PRESS CONFERENCE ON OUTCOME OF FIFTH SESSION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Press Briefing
PRESS CONFERENCE ON OUTCOME OF FIFTH SESSION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
19970428
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
The Chairman of the just concluded session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, Mostafa Tolba (Egypt), told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference on Friday afternoon, 25 April, that he wished he could tell them that the draft final document, to be presented to the special session of the General Assembly to review implementation of Agenda 21 had been adopted. However, several elements were still being negotiated and "almost everything was hanging".
The Commission's session as a preparatory body for the special session would not end with a "clean text" but with one which had a number of brackets, he said. [The Assembly's special session will be held from 23 to 27 June, five years after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, June, 1992), which adopted Agenda 21, a programme of action towards sustainable development.] So, the Commission would only adopt decisions related to its next session's agenda which would, in turn, depend on the outcome of the special session.
He said it had been "very difficult" to negotiate a proposed final text during the current session. Participants knew that what emerged from the negotiations would become a General Assembly draft resolution to be submitted to a large number of heads of State and government for adoption. Therefore, delegates were very keen that every comma was in place. Negotiations on many topics had not yet finished and he did not know how they would be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole which would meet during the five-day special session.
Mr. Tolba said he had just completed informal consultations with the heads of the regional groups, the United States and other representatives on the draft declaration part of the proposed final document. He was pleased that it "did not create violent objection" and it was viewed as "containing all the elements needed in a declaration" and as "a balanced presentation between the expectations of the developed and the developing countries". It would be the base for the actual negotiations which he hoped would be finalized before the special session. Four weeks would be needed for governments to examine the draft which, he stressed, was not a final version but a good base for negotiations.
The draft declaration would not be written in "United Nations language" but addressed to the media and the public so they would understand that there
had been action in the last five years, but more need to be done, Mr. Tolba continued. Governments would be given four weeks to respond and then a revised version would be distributed to them before the special session.
There were brackets on the text dealing with forest management and disagreement on whether to have a convention on forests "tomorrow, next century or some time in between", he continued. There was also "a menu" on climate change. Some wanted a 5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, others wanted a 15 per cent reduction and the small island States wanted a 20 per cent reduction from the levels of the 1990s. The target levels were "still up in the air" and would have to be negotiated during the special session.
A correspondent asked how much input would the non-governmental organizations have in the outcome of the special session. Mr. Tolba said the non-governmental organizations had been very active among the delegations. He personally had been given drafts by them which had, in turn, been submitted as proposed drafts by some government delegations. The non-governmental organizations had been influencing governments for 25 years and he liked to see that happening. But he could not accept that non-governmental organizations did not have influence, as some had stated.
Another correspondent asked how the draft declaration and the "various menus" would be presented. Mr. Tolba said everything would be included in what was being referred to as the negotiated text. The draft declaration would be a couple of pages long and would acknowledge achievements and state what still needed to be done. The attached document, or menu, would give details of further goals in specific areas.
How much of the spirit of the Rio Earth Summit was still present in New York in 1997? a correspondent asked. Mr. Tolba said that he had been "presently surprised" at the continuous give and take among delegations. It had been easier at the intersessional consultations where people had listened to other points of view. Those consultations concluded with a Co-Chairmen's text which was not owned by anyone. But the negotiated text coming out of the Commission's current session was owned by governments and that was why there had been so many arguments and brackets to the text.
Was the text an advance on Rio or a retreat? the same correspondent asked. There was a problem with finances which was not a retreat from the official position of governments because they were re-committing themselves to their agreements at Rio, Mr. Tolba replied. But there was a clear retreat from in the area of official development assistance (ODA). In five years, the level of ODA had gone down to 0.27 per cent, he said, noting the agreed United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) to official development assistance (ODA). That was ridiculous and everyone felt uncomfortable with it. It remained to be seen how governments were going to improve their image on that issue over the next five years, he added.
