When Razali reconvened the meeting in the afternoon the number of documents had grown exponentially. Both the G-77 and the European Community had drafted their own proposals on the provisional agenda and the multi-year programme of work.
Razali opened the discussion on the provisional agenda by asking for comments. Colombia said that the Group of 77 was pleased with the Chair's proposal, but made the following amendments: item 10 should read "Consideration of items taken up by the high-level meeting"; and item 6, on financial resources, should take into account the relationship between the CSD and the GEF, perhaps a means by which the Commission could submit recommendations to the GEF regarding the implementation of Agenda 21. The G-77 also submitted new, more flexible, language for item 2, "The Commission will decide at each session, on the basis of its agenda, how many informal negotiating groups will be established and their respective subject matter, which should be chaired by one of the Vice-Chairmen, provided that these informal negotiating groups will never exceed more than three in number and that no more than two meet simultaneously."
The US commented on the need for an agenda item to deal with ongoing functions of the CSD, including the report from the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development (IACSD); input from the high level advisory committee, the Bretton Woods institutions, and from Convention secretariats; and other reports that may not fit in the substantive themes. The US also felt that the agenda should also make reference to the need to discuss national reports and plans for implementing Agenda 21.
The EC submitted its own draft decision that reorganized and expanded the Chair's draft. The EC moved the adoption of a multi-year thematic programme of work of the Commission from item 7 up to item 2 on the agenda. Under the agenda item, "Methods of work of the Commission", the EC added four subheadings:
Razali asked the delegates to comment on each other's proposals rather than continue to make new ones. Australia expressed support for the G-77's flexible approach on the number of working groups and the US's approach on exchange of information and reference to guidelines for the preparation of national reports. The G-77 had no problem with the EC's proposal to move the adoption of the multi-year programme of work to agenda item 2. Regarding the EC's proposed sub-headings under agenda item 3, the G-77 said that they disagreed on the establishment of subsidiary organs at this time. The G-77 also felt that the subheading on national reports should be consolidated with agenda item 4, which also deals with national reports. The G-77 said that the EC's proposed agenda item 5 could be useful but that financial resources should remain a separate agenda item.
[Return to start of article]