ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE, COMMITTEE IS TOLD

Press Release
GA/EF/2875

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE, COMMITTEE IS TOLD

In Name of Trade Liberalization, Wealthy Nations Said to Export Unsustainable Production and Consumption Patterns

More than seven years after the adoption of Agenda 21, serious doubts were being raised about the viability of achieving two apparently competing goals – environmental protection and socio-economic development -- the representative of Pakistan told the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) this afternoon as it continued its consideration of the environment and sustainable development.

The scale of human impact on the environment was determined by the size of human population, the per capita consumption of resources and the technologies used to exploit those resources, he said. Despite the fact that the developing countries had the largest share of the global population, their impact on the environment was not as high as that of the developed countries. Meanwhile, the developed countries, despite their smaller population and access to a large pool of appropriate technologies, continued to pursue unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. Driven by the desire to maximize profits, those unsustainable patterns were now being exported in the name of trade liberalization. The globalization of unsustainable consumption patterns would play havoc with the environment.

India’s representative said that the partnership for sustainable development and environment was based on the premise that environmental problems should not be seen in isolation, and that the basic developmental needs of developing countries needed to be fulfilled. It was also agreed that pressing global environmental concerns required urgent corrective and preventive environmental action by the industrialized world. Few significant steps had been taken by the developed countries to alter their unsustainable consumption and production patterns. They were also reluctant to fulfill their obligations in areas such as cutbacks of emissions.

The representative of the Republic of Moldova said that mankind could not afford to follow the way of economic growth at the expense of

Second Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/EF/2875 19th Meeting (PM) 22 October 1999

natural resources degradation and environmental pollution. It was important to prevent utilization of ecologically harmful and deficient technologies, and his country, like other countries in transition, should not be seen as a market for them. It was also time to speed up the implementation of provisions for the transfer of ecologically safe and highly effective technologies to those countries.

There simply had not been adequate and predictable financial resources from existing financial institutions to implement sustainable development programmes and to develop environmentally sound programmes and projects, said the representative of Nigeria. That and other external circumstances had caused a high level of poverty and a low level of social development, inadequate infrastructure and lack of capital. It represented a huge drawback in the implementation of Agenda 21 in developing countries, especially in Africa.

Australia’s representative said that a key challenge would be to support the development of national environmental and trade policies that were mutually supportive of sustainable development. There were many areas where the linkages between economic activities, trade and the environment were still not adequately understood. However, the seriousness and severity of many environmental, developmental and economic problems pointed to the urgent need for early action to help ensure more positive synergies between economic activities and environmental protection.

An important opportunity for exploration of such synergies, he added, would be provided at the forthcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle. Further trade liberalization coupled with complementary environment policy reform could deliver economic, environmental and developmental dividends.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Belarus, the Philippines, Kenya, Argentina, Ukraine, Poland, Guatemala and Bulgaria. The representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 25 October, to continue its consideration of the environment and sustainable development.

Committee Work Programme

The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the environment and sustainable development. For background, see Press Release GA/EF/2874, issued this morning.

Statements

KOICHIRO SEKI (Japan) said that Japan had made it a top priority to bring about the conditions necessary for the early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. In its review, the international community must build highly credible and feasible systems to implement the Kyoto mechanisms established under the Protocol, so that genuinely effective measures against global warming could be taken. Japan also recognized the need to adopt a protocol on biosafety. It believed that the protocol should be agreed upon on the basis of the latest scientific knowledge and data, and in such a way as to allow the maximum number of parties to accede to it.

He drew attention to the importance of addressing the issue of coherence among multilateral environmental agreements. As a result of international efforts made so far in the field, there were now a variety of international instruments. Tackling global environmental issues naturally required the efforts of the entire international community. Therefore, it was very important to induce members of the international community to take appropriate measures and to secure compliance with those international norms. To achieve that objective, effective and efficient implementation of those agreements should be promoted. Also, better coordination or some kind of synergy of agreements were needed.

ULADZIMIR GERUS (Belarus) said that last year was noted for significant steps taken on the regional level to enhance the implementation of Agenda 21. He hoped that efforts to reform the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) would be carried out quickly and efficiently. Eastern Europe had seen a deterioration of the environment, in part, as a result of armed conflict. Belarus supported the work started in May in Geneva by a United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)/UNEP task force for the Balkans. In the preparation for the special session, the involvement of the private sector and non-governmental organizations would make it possible to hold substantial discussions about the implementation of Agenda 21.

