Daily report for 26 June 1997

Participants at the fourth day of UNGASS heard 44 statements in Plenary and attemptedto complete negotiations on the outcome text during all-day and late night negotiatingsessions, contact groups and ministerial consultations. In addition to US President BillClinton, 34 government officials and 7 IGO and NGO representatives spoke in Plenary.Mostafa Tolba, Chair of the COW, told delegates they could not leave the building untilall text in the draft documents was agreed, but a few outstanding issues remained forresolution on Friday.

DRAFT POLITICAL STATEMENT

Delegates discussed the draft Political Statement in morning, afternoon and nightsessions. On 12 (financial resources), the G-77/CHINA proposed, interalia: a preamble reaffirming Rio commitments regarding the means ofimplementation; deleting a reference to mobilizing domestic resources; and deleting areference recognizing public sector responsibilities. The EU, the US, UKRAINE,CANADA, RUSSIA and BELARUS opposed deleting the reference to mobilizing domestic resources. A number of countries preferred retaining the reference to publicsector responsibility. UKRAINE, BELARUS and RUSSIA supported references tocountries with economies in transition. The US opposed the preamble, and withAUSTRALIA, suggested deleting a reference to the ODA target of 0.7% of GNP.NORWAY called for strong language on the need to reverse declining ODA.

On 13 (ESTs), delegates agreed to text noting, inter alia: the availabilityof, access to and transfer of ESTs to developing countries; specific references from78 (ESTs); and references to “all” rather than developing countries. In15 (CSD focus for the next five years), the G-77/CHINA opposed the listing ofissues and proposed a general reaffirmation of commitment to comprehensiveimplementation of Agenda 21. The EU said the listing of sectoral themes providedbalance for the text. The Chair suggested listing agreed actions and indicating fundingsources. The US and SAUDI ARABIA supported the G-77/CHINA’s reformulation. TheG-77/CHINA also opposed the listing of agreed and ongoing negotiation processes in16 (UNCED agreements).

In 19 (CSD role), the G-77/CHINA proposed specifying which major groupswould participate. The Secretariat believed the text referred to more than NGOsparticipating in CSD sessions. In 20 (UNEP role), the G-77/CHINA objected tothe EU-proposed invitation to the Secretary-General to explore ways and means toimprove the coordination among and effectiveness of the UN institutions concerned withthe environment. CHINA and CUBA opposed the EU-proposed 25 (Secretary-General invited to present strategies for long-term sustainability). RUSSIA andNORWAY supported it. PERU, supported by ISRAEL, suggested that such strategies bedeveloped “in consultation with member States.” Paragraph 26 (pledging tocontinue working together) was adopted, with an additional sentence linking the politicalstatement to the programme for implementation of Agenda 21. Discussion on outstandingparagraphs continued through the night.

PROPOSED PROGRAMME FOR THE FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21

John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) continued to chair consideration of the outstandingcross-sectoral issues during all day and night meetings. Derek Osborn (UK) chaired a latenight negotiation on sectoral issues. In 22(j) (eco-efficiency), the US and G-77/CHINA disagreed on “the need to avoid” (US) and “avoiding” (G-77/CHINA)negative impacts on developing country export opportunities.

In 39(a) (CSD-9 on energy), SAUDI ARABIA said that he and 21 othercountries wished to delete all but the first two sentences of the paragraph. Delegatesagreed that preparations for the meeting should be initiated at CSD-7 and should use anopen-ended, intergovernmental group of experts, to be held in conjunction withintersessionals for CSD-8 and CSD-9. On 40(e) (airline fuel tax), the EUproposed further studies on barriers to implementing such a tax.

On 99 (codification of international law), delegations agreed on a reformulationbased on EU, MEXICAN and G-77 proposals, taking into account Chapter 39 of Agenda21, particularly paragraph 39.1, and stating the necessity of continuing the progressivedevelopment and, as and when appropriate, codification of international law related tosustainable development. In 100 (implementation and [compliance] withinternational environmental instruments), the G-77/CHINA wanted to delete“compliance.” NORWAY objected.

Paragraph 102 (data collection) was agreed with a US amendment on “including,as appropriate, gender disaggregated data.” In 104 (Environmental ImpactAssessments), the G-77/CHINA accepted that EIAs are a “useful national” tool and theUS called for decisions not to be made before complete EIAs are available, whereenvironmental values are at stake. The agreed text notes that EIAs are an importantnational tool, but deletes the reference to environmental values.

The Multi-Year Programme of Work for the CSD (1998-2002) was agreed. Theoverriding issues are poverty/consumption and production patterns. The 1998 sectoraltheme will be “strategic approaches to freshwater management.” The outstandingchapters of the SIDS Programme of Action will also be reviewed. In 2001, atmosphereand energy will be the sectoral themes. One 2001 cross-sectoral theme will beinternational cooperation for an enabling environment.

The groups continued to revisit outstanding text during late night meetings.

