Vol. 05 No. 135
Thursday, 24 February 2000
The Intersessional Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG)
meeting on Financial Resources, Trade, Investment and Economic
Growth continued with general discussion on Wednesday morning.
Discussion focused on the themes of economic growth, trade and
investment. In the afternoon, participants received the
Co-Chairs’ two preliminary draft papers: a summary of the
previous day’s discussions on Financial Resources and
Mechanisms; and a document outlining possible elements for a
draft decision. Co-Chair Seok-young adjourned the session
after a brief discussion on whether the Co-Chairs’ second
drafts on the Finance and Trade clusters should be merged.
GENERAL DISCUSSION ON TRADE, INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND RELATED FINANCE ISSUES
United Nations Secretary-General’s Report on Economic
Growth, Trade and Investment: The G-77/CHINA noted that
unsustainable production and consumption largely flows from
wasteful and uncontrolled patterns in industrialized
countries. Supported by the PHILIPPINES, he said this was not
adequately reflected in the Secretary-General’s Report.
BRAZIL, INDIA and INDONESIA also questioned the balance in the
Secretary-General’s Report. BRAZIL said it appeared that
developing countries were being required to comply with rules
created by developed countries. The G-77/CHINA expressed
concern at the Report’s introduction of concepts and models
not universally accepted. The PHILIPPINES and INDONESIA, for
example, expressed concern that Sustainable Impact Assessments
may increase costs and deter investment. INDONESIA added that
the imposition of environmental regulation conflicts with the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
POLAND noted the lack of references to economies in transition
in the Report.
Globalization and Trade Liberalization: The EU
underlined the Bangkok Declaration’s commitment to equity
and participation, and called for new initiatives on
developing country access to the full benefits of trade
liberalization, and on offsetting the negative social
consequences of globalization.
The G-77/CHINA, supported by BRAZIL and the PHILIPPINES,
called for a focus on: correcting market failures; promoting
economic instruments for strengthening national institutions;
providing market access to goods from developing countries;
environmentally sound technologies (ESTs); capacity building;
and mobilizing new resources. The US said he wanted to put a
human face on global trade and suggested that capacity
building is the best approach for this. He called for research
to identify triple win opportunities for trade, development
and the environment, and for more work on labor standards as a
means to increase trade. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION rejected the
idea of taxing trade to finance sustainable development. The
G-77/ CHINA called for the implementation of a commitment by
developed countries to grant duty free and quota free market
access for LDC exports. The EU noted its support for the
initiative. The EU rejected the use of environmental measures
for protectionism. BRAZIL said certification schemes should
not be used as trade barriers.
Financial Resources and Mechanisms: The PHILIPPINES
asked why more industrialized countries have not been able to
achieve the ODA target of 0.7% of GNP. NEW ZEALAND called for
a recommitment to the target. The PHILIPPINES asked why some
industrialized countries have not contributed to the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Trust Fund.
Trade Liberalization and Social Development: The EU
said it was necessary to establish how international trade may
contribute to reducing poverty among women and children, and
to improving labor conditions. He called for CSD input to the
Copenhagen+5 Conference in June 2000. The G-77/CHINA said
poverty is the ultimate systemic trait facing humanity.
Eco-efficiency, Environmental Management and Economic
Growth: CHINA highlighted linkages between technology
transfer and intellectual property rights. The PHILIPPINES
questioned whether there have been sufficient efforts to
de-link growth and resource use in developed countries. INDIA
and IRAN questioned the feasibility of de-linking these
elements in developing countries. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION
called for the stimulation of markets for ecologically-sound
products and services. INDONESIA stressed the need for
developing countries to have increased access to financial
resources, technology and expertise regarding efficient
technologies for environmental and waste management. POLAND
highlighted the role of technology transfer and changes in
consumption and production patterns in meeting the Factor 4
objective of doubling output and halving resource use. POLAND
encouraged the use of voluntary agreements for large
companies.
Foreign Direct Investment: The EU underlined the
importance of facilitating FDI flows to reach all countries,
including Sub-Saharan Africa. He said a multilateral framework
on investment at the WTO would help achieve the required
stable, predictable, non-discriminatory and transparent
climate. BULGARIA noted the role of environmental impact
assessments and audits in developing a strong regulatory
framework to attract FDI. The CSD NGO FINANCE CAUCUS
underlined the importance of a proper framework for FDI.
Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs): BRAZIL
called for implementation of Agenda 21 commitments on
technology transfer and new resources. INDIA stressed the
importance of addressing the terms for accessing ESTs.
Transnational Companies (TNCs): The EU emphasized the
role of TNCs in facilitating the transfer and dissemination of
ESTs and environmental management practices. He said that
investors’ rights need to be accompanied by
responsibilities. INDONESIA said there were a number of
unexplored possible benefits from investment by TNCs,
including, for example, the promotion of environmental
management systems and the transfer of ESTs. The CSD NGO
FINANCE CAUCUS called for a reaffirmation of the CSD’s
support for the Multi-stakeholder Review of Voluntary
Initiatives and Agreements. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA called for
international guidelines to promote socially responsible
investment. JAPAN highlighted the OECD guidelines on TNC
activity.
