Commission on Sustainable Development

Acting as Preparatory Committee for

 World Summit on Sustainable Development

3^rd Meeting (AM)

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR 2002 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT

DISCUSSES DRAFT PROCEDURAL RULES, PARTICIPATION ARRANGEMENTS

The Commission on Sustainable Development, acting as the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, continued its organizational session this morning with consideration of the draft rules of procedure for the Summit, and arrangements for participation by major groups in the Summit and its preparatory process.

Introducing the report of the Secretary-General on suggested arrangements for the involvement of non-governmental organizations and other major groups, JoAnne Disano, Director, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that the suggested accreditation criteria and procedures were drafted on the basis of those used by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro. 

The suggestions contained in the report aimed to fully utilize the experience of the Commission, particularly its unique multi-stakeholder dialogues, in the Summit and its preparatory process, she said.  The success of the Summit would depend partly on the extent to which major groups were meaningfully engaged in the process and were part of tangible partnerships for action. 

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden said that in order to achieve a positive and forward-looking outcome at the Summit, as well as in the implementation of its results, governments needed the partnerships with both civil society and the private sector, at the local, national and international levels.  The Union welcomed the proposals contained in the report and suggested that the Commission adopt them as proposed. 

Regarding accreditation of non-governmental organizations currently not in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, she noted that the proposed accreditation criteria and procedures were well in line with established United Nations practices and traditions, and hoped that those arrangements could be easily accepted by all partners. 

On the draft rules of procedure, the representative of Iran, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said the major concern for developing countries was the question of the composition of membership of the Bureau for the Summit.  The current 10-member Bureau was too small to handle the work of the Summit and, therefore, he would prefer a Bureau of 39 members to ensure better representation and more transparency.

Also this morning, presentations were made by South Africa on its preparatory work as the host government of the Summit and by Indonesia as the host government of the third substantive (ministerial) preparatory session.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the Russian Federation, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, United States, New Zealand, Mexico, Hungary, Nigeria, Egypt and China.  The Observer for Switzerland and a representative of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) also spoke. 

In addition, the Commission heard from the Education Caucus, the UNED Forum and the inter-governmental Forum on Chemical Safety.

The Commission will meet again at 3 p.m. today to consider the draft decisions of the session.

Background

The Commission on Sustainable Development, acting as the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, met this morning to continue its organizational session.  The Summit will be held in 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa.  (For background on the session, see press release ENV/DEV/575 issued 27 April.)

Specific Modalities and Draft Rules of Procedure

JOANNE DISANO, Director, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, introduced the report of the Secretary-General on suggested arrangements for involving non-governmental organizations and other major groups in the Summit and its preparatory process (E/CN.17/2001/PC/22).  She said that, in accordance with the General Assembly’s request, the suggested accreditation criteria and procedures were drafted on the basis of those used by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)(1992, Rio de Janeiro). 

The suggested modalities of major group involvement in the Summit and its preparatory process were based on supplementary arrangements for non-governmental organization participation in the Commission determined by the Economic and Social Council in 1993 and the Commission’s practices to date, she said.  The suggestions contained in the report aimed to fully utilize the experience of the Commission, particularly its unique multi-stakeholder dialogues, in the Summit and its preparatory process.  The success of the Summit would depend partly on the extent to which major groups were meaningfully engaged in the process and were part of tangible partnerships for action. 

MOHAMMED REZA SALAMAT (Iran) speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” and China, said the major concern for developing countries on the proposed draft rules of procedure was the question of the composition of membership of the Bureau for the Summit.  He felt that the current 10-member Bureau was too small to handle the work of the Summit.  His delegation’s preference, would be for a Bureau of

39 members.  That would ensure a Bureau that was better representative and more transparent.

On the participation of major groups, he reiterated his delegation’s support for broad participation by such groups in the work of the Summit.  He made several technical proposals to the documents before the Committee.  His delegation was still considering the issue of the participation of major groups that did not have accreditation with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  He further suggested that the Secretariat could provide some reports that would be helpful to the Committee’s work.  Those reports should focus on worldwide trends in the implementation of Agenda 21, as well as evaluations of the implementation of the Agenda by the United Nations system and major groups.  The Secretariat might also provide a report evaluating the mandates of the Commission on Sustainable Development for the last 10 years.

