PREPARING GROUND FOR "RIO+10" REVIEW, DELEGATES PONDER BARRIERS TO FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF 1992 COMMITMENTS

Press Release
ENV/DEV/543

PREPARING GROUND FOR ‘RIO+10’ REVIEW, DELEGATES PONDER BARRIERS TO FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF 1992 COMMITMENTS

Ten years after Rio, new impetus was the goal all could agree upon, Jurgen Trittin, Germany's Minister for Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, told the Commission on Sustainable Development this afternoon, as it held its high-level meeting focusing on preparations for the 2002 review of progress since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, 1992).

The discussion was part of a two-day high-level segment of the Commission, which monitors implementation of Agenda 21 -- the plan of action adopted in Rio. Government ministers and representatives put forward their positions regarding the venue, nature and desired outcome of the review, as well as the preparatory process preceding it.

Compared with the expectations raised in 1992, much remained to be done, Mr. Trittin added. The most important issues the review should focus on were poverty and environment, and resource efficiency. One of the review's main outcomes should be a worldwide sustainable energy strategy.

Among the other suggested topics were the link between poverty and environment, the reversal of the decline of natural resources, and the move towards sustainable production and consumption patterns. The majority of delegations felt the review should not renegotiate the agreements made in Rio but rather focus on further efforts for its implementation.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Jose Socrates Carvalho Pinto De Sousa, Portugal's Minister of Environment and Land Use Planning, said the review should highlight progress made, as well as address the new challenges and opportunities that had emerged since Rio. Also, the active participation of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, the scientific community and the business sector, were crucial not only for the review but also for the preparatory process. Further, an action-oriented agenda was critical to attract high-level participation.

While it was generally agreed that the review should be held in a developing country, preferably in Africa, delegations differed as to where exactly it should be held. Also, the establishment of a trust fund for

Sustainable Development Commission - 1a - Press Release ENV/DEV/543 8th Meeting (PM) 26 April 2000

voluntary contributions was suggested by some to facilitate representation by all States.

The Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Nitin Desai, said the most important question about “Rio+10” was, what did countries expect to achieve from the review process? He suggested that the focus of the preparatory work be on how to ensure an effective analysis of the barriers to the full implementation of the Rio commitments, and ensure effective undertakings to overcome those barriers. Issues that had not been dealt with in the prior review should now be addressed, such as linkages, financial resources and technology transfer.

Yolanda Kakabadse, President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, said that in 1992 a process had been launched to strengthen the link between environment and development. “What did we want in 2002?” she asked. “Did we wish to have a follow-up or make an evaluation? Or would a new vision for the next 10 or 20 years be developed?” It must be defined, she said, whether or not the conference would review all of Agenda 21 or the concept of sustainable development itself. It was important, in considering 2002, that focus not be on the event but rather on the process from now until then.

The Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Klaus Topfer, said that there had been much discussion of the "spirit of Rio". In retrospect, it was clear that it had been an emotionally driven spirit based on the hope that poverty could be eradicated. While it was necessary to assess progress made since Rio, the review should not be overloaded. He added that the name of the conference should also be discussed, since in a media-driven world it was important to give a message in the title.

Statements were also made this afternoon by the Government ministers and representatives of Nigeria (on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China), Japan, Finland, Canada, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Cuba, United Kingdom, Poland, Switzerland, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Russian Federation, Mexico, Argentina, Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, France, Bolivia, Sudan, United States, Egypt, South Africa, Guyana, Honduras and Belgium. A representative of the Official Youth Delegation of the Netherlands spoke on behalf of non-governmental organizations.

The Commission will meet again at 6 p.m. to hold a high-level meeting focusing on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests.

Sustainable Development Commission - 3 - Press Release ENV/DEV/543 8th Meeting (PM) 26 April 2000

Commission Work Programme

The eighth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development met this afternoon to hold its second high-level meeting, focusing on preparations for the 2002 review of progress since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro. The Commission monitors implementation of Agenda 21, the plan of action adopted at that Conference. (For background on the reports before the high-level segment, see Press Release ENV/DEV/542 issued today.)

