-77/CHINA called for fulfillment of all commitments in Chapter 34 of Agenda 21,but the EU said the chapter contained “objectives” not “commitments.” Both optionswere bracketed. The G-77/CHINA said the market approach cannot be relied on to assurethat such technologies will become widely available, to which the US added a referenceto intellectual property rights. The entire sentence is bracketed. Delegates added a G-77/CHINA proposal noting the contribution that the creation of centers for transfer oftechnology at various levels, including at the regional level, could make. ANORWEGIAN proposal calling for support to cleaner production programmes in publicand private companies was added, as was a US proposal calling for technology needsassessment as a tool in identifying technology transfer projects.

Capacity-building: This three paragraph, bracket-free section calls for renewedcommitment and support to national efforts for capacity-building in developing countriesand economies in transition. UNDP, inter alia, though its Capacity 21 Programme,should give priority attention to building capacity. Delegates added a US proposal callingon both developed and developing countries to strengthen efforts for sharingenvironmental expertise and data.

Science: This four paragraph, bracket-free section calls for significant increasesin public and private investment in science, education and training, and research anddevelopment. A CANADIAN call for full and equal participation of girls and women inthis regard was added, as were JAPANESE calls for the promotion of existing regionaland global networks and of innovations in information and communication technologies.

Education and Awareness: This two paragraph, bracket-free section notes that afundamental prerequisite for sustainable development is an adequately financed andeffective education system at all levels, accessible to all. Delegates added calls for:attention to the training of teachers, youth leaders and other educators (US); inter-generational partnerships and peer education (CANADA); and support for universitiesand promotion of cooperation among them (PERU).

International Legal Instruments and the Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment: This section calls for regular assessment of the implementation andapplication of the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment. The G-77/CHINA was not prepared to discuss the compilation text, so allamendments to this section will be forwarded to UNGASS for consideration. AMEXICAN amendment calls for progressive development and codification ofinternational law on sustainable development. An EU amendment calls for judicial andadministrative channels to seek redress from decisions that are socially andenvironmentally harmful or violate human rights. The US, EU and NORWAY addedproposals noting that compliance with international commitments can reduce conflict.

Information and Tools to Measure Progress: The section addresses issues relatedto tools to collect and disseminate information for decision-makers, indicators forsustainable development and national reports. The G-77/CHINA was not prepared todiscuss the compilation text, so all amendments to the section will be forwarded toUNGASS for consideration. Amendments include calls for: gender-disaggregated data(CANADA); collaboration on high-tech info-communications infrastructure (JAPAN);environmental impact assessments (NORWAY); and peer reviews (CANADA, US andNORWAY).

The text on institutional arrangements addresses four issues: greater coherence in variousintergovernmental organizations and processes; the role of relevant UN organizations andinstitutions; the future role and programme of work of the CSD; and the CSD’s methodsof work. The entire text was negotiated informally.

The introductory paragraph notes that, “in light of the ongoing discussions on reform”within the UN, international institutional arrangements in the area of sustainabledevelopment are intended to contribute to the goal of strengthening the entire UN system.In the section on greater coherence in intergovernmental organizations and processes,arrangements for convention secretariats are called on to provide effective support andefficient services, and “appropriate autonomy.” Delegates deleted a reference toconvening regional meetings to review national reports. The revised text only states thatregional meetings of experts are to be supported by UN regional commissions.

In the section on the role of UN bodies, the resident coordinator system is to be enhanced“in full consultation with national governments.” The 4 April 1997 decision of the UNEPGoverning Council on governance and other related decisions are relevant in the contextof UNEP’s role as the leading global environmental authority that sets the globalenvironmental agenda. A reference to UNEP assistance in addressing countries’environmental problems, including through the provision of policy and advisory services,was deleted. Delegates retained a call for “a revitalized UNEP” to be supported by“adequate, stable and predictable funding.” UNCTAD’s role in Agenda 21implementation is “in accordance with General Assembly resolution 51/167 and relevantdecisions of the Trade and Development Board on the work programme.” The text callsfor “adequate” replenishment of the International Development Association and “new andadditional resources, with a view to an equitable burden sharing,” for the “satisfactory”replenishment of the GEF. The operationalization of the global mechanism of the CCD iscalled for.

