|
Published by the
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Vol. 05 No. 189
Tuesday, 6 May 2003
CSD-11 HIGHLIGHTS:
MONDAY, 5 MAY 2003
Delegates convened in two parallel working groups
in the morning and afternoon to begin negotiating the Chair’s draft
decision on the future programme, organization and methods of work
of the Commission. Working Group I discussed sections of the draft
decision on the future organization of work and the multi-year work
programme, while Working Group II considered reporting, enhancing
the contribution of the UN system, Major Groups and other
constituencies, and the CSD’s role as a focal point for
partnerships. Delegates also met in Plenary to discuss preparations
for the 10-year review of the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA)
for the sustainable development of small island developing states
(SIDS).
PLENARY
On Monday afternoon, delegates convened in
Plenary to discuss the preparatory process for the 10-year review of
the BPOA. Many speakers thanked the outgoing chair of AOSIS, Tuiloma
Neroni Slade (Samoa), for his contribution to the SIDS cause. JoAnne
DiSano, DESA, drew attention to General Assembly resolution 57/262
on the urgent need for full and effective implementation of the BPOA,
and reported on the Secretariat’s work to support the preparatory
process.
MAURITIUS, speaking for AOSIS, indicated his
understanding that the UN would provide sufficient resources to
enable two representatives from each SIDS to participate in the
regional preparatory meetings. FIJI, on behalf of the PACIFIC
ISLANDS FORUM, stressed the importance of national reporting in the
review process. SEYCHELLES, for the AIMS GROUP (Atlantic, Indian
Ocean, Mediterranean and South China Seas SIDS), said its members
lack the institutional arrangements of other SIDS regions, and
requested additional technical assistance. NAURU supported
strengthening the UN SIDS Unit.
SAMOA said the preparatory process should enhance
understanding of SIDS vulnerabilities, as well as the need for
improved trade relations, long-term institutional capacities, access
to investment capital, and collaboration mechanisms. The
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES
stressed the need to focus on disaster mitigation and preparedness,
and on capacity building, and called for the donor community to
fully engage in the BPOA review process.
WORKING GROUP I
In their preliminary comments on the draft
decision, many countries welcomed Chair Moosa’s text as a sound
basis for negotiation. The G-77/CHINA said the overarching
cross-cutting theme must address durable, reliable, and predictable
means of implementation. JAPAN, supported by NORWAY, called for an
assessment of the budgetary implications of the programme of work.
The EU voiced its preference for a long-term work programme with
flexibility to address emerging issues. He also called for sharing
experiences on NSSD implementation, including voluntary peer
reviews. The US, AUSTRALIA and CANADA underscored the need to
clearly identify the outcomes of each CSD session.
The working group then proceeded to a
paragraph-by-paragraph reading of the text. The G-77/CHINA,
supported by the EU, proposed adding "Agenda 21 and the JPOI
Implementation Track" to the draft decision’s title. Regarding the
section on the future organization of work, the EU said the CSD
should contribute to implementing internationally-agreed development
goals. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA, JAPAN and the US suggested text
restricting the length of CSD sessions to one week. The US stressed
the "action" aspects of review and policy years, and explained its
notion of experts’ action forums. He also suggested streamlining the
calendar of meetings. The G-77/CHINA proposed references to the CSD
focusing on overall progress, constraints and obstacles in
implementing selected "clusters" of issues. He also suggested
reorganizing a paragraph on the work of the CSD subsidiary machinery
to reflect the JPOI more accurately. There was a general view that
the section dealing with regional implementation forums needed
streamlining, and several suggestions were made on review meetings
at different levels, including on the cooperation of international
financial institutions (IFIs) and the WTO. UGANDA suggested
references to the subregional level, with the EU adding local and
subnational levels.
On the CSD’s high-level segment, the US,
supported by the EU, proposed that it should enhance implementation
and offer guidance for future action-oriented measures. JAPAN and
the REPUBLIC OF KOREA said the high-level segment should only take
place in the policy year, while CANADA and AUSTRALIA supported
deleting references to the precise scheduling of the high-level
segment. The EU noted that IFIs and the WTO should also be involved
in these segments.
On the relationship between ECOSOC and the CSD,
the US, supported by several others, voiced concern with the current
text and proposed using wording from the JPOI instead. SWITZERLAND
said sustainable development themes should be addressed in the
ECOSOC substantive session, and not its ministerial segment.
On the Annex outlining the multi-year programme
of work, the G-77/CHINA proposed a clustering approach that would
allow for the consideration of all issues identified in Agenda 21
and the JPOI. He proposed that the first cycle address water and
sanitation, human settlements, land, agriculture, rural development,
drought and desertification. The EU proposed that the programme of
work covers the main themes and overarching objectives of the WSSD,
namely poverty eradication, unsustainable consumption and
production, and protecting the natural resource base, and include
corporate and social responsibility. He called for a greater balance
between the agreed themes and expressed a preference for three
issues to be addressed in each cycle. JAPAN suggested adding water
and disasters to the cross-cutting theme in the proposed first cycle
of work and, supported by the US, urged removing the reference to a
comprehensive review cycle in the tenth year. The US, REPUBLIC OF
KOREA and SWITZERLAND supported the Chair’s proposal for addressing
a single issue per cycle.