Statements

NITIN DESAI, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, said that the most important question about “Rio+10” was, what did countries expect to achieve from the review process? The focus had to be on implementation. What had stood in the way of the implementation of commitments made in Rio and since then? He suggested that the focus of the debate be on how to ensure an effective analysis of the barriers to the full implementation of the Rio commitments and ensure effective commitments to solve the problems of that implementation.

The focus of the Commission had to be on the integration of environment and development, he said. In the years since Rio, there had been a movement away from a chapter-by-chapter review to a sector-by-sector review. The Commission should, at its current session, request Member States to set up a national process to prepare for the review. Issues that had not been addressed in the prior review should be addressed, such as linkages, financial resources and technology transfer. A new question was how the capacity of governments to address long-term questions was affected by financial crises.

While examining what had not been done so far, what had been done must also be recognized, he continued. “Could we identify 100 of the most useful and successful initiatives undertaken so far?” The mobilization of political will for implementation was also a priority.

YOLANDA KAKABADSE, President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, said that in 1992, a process had been launched to strengthen the link between environment and development. “What did we want in 2002?” she asked. “Did we wish to have a follow-up or make an evaluation? Or would a new vision for the next 10 or 20 years be developed?” It must be defined whether or not the Conference would review all of Agenda 21, or the concept of sustainable development itself. Some people were questioning the legitimacy of the term “sustainable development”. Also, a smokescreen was being produced to justify action that was not conducive to sustainable development. While the topics of finance and trade were important, conservation must not be forgotten. It was important in considering 2002, that focus not be on the event, but rather on the process from now until then.

KLAUS TOPFER, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said that there had been much discussion of the "spirit of Rio". In retrospect, it was clear that it had been an emotionally driven spirit based on the hope that poverty could be eradicated. The outcome of Rio was very well known. Going into Rio +10, it was a question of cost. An assessment about Rio +10 should not be made in the Commission, but it was necessary that an assessment be made before the event. There was no need for a re-opening of Agenda 21. While it was necessary to assess progress made since Rio, Rio +10 should not be overloaded. The question of location must also be answered. Learning from the most important bottlenecks after Rio, the Commission should do everything possible to bring Rio +10 to developing countries.

The name of the conference should also be discussed, he said. In a media driven world, it was important to give a message in the title. The topic to be discussed at Rio +10 should be poverty eradication, with a link to the environment. In other words, overcoming poverty in a way that would not be at the expense of the environment. The word sustainability should not be used in an inflationary sense. Since Rio, globalization had increased tremendously. Other questions to be addressed, including the question of liability of private investment in foreign countries and standards for investment in certain industrialized areas.

O.A. EDACHE, Minister of Agriculture of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that the 10-year review conference should be held at the Summit level outside of New York in a developing country. The choice of venue should be resolved by the developing countries themselves. The Group believed that the Commission should be transformed into a preparatory commission with equal participation of all Member States. A trust fund should be established to facilitate the participation of developing countries in the event. The national preparatory processes should commence immediately, include all major groups and review the implementation of Agenda 21. Regional preparatory processes should be established to determine regional priorities.

The Group recognized that the lack of implementation stemmed from the lack of financial resources and the heavy burden on developing countries, most of which had been saddled with heavy debt burden and economic difficulties, he said. The United Nations bodies involved with environmental issues should be given a role to facilitate the preparatory process, under the overall coordination of the Commission. The Group would not agree to any proposal that would manifest or indirectly be interpreted as a negotiation of Agenda 21.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, JOSE SOCRATES CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA, Minister of Environment and Land Use Planning of Portugal, said efforts towards achieving sustainable development must be revitalized, with new partners brought into the process and the commitment of the international community strengthened. The 2002 summit should highlight progress made, as well as the problems in implementing Agenda 21. It should also address the new challenges and opportunities that had emerged since Rio. The Commission’s tenth session should serve as the preparatory committee for the summit. Building on the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, the summit should assess future challenges and provide guidance in addressing them.