The section on the CSD programme of work states that the CSD “has a role to play” inassessing the challenges of globalization on sustainable development and it should“coordinate” with other ECOSOC subsidiary bodies, rather than act “as a kind of ‘maincommission’ of ECOSOC” as one delegation suggested. Delegates agreed that the CSDshould avoid unnecessary duplication and repetition of work undertaken by other relevantfora, rather than focus on issues “not adequately addressed in other international fora.”

In the section on CSD methods of work, delegates called for “the possible developmentof modalities for reviews by and among those countries, which voluntarily agree to do so,within regions,” rather than regional peer reviews. The text calls for strengthenedinteraction with representatives of major groups and encourages major groups to adoptarrangements for coordination and interaction in providing inputs to the CSD. TheSecretary-General is invited to review the functioning of the High-Level Advisory Boardand present proposals on ways to promote more interaction between it and the CSD.ECOSOC is asked to consider how to make the work of the Committee on New andRenewable Sources of Energy and on Energy for Development and the Committee onNatural Resources compatible and supportive with the work of the CSD. Finally, the nextUNGA review of Agenda 21 implementation is to take place in 2002, the modalities ofwhich are to be determined at a later stage.

The final draft contains bracketed options calling for designation of the GEF as thepermanent financial mechanism for the FCCC and the CBD, or for funding for Agenda21 to be provided in a way that maximizes the availability of new and additionalresources and uses all available funding sources and mechanisms.

CSD Multi-Year Programme of Work: The CSD programme of work is noted inthis section and annexed to the text. Poverty and consumption and production patterns areto be overriding issues for each session’s consideration. The issues to be considered in1998 are: [integrated freshwater management]; transfer of technology/capacity-building/education/science/awareness-raising; and industry. Issues for 1999 include thereview of the Programme of Action for SIDS and: oceans and seas; consumption andproduction patterns; and tourism. Issues for 2000 are: integrated planning andmanagement of land resources; financial resources/trade and investment/economicgrowth; and agriculture, possibly to include forestry. The 2001 issues are:[atmosphere][energy]; information for decision-making and participation; and[energy]/transport. A comprehensive review is scheduled for 2002.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

CLOSING PLENARY

The Closing Plenary began at 4:00 pm on 25 April 1997. CSD Chair Tolba introduced thesummaries of the dialogues with major groups (E/CN.17/1997/L.2-11), which wereadopted. Tolba said they would appear as the Vice-Chairs’ summaries of the sessions inan annex to the negotiated text, along with the Chair’s summary of the High-LevelSegment. The EU said the timing of major group dialogues did not allow sufficient inputto the negotiations and suggested that future major group dialogues address the CSD’sthematic issue at an earlier stage, possibly during the Intersessional Working Group.

Amb. Amorim introduced the agreements Drafting Group II reached on cross-sectoralissues and means of implementation. Derek Osborn reported on the results of negotiationson sectoral issues and the assessment of progress since UNCED in Drafting Group I.Delegates then considered the negotiated text paragraph by paragraph and madecorrections as necessary. Many developing countries expressed their desire to return tothe “agreed” paragraph on mobilization of domestic resources, which the Plenarybracketed. Delegates also discussed whether to annex three proposals that wereintroduced after the initial compilation of amendments was made (US-Norway-Malaysiaregarding an intergovernmental process on financial issues; Bangladesh on micro-credit;and Australia on NGO dialogue with the WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment).Chair Tolba said he would reference the proposals in the CSD’s report, but not in anannex.

Delegates adopted two draft decisions. On the CSD programme of work, the CSD tooknote of document E/CN.17/1997/CRP.1 containing the proposals of the Secretary-General regarding the programme of work under the sub-programme “SustainableDevelopment” to be included in the Proposed Programme Budget for the biennium 1988-1999. The CSD noted the preliminary nature of these proposals, and invited theCommittee for Programme Coordination, the Advisory Committee on Administrative andBudgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee in their deliberations on the ProgrammeBudget for the next biennium to take due account, as appropriate, of the outcome of theNineteenth Special Session of the UN General Assembly, as well as of the results of theongoing reform of the UN Secretariat.