He went on to say that it was critical for regional preparatory processes to undertake a forward-looking evaluation of what should be achieved in the implementation of Agenda 21 over the coming decade.  In order to ensure an integrated approach, it was also critical to provide support for regional preparatory meetings.  The outputs of all national or regional preparatory meetings should also be given priority consideration in the Preparatory Committee. He felt an inter-regional meeting for small island developing States might also be necessary.  The possible main themes for the Summit could be based on discussions at the tenth session of the Commission.

TUPUK SUTRISNO (Indonesia) said that, with regard to the active participation of all major groups at all stages of the preparatory process, it was important for the Commission to decide on arrangements for their accreditation and participation in the Summit and its preparatory process.  The Commission practices and rules of procedure, which were applied in UNCED, should be taken into account.  The specific modalities of future meetings of the Preparatory Committee should also be decided upon during the current meeting, taking into account resolution 55/199. 

In that connection, he said, the first substantive preparatory meeting in January 2002 should be able to produce a draft outcome document on accomplishments and lessons learned in the implementation of Agenda 21.  The draft should identify constraints and propose measures to be undertaken to ensure the full implementation of Agenda 21, taking into account the results of the preparatory work at the national, subregional and regional levels.  The second substantive preparatory meeting should be able to continue negotiations to seek consensus, taking into account new inputs from relevant international organizations and meetings. 

The current meeting, he added, should also decide on the organizational work of the final preparatory meeting at the ministerial level.  The final meeting should be able to conclude negotiations on a draft document that was concise, visionary and action-oriented, so as to reinvigorate, at the highest level, the global commitment to partnerships.

VIVEKA BOHN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that in order to achieve a positive and forward-looking outcome at the Summit, as well as in the implementation of its results, governments needed the partnerships with both civil society and the private sector, at the local, national and international levels.  The Union welcomed the proposals contained in the report and suggested that the Commission adopt them as proposed.  Regarding accreditation of non-governmental organizations currently not in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the proposed accreditation criteria and procedures were well in line with established United Nations practices and traditions, and she hoped that those arrangements could be easily accepted by all partners.

She also welcomed the proposals for participation of major groups.  It seemed natural to build on the very positive experience of the Commission’s multi-stakeholder dialogues in preparations for the Summit and in the review itself.  The Union remained committed to an inclusive process, in which governments could work in partnership with major groups towards joint commitments at the Summit.

DIMITRY MAKSIMYCHEV (Russian Federation), agreed that the participation of major groups and non-governmental organizations should be based on precedent set at Rio, as well as the rules of procedure for the Commission on Sustainable Development.  On the make-up of the Summit’s Bureau, he said that the optimum number of vice-chairpersons should be nine, a number based on Bureau membership at Rio.  He agreed that an integrated approach to the entire preparatory process should be adopted, and all final documents from regional meetings should be considered by the Preparatory Committee.

AHMED SALEM OULD AHMED (Mauritania) said governments of wealthy countries must mobilize resources to ensure the broad participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society from developing countries in the preparatory work and the 2002 Summit itself.  Also, the membership of the Bureau at the Summit should be expanded.  He suggested that the Commission consider devoting one or more segments during the Summit to a dialogue between the heads of State and government and representatives of non-governmental organizations.

KHALID MOHAMMED ABDULEIF (Saudi Arabia) said the membership of the Bureau should be expanded to encourage transparency and broad participation, particularly from developing countries.

Mr. REZA SALAMAT (Iran) said that with regard to providing support for the participation of developing countries, a trust fund should be established within the Secretariat.  Contributions to that fund from donors should be used to facilitate the participation of developing countries in all meetings, at all levels.  On the participation of major groups, the multi-stakeholder dialogues had proven to be extremely useful.  At the same time, a proliferation of multi-stakeholder meetings should be avoided, so as to take into account issues of time and full participation.

Ms. BOHN (Sweden) said that the European Union would like to reflect on the suggestions regarding the size of the Bureau before making a statement on them. 

JONATHAN MARGOLIS (United States) agreed that more time was required to consider the suggestions and proposals.  With regard to the participation of major groups, he wondered whether the past model of having speeches of major groups interspersed with those of government officials would be acceptable to the Group of 77.  On the matter of the footnote, that list should be an inclusive one of all associate members.

Mr. REZA SALAMAT (Iran) said that the footnote seemed to be inclusive of all associate members of the United Nations regional commissions.

