IRAN: The representative noted that ODA has reached its lowest level since 1983, GEF resources have fallen short of expectations and the question of transfer of environmentally sound technology on preferential and concessional terms has received only lip service. The CSD must focus on critical issues and not become merely a talk show. Priority should be accorded to strengthening the CSD's relationship with the GEF Council. Iran has established a high-level committee on sustainable development and a special commission on desertification. Iran's ratification of the Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change is in the final stage.
CZECH REPUBLIC: Karel Zebrakovsky said that the CSD has not succeeded in mobilizing enough political will to generate stronger commitments. The CSD intersessional activities need to be more systematic and coordinated. Greater cooperation between UNEP and the CSD is also needed. The Czech Republic is implementing the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions, is considering signing the Convention to Combat Desertification and will support a dialogue towards a possible new convention on forests. The Czech Republic is also hosting a CSD-related workshop on Economic Instruments for Sustainable Development in Prague in January 1995.
UKRAINE: The representative said that an important step in improving the work of the CSD is to integrate sectoral and cross sectoral issues. It is also important to link the elaboration of sectoral agreements and the finances to implement them. He said that the proposal made by Belarus to hold a conference on the sustainable development for countries with economies in transition is an interesting one. Ukraine advocates responsible fishing management on the basis of international agreements and cannot accept the attempts made in violation of UNCLOS to legalize unilateral measures and apply them to the high seas.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: On behalf of the 12 countries of the Caribbean Community, Amb. Lionel Hurst focused on the Convention on Climate Change. He urged all countries not party to the Convention to ratify it before the first Conference of the Parties in March 1995. He stressed the dangers posed by sea level rise and climate change that threaten the very existence of the Caricom States. The Caricom States, as a subregion and as members of AOSIS, maintain that the industrialized countries should take significant steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These concerns are adequately addressed by the AOSIS draft protocol on greenhouse gas emission reduction, which calls for new commitments by industrialized parties to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 20% by the year 2005. Caricom supports the G-77 position with regard to joint implementation and the fact that the criterion of co-location of related Secretariats should not be used to decide the final location of the permanent Secretariat. He urged that the debate on the AOSIS draft protocol begin at the 11th session of the INC, with its subsequent adoption at the first Conference of Parties.
NEPAL: The representative pointed out the need for additional. efforts in the areas of finance and technology transfer. Nepal has ratified the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions and participated in the negotiation of the Convention to Combat Desertification. It has set up an environmental policy council and is working on a regional action plan.
PAKISTAN: Samiya Waheed Junejo stressed the importance of the CSD's decisions on changing consumption and production patterns, since the CSD is the only intergovernmental forum dealing with this issue. In order for the developing countries to realize the goals of sustainable development, specific policies need to be formulated for a conducive international economic environment. The recent stress on environmental conditionalities contradicts the principles of an open and free multilateral trading system. While the CSD intersessional sectoral meetings have contributed to a thorough analysis of some of the Agenda 21 sectoral areas, they should not affect the holistic review of Agenda 21.
GUYANA: On behalf of the Caribbean Community, the representative expressed concern about declining ODA flows and said that the specific nature of the GEF financing scope must be emphasized along with the call for new resources. The GEF replenishment is a first step at a minimum level. Changing consumption and production patterns rests with developed countries, but our own societies are confronted with detrimental patterns of production and consumption. Attention should be given to the special situation and needs of developing countries, including eradicating poverty and meeting basic human needs. It is not premature to begin discussion of the format and scope of the special session of the General Assembly to review implementation of Agenda 21 in 1997.
INDIA: Amb. T. P. Sreenivasan warned against reopening the Rio commitments within the context of the Climate Change Convention. When speaking of common but differentiated responsibilities, developing countries have a scope to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases since their development process should be encouraged rather than retarded. The COP is the supreme body and it is supposed to lay down programme priorities, but there is still a lack of clarity on several concepts in the Convention, including full incremental costs, joint implementation and transfer of technology. The developed countries have to bring about the political will to implement this Convention. Following the submission of the draft protocol by AOSIS, India recognizes the need to address the problem but this is not the time to strengthen the commitments beyond the year 2000. If we start negotiations now on a new protocol without a fundamental basis to implement the existing Convention, the protocol may become a distraction.
VENEZUELA: The representative highlighted the extent of the progress that has been achieved in the short time since Rio, particularly the Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, the Convention to Combat Desertification and the entry into force of the Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change. The CSD must be the intergovernmental forum where decisions are taken and, so far, the general speeches have taken too much time and have not left enough room for actual negotiations. It is not enough to have merely a reiteration of the objectives of Agenda 21.
NAMIBIA: The delegate said that sustainable development is a global concern that should be addressed with global action. The delegate described the plans that Namibia has implemented to achieve sustainable development and also called for financial commitments to be implemented. She highlighted the importance of the Women's Conference and Habitat II, since sustainable development is impossible to achieve amidst exclusion. With regard to the fish stocks Conference, she said that although the establishment of an effective high seas regime is important, the interests of small coastal States must not be compromised in the process.
URUGUAY: The representative said that just because the problems are stated does not mean that they are solved. Uruguay has taken a number of measures to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21, but climate change is a global problem and it should be addressed by the international community as a whole.
BRAZIL: Amb. Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg said that Brazil continues to support the strengthening of the role of the CSD, although it has not reached most of the targets established. He said he was happy with the conclusion of the Desertification Convention, although it fell short of some legitimate concerns of African States. It is the symbol of an awakening, but its success will depend on the credibility of the international community, particularly when the ODA targets are attained and transfer of resources and technology are implemented. Unilateral trade measures to protect the environment will jeopardize sustainable development.
KENYA: C. M. Kang'e expressed concern over the lack of implementation of Agenda 21. Despite limited financial and technical resources, Kenya has set up a National Environmental Action Plan, embarked on a review of environmental legislation and integrated environmental considerations into overall national development plans. UNEP headquarters in Nairobi should not be weakened as a result of strengthening UNEP's regional offices.
[Return to start of article]