The CSD also adopted a decision on modalities for the full and comprehensive review ofthe Barbados Programme of Action adopted by the Global Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States. In the decision, the CSD, interalia: recognizes the need to review outstanding chapters of the Programme of Actionprior to full review in 1999; decides that its sixth session in 1998 will undertake thereview of all the outstanding chapters and issues of the Programme of Action; and urgesall governments, intergovernmental bodies and major groups to commence preparationsfor the full review and comprehensive assessment of progress made in implementation. Italso: recommends that the General Assembly convene a two-day special sessionimmediately preceding its 54th session for an in-depth assessment and appraisal of theimplementation of the Programme of Action; and decides that the seventh session of theCSD (1999) will carry out the full review of the Programme of Action within itsapproved work programme. This review will be considered as the preparatory process forthe special session on SIDS. The decision also states that the preparatory process for itsseventh session shall assist the Commission in carrying out the review and appraisal.

Rapporteur Czeslaw Wieckowski (Poland) then presented the draft report of CSD-5(E/CN.17/1997/L.1 and the informal, English-only papers containing the final draft).Delegates adopted the report, taking note of the informal papers and authorizing theRapporteur to incorporate the proceedings of the closing Plenary.

Chair Tolba introduced the “proposed draft political statement,” authored by the Chairand Vice-Chair Monika Linn-Locher. He explained that several iterations had circulatedduring CSD-5 and proposed that it be brief and in language accessible to the media. Heasked delegates to send their amendments to the Secretariat, on the basis of which aredraft would be distributed two weeks before UNGASS. He suggested that informalconsultations take place immediately prior to UNGASS so that the Committee of theWhole could adopt the text early in its deliberations. The EU supported Tolba’santicipated procedure and said the draft is proceeding in a positive and balanced way. Hesaid negotiations would take too long if a compilation of all amendments were used as thebasis for negotiations. The G-77/CHINA said the Chair’s draft contents have been verydifferent from their inputs and expressed frustration with the drafting process. Hedemanded that the text be formally negotiated. INDIA, VENEZUELA, CUBA andNIGERIA called for an open-ended negotiation process.

Chair Tolba thanked the Drafting Group Chairs, the Vice-Chairs and the Secretariat. Hedeclared CSD-5 adjourned at 9:45 pm.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF CSD-5

In reflecting on the complexity of the three weeks of CSD-5, it may be useful to recall themandate delineated by the General Assembly for CSD-5 and the Special Session:“discussions at both the preparatory meetings and the Special Session should focus on thefulfillment of commitments and the further implementation of Agenda 21 and relatedpost-Conference outcomes.” Did CSD-5 make any progress toward completing thismandate? On the opening day of CSD-5, delegates were given a useful set of criteria bywhich to measure the success of the session. Joke Waller-Hunter, Director of the Divisionfor Sustainable Development, pointed out that CSD-5 was, in essence, a PrepCom for theSpecial Session and would to a large extent determine its outcome and success. Shepresented three criteria in a set of questions: does the assessment reflect the urgency ofthe situation; is the assessment followed by a unequivocal commitment to concreteaction; and have partnerships been acknowledged, renewed and strengthened? Someanswers to these questions emerge below.

COMMITMENT TO ACTION: From the beginning of the preparatory processfor the Special Session, delegates heard repeated calls for the CSD to establish targets andtimetables in order to elevate the process toward sustainable development to a higherlevel. In the Intersessional Working Group, Mostafa Tolba called for a number ofmeasurable targets, such as a 10% increase in alternative energy source investments overten years, stressing that setting concrete goals is the way to move beyond rhetoric toaction and provide a baseline against which progress toward the goals agreed at Rio canbe better assessed in future reviews of implementation. A number of delegations calledfor specific targets and timetables at CSD-5 as well, such as Iceland’s call for a 50%reduction of fishing subsidies by 2002 and the US’ call for phasing out lead in gasolinewithin ten years. However, few if any targets remain in the text. Delegates and NGOsalike have expressed frustration at this apparent lack of political will to move forward andrue that this does not bode well for the “special-ness” of the Special Session or hopes thatit would reinvigorate commitments to operationalize sustainable development.

Targets aside, a number of concrete action plans were tabled at CSD-5. Three EUinitiatives, on freshwater, eco-efficiency and energy, were announced during the High-Level Segment and elaborated upon during the subsequent weeks. Some expressed aninterest in their further elaboration prior to UNGASS, which will be necessary if the lattertwo initiatives, which are currently bracketed, are to survive in the text. It is promisingthat the forward-looking freshwater initiative emerged bracket-free.

