Daily report for 25 June 1997

UNGASS participants heard 43 statements in Plenary and met in numerous negotiatinggroups to consider outstanding issues in the draft UNGASS texts. Two Heads of Stateand Government, 1 Crown Prince, 6 Vice-Presidents and Deputy Prime Ministers, 26Ministers, 6 international organization heads and 2 NGO representatives spoke duringmorning and afternoon Plenary meetings. Discussions on sectoral and cross-sectoralissues and the draft political statement continued in the Committee of the Whole,informal ministerial consultations and a contact group on forests.

DRAFT POLITICAL STATEMENT

Delegates discussed paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the draftpolitical statement during the afternoon, chaired by COW Chair Tolba. Based ondiscussions, the Chair will produce revised texts. A contact group will consider text in7 (integration) on, inter alia, coercive economic measures and foreignoccupation.

On 8 (globalization), the G-77/CHINA proposed language on, inter alia:sustainable economic growth; unilateral measures that create trade obstacles; open andequitable global economic relations; refraining from protectionist tendencies; anenvironment to help developing countries produce goods; and international support forcapacity building in trade and environment. JAPAN, the US and the EU objected to thesentence on global economic relations. The US proposed referring to economic growth inthe context of sustainable development and objected to references to unilateral measures.The EUROPEAN COMMISSION, on behalf of the EU, preferred existing language andnoted that the G-77/CHINA text from the Agenda for Development did not reflect thebalance of that agreement. RUSSIA, UKRAINE, BELARUS, ROMANIA andAUSTRALIA expressed concern that countries with economies in transition should notbe excluded.

On 9 (unsustainable consumption and production), ICELAND, supported byCANADA, proposed a reference to renewable energy sources, but the G-77/CHINA andSAUDI ARABIA objected. NORWAY suggested a reference to unsustainable patternsbeyond industrialized countries. KOREA supported retention of a reference toenvironmental ethics. A number of delegations objected to the proposal for “factor four.”RUSSIA proposed assisting “other” countries, rather than “developing.”

On 10 (poverty), the G-77/CHINA proposed, inter alia, deleting targetdates for strengthening national policies on poverty and adding time-bound commitmentsfor transferring resources. JAPAN and the US objected to time-bound commitments. TheUS opposed deleting the target date for national policies. RUSSIA proposed thateradication of poverty was a priority for “all” countries. The US supported sustainedeconomic growth “in the context of sustainable development.” The EU preferred“economic growth that is sustained and sustainable.”

PROPOSED PROGRAMME FOR THE FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21

Vice-Chair John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) chaired morning and evening negotiationson outstanding cross-sectoral issues. Intersessional Co-Chair Derek Osborn (UK) chairedafternoon and evening discussions on outstanding sectoral issues.

Integration of economic, social and environmental objectives: In paragraph23 (making trade and environment mutually supportive), delegates agreed to textnoting that the elimination of discriminatory and protectionist trade practices willimprove access for developing countries’ exports and facilitate the full integration ofeconomies in transition. In 23(b) (multilateral trading system), the EC and USsupported the reference to trade and environment policies being mutually supportive. TheG-77/CHINA preferred to delete “policies.” A reformulation based on GA resolution51/167 was considered. The US supported the call for considering effects on sustainabledevelopment in connection with decisions on further liberalization. INDIA believed theWTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) is the appropriate forum for suchdeliberations.

In 23(f) (cooperation between relevant institutions), INDIA repeated herreservation to strengthening cooperation between UNCTAD, UNIDO, WTO, UNEP andother relevant institutions on environment and sustainable development issues in thecontext of domestic and FDI, including a possible multilateral framework on investment.The EC supported the text. On subparagraph 23(f)bis (effective dialoguewith major groups within the WTO CTE), AUSTRALIA opposed an INDIAN proposalto delete the subparagraph and suggested a reference to NGOs working on trade andenvironment issues in specific organizations. MEXICO asked for a reference to CTErules for participation of major groups. The US added language on important NGO work.The paragraph remained bracketed.

On 23(h) (making trade and environment mutually supportive), the USintroduced language from Agenda 21 on avoiding arbitrary and unjustifiable tradediscrimination. The EC said the WTO, UNEP and UNCTAD should consider ways tomake trade and environment mutually supportive. There was no agreement during themorning.

Sectors and issues: On 29 (initiating a strategic approach on freshwater),TURKEY and ETHIOPIA noted concerns with the reference to “customary uses” ofwater. The EU suggested that they specify this concern in their reservations. ChairOsborn invited comments on the energy section in paragraphs 35-39. SAUDIARABIA proposed deletion of subparagraphs 39(a) (energy at CSD-9),39(g) (cost internalization) and 39(h) (coordination on energy issues atthe UN), which had been agreed ad referendum. NIGERIA, supported by LIBYA,wanted to delete details of CSD-9 preparations in 39(a). CANADA, the US,AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, NORWAY and the EU resisted the call to re-open negotiations.Chair Osborn said he would report the situation regarding the views of SAUDI ARABIA,NIGERIA and LIBYA to the COW. On subparagraph 40(e) (aviation fuel tax),the G-77/CHINA asked for immediate deletion. The EU said it should go to the COW.