His Government had taken consistent and practical measures to promote implementation of the Agenda. It was working on solutions in the area of gas emissions. And it was working out a national climate programme. Although it supported international cooperation in efforts directed at implementation, it was still concerned about the performance of countries in transition.

JAYANT MALHOUTRA (India) said the partnership for sustainable development and environment was based on the premise that environmental problems should not be seen in isolation, and that the basic developmental needs of developing countries needed to be fulfilled. It was also agreed that pressing global environmental concerns required urgent environmental action, both corrective and preventive, by the industrialized world. Few significant steps had been taken by the developed countries to alter their unsustainable consumption and production patterns. They were also reluctant to fulfil their obligations in areas such as cutbacks of emissions. He was also concerned about the lack of progress on the question of transfer of environmentally sound technologies on concessional and preferential terms.

India had been an early signatory of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. He hoped that the Convention would attract universal accession at an early date, but it was a matter of concern that the Convention continued to experience major financial constraint. In the context of the Convention on Biodiversity, the issue of the development of proprietary patents based on biodiversity/traditional knowledge of indigenous communities had to be addressed. There was a clear and pressing need to extend and render effective protection to indigenous biotechnology, developed over the millennia, to ensure a flowback of benefits from patentees to original developers.

India’s approach to the sustainable development of small island developing States had involved programmes for maintenance, regeneration and restoration of the ecosystem, with the objective of restoring the productive potential and providing employment to local communities. Decentralization and involvement of local communities had been an effective way of managing that process, which also required creation of local bodies and institutional structures. Therefore, human resource development, administrative capacity-building, access to information and professional knowledge were crucial, he said.

LIBRAN N. CABACTULAN (Philippines) said that his country had been among the first to respond to Agenda 21’s call for the establishment of national sustainable development commissions or similar structures to propagate the seeds of sustainable development. The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development was a body composed of government, business and civil society, and was a vehicle for consensus-building on issues relating to the environment and development.

While the success of Agenda 21 ultimately rested on the countries themselves, the United Nations system could not be excused if it was not doing its part. The Philippines expected the system to intensify its efforts to develop new or rationalize existing guidelines used by international organizations in their policy advisory services and technical cooperation. It also expected the United Nations to strengthen its capacities through coordinated and coherent action to translate the outcomes of policy deliberations in the Commission on Sustainable Development. Further, it expected the United Nations system to be assertive in making full use of modern information and communication technology to enhance coordination and promote synergies among the activities of its bodies, agencies, and funds and programmes.

The Commission, at its seventh session, had reaffirmed that the principal goals of changing consumption and production patterns should be pursued by all countries, with the developed countries taking the lead. It was now important to clarify and develop comparable indicators for such purposes. National sustainable development commissions or councils should also monitor what had been done thus far and document best practices, which other countries might find useful to emulate.

NAVID HANIF (Pakistan) said that more than seven years after the adoption of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, sustainable development remained a mirage. Serious doubts were being raised about the viability of achieving two apparently competing goals -– environmental protection and socio-economic development. The scale of human impact on the environment was determined by the size of human population, the per capita consumption of resources, and the technologies used to exploit those resources. Despite the fact that the developing countries had the largest share of the global population, their impact on the environment was not as high as that of the developed countries. The efforts of the South to minimize their environmental impact were frustrated by the lack of resources and denial of environmentally sound technologies on preferential and concessional terms.

The developed countries, he continued, despite their smaller population and access to a large pool of appropriate technologies, continued to pursue unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. Driven by the desire to maximize profits, those unsustainable patterns were now being exported in the name of trade liberalization. The globalization of unsustainable consumption patterns would play havoc with the environment. The continuing growth in global population, rising poverty levels, unsustainable patterns of consumption and production in developed countries, and tight control on the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries would turn the international community away from the goals of the Rio Conference.

M.K. IBRAHIM (Nigeria) said that, without a doubt, a number of positive results had been achieved since the Rio environmental meeting. Among them were the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the “polluter pays” principle, and the environmental-impact assessment principle. The Nigerian Government had initiated major policy measures in many areas that would compliment and facilitate the implementation of the country’s Agenda 21 programmes, such as the provision of rural electrification and the ban on export of wood until 25 per cent reserve forest cover was achieved. A Ministry of Environment had also been established.

He regretted that in Nigeria there were still several areas where only marginal progress had been recorded in implementing Agenda 21. There simply had not been adequate and predictable financial resources from existing financial institutions to implement sustainable development programmes and to develop environmentally sound programmes and projects. That and other external circumstances had caused a high level of poverty and a low level of social development, inadequate infrastructure and lack of capital. It represented a huge drawback in the implementation of Agenda 21 in developing countries, especially in Africa, he said.