The existing target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA was of special interest for many.Developing countries and NGOs especially sought a reaffirmation of commitment onfinancial issues. They were disappointed as the related discussion was one of the mostpolarized debates since Rio. Developing countries called for renewed donor commitmentand objected to policy reforms that appeared to be recommended for developing countriesonly or would create conditionalities for assistance. The EU distinguished betweenUNCED “commitments” and “objectives,” while the US stressed domestic resourcemobilization and private sector resources. The result seemed to be a narrowing of theinterpretation of Agenda 21 rather than its reaffirmation.

One delegate noted that this debate is taking place during a critical point in the post-ColdWar discussion regarding multilateralism. Prior motives driving development assistancehave disappeared and the developed world is reevaluating the role of ODA specifically,and more generally its desire to remain engaged globally. Many expressed concernregarding the future that the CSD’s debates portend. The same delegate noted that whilemultilateralism is contagious, so is unilateralism. The amendments that donor countriesadded, calling for “equitable burden sharing,” point to a decreased willingness ofNorthern States to play the “godfather,” championing the CSD’s objectives andencouraging others to follow. The Northern retreat has been perceived in other UN fora aswell, engendering concern among developing countries that the burden formultilateralism is shifting towards them.

NORTH-SOUTH SCHISM: Ambassador Razali Ismail, President of the GeneralAssembly, told UNEP’s High-Level Segment in February, “Agenda 21 and the CSD willonly bring about sustainable, equitable and ecologically sound development if we canbreak out of the North-South schism...the real political challenge is to reshape North-South relations.” The negotiations on finance during CSD-5 suggest that States are notonly failing to break out of the North-South schism but that the schism is increasinglypolluting the UN’s response to sustainable development with suspicion. For developingcountries the decline in ODA since 1992, and attempts during CSD-5 to switch theburden of international funding for sustainable development to private sector investment,which developed countries would argue is a case of acknowledging actuality, have helpedto discredit the very concept of “sustainable development.”

An illustration of the unraveling of the UNCED agenda, under the pressure of competingpriorities and interpretations, was the debate on the cardinal principle of “common butdifferentiated responsibilities” (Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration). The US, Canada andthe EU view this principle in the context of global environmental responsibilities. The G-77/China tried, unsuccessfully, to incorporate it into a paragraph on fostering a dynamicand enabling international economic environment for sustainable development. Theexchanges demonstrated just how far apart (at least rhetorically: a senior Europeancommentator ventured to suggest that part of the problem is that the G-77 no longer existsin reality outside the UN) the so-called parties to the Rio global compact can be when itcomes to interpreting the core elements of the UNCED agreements. The fragility eventhreatens the integrity and use of the concept of “sustainable development” itself. Duringnegotiations on finance, one delegate resorted to warning his fellow negotiators that theyshould not begin to treat sustainable development as a pariah concept. He was respondingto repeated attempts to accompany, qualify or replace references to sustainabledevelopment with a reference to each of its three components — economic growth, socialdevelopment and environmental protection. The Chair, in a frank explanation of aphenomenon that often goes unstated, explained that developing countries fear thatsustainable development has become, in the mouths of developed country advocates, acode for environmental protection while the social and economic dimensions are under-valued. An experienced European participant conceded later that five years after Rio thewords “sustainable development” were not so acceptable. This is a major step backwards.

A number of industrialized countries questioned the validity of a reference to thewidening gap between developed and developing countries and would concede only tosingle out the least developed countries. One observer noted that developing countries atthe CSD, by maintaining alliance despite their diversity, often seem to take “helpless”negotiating stances reminiscent of their position in the 1970’s. A contemporarydeveloping country finance minister, another observer noted, would not likely take thisposition that denies the importance of infrastructure for investment. To genuinely movethe concept of sustainable development from the margins to the center will require thatthe negotiating positions on all sides more accurately mirror economic realities and theensuing changes in needs and responsibilities that are taking place in the real world.

PARTNERSHIPS: The question of acknowledgement, renewal andstrengthening of partnerships extends to a number of actors and issues. Partnerships withmajor groups received a significant amount of attention at CSD-5. One tangibledevelopment since UNCED has been the considerable growth of partnerships in andamong the major groups and the resulting improvement in their organization,communication and activities. During the dialogue sessions, panelists supplied acatalogue of activities and voiced a number of concise and specific recommendations foraction. Discussants at the dialogue with local authorities noted that in 1995 they werestruggling for recognition of their role in sustainable development. They are nowdiscussing obstacles to implementation of over 1800 Local Agenda 21s in 64 countries.Major groups also reported accomplishments ranging from establishing networks,strategies for gaining credit, conducting studies and educational efforts and mobilizingmembers. All groups noted a heightened awareness of sustainable development issuesamong their members and some noted increased partnerships among major groups. Thepartnerships between these major groups and CSD delegates, however, continue to leavesomething to be desired.