The Union, he continued, would prepare by 2001 a long-term strategy for sustainable development that integrated the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. He supported the active participation of civil society in the summit, including non-governmental organizations, the scientific community and the business sector. That was crucial not only for the summit, but also for the preparatory process. He preferred to hold the summit outside New York, preferably in a developing country. A trust fund for voluntary contributions should be established to facilitate the adequate representation of representatives of all governments. In addition, an action-oriented agenda was critical to attract high-level participation.

The summit should not renegotiate what was agreed to at Rio, but focus on further efforts for implementation, he said. It should also address new challenges, such as poverty and environment, the reversal of the decline of natural resources, the movement towards sustainable production and consumption patterns, and strengthening the institutional framework for sustainable development. Also, the summit would be an excellent opportunity to celebrate the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. He urged countries to adopt 2002 as the target date for that instrument’s ratification.

ICHITA YAMAMOTO, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that each State needed to redouble its national efforts to achieve sustainable development. He was conscious of the handicaps of developing countries and, hence, the need to assist them in their pursuit of sustainable development. The summit should be a comprehensive review of progress made and should also consider the new challenges and develop measures to address them. Among the issues to be addressed was using market mechanisms effectively and finding ways of increasing business and employment opportunities relating to global environmental issues. Also, the summit should consider moving towards more sustainable patterns of production and consumption through implementation of appropriate policy mixes. In addition, it should identify areas where more scientific data and more probing assessments needed to be incorporated.

With respect to the preparatory process, he suggested the establishment of a working group of experts and the convening of a group of eminent persons. Those groups could play a prominent role in providing inputs to the preparatory sessions, under the aegis of the Commission. They would be entrusted with the task of identifying, scientifically and objectively, from among the new challenges and opportunities that had emerged since UNCED, priority issues where further efforts were needed. They would then explore concrete strategies for addressing those priority issues, based on the outcome of the meetings of the working group of experts.

SATU HASSI, Minister of the Environment and Development Cooperation of Finland, said that the Summit needed a focused agenda that addressed a limited number of key future priorities. It should be an all encompassing, interactive dialogue between heads of governments, business leaders, scientists and key persons of non-governmental organizations. It was a partnership and needed the constructive participation of all stakeholders, not only in the Summit but in the whole process. To avoid confrontation and misunderstanding, all those partners must be inside the plenary halls, not outside demonstrating, as they did in Seattle.

The Summit should have a “win-win” strategy, she continued. The three aspects of development had been seen as conflicting. However, it was possible to find solutions in which all aspects -- social, economic and ecological -- were winners. Both economy and ecology were about resource efficiency. Wasting natural resources was, in the long run, not economical. Regarding measurable targets, it was the duty of industrialized countries to set targets for ecological efficiency. Regarding location of the conference, the invitations by two countries to host the conference was encouraging. It was important that the summit take place in a developing country, and it would be preferable to have the conference in either Africa or Asia.

DAVID ANDERSON, Minister of the Environment of Canada, said that although the world had changed since 1992, the commitment to change remained largely unfulfilled. Public support for the process must be restored. Rio +10 must have a clear and forward-looking agenda focused on strategic, cross-cutting issues. The Commission should be used for preparation for the meeting. Inclusivity would be key to the event's success.

His Government proposed that a review and appraisal of the progress of Agenda 21 be carried out at the tenth session of the Commission. Rio +10 must be reserved for action, he said. Sectoral discussions should be kept within the framework of preparatory work. Examples of cross-cutting issues included energy, poverty, capacity-building and science. Regarding outputs, the focus should shift away from a declaration document. Policy statements could not be the measure of success of Rio +10.

CHARLES GOERENS, Minister of Environment of Luxembourg, said that Rio +10 should not call into question the achievements of Rio, but examine the obstacles to the implementation of Agenda 21. Among those obstacles were unsustainable production and consumption patterns. There must be a message of solidarity. How could developing countries reduce their carbon dioxide emissions if industrialized countries could not honour their own Rio commitments? he asked. Distances were narrowing and borders were disappearing, both of which highlighted the interdependent relationship between human beings. The responses arrived at at the summit should be national and multinational, individual and collective. Next week, his Government would announce a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in his country. He hoped that it would be possible to win the bet of Rio. Individual health depended on collective conduct.