FELICITY BUCHANAN (New Zealand) supported the statements of the European Union and the Russian Federation regarding the participation of major groups.  She would like to see their participation continue with the holding of multi-stakeholder dialogues and other modes for the exchange of views.

IVO SIEBER, Observer of Switzerland, supported the statements made on the participation of major groups.  Their participation should be ensured throughout the whole process and at all levels.  Multi-stakeholder dialogues had proven to be effective and it would be useful to build on the experiences of the Commission in that regard.

JOSÉ RAMÓN LORENZO (Mexico) said that the various proposals and suggestions made pointed to the importance of the participation of major groups in the Summit and its preparatory process.  He was in favor of having a large number of vice-chairmen on the Bureau of the Summit.

Progress Reports

SIPHO PITYANA (South Africa), introduced an overview of the preparations underway in South Africa, host country of the World Summit.  He said that the attainment of the goals of Rio had been hard to achieve, particularly among the developing countries.  But, those countries had accepted all the challenges handed them and reinvigorated their efforts to achieve sustainable development on the African continent, and among other developing countries.  Tangible progress towards sustainable development could only be achieved, however, by reinvigorating the spirit of international cooperation. 

He said the Summit must advance the objectives of the development process.  The Summit should not be considered as a forum to renegotiate Agenda 21.  Any review and refinement of forward-looking objectives towards sustainable development should be accomplished during the preparatory process.  Indeed, the agenda of the Summit must be informed by the work of regional organizations. Relevant United Nations funds and agencies should also provide appropriate resources. 

Success could only be achieved by ensuring broad participation by the developing countries.  Success further depended on establishing a realistic time frame and spacing of the three substantive Preparatory Committee meetings.  To that end, he drew the attention of the Bureau to the fact that the African regional meeting was presently scheduled to coincide with the upcoming World Conference Against Racism.  He hoped that conflict could be rectified as soon as possible.  The Summit should focus on a clear programme of action and a tangible outcome.

C. OLVER (South Africa) with a slide presentation, updated the Committee on the logistical preparations underway for the Summit.  Johannesburg, he said, had been chosen as the preferred location of the meeting because it had the infrastructure and capacity to ensure success.  Basic national structures, led by the government, had been put into place to manage the entire process.  He added that all levels of Government had agreed to provide the necessary funding for the Summit.  The Johannesburg Earth Summit Company -- a government-owned, not-for-profit organization -- would handle coordination duties.

He assured the Committee that all aspects of the Summit would be inclusive, and include broad representation and participation by the business sector and non-governmental organizations, among others.  He said that work to create a logo for the Summit was also underway, and he showed the Committee the most recent version. He said that office space in Sandton had been made available.  The Summit’s opening and closing events would be held at the state-of-the-art Johannesburg Stadium, which had a capacity of 50,000.  Other activities would take place at the Johannesburg Convention Center.  Venues for satellite events would include Gallagher Estates, MTN Sundome and NASREC Convention Center, all within 15 or

20 minutes of center city.

He went on to say that the Government was currently building a state of the art media center and making final proposals for a United Nations-designated area around Sandton.  Indeed, much focus had also been placed on using new information technologies in the preparation for the Summit, including the creation of an on-line registration and accreditation Web site.  Johannesburg’s strategic transport plan had also been completed.  He emphasized that the necessary safety and security procedures had been established.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia), gave a brief overview of the preparations underway in Indonesia, host country for the final Ministerial Preparatory Committee meeting before the Summit.  That meeting, scheduled to be held from

27 May to 7 June 2002, would be the forum for refining an action-oriented document that would be considered and subsequently adopted at Johannesburg.  It would also be the last chance to ensure that the Summit would be a success.

Accepting its responsibility to address the main challenges and opportunities faced by the international community in the implementation of Agenda 21, Indonesia had established a National Organizing Committee to initiate preparations for the meeting.  That Committee, co-chaired by the State Minister for Environment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would be made up of representatives from all relevant public and private agencies, as well as civil society.  A Presidential Decree on the establishment of the Committee would be issued shortly.

Turing next to the logistics of the meeting, he said that the National Organizing Committee had accepted the offer of Bali as the host city.  If all agreed with that location, the meeting would take place at the Bali International Convention Centre, located in Nusa Dua Beach, south of Bali.  The centre had a 2,500 capacity plenary hall, a 560- seat auditorium and other facilities.  The National Organizing Committee would also create a reservation center to assist delegates in arranging accommodations and transportation.  The Committee would also consider ways to provide transport between the airport, hotel and meeting centers.

