ENB:05:03 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

THE FUTURE WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The next item considered by the CSD was agenda item 3, issues relating to the future work of the Commission (E/CN.17/1993/L.2). Egypt asked for clarification on paragraph 7 as to the proliferation of reports requested from the Secretary-General on UN implementation of Agenda 21. There are two previous General Assembly resolutions dealing with sustainable development that ask the Secretary-General to report annually on the implementations of these two resolutions (42/186 and 42/187). In response, Desai and Razali stated that L.2 is a Chairman's draft proposal, the results of the consultations held by the Ambassador of Tunisia. Tunisia stated that the consolidation of reports must be dealt with in the General Assembly, not the CSD. Mexico brought up some points on paragraph 4 that might limit the creativity of the ministers. Paragraph 4 should be taken out completely and paragraph 3 should be left as is. Razali said that this paragraph would not circumscribe the horizons for the ministers to undertake any discussion they want.

Tony Simpson, an NGO representative from Australia, spoke to a number of issues concerning enhancement of the capacity of the CSD to deal with its programme of work. A mechanism should be established for creating a liaison with NGOs. Working parties, either formally or informally, could be established to assist the Secretariat in doing its work. The idea of issue coordinators could be examined to assist in the intersessional work by looking at specific issues on an ad hoc basis. During the deliberations of the High-level Advisory Board, a mechanism for establishing a link with NGOs should be explored. The Czech Republic fully supported L.2, encouraging national CSDs. The wisdom of relevant organizations such as UNEP, UNDP, the Bretton Woods institutions, and NGOs and the private sector should be tapped. A high-level segment must have a defined role. India proposed a modification of paragraph 4, which would mention the resolution of outstanding differences. Norway joined with Mexico and India in asking for sufficient elbow-room for the ministers. Morocco, supported by Vanuatu, asked that amendments be made to paragraph 1: all working groups should always have interpretation facilities and that a 6-week rule for submission of documents in all languages be included. Austria thought that paragraphs 6-8 spoke of three constitutionally different bodies, and that the CSD would benefit by looking at reports from all of them.

[Return to start of article]