ENB:05:76 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

PLENARY

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REACHED AFTER RIO: The G-77/CHINA had not completed consideration of this section and will submit written amendments. In paragraph 2 (globalization), CANADA noted that developing countries still require international assistance for sustainable development, and the least developed in particular continue to be heavily dependent on it. In 4 (progress since UNCED), the US modified the text regarding emissions in “the industrialized countries” to “many developed and developing countries as well as in economies in transition” and changed the text regarding “their” wasteful production and consumption patterns. CANADA and the EU offered similar amendments. In 7 (major groups), the US added references to sustainable development programmes in addition to Local Agenda 21s. The EU added references to NGO involvement in increased public awareness. PERU added reference to the scientific community. In 8 (global agreements), the EU deleted text noting that GEF funding is still not sufficient. The US changed the text on insufficient “funding” to an insufficient “amount of approved projects.” MEXICO called for coordination between the CSD and implementing agencies and PERU for strengthened mechanisms for implementation. On 9 (incorporating the Rio Principles), CANADA proposed deleting a specific reference to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. On 12 (means of implementation), CANADA added that tangible progress has been made in activating the means of implementation. On 13 (ODA), the US proposed language noting that most developed countries “have not set aside 0.7% of GNP for ODA nor 0.15% for least developed countries” to replace text referring to these figures as UN targets. CANADA called for more efforts at the domestic level to mobilize financial resources and noted that the expansion of private financial flows is an encouraging trend. In 15 (technology transfer), the EU added that developing countries have not always created favorable conditions to attract technology transfer. CANADA said private flows have not kept pace with rapid scientific and technological progress, which may have widened the gap between developed and developing countries.

IMPLEMENTATION IN AREAS REQUIRING URGENT ACTION. Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental Objectives: On 22 (health), the G-77/CHINA deleted a reference to “major” infectious diseases and said the lack of information on the health impact of environmental pollution should be addressed. In 23 (sustainable settlements), the G-77/CHINA added references to “economic” stress and both “rural and urban” areas, and called for new and additional resources to improve infrastructure.

Means of Implementation: In 66 (education and awareness), the US added text on: life-long learning; interdisciplinary and multicultural education; systems thinking; and training of educators. CANADA called for full and equal access to education for women and girls and, with NORWAY, recommended formulating sustainable development education plans. PERU recommended strengthening universities. The EDUCATION CAUCUS proposed establishing an Education 21 Programme. The YOUTH CAUCUS expressed concern that critical analysis of the current system and of the media is difficult in countries lacking strong education systems.

On 67-69 (international legal instruments), NORWAY highlighted the interlinkage between human rights and the environment and called for development of international law regarding liability and compensation for victims of environmental damage originating extra-jurisdictionally. The G-77/CHINA proposed the deletion of text stating that implementation and compliance require further improvement. The EU replaced “require further improvement” with “is an urgent priority”. The US redraft noted that “adequate,” rather than “secure, sustained and predictable,” financial support promotes implementation of international instruments. CANADA stressed that science- based decision making enhances implementation of multilateral environmental agreements.

In 70 (information tools), the US called for identification and prioritization of gaps in data collection and dissemination. NORWAY added text on environmental impact assessments for national and international investment. JAPAN added text on public access to global environmental data through information and communication networks. PERU emphasized the need to make scientific and technological databases available on electronic media. CANADA called for “gender-disaggregated data.”

In 71 (indicators), the G-77/CHINA deleted the target year of 2000 for national adoption of indicators and introduced text on taking account of national conditions. The US preferred to retain the reference to 2000. In 72 (national reporting), the G- 77/CHINA replaced a reference to peer reviews with text on exchanging information and experience. The US, NORWAY and CANADA preferred to retain the peer review. CANADA called for greater emphasis on results and milestones clearly demonstrating commitment.

[Return to start of article]