RAVI SAWHNEY, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), informed the Commission on the status of preparations in that region.  The review process there had already been initiated.  Last year, a ministerial conference on environment and development was held, which adopted a programme of action for the region.  Recently, a meeting was held on energy, which adopted an action programme on sustainable energy development. 

Next week, he continued, a Parliamentarians’ Forum would be held in Tokyo, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).  It would focus on environmental governance and a major theme would be sustainable development and poverty eradication.  The region was to hold five subregional meetings leading up to the Summit.  The preparatory work for those meetings were underway and they were intended to be as action-oriented as possible.  The regional preparatory meeting was to be held in Cambodia, possibly from 27 to

29 November.

TIBOR FARAGO (Hungary) said that Agenda 21 should not renegotiated.  Also, many aspects of the Rio Summit should not be repeated.  The international community had a different task ahead of it now.  In addition to noting progress in some areas, various constraints and challenges could also be identified.  Consequently, it was necessary to have a global forum that was different from the Earth Summit.  It was necessary to have an honest and integrated evaluation of the current unsustainable state of the environment.  The Summit should demonstrate that sustainable development was achievable.  It was important to have a critical and self-critical review and reinforce long-term visions.  For the sake of the credibility of the process, it would be better to have a gradual, integrated approach and set a few achievable goals.

D.B. USMAN, (Nigeria) said his government supported global and regional efforts to promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and believed that the

Rio+10 review process should be open and transparent.  That process should also highlight the gains, weakness and failures of efforts to implement Agenda

21 during the past decade.  The preparatory process, and the Summit itself, address cross-sectoral issues, to ensure adequate resources, technological transfer and capacity-building for sustainable development, especially in developing countries.  Moreover, poverty eradication should be given priority on the Summit’s agenda.

While he welcomed the broad participation of major groups in the work of the Summit, he emphasized that it should remain an inter-governmental affair.  All issues intended for inclusion in the agenda of the Summit should be considered during the Committee’s preparatory work, so that governments and other relevant stakeholders would have the opportunity to discuss them.

Ms. PUNTENNEY, representing the Education Caucus, said that it had worked closely with many delegations over the past nine years as part of the Commission. The broad policy framework put into place for Rio also included education.  The Rio Summit was the most significant environmental education event of the century.  The international community must recognize and reaffirm the vital role education had to play in the future of sustainable development.  Education had a role to play in all aspects of Agenda 21 and not just as part of the education chapter.

Mr. OSBORN, representing the UNED Forum, said that the Forum had been active in promoting stakeholder input in Commission meetings.  With regard to the participation of major groups, it was important to address questions of legitimacy.  It was also important that the process be facilitated in a constructive way.  Many stakeholder groups were already mounting their own

preparatory work.  Some of the best results in promoting sustainable development had been achieved by local authorities, communities and indigenous groups.  He urged the Commission to consider an outcome that combined the commitments of governments and civil society.

Mr. CALVACANTI, of the inter-governmental Forum on Chemical Safety, said his organization was an innovative and flexible mechanism designed to implement the safe and sound management of toxic chemicals worldwide.  The Forum was particularly mindful of the assistance required by developing countries and actively promoted the participation of local scientists and researchers in its work, as well as its educational campaigns.  At the national level, his organization worked closely with many relevant United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).  He said that his organizations strongly recommended voluntary initiatives and bilateral or multi-lateral partnerships in the area of waste management and pesticide control.

Before the meeting was adjourned, Mr. REZA SALAMAT (Iran), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, suggested that the Secretariat provide a “road map” of the many activities and meetings taking place in preparation for the Summit.  Such a guide would be helpful to the Committee.  

IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt) joined the representative of the Group of 77, adding that it would also be helpful if the outcomes of those meetings were presented to the Preparatory Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. ABDULEIF (Saudi Arabia) also joined the statement of the representative of the Group of 77.

BAI YONGJIE (China) said it was unacceptable that a brochure on travel arrangements to the third preparatory meeting, to be held in Indonesia, made reference to “Taiwan”.  Since that meeting would be considered a United Nations event and the Organization recognized only one China, an amendment should be made to that brochure as soon as possible.  Her delegation had spoken with representatives of Indonesia, who had assured her that a correction would be made.

* *** *