MILOS KUZVART, Minister of the Environment of the Czech Republic, said that Agenda 21 was designed as a blueprint for the twenty-first century. The new millennium had arrived and the question was how far had countries come in their implementation of commitments for sustainable development. The summit should be held outside New York and in a developing country, preferably in Africa. The preparations for it must start immediately. Many international and intergovernmental organizations were already preparing for the summit and that momentum should not be wasted. Governments should be requested to start preparations for Rio +10 and mobilize the relevant civil society actors.

The economic and social aspects of sustainable development should be given further consideration, he said. The highest priority should be given to the conservation of biological diversity and climate change. Also, the role of indicators was important and he supported their development and broad use. The summit should produce a visionary and forward-looking final document.

JURGEN TRITTIN, Minister for Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety of Germany, said that compared with the expectations raised in 1992, much remained to be done. The implementation of the results of UNCED was still an issue. Ten years after Rio, new impetus was the goal all could agree upon. The most important issues that the conference should focus on were poverty and environment, and resource efficiency. The summit in 2002 was an opportunity to put far more emphasis on those issues than before. One of the main outputs of the conference in 2002 should be a worldwide sustainable energy strategy.

To ensure success of the summit, it must receive public and media attention, he continued. Governments should commit themselves to giving the 2002 event the high level status it deserved, by having heads of state and government attending the conference. Non-governmental organizations must also build partnerships and raise awareness among the general public. The conference should reiterate the important role of the participation of major stakeholders. The Summit should also have a strong and comprehensive involvement by the private sector. In view of the environmental and development pressures that the African continent was facing, the 2002 summit should take place in that region. Germany welcomed South Africa's offer to host the conference.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said that despite efforts, no advancement had been made in sustainable development programmes. Neo-liberal globalization had brought about growing inequality. The process could only lead to an economic disaster. The current financial and economic system could not meet the needs of developing countries. Cuba had been faced with a deep economic crisis. It was not always countries of the third world that needed knowledge or capacity to deal with problems related to the environment.

The Rio +10 process was a great challenge to all and all United Nations members must participate on an equal footing, he said. Cuba supported the Group of 77 proposal to hold the review of the implementation of the Rio Summit agreements in a developing country. Cuba would continue to devote its efforts to contribute to the implementation of Agenda 21.

MICHAEL MEACHER, Minister for the Environment of the United Kingdom, said that 2002 would give fresh political impetus to the implementation of sustainable development. To secure real political change, an event at the heads of government level would be necessary. Heads of government would want to deliver specific initiatives, such as the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, more radical action programmes on fisheries, food, security, freshwater and forests, and strengthening of the institutional capacity of the United Nations to deliver sustainable development.

Development must be put back into the "heart of the Rio debate", he said. The gap between rich and poor was growing wider every day. The theme for Rio +10 should be "poverty, development and the environment". The United Kingdom had made the international development targets the centrepiece of its development policy. Two targets must be addressed by Rio +10. The first was that all countries should have a sustainable development strategy in place by 2002. The second was that those strategies should be implemented by 2005, so as to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources were effectively reversed at both global and national levels by 2015.

The involvement of civil society and business would be crucial to the success of Rio +10, he added. Regarding location, the event should be held in a developing country. South Africa would be his personal preference.

ANTONI TOKARCZUK, Minister of Environment of Poland, said that the review should enable the international community to do three things. First, to determine the areas of progress, remaining problems and new challenges. Second, to assess existing instruments, including financing, and the potential to develop new ones. Third, to mobilize political support for the further implementation of Agenda 21, the solid foundation for achieving global sustainable development. Agenda 21 should not be renegotiated and the review should not be limited only to Agenda 21.

Poverty was among the major obstacles to the achievement of sustainable development, he said. Another problem was changing consumption and production patterns, for which globalization might have a negative impact. Another issue was energy, which was the factor determining economic and social development and the major unsustainable user and polluter of natural resources. Regarding forests, while appreciating the progress at the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, he believed that the final solution, namely a new legally-binding global agreement, seemed very far away.

He proposed that the review focus on means and instruments to reverse the trends of consumption and production. Those means included improving information for decision-making, including development of new and objective indicators for sustainable development, and enhancing public participation in decision-making processes.