While major groups have gained an increasingly high profile in the CSD as partners insustainable development, some were left with the impression that major groups weretalking among themselves and not making a real impact on the negotiating process. Whilemajor groups were allotted an unprecedented amount of space and time within the officialCSD session with the innovation of the dialogue sessions, there was little genuinedialogue. Few delegates even attended the dialogues, in part, because they werescheduled in parallel to the official negotiations. The recommendations emanating fromthe dialogues came too late to be included in the “critical” compilation negotiating text.

Some observers, including major group representatives themselves, have pinpointed someof these problems. For instance, it has been noted that major groups often expend a greatdeal of time and energy drafting their own alternative declarations rather than draftingamendments to the text under negotiation and lobbying delegations to take these onboard. One method for developing the vital relationship between the CSD’s agenda-setting role and civil society’s contribution to operationalizing sustainable developmentwas proposed by a group of Canadian NGOs. This proposal, which found its way — aftersome diversions and alterations — into the agreed text on CSD Methods of Work, isbased on the idea of extending the task manager system to the world at large. In otherwords, major groups would be invited to “adopt arrangements for coordination andinteraction in providing inputs to the Commission.” The idea presents a majororganizational challenge to NGOs and other major groups.

CONCLUSION: The sense of urgency at CSD-5 was best measured in quantitiesof frustration at the pace and progress of the negotiations. As Amb. Razali noted duringthe High-Level Segment, the compact at Rio has eroded along with much of the high-profile attention to sustainable development generated by the Earth Summit itself. Themost promising results of Rio are taking place at anonymous and local meetings aroundthe world — anonymous but keenly monitored and cited as proof that Agenda 21 is aliveand well by officials at the UN Division for Sustainable Development. One observerrecalled that, in 1992, one could scarcely escape the news of UNCED and/or theenvironment in the media. This is not the case today. In international relations,perceptions are everything, and if UNGASS is ultimately billed as a non-event it will notbode well for the future of sustainable development or the UN in general during thiscritical time in its reform. The most that can be expected, in terms of urgency perhaps, isthat the Special Session will not permanently damage the historic accomplishment ofUNCED itself.

On the final day of CSD-5, a UN official privately recalled a Bee Gees song that sums upa process that has generated over 400 pages of negotiated text since 1993: “It’s onlywords...” And words they will remain until one more official translation becomesembedded in the business of the CSD: the translation of words into action. The mostvaluable role for the Special Session will be to critically reflect on Waller-Hunter’scriteria for success and deliver a renewed political mandate to translate popular concerninto urgent and concrete instructions to politicians, translate the information-richassessments into unequivocal action plans, and translate illusions of top-down sovereignauthority and competence into partnerships that span a globalizing world.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR

GEF COUNCIL: The next GEF Council meeting will take place from 30 April –May 1997 in Washington, DC. It will be preceded by NGO consultations on 29 April. Areplenishment meeting will take place in 2 May. For more information contact MarieMorgan at the GEF Secretariat, tel: +1-202-473-1128; fax: +1-202-522-3240. The GEFWeb Site is at: http://www.worldbank.org/html/gef .

APEC MEETINGS: The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forumTrade Ministerial Meeting will be held from 9-10 May in Montreal. For informationcontact the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, APEC Division; fax:+1-613-944-2732. The APEC Meeting of Environment Ministers on SustainableDevelopment will be held 9-11 June in Toronto. For information contact Gloria Yang,Environment Canada; fax: +1-613-991-6422.

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON DESERTIFICATION: This workshop,entitled, “Combating Desertification: Connecting Science with Community Action,” willbe held from 12-16 May in 1997 in Tucson, Arizona, USA. For information contact Dr.Jim Chamie, International Arid Land Consortium; tel: +1-520-621-3024; fax: +1-520-621-3816; e-mail: chamie@ag.arizona.edu.

WTO SYMPOSIUM ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: The WTOCommittee on Trade and Environment (CTE) will host a symposium on trade,environment and sustainable development from 20-21 May in Geneva. For moreinformation contact the CTE; tel: + (41 22) 739-5111; fax: + (41 22) 739-5458. Also tryhttp://www.wto.org.