On five proposals for a paragraph 42 (FCCC COP-3 negotiations in Kyoto), theChair said he would report that the group could not reach agreement, and that two newproposals had been tabled: one for deletion and one, from JAPAN, supported by the USand possibly CANADA, for a new draft paragraph based on the Group of 8 communiquefrom Denver. The EU, supported by AOSIS, favored ministerial consultations on theoptions. AOSIS said the G-8 figures would be unacceptable. SAUDI ARABIA,NIGERIA, VENEZUELA and IRAN called for deletion. KOREA and RUSSIAsupported the proposal urging agreement on a satisfactory COP-3 result.

On paragraph 49 (radioactive wastes), delegations responding to G-77CHINAproposals, agreed to: drop a reference to Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration and underline“all” Principles; and conduct, as appropriate, health studies around sites affected bynuclear activities with a view to identifying where health treatment may be needed andshould be provided. They agreed with RUSSIAN proposals to: replace references tonuclear wastes with “radioactive wastes;” state (in paragraphs 49 and50) that radioactive wastes “should be” disposed of in the territory of the State inwhich they are produced, to be consistent with the forthcoming IAEA Convention.

In 55 (desertification and drought), the G-77/CHINA supported text noting thatthe international community should “ensure new and additional financial resources.” TheUS objected to the reference to new and additional resources. The EU offered to replacethe new and additional reference, ad referendum, with “promote actions leading tothe mobilization and channelling of substantial resources for” implementation. Informalconsultations will continue.

In 65 (human-made or technological disasters), delegations agreed, adreferendum, to the proposal to use “Other disasters with an adverse impact on theenvironment” in the title and introductory sentence.

Means of implementation: On 67 (ODA), the G-77/CHINA supportedthe reference to ODA remaining a main source of external funding and called for deletionof a reference to a role for ODA in encouraging country-driven policy reform efforts. TheUS, EU and AUSTRALIA objected to the latter, which was reformulated to encourage,“where appropriate, all aspects of country-driven capacity building and strengthening.”The G-77/CHINA reordered the institutions in 73 (understanding the impact ofindebtedness) to invite the UN, the World Bank and the IMF to collaborate withUNCTAD in considering the interrelationship between indebtedness and sustainabledevelopment. In 74 (domestic resource mobilization), the G-77/CHINA addedtext noting that, while financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come fromcountries’ own public and private sectors, international cooperation is also essential. TheEU placed the international cooperation reference at the beginning of the sentence and theUS, supported by AUSTRALIA, replaced “essential” with “important,” to which the G-77/CHINA added “very.” Delegates deliberated into the night.

MINISTERIAL GROUP ON FORESTS

The Ministerial Group on Forests, co-chaired by Ministers from the Netherlands andTanzania, met in the morning to discuss follow-up actions in this area. Countries outlinedtheir support for one of three options: establishing an INC right away; setting up anintergovernmental forum on forests that would “elaborate elements of and buildconsensus for” an INC by 1999; or establishing a forum that would “consider the needfor...a legally binding instrument by 1999.” Those supporting the establishment of anINC noted that, while the two-year IPF process was useful in clarifying key issues, moreconcrete action is now needed. Deforestation trends are worse since Rio, and the world iswaiting for UNGASS to signal a real commitment to stem deforestation. Some whosupported an INC noted that financing for a convention remained an essential questionrequiring further discussion.

Those opposing the establishment of an INC at this stage emphasized that the need for aconvention was not yet clear. Instead, the clear need is to implement the IPFrecommendations for action. These countries called for an intergovernmental forum tooversee the implementation of IPF recommendations, and to include within its mandateissues such as trade, financing and technology transfer, which were left pending by IPF. Itwould also examine whether an INC was necessary, and/or build consensus for it, andwould report to the CSD by 1999. Following this discussion, the Co-Chairs prepared asummary of the discussion, as well as a new Co-Chairs’ proposal for follow-up. Thisproposal outlined a two-step process, including the establishment of a forum to report tothe CSD by 1999, and a reconsideration of the question of a convention at that time,based upon the outcome of the first stage. Discussion on this document was postponeduntil the next Ministerial Group meeting, to be held Thursday morning. The contactgroup on forests met briefly in the afternoon, but decided to await the outcome of theMinisters’ Thursday meeting before reconvening.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: 44 speakers are expected to offer statements regardingimplementation of Agenda 21 during morning and afternoon meetings in the GeneralAssembly Hall.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: Ministerial consultations are expected from9:30-10:30 am. The Ministerial Group on forests may also meet. The group considering cross-sectoral issues is expected to meet at 10:00 in a room to be announced. The groupconsidering the draft political statement will meet at 10:30 in Room 3 and continue at3:00.