PHILIPPE ROCH, Director of the Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscapes of Switzerland, said that the review should look to the future and not just assess the past. In order to present an honourable summary in two years, major steps were needed, including the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the Bio-Safety Protocol. The work done on forests must be assimilated into a solid framework, so as to forge a political commitment for the conservation of forests. Work was needed to further strengthen UNEP and the Global Environmental Facility. Also, it was necessary to question the functioning and status of the Commission itself, which had proved its unique role as a platform for dialogue between various stakeholders. It was a platform which had to be further strengthened and conserved.

JOSE CARLOS CARVALHO, Vice-Minister, Ministry of the Environment of Brazil, said that the achievements of Rio were only possible due to the unprecedented commitment of the international community, represented at the highest political level. Its cornerstone was the principle of the common, but differentiated responsibilities of States. The 10-year review should be an exercise that reinforced political support to the commitments undertaken in 1992, taking into account the social and economic aspects inherent to environment. To ensure that the review was efficient, it should be preceded by an intergovernmental preparatory process open to all countries. Holding the event outside New York would ensure greater consideration and visibility. It should take place in a developing country, which would help reaffirm the importance of the developmental aspects of the decisions taken at Rio.

The debate on environment and sustainable development had the active participation of both government and civil society in his country, he said. Brazilians were clearly willing to turn the Agenda 21 guidelines into reality. They were committed to seeking living standards that were compatible with the environment and with eradicating social distortions that still existed. Both of those were essential conditions to achieve the greater objective of sustainable development. He offered the city of Rio de Janeiro as host to the 2002 review.

MURAT MUSATAEV, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Kazakhstan, said that his country's long-term development strategy included environmental priorities as the prerequisites for future development. Regional cooperation in Central Asia had been important, as the common environmental and economic problems of Central Asia needed common and coordinated actions of all the countries in that region. Consensus regarding regional environmental priorities had been reached and the development of a regional Agenda 21 had started. He made a number of proposals, including conducting a review of the Rio process in the Central Asian region in preparation for Rio +10. Kazakhstan was interested in the development of indicators to measure progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, particularly region-specific sustainable development indicators.

BERNARD FAUTRIER (Monaco) said that eight years ago, a major hope was born in Rio with the adoption of Agenda 21 and the commitments undertaken by States. Three years ago, at the five-year review, a lack of progress achieved had been observed. Back then, it had not been possible to agree on a final declaration and the issue of forests had not been addressed. Also, in Kyoto, a number of problems had arisen regarding the Protocol on climate change. It was clear that what was needed was a common political will. He highlighted the need for a regional focus in establishing and implementing a strategy for sustainable development.

Monaco, for its part, had been very concerned and involved with the sustainable development of the Mediterranean region, he said. Over 25 years ago, in the struggle with pollution, the region had organized itself around the Barcelona Declaration. Monaco was also partaking in the drawing up of indicators for its region. The summit should not focus solely on the environmental aspect of sustainable development, but should also take into account its economic and social aspects. He hoped it would take place in a developing country. It was vital that several preliminary sessions be devoted to the preparations for the summit.

SONI KERAF, State Minister of Environment Affairs of Indonesia, said that the 10-year review should be a comprehensive one and seek to mobilize similar political momentum, as was achieved by the Rio Summit. He hoped it would provide a summit-level involvement of all countries for the purpose of both renewing their commitments and of speeding up their implementation in the field. It was essential that the preparatory process be broad, transparent and participatory, and take place not only at the regional and global levels, but also at the national and local levels. During the preparatory process, it was important that progress in implementation at the national level be identified, as well as gaps and obstacles to implementation.

He said that the agreed principles and programmes should not be renegotiated. However, new initiatives, such as sharing best practices, could be considered. While the identification of new challenges should be considered, they should not become a preoccupation during the deliberations. Rather, the focus should be on the main goals of ensuring the full implementation of Agenda 21. He hoped the review would be held in a developing country, preferably an Asian country.