Tolba Briefing - 3 - 28 April 1997
A correspondent asked about energy policy, the position of energy producing countries and about any differences between the United States and the European Union. Mr. Tolba said the position of the energy producing countries was like that of any other producing group. There was a difference in the position between two groups in the North -- between the United States and the European Union. Some were saying there should be an intergovernmental process that dealt with energy issues. The European Union wanted a strategy, China wanted to see a framework for the cooperation and the United States did not want to see a strategy at all.
Hundreds of groups had different positions in negotiations, he continued. The positions on water, tourism and transport were as tough as the ones on forests. There was a difficult situation regarding toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes and an even more difficult position on radioactive wastes. It was illogical to identify any one group or country as creating a problem in negotiations on any particular issue. There were several issues on which countries held different positions. For example, with the proposed convention on forests Japan, the European Union, the United States and the "Group of 77" developing countries all held different positions and some countries were trying to play the "go between" and not succeeding.
Vice-Chairman Bagher Asadi (Iran), also present at the press conference, told correspondents that the draft text on the convention on forests was the result of very intensive and extensive consultations among all parties. Important work had been done so far but a lot remained to be done. One of the controversial areas was the institutional arrangements for the continuation of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. And that whole paragraph remained in brackets.
Most governments favoured the establishment of an intergovernmental forum on forests to be mandated to deal with such matters as the consideration of future institutional arrangements, including a legally binding instrument, he said. The minority view held that an intergovernmental negotiating committee should be established to go ahead with the formulation of a convention. No agreement could be reached and the text was left in brackets for the special session to take up. At least the controversy was on paper and everyone was happy with what had been achieved in the rest of the text, he added.
Vice-Chairman Monika Linn-Locher (Switzerland), also present, said the draft declaration was important because the public must understand what had happened since Rio and they must feel ownership of what was being done. Governments could not implement Agenda 21 on their own and needed public support. The declaration would have simple language to convey the key messages that, despite progress in some areas, a lot more needed to be done and time was of the essence. The concerns of developing countries were important and such issues as finance and transfer of technology would be mentioned. The focus over the next five years would be on some environmental
Tolba Briefing - 4 - 28 April 1997
issues such as freshwater and forests and that must be conveyed in clear and simple language to the public.
Had there been agreement on any issues of substance to move the Rio process along and what would be the result of the special session? a correspondent asked. Mr. Tolba said the outcome -- the programme for further implementation of Agenda 21 -- would identify further objectives which needed to be addressed over the next five to 10 years. The delegations wanted a declaration which they could take to their people to show that their taxes had not been wasted. Governments also wanted concrete examples to show the taxpayers what could be done with additional resources. So, specific targets and goals were needed in the declaration.
A correspondent asked whether non-governmental organizations would be better off lobbying transnational corporations rather than governments. Mr. Tolba said the Commission wanted to reach the media and the non- governmental organizations which were both in direct contact with the public. Nothing would be implemented unless there was movement on resources and transfer of technology. It was also up to the media in the developing countries to emphasize that action was not a one-way street, but a partnership and that people in the third world had obligations too.
Ms. Linn-Locher said sustainable development was a long-term process and unless the public was convinced that change was needed, and unless sustainable production and consumption patterns were addressed, politicians would not be able to take the necessary measures. People must be made aware of what was at stake and the necessary action.
A correspondent said he did not buy the message that the governments had to bring their people along. Rather, the situation was one of governments catching up with their people. Mr. Tolba said the public had been impressed with the press coverage following the Rio Summit and had begun to pass their concerns along to their governments. But the media had not given the same attention to sustainable development as they had to the environment issue.
In response to another question, Mr. Tolba said the main point of the draft declaration was that, as a result of Agenda 21, there had been better management of the environment. But governments could improve the lives of their people. In the next five years energies would focus on dealing with clean water, forests, oceans, transport, tourism and the small island States.
* *** *