PRESS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Press Briefing
PRESS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
19970422
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
At a Headquarters press conference yesterday afternoon, a group of environmental non-governmental organizations expressed their disappointment and concern with the "Earth Summit + 5" deliberations taking place in the Commission on Sustainable Development and warned of the "impasse" in negotiations on the implementation of Agenda 21 since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. The Director of the Division for Sustainable Development, Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, Joke Waller-Hunter, introduced the panel of speakers.
Felix Dodds, Director of the United Nations Environment and Development Committee in the United Kingdom, started his introduction with what he described as a "mantra" that graphically expressed the group's concern over the implementation of Agenda 21: "Urgent situation. Far too little being done. Bold actions needed. Measurable steps required."
"Our assessment at the end of this first week of negotiations [which conclude Friday, 25 April] is that we are dealing with an impasse over the issue of new, additional resources and the fulfilment of overseas development aid that had been promised at the Rio Summit", Mr. Dodds said. Many of the items on the agenda "that we'd like to move forward" could not be unless additional finance was found. The European Union promised 3 billion European Currency Units (ECUs), "which never materialized".
Mr. Dodds said that last week there had been a meeting of the environmental ministers of the European Union, who had reaffirmed their commitment to the air fuel tax. "What we'd like to see them do is to come here and say, 'not only we should have an international negotiated air fuel tax, but we will actually introduce it within our boundaries'", he said. "They are entitled to do that, and they could put one or two billion dollars on the table if they wanted to." Unless a deal was agreed to on finance, the heads of State would arrive at the 23 to 27 June special session of the General Assembly to review Agenda 21 and find that "the whole negotiations are deadlocked".
Sander van Bennekom, from the National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development of the Netherlands, reaffirmed the importance of the financial issue and said that the idea of an inter- governmental panel to negotiate the issue was the only concrete solution proposed so far at the Commission. Such a panel, according to various proposals being circulated, "would basically address both the quantity and quality of official development assistance. It would try to explore the
somewhat controversial relationship between foreign direct investment and sustainable development and, on another level, it would also focus on exploring ways to find new resources, such as an air fuel tax".
Such a panel, Mr. van Bennekom added, would not necessarily focus on the negotiations, but might identify the obstacles encountered in the debate on finance. The proposal from the Mission of Norway had suggested a high-level panel focused on the finance issue at the upcoming General Assembly special session in June. The Netherlands, currently chairing the European Union, had once indicated its intent to participate. "We are really very surprised at the fact that at this CSD, the Netherlands withholds any kind of support for a panel on finance." Such an apparent lack of coordination of the European countries on that issue could possibly lead to the failure of the special session, he warned.
Sae Kubo, from the International Education Resource and Innovation Center of Japan, said the Commission energy caucus was concerned about what she described as the "weak language" employed during negotiations, referring to both energy and transportation issues, including economical and institutional measures to promote safe, renewable energy production at all levels. Ms. Kubo also stressed the importance of enacting energy pricing reforms that internalized social and environmental costs.
The energy caucus, Ms. Kubo went on to say, also believed in the removal of environmentally damaging subsidies for energy production and consumption, especially for fossil fuel wells. The revision proposed last week, she added, "will do nothing to meet the development needs of a growing world population in a safe, equitable and ecologically sound way, nor will it reduce the impact of growing, destabilizing climate change".
Instead, the revision "amounts to a consumption charter designed in particular to serve the interests of the fossil fuel-producing countries and the multinational oil and gas industry worldwide", Ms. Kubo said. Regarding the transportation issue, she emphasized the need to implement measures to improve energy efficiency and to impose guidelines for environmentally friendly transportation and reduction targets for vehicular emissions, including carcinogenic additives in motor gasoline.
"Five years after Rio, it is high time for governments to move into implementation", she added. The Commission energy caucus supported, among other measures, legally binding commitments by industrialized countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels, by the year 2005. Delegates were also urged to reconsider their positions and endorse the proposals submitted by the energy caucus on 18 April, she said.
Kevin Dunyon, of Friends of the Earth International, summed up non- governmental organization hopes and expectations within the Commission discussions of the past two weeks. "We expected leadership, determination and
Sustainable Development Briefing - 3 - 22 April 1997
vision, but when challenged to rise to that historic scale, we're confronted instead with posturing, dogfights and excuses", he said. "And quite frankly, we are entitled to better."
Continuing, Mr. Dunyon said it had been a worldwide wave of public opinion -- mobilized in part by non-governmental organizations -- which had brought world leaders to Rio five years ago. "But now we find some governments attempting to swim against the tide and as a consequence we, as NGOs, find ourselves in the position to defend the principles and agreements established five years ago, instead of advancing progress on those principles and agreements", he said.
Non-governmental organizations had tried to play a constructive role, Mr. Dunyon added. Financial blockages had plagued negotiations during the past five years and an intergovernmental panel to negotiate solutions had been proposed. On transportation, one of the fundamental principles of Rio, the "polluter pays" principle, was not being addressed by governments and attractive alternative mechanisms had been suggested to deal with the issue. On energy, "we've illustrated the job benefits and the improvement in the quality of life which would come about from investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, as well as the straightforward climate change advantages", he said.
None of those proposals had been received with any enthusiasm or vision, he added. "Instead, we're given excuses as to why they cannot be adopted and we're used as trading pawns between the power blocks within this process."
"What we want to see is world leaders admitting that they cannot expect to come to New York in June, give a performance and get the kind of glowing reviews that they enjoyed in Rio five years ago", Mr. Dunyon said. They must understand that there is a crisis of confidence happening here, in these past two weeks, and that there are only a few weeks to dispel it. We, as NGOs, hope they hear the warning."
* *** *