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: The Ad Hoc ExpertGroup on Biosafety is scheduled to meet from 12-16 May in Montreal. For moreinformation contact the CBD Secretariat, World Trade Centre, 413 St. Jacques Street,Office 630, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9; tel: +1-514-288-2220; fax: +1-514-288-6588; e-mail: biodiv@mtl.net.

PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT: The third session of the intergovernmentalnegotiating committee for the preparation of an international legally binding instrumentfor the application of a prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicalsin international trade (INC-3) will be held in Geneva from 26-30 May 1997. The UNEPGoverning Council, at its last meeting, adopted a decision calling for completion ofnegotiations on a legally binding agreement by the end of 1997. For more informationcontact: UNEP Chemicals (IRPTC); tel: + (41 22) 979 9111; fax: + (41 22) 797 3460; e-mail: IRPTC@unep.ch.

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABILITY: This international conference on localinitiatives for cities and towns will take place from 1-5 June 1997 in Newcastle,Australia. The conference objectives are to: showcase exemplary Local Agenda 21 casestudies; provide opportunity for debate; and engage local communities in progresstowards local and therefore global sustainability. For further information, contact theConference Secretariat at Capital Conferences Pty Ltd., PO Box N399, Grosvenor Place,Sydney NSW 2000, Australia; tel: +61 2 9252 3388, fax: +61 2 9241 5282, e-mail:capcon@ozemail.com.au. Also visit the World Wide Web site athttp://bicentenary.ncc.nsw.gov.au.

ACTIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY: In conjunction with the UN Forum“Pathways to Sustainability,” the people of Newcastle will host the “Actions forSustainability” conference and festival from 2-7 June 1997. There will be day andevening sessions, as well as exhibitions, stalls and artistic and creative activities. “Actionsfor Sustainability” will be held in close proximity to the main conference to provide anopportunity for participants to address an international audience and local communitygroups. For information contact: Cathy Burgess, PO Box 550, Wallsend NSW, 2287Australia; tel: + 61 14 633 552 or +61 14 073 591; e-mail: lrene@hunterlink.net.au

CITES: Zimbabwe will host the CITES Conference of the Parties from 9-20June 1997 in Harare. For more information contact: the CITES Secretariat, GenevaExecutive Centre, 15 Chemin de Anemones, CP 456, CH-1219 Chatelaine-Geneva,Switzerland; tel: +(41 22) 979-9139/40; fax: +(41 22) 797-3417; e-mail: cites@unep.ch.Also see http://www.unep.ch/cites.html or http://www.wcmc.org.uk/convent/cites.

KNOWLEDGE FOR DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE: The World Bank andCanada will host this conference in Toronto, Canada, from 23-25 June 1997. Theconference, co-sponsored by Switzerland, the US, UNDP and UNESCO, among others,will focus on the vital role of information and knowledge in sustainable development.Participants will explore the opportunities and challenges posed by newinformation/communication technologies, how developing counties and the world’s poorcan gain access to them and opportunities for new partnerships. For information contactthe Conference Secretariat, Global Knowledge ‘97, the World Bank EconomicDevelopment Institute; tel: +1-202-473-6442; fax: +1-202-676-0858; e-mail:globalknowledge@worldbank.org. The conference web site is located athttp://www.globalknowledge.org A French version is available athttp://www.savoirmondial.org

SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The SpecialSession of the UN General Assembly is scheduled for 23-27 June 1997. The session willconduct an overall review and appraisal of progress in implementing the UNCEDagreements since the 1992 Earth Summit. For more information, contact: AndreyVasilyev, UN Division for Sustainable Development; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: vasilyev@un.org. Also visit the Home Page for the Special Session athttp://www.un.org/DPCSD/earthsummit/.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE UNGASS

THINGS TO LOOK FOR AFTER UNGASS

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE: The next sessionsof the subsidiary bodies are scheduled to take place in Bonn from 28 July to 7 August1997 at the Hotel Maritim. SBSTA, SBI and AG13 will meet from 28-30 July and willlikely meet once more the following week. The AGBM will begin on Thursday, 31 July.The subsidiary bodies are scheduled to meet again from 20-31 October 1997 at aconference facility in Bonn to be determined. At present, all subsidiary bodies except forAG13 are scheduled to meet in October. The third Conference of the Parties is scheduledfor 1-12 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. COP-3 will immediately allocate thecompletion of decisions of the Berlin Mandate process to a sessional Committee of theWhole, open to all delegations. The political negotiations will be finalized in a ministerialsegment, which will be convened from 8-10 December and where the final text of aprotocol or other legal instrument will be adopted. For all meetings related to the FCCC,contact the secretariat in Bonn, Germany; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de. Also try the FCCC home page athttp://www.unfccc.de and UNEP’s Information Unit for Conventions athttp://www.unep.ch/iuc.html.

INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM OF MAYORS GOVERNANCE FORSUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND EQUITY: This colloquium will be held from 28-30 July 1997 in New York and will be hosted by UNDP, the Ministerial/Senior OfficialsForum, Forum for Parliamentarians and Civil Society Organization Dialogue. Thecolloquium is a follow-up activity of Habitat II. For more information contact JonasRabinovich, UNDP; tel: +1-212-906-6791; fax: +1-212-906-6973.

CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION: <M>The resumedsession of INCD-10 is scheduled from 18-22 August 1997 in Geneva. COP-1 is currentlyscheduled for 29 September -1 October 1997 in Rome. For more information, contact theCCD Secretariat; Geneva Executive Center, 11/13 Chemin des Anemones, CH-1219Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland; tel: +41 (22) 979-9419; fax: +41 (22) 979-9030/31; e-mail: secretariat@unccd.ch. Also see the INCD World Wide Web site athttp://www.unep.ch/incd.html.

FOURTH EUROPEAN ROUNDTABLE ON CLEANER PRODUCTION: TheFourth European Roundtable on Cleaner Production (ERCP 97) will take place in Oslo,Norway, from 1-3 November 1997. The meeting intends to contribute to the criticalevaluation and dissemination of cleaner production options and programmes and tohighlight the mechanisms aimed at accomplishing the shift from supply driven to demanddriven cleaner production. For information contact: Jostein Myrberg, National Institute ofTechnologyAkersveien, 24 CP.O. Box 2608, St. Hanshaugen, N-0131 Oslo; tel: +47 2286 51 07; fax: +47 22 11 12 03; e-mail: myrj@teknologisk.no. Also try the Conferenceweb site at http://www.teknologisk.no/ercp97.

SECOND ECO-BALTIC CONFERENCE: The Second Eco-Baltic Conferenceon Environmental Management for the Baltic Sea Region will be held from 9-11 October1997 in Gdansk, Poland. The conference aim at providing business and industry in theBaltic Sea region with the environmental management instruments they need to improvetheir performance and their competitiveness in European markets. For informationcontact the Eco-Baltic Secretariat, Osterstrasse 58, D-20259, Hamburg, Germany; tel:+49-404907-404; fax: +49-40-4907-401; e-mail: eco-baltic@on-line.de.

Further information

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Chad Carpenter, LL.M. <chadc@iisd.org>, Peter Doran <PF.Doran@ulst.ac.uk>, Kira Schmidt <kiras@iisd.org> and Lynn Wagner <lynn@iisd.org>. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org> and the Managing Editor is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. French translation by Mongi Gadhoum <mongi.gadhoum@enb.intl.tn>. The sustaining donors of the Bulletin are the International Institute for Sustainable Development <reception@iisdpost.iisd.ca> and the Netherlands Ministry for Development Cooperation. General support for the Bulletin during 1997 is provided by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden and the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment. Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. Funding for the French version has been provided by ACCT/IEPF with support from the French Ministry of Cooperation and the Department of Environment of Quebec. The ENB can be contacted at tel: +1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other publications only with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at http://enb.iisd.org/. For further information on ways to access, support or contact the Earth Negotiations Bulletin send e-mail to <enb@iisd.org>. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks and the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to <enb@igc.apc.org>.

Participants

National governments: Algeria; Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belarus; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Cuba; Denmark; Ecuador; Egypt; Finland; France; Gabon; Germany; Greece; Guinea; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran; Jamaica; Japan; Malaysia; Malta; Marshall Islands; Morocco; Mozambique; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Norway; Panama; Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Spain; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; UK; Tanzania; US; Uruguay; Venezuela
Negotiating blocs: African Union; Alliance of Small Island Developing States; Asian Group; European Union; Group of 77 and China; Landlocked Developing Countries; Least Developed Countries; Small Island Developing States
Non-state coalitions: Local Authorities; NGOs