MYUNG-JA KIM, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Korea, said that the Commission should be fully utilized for an exchange of views on the substantive as well as procedural aspects of Rio +10. The theme of the conference should be "Sustainable Development in the Era of Globalization". The 10-year review of UNCED should focus on economic, social and environmental challenges in a rapidly changing world that was heavily influenced by globalization. Under the theme proposed, the agenda should be crafted in a comprehensive yet focused manner. Sustainable economic growth, financial resources and information and communication technologies deserved particular attention.

The persistent underdevelopment and unprecedented environmental challenges were of serious concern to the global community, she said. Rio +10 should be a "World Summit Conference on Sustainable Development", drawing upon the participation of the highest levels in each country. The Republic of Korea shared the view that the 2002 event should take place in either Africa or Asia. Asia was geographically vast and culturally, economically and politically diverse. To promote sustainable development with a vision for the future, Asia would best be suited as a venue for the 2002 event. The Government of the Republic of Korea would be willing to host the event.

KJELL LARSSON, Minister for the Environment of Sweden, said that the preparations for the review must be transparent, open and honest. It should be followed by a forward-looking and bold event that would ensure that concrete and tangible steps for the implementation and financing of Agenda 21 would actually be taken. Sustainable development was a question of survival to be accorded even greater importance than traditional security policy. There must be a strong mobilization of commitment everywhere, at all levels. Several steps needed to be taken. It was time for the young generation to be actively invited and involved in that undertaking.

An active involvement of civil society and the business sector in the 2002 review and its follow-up was a prerequisite for success, he said. The national strategies for sustainable development that should be implemented by 2005 would be key components in the preparations for 2002. The review should have a strong focus on poverty and the environment, the main challenge together with the threats against the global ecosystem, such as climate change. It should advance sustainable consumption and production. Also, the links between environment and security now merited high-level political attention. In addition, it should recommend concrete measures to ensure global financial stability and increased global equality. The experience after Rio clearly demonstrated that the present fragmentation of the global institutional structure for sustainable development did not serve the world's common interests.

A delegate of the Russian Federation said that the next forum should be held in Asia. Financial possibilities should be looked at in order to make the right choice. A small group could be formed to study the proposals and the group’s findings could then be presented to the General Assembly for its review. To implement old ideas, it would not hurt to have new ideas. Political will was needed. Insufficient understanding had led to a lack of political will. New arguments must be introduced into the debate. The need for sustainable development should not be doubted. Agenda 21 should not be revised, but it should be made briefer and clearer.

The representative of Mexico said that the upcoming Conference could be called something other that “Rio +10”; perhaps there would be another name that could be used which would reflect the challenges before the Commission. Also, that Conference should not be an evaluation –- it should be forward-looking.

She went on to say that there should be guarantees that, at least by 2002, all relevant conventions and summits should have concrete, definable aims. There should also be mechanisms for positive synergy between those conventions. She requested that the Secretary-General appoint a group of experts to help with the preparation of the next meeting.

The representative of Argentina said that his delegation was in favour of Rio as the site for the next conference. It was also important that the topic of education and sustainable development be included on the agenda. Concrete sustainable development could not be achieved without education at all levels.

The representative of the Netherlands said the first Rio Conference was one of great expectation and opportunities. The opportunities had been grasped, but not by all. Why was it, he asked, that in the intervening years, some parts of the world had become wealthy, but there was “stagnation” as far as global poverty eradication? Therefore, the main theme of the upcoming conference should include, in some way, the idea that, despite globalization, opportunities were not made available to large parts of the world. “It should be a world summit on the quality of life”, he said.

A representative from Denmark said that he supported the idea that an assessment be made before the meeting, rather than at the meeting. In addressing the issues of poverty eradication and ecological degradation, the Commission should take a point of departure. Globalization and sustainable development was the real challenge and the one topic that would draw heads of government. Globalization was something like opening traffic -- police were needed as well as safe roads. The Summit could not hope to achieve the goals of sustainable development by doing business as usual. The commitment of rich countries was needed.