JOHN K.A. KOECH (Kenya) said that mutually supportive efforts at the national and international levels were needed in the pursuit of sustainable development. Without identifying suitable and practical mechanisms for poverty reduction, especially in developing countries, it would be extremely difficult to attain sustainable development. The problem of poverty was compounded by the expansion of urban centres, bringing about greater challenges in environmental management. While there were no easy solutions, attempts should be made to create a conducive international economic environment to stimulate greater economic development in the developing countries. The question of changing consumption and production patterns should be addressed in conjunction with the consideration of agriculture, financial resources, trade and investment in the year 2000 and energy and transport in the year 2001. Suitable policies to address those problems must be identified.

With regard to international conventions on the environment, Kenya supported the speeding up of negotiations on persistent organic pollutants , he said, as one way of reducing the pollution of the environment by harmful pesticides and chemicals. Also, negotiations on the bio-safety protocol should be concluded as soon as possible. That protocol was important to all countries, especially those in the developing world, and to any future protocols that might need to be negotiated under the Biological Diversity Convention.

KAREN JORGENSEN, Officer-in-Charge, Sustainable Energy Environment Division, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said that people had often overlooked the strong focus of Agenda 21 on poverty and its emphasis on the sustainable development of natural resources as the principal weapon in the fight to eradicate poverty. The Poverty and Environment Initiative, which the UNDP sponsored jointly with the European Commission, was designed to provide a forum for policy makers, technical experts, development practitioners and researchers to share their experiences and explore innovative ways to promote both poverty eradication and environmental regeneration.

The Initiative had revealed that –- when given the opportunity –- poor people were more than willing to do their fair share to manage sustainable natural resources and upgrade the environment. In order to develop and share successful approaches in partnership with political leaders, the Initiative had sponsored a Forum of Ministers on Poverty and Environment. The Forum had discussed practical ways to build partnerships with the poor for building better livelihoods and healthier environments. It had also discussed the possibilities for developing and strengthening State and civil society institutions.

Capacity 21 provided a unique type of assistance, with the flexibility to take strategic risk. It promoted participation, encouraged decentralization, stimulated integration across sectors and worked with governments, the private sector and civil society. The programme was a tool for nations to meet the target of establishing national strategies for sustainable development. It focused on programming, mainstreaming, information and networking.

Through the Poverty and Environment Initiative, Capacity 21 and other programmes, the UNDP attached great importance to the implementation of Agenda 21, and was committed to continued collaboration with its partners in government, civil society and the private sector to make development socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

GUSTAVO AINCHIL (Argentina) said that the consideration of areas, such as oceans and seas, tourism and patterns of consumption and production, by the Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session demonstrated progress in the treatment of such complex subjects. In a globalized world, the needs of developing countries ranged from the provision of safe drinking water to changing patterns of consumption and production. The implementation of Agenda 21 was crucial for poverty eradication. If one were to look at the various questions associated with sustainable development from a historical standpoint, many of the aims seemed very poor, considering the advanced technology with which human beings were entering the third millennium. The world economy had passed through some critical moments, but there had still been some moments of real growth.

The Secretary-General’s report indicated the meagre support received for the implementation of Agenda 21, not only in the financial area but also in the institutional area, he said. Argentina believed that the international community, governments and international agencies should once again focus around the goals which had inspired the Rio Earth Summit. The international solidarity demonstrated at Rio could not be allowed to be diluted now. The Secretary-General’s report was an appeal which could not be ignored. All States and agencies must develop the necessary measures to comply with the undertakings assumed by the international community in 1992.

V. RESHETNIAK (Ukraine) said that despite some progress at the national and international levels, many global environmental trends continued to cause grave concern. Ecological degradation, pollution and the disappearance of rare species had not been halted. The global warming caused by the emission of greenhouse gases had already affected parts of the Earth. Following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Ukraine had found itself with a severely unbalanced production structure dominated by enterprises of heavy industry, which utilized ineffective and ecologically unsafe technologies and drove Ukraine to sixth place on the list of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. Therefore, the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was of vital importance for Ukraine’s social and economic development. Supporting the principles of that Convention, Ukraine signed the Kyoto Protocol in March.