WTO, Seattle Ministerial Meeting and a New Trade Round: The
G-77/CHINA recalled the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle and
noted that Agenda 21 had established the parameters for
approaches to trade and environment issues. The EU said a new
comprehensive trade round could make the multilateral trading
system more transparent and responsive to sustainability. The
PHILIPPINES urged greater efforts to ensure an equal footing
for developing countries in trade negotiations, especially on
agriculture. CANADA welcomed enhanced cooperation between UNEP
and the WTO after the Seattle Ministerial Meeting and called
for the removal of agricultural subsidies.
Role of the CSD and Cooperation between the CSD, WTO and
International Organizations: CHINA , CANADA, NEW ZEALAND,
the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, SWITZERLAND and INDONESIA supported
greater institutional cooperation and coordination. NEW
ZEALAND urged the CSD to highlight outstanding trade issues in
need of resolution. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested that the
CSD focus on facilitating developing country participation in
international negotiations. SWITZERLAND suggested a stronger
CSD role in: capacity building; environmental impact
assessment; and research on major trade-related principles,
including the precautionary principle.
Harmonizing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
and Trade: The EU supported: the ability of WTO members to
pursue levels of environmental protection they deem
appropriate; greater legal clarity regarding the relationship
between trade measures pursuant to MEAs and WTO agreements;
and WTO accommodation of such agreements, citing the Biosafety
Protocol. CANADA supported the "principles and
criteria" approach to assessing the relationship between
MEAs and trade agreements.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Co-Chair Seok-young introduced the Co-Chairs’ draft
papers: a Summary of the Discussion on Financial Resources and
Mechanisms, and Possible Elements for a Draft Decision by the
CSD. He noted that the Co-Chairs’ Summary emphasizes the
discussion of international finance, domestic finance, and
innovative financial mechanisms.
In his introduction of the Possible Elements for a Draft
Decision document, Co-Chair Seok-young noted its focus on
elaborating priorities for future work. He highlighted the
proposal that the CSD convene an ad hoc
intergovernmental panel to analyze the lack of progress on
implementing Agenda 21 commitments on finance and technology
transfer, explaining that this has been added to the Elements
for Decision document although no agreement exists between the
Co-Chairs on its inclusion in that document. There was no
agreement on a proposal from the PHILIPPINES that the
Co-Chairs merge the draft documents on the Finance and Trade
clusters.
SUMMARY OF THE CO-CHAIRS’ FIRST DRAFT ELEMENTS FOR A
DECISION ON FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The following is a summary of the Co-Chairs’ preliminary
paper setting out Possible Elements for a Draft Decision on
Financial Resources and Mechanisms at the CSD-8:
Priorities for Future Work: This section identifies
some of the principal future activities relating to finance
for sustainable development, and notes that the next
comprehensive discussion on the issue will occur in 2002 at
the tenth Session of the CSD. It notes that this review will
benefit from the outcome of the High-Level Event on Financing
for Development, and from an Expert Group Meeting on Finance
for Sustainable Development in Budapest in 2001. Four priority
areas are identified for the review process: the promotion of
international finance for sustainable development;
mobilization of domestic financial resources for sustainable
development; exploration of innovative financial mechanisms;
and improvement of institutional frameworks and the promotion
of public-private partnerships.
Further Promotion of International Finance for Sustainable
Development: A number of actions to promote the level of
finance for sustainable development are identified in the
draft. These include: developed countries meeting the UN
target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA; developing countries
implementing appropriate policies to enhance the effectiveness
of aid and to attract FDI; creditor countries and
international financial institutions implementing the Enhanced
HIPC initiative for eligible countries; governments
implementing measures to counter the volatility of short-term
capital flows; and developed countries providing
capacity-building assistance and facilitating the transfer of
ESTs to developing countries.
Mobilization of Domestic Financial Resources for
Sustainable Development: With capacity-building assistance
from developed countries, governments in developing countries
are encouraged to promote mobilization of domestic sources of
capital by adopting effective policies, integrating
environmental finance into mainstream public finance, and
implementing appropriate economic instruments.
Exploration of Innovative Financial Mechanisms: In
cooperation with international organizations and major groups,
governments are encouraged to investigate means for promoting
the effective use of innovative mechanisms in sector finance.
It is noted that the GEF should be enlarged and the Parties to
the UNFCCC are urged to implement the Clean Development
Mechanism as soon as possible.
Improvement of Institutional Frameworks; Promotion of
Public and Private Partnerships: International
organizations, governments and major groups are urged to:
promote financial institutional improvements at the domestic
and international levels; promote adoption of public-private
partnerships based on common but differentiated
responsibilities; and undertake research on various specific
issues relating to finance and sustainable development.
International organizations are urged to improve the
coordination of their work.
It is proposed that the CSD should convene an ad hoc
intergovernmental panel to examine the lack of progress in
fulfilling the Agenda 21 commitments on finance and technology
transfer, with the aim of ensuring progress on sectoral
issues. While the panel�s findings would contribute to the
work of the Preparatory Committee for the High-Level Event on
Financing for Development, it is recommended that the panel�s
work should not depend on the results of the High-Level Event.