WORKING GROUP II
In the initial exchange of views, the US stressed
that guidance provided during last week’s high-level segment should
be contained in the decision, and noted the absence of
outcome-oriented language. The EU welcomed the draft as a solid
basis for negotiations.
Delegates then discussed the section on
reporting, with the EU suggesting amending the title and text to
refer to "monitoring and reporting," rather than simply "reporting."
Arguing that it created a dual reporting system, AUSTRALIA proposed
deleting text highlighting the importance of reporting on progress
to both regional implementation forums and global CSD meetings. The
EU preferred retaining a reference to regional-level reporting. The
US, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND and JAPAN stressed the need to avoid
duplication and called for reducing the reporting burden. NEW
ZEALAND also stressed enhancing existing subregional reporting
mechanisms.
The G-77/CHINA requested clarification on the
types of reporting referred to in the text, and proposed
restructuring the section into four parts outlining the requirements
for national, regional, and global reports, and the role of the
Secretary-General’s reports.
The EU proposed a new paragraph clarifying how a
reporting system should enable the Commission to address the
relevant requirements in the JPOI. He said the system should: assist
the Commission in reviewing and monitoring progress and fostering
the coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships;
provide a forum for analysis and exchange of experiences; and
consider more effective use of national reports and regional
experience. Supporting the EU, SWITZERLAND stressed the importance
of reporting in assessing progress in implementation, and called for
exploration of innovative reporting mechanisms, such as peer
reviews. The EU further proposed that reporting should include
inputs from the local and subnational levels and from the Bretton
Woods Institutions and MEAs.
In the afternoon, delegates discussed the section
on enhancing contributions of UN funds, programmes, specialized
agencies and other organizations. Observing that this section
paraphrased Chapter XI of the JPOI and added nothing new, the US,
supported by AUSTRALIA, suggested deleting this part of the draft.
The EU and MEXICO expressed concern at this "drastic" suggestion,
and proposed a number of alterations to the existing text. On a
paragraph outlining areas where the UN system should undertake
further measures, the G-77/CHINA suggested a new sentence urging
"information exchange and knowledge sharing on all aspects of the
implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI."
On enhancing contributions of Major Groups and
other constituencies, the G-77/CHINA, opposed by SWITZERLAND,
CANADA, and the US, suggested specifying that Major Groups should
only be involved in the area of implementation. The G-77/ CHINA also
proposed deleting a paragraph concerning involvement of other
constituencies, such as disabled persons, consumer groups and
educators, while the EU suggested further involving
parliamentarians, media and the elderly. The US proposed
substituting "Major Groups" with "civil groups," so as to allow for
engagement of a broader range of society.
Delegates concluded the afternoon’s discussion by
considering the CSD’s role as the focal point for partnerships. In
addition to just monitoring existing partnerships, the EU, US and
AUSTRALIA proposed that the CSD mobilize or catalyze new ones.
MEXICO suggested deleting a paragraph outlining the CSD’s role in
providing a monitoring mechanism for partnerships, arguing that this
is an excessive burden on the Commission. SWITZERLAND and the US
proposed text endorsing the Bali Guiding Principles as the general
framework for establishing partnerships. The G-77/ CHINA circulated
a non-paper outlining its position on partnerships.
The EU, supported by JAPAN, but opposed by the US
and NEW ZEALAND, suggested language requesting that reports by
partnerships be provided biennially. The US, supported by NEW
ZEALAND, said that this reporting should be voluntary. The EU also
proposed language requesting the Secretariat to further develop
guidelines on reporting.
IN THE CORRIDORS
As delegates engaged in the detailed task of
paragraph-by-paragraph negotiations on Monday, a number of
participants were commenting on the "brisk pace" set by the CSD
working groups. As some had predicted, after spending the weekend
honing group positions, delegations were eager to populate the text
with their views. Developing countries insisted that the CSD focus
on obstacles and constraints to implementation, which to most
observers appeared to mean placing financial resources at the top of
the agenda. These countries also unveiled a revamped version of the
Commission�s work cycles - a "solid proposal," in the words of a
spokesperson. Meanwhile, several developed countries were stressing
the need for pragmatic outcomes of the Commission�s work, focusing,
in particular, on best practices and partnerships. Noting that these
two visions of the work programme bore scant resemblance to one
another, several participants felt the Chair�s matrix had done
little to bridge the gap. Indeed, judging by the discussions in
Working Group I, some argued that it may have added to the confusion
on an issue that might, in the long run, prove to be the main
stumbling block for this session.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
PLENARY: The draft decision on SIDS will be
presented in Plenary in Conference Room 4. Check the Journal
for exact times.
WORKING GROUP I: This Working Group will meet
in Conference Room 4 from 10:00 am - 1:00 pm and later in the
afternoon to continue negotiating on sections in the Chair�s draft
decision on the future organization of work and the multi-year
programme of work. Check the Journal for exact times.
WORKING GROUP II: This Working Group will
convene in Conference Room 6 from 10:00 am - 1:00 pm and later in
the afternoon to continue negotiating sections in the Chair�s draft
decision on reporting, enhancing contributions of the UN system,
Major Groups and other constituencies, and partnerships. Check the
Journal for exact times. |