National ecological policy, he said, focused on the introduction of modern energy-saving technologies and effective control mechanisms and on providing technological support, which would reduce the pressure of industry on the environment. He, therefore, considered the flexible mechanisms to be a promising means of achieving reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a most cost-effective and efficient way. He welcomed the measures aimed at accelerating their implementation.

VITALIE ROBU (Republic of Moldova) said that humankind could not afford to pursue economic growth at the expense of natural resource degradation and environmental pollution. It was important to prevent the use of ecologically harmful and deficient technologies. His country, like other countries in transition, should not be seen as a market for them. It was also time to speed up the implementation of the provisions regarding the transfer of ecologically safe and highly effective technologies to those countries.

The global climate change had a negative effect on all countries, he said, but especially on those where the share of agricultural production dominated the economy. In Moldova, the number of years with abnormal weather conditions had considerably increased within the last two decades, with negative consequences for agriculture. The solution of existing ecological problems was possible, provided that declarations and political appeals were followed by practical steps and real financial resources. At the same time, the principle of global responsibility should be applied according to the degree of negative effect countries inflicted upon the global environment.

ZBIGNIEW MATUSZEWSKI (Poland) said that to cope effectively with the challenges posed by environmental degradation, the international community must invest its institutions with the capacity to function with a sufficient degree of flexibility, allowing for proper coordination and synergy of actions. The UNEP must continue to develop an approach combining in an innovative way the ability to make appropriate use of scientific advances and of information with catalytic potential for environmental protection.

His Government had introduced the principles of sustainable development into its National Environmental Policy, he said, in particular, those relating to the integration of its economic, social and ecological components. All national policies, strategies and sectoral programmes were based on the principles of Agenda 21. An additional stimulus to further the consolidation of environmental protection in Poland came from the process of integration with the European Union and a firm commitment by Poland to harmonize its policies with Union standards. His country was also an active supporter of regional efforts aimed at enhancing implementation of Agenda 21’s recommendations.

GEOFFREY PROSSER (Australia) said that as an intersessional activity for the eighth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD8), Australia would host an international conference and exhibition in Melbourne, from 2 to 5 March 2000, entitled International Landcare 2000. That conference would provide an opportunity to explore how communities, agencies, business and governments around the world were working together to address issues, such as sustainable agriculture, sustainable communities, biodiversity and greenhouse emissions. Proceedings would be fed into the CSD8 process. One of the key challenges for CSD8 would be to support the development of mutually supportive national environmental and trade policies in favour of sustainable development. There were many areas where the linkages between economic activities, trade and the environment were still not adequately understood. However, the seriousness and severity of many environmental, developmental and economic problems pointed to the urgent need for early action to help ensure more positive synergies between economic activities and environmental protection.

An important opportunity for exploration of positive synergies between environment and trade would be provided at the forthcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle, he continued. A key priority in future trade negotiations should be reform of trade distortions that also had adverse environmental impacts, including subsidies in the agriculture and fisheries sectors. Further trade liberalization, coupled with complementary environment policy reform, could deliver economic, environmental and developmental dividends.

SILVIA CRISTINA CORADO-CUEVAS (Guatemala) said that the integration of sustainable development policies in Guatemala and the majority of Central American countries was an example of the political will required to achieve sustainable development and, at the same time, protect the vitality and diversity of the land, for the benefit of present and future generations. Democracy and economic and social development were not sustainable unless the environment and natural resources were preserved. Regionally, sustainable development had become central to policy. Guatemala had created National Development Councils, which assured the participation of civil society. There had also been intense negotiations with the private sector to establish norms and regulations in the productive and industrial areas.

Climate change worried her country, she said, because of its implications for the economy and the population. International action was necessary to counteract that phenomenon, which was aggravated by natural disasters and El Niño. All countries should strive to comply with their emission-reduction targets. She expressed her solidarity with small island developing States and shared the Caribbean concern about the maritime transportation of dangerous, contaminating and nuclear materials. She urged all countries to comply with the regulations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

ZVETOLYUB BASMAJIEV (Bulgaria) said his country remained committed to Agenda 21 and the Rio principles. He reiterated the urgency of the need to accelerate the comprehensive implementation of Agenda 21 and the programme of action, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Regarding the follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and other United Nations conferences, actions must take place primarily at the national level, with governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and others as the main actors. An important part of the United Nations role was to facilitate cooperation among those actors to enhance action at the national level. On the verge of a new millennium, adequate and comprehensive preparations were needed for the 10-year review of the global implementation of Agenda 21, and for assessment of progress in the endeavour to achieve sustainable development.

* *** *