A representative from New Zealand said that the Summit must focus on involvement and inclusiveness. Rio +10 must be a mechanism that involved people at all levels and through a variety of structures. The call for implementation could only be achieved with the consent of the people. The conference must also have a great name. Rio +10 was not a great one. The Summit must be inclusive. It was true that the people should not be left on the streets. An inclusive summit called for different structures and different styles of meetings. Action must be local and it must start now. Each country had a duty to start now. There was a need to know what had been done. There were also new concerns that must be addressed, such as genetic modification. The preparatory process must be coordinated and balanced. The Commission must prepare, but it must not predetermine.

A representative from France said that there must be a new way of mobilizing young people. As to the demonstrations on the streets, those people must be heard. A bridge between developing and developed countries must be built. Another challenge was that of equity. As to the process for the Summit, it must start now.

A representative from Bolivia said that it was difficult to define topics before the meeting took place. No two people could agree on the most important themes. Bolivia proposed that five themes that appealed to the majority of people be agreed upon. The participation of civil society must be open and substantive. Young people had an important role to play. Protestors on the streets of Latin America, Asia and Africa must also be heard. The process had to be a substantive entity in itself. The regional advisory centres must have the necessary political support from the United Nations and the regional organizations. Bolivia supported having the Summit in Brazil.

KIRSTEN KNIPERS, from the Official Youth Delegation of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of non-governmental organizations, said that youth had a strong role to play in the areas of sustainable development. Agenda 21 recognized the creativity of youth. Governments should support youth non-governmental organizations with the resources to develop their own mechanisms. The independence and integrity of their work must be advanced. Youth should be represented in every governmental delegation and should enjoy full participation in the Summit.

The representative of Egypt said that whatever title the Commission chose for the upcoming review, it should try to avoid what happened in 1992, where the theme for that Conference attempted to “cover everything”. The number of topics should be limited and those should have concrete and identifiable objectives, including goals and financial obligations. It would also be helpful for the heads of both UNEP and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, to handle the preparation for the next conference within their respective secretariats.

The representative of South Africa said that, contrary to the previous statement by Argentina, the Group of 77 had made no suggestions or decisions as to the venue of the next review conference.

She went on to say that the 10-year review process was very important. The event should highlight what had been jointly achieved by all nations to create jobs and feed the hungry and promote other important ideas related to sustainable development. The next review conference should be held in a developing country, and at a high political level. The “holistic” approach to sustainable development should remain a global priority and there should be a fair balance between development and the environment.

The representative of Argentina said that there had been a misunderstanding of what her delegation had said regarding venue; it had merely advanced the position that the Commission look favorably on the candidacy of Brazil as the host of the next conference.

The representative of Guyana emphasized that the next conference should not be “an event”, but an honest and frank look at ways to implement Agenda 21. It should identify the successes and failures since 1992, and particularly examine the constraints to the implementation of Agenda 21, which appeared to be systemic.

The representative of Honduras said that revision of the Rio +10 process was important for her delegation. It was also important to note that the fundamental issue for the next review was compliance with the commitment to sustainable development. Also of importance was the fact that the Commission must examine cultural factors alongside economic and social factors when discussing social development.

The representative of the United States said that there were several important issues to consider when setting the agenda for the next review conference. Among those were: the idea that that conference should not just be a

“conference celebrating a conference”; whatever themes adopted should take into account that poverty and environmental degradation were interrelated; environmental themes should be highlighted; and there should be a discussion on whether the proper institutional arrangements were in place to address the ideas of sustainable development in the twenty-first century.

The representative of Belgium said that ambitions of the meeting in 2002 should focus on the external meanings of economic and social development and their relation to sustainable development. The Commission must not “move backward”, but must look for new ways to address all the issues associated with sustainable development.

A representative of the Sudan said that the youth caucus raised an important issue concerning the trust fund for youth from the South. Setting priorities and modalities was important. Practical issues must be settled. Ultimately, the General Assembly would decide how the meeting would take place.

A representative of a non-governmental organization said that the world had changed since 1992 and the impact of globalization was a crucial aspect to be addressed. The Summit should look at four or five issues. The Summit should look where the majority interests are, such as freshwater, AIDS and energy. Targets should be set for the summit itself. Protocols should be ratified before the summit. It was also important to look at the timetable leading up to the Summit. Regional preparatory meetings should take place in fall 2001.

* *** *