MINISTERIAL MEETING ON FORESTS

The Group began deliberations on the Co-Chairs’ proposal, which called for a “two-stepapproach” to follow-up on forests. The first step called for establishment of anintergovernmental forum to continue policy dialogue, to be followed by a second step,initiation of an INC, which would be based upon two conditions: financial commitmentfor SFM and consensus on the need for a legally binding instrument. A clear divideemerged between those able to support the proposal and those who could not. Thoseaccepting it characterized it as “weak” but acceptable in the spirit of compromise. Thoseopposing it noted that: a gradual rather than a two-step approach was desirable; theproposal seemed to prejudge the institution of an INC in 1999; the conditionality impliedin the proposal was unacceptable; and the mandate for the forum was not inclusiveenough. Given this impasse, a Friends of the Chair group was formed, following which arevised Co-Chairs’ text was circulated. This text called for the establishment of theintergovernmental forum to implement IPF recommendations and consider matters leftpending by IPF. The forum would also “identify possible elements of and work towards aconsensus for international arrangements and mechanisms, including a legally-bindinginstrument” and would report to the CSD in 1999. Based on that report, and on thedecision by the CSD, “an international negotiation process on new arrangements...or alegally binding instrument” would be launched. A number of countries accepted the textas it stood and emphasized that it was very far from their original position of calling foran INC right away. Others introduced amendments, noting that the text posed difficultiesfor them. The Ministerial Group will meet again Friday morning.

MINISTERIAL MEETING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

In the Ministerial group on climate change, chaired by Ministers from Argentina andJapan, delegations who had made proposals in the text explained their positions. BRAZILand SWITZERLAND noted that the public would gauge the success of UNGASS by itsstatement on climate change. JAPAN proposed using language from the Denver G-8Summit: At COP-3, the industrialized countries should commit to meaningful, realisticand equitable targets that will result in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.The agreement must ensure transparency and accountability and all participants’flexibility in the manner in which they meet their targets. The EU proposed text callingfor: an agreement on a legally binding commitment for the developed world at FCCCCOP-3 for a significant reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases below the 1990level by the years 2005 and 2010 as well as mandatory and recommended policies andmeasures, including harmonized ones. Delegates proposing text met in a contact group tocombine their proposals.

The group produced a text noting that developed countries should seek a legally bindingagreement with meaningful, equitable targets that will result in significant greenhouse gasreductions with specific timeframes such as 2005 and 2010. JAPAN objected to“significant” and AUSTRALIA disapproved of “legally binding.”

MINISTERIAL MEETING ON FINANCE

Ministers from the NETHERLANDS and TANZANIA introduced their non-paper onfinance issues in the draft political statement that: reconfirmed UNCED commitments;proposed efforts be made to halt the overall downward trend in ODA and reverse it by theend of the century; indicated that commitments are collective and are not accompanied bya guarantee; and noted that the most important sources of finance are domestic, bothpublic and private, and the role of aid is to help. A number of delegations raised concernsand suggested amendments, including INDIA, FRANCE, GERMANY, JAPAN andCANADA. The US said the non-paper was not a basis for agreement. The Co-Chairs saidthe text was their best effort to forge consensus and that they intended to forward it to theChair of the COW.

COW REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CONSULTATIONS

The COW, chaired by Mostafa Tolba, convened at 10:35 pm. Tolba invited theministerial chairs of working groups to introduce their reports and invited delegationswith further amendments to consult with him between 12:00 noon and 1:00 pm onFriday. On the climate change discussions, VENEZUELA said a proposed amendment ondeveloping countries had not been taken into account. IRAN and SAUDI ARABIAexpressed difficulty with the text. On the finance discussions, the US said he could notaccept the “take it or leave it approach” adopted regarding the text produced by theministerial co-chairs, and called for negotiations. INDIA, BRAZIL, BELARUS, IRAN,SAUDI ARABIA, GERMANY, VENEZUELA and JAPAN expressed serious difficultywith the text. Minister Jan Pronck said that, in the event of negotiations on the text, hewould negotiate on behalf of the EU. He assured the G-77/CHINA that the text would bemuch worse and that he would have to make strong reservations.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Some delegates thought the text that emerged from the Ministerial Group on forests wasvery weak, given its ambiguity regarding when, or even if, an INC might be initiated.Others, both delegates and NGOs, emphasized that a legally binding instrument was notthe only measure of “strength” of a proposal, and that 1999 might, in fact, be too soon toaccomplish all that the intergovernmental forum was being asked to do. Also, thesuggestion during the course of deliberations that financing for forests might becontingent on agreement to an INC was resented by some, who noted that their positionwas about more than money.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: 31 statements are expected in morning and afternoon Plenary meetings in the General Assembly Hall. The final item of business will be theconsideration of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole and itsadoption.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: The forest ministerial group is expected tomeet at 10:00 am. Other groups will meet as needed.