Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285411021
label
Climate Change [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285411021
contentType
document
title
Climate Change [1]
description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
CF00553-002
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Dean Schulteiss' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285411021
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
355521d769558991
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2017-0310-F
2017-0310-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Domestic Policy Council
Series:
Schulteiss, Dean, Files
Subseries:
Subject Files
OA/ID Number:
CF00553
Folder ID Number:
CF00553-002
Folder Title:
Climate Change [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
V
7
10
4
3
9/27/91
Background papers on GEF
Tasked to State:
1. Montreal Protocol Fund
-
structure
File-
-
assessment
2. UNCED
-
state of play
-
G-77 proposal
-
donor country positions
3. Climate Change negotiations
-
proposals
Confidential UNCED
- G-77
-
donor countries
REMOVAL MB 7/3/17
4. Assessment of GEF
-
responsiveness to donor concerns
-
transparency of process
-
-
participation of recipient countries
-
participation of NGOs
5. Assessment of Bank use of STAP, UNEP and UNDP.
6. AID:
-
how is parallel financing working?
-
how do they see their relationship to other
conventions?
7. Compilation and review of governance and sub-governance
procedures.
Not tasked:
8. Relationship of GEF to international environment
conventions:
-
Montreal Protocol
-
Climate Change
-
Forests
-
Biological Diversity
9. Overall Bank approach to sustainable
development/integration of environmental objectives into
country development strategies.
1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)
I. Background
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of
the landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.
-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of
principles that continue to guide our approach to
environmental protection today.
-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm
Conference and played a pivotal role in its success.
-
Many, especially NGOs, look to us to play the
same role in UNCED.
UNCED has a broad mandate to set the international
environmental agenda into the next century and to develop
means for integrating environmental objectives and economic
development
-- It is to address the full range of specific
environmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues
(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,
technology transfer and financial assistance.
It will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.
-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)
sessions.
-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice
Strong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory
Committee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).
The PrepCom has three working groups:
-Working Group I:
-
atmosphere (climate change, depletion of the
ozone layer, transboundary air pollution)
-
land resources (deforestation, desertification,
drought)
-
biological diversity
-
biotechnology
-- Working Group II:
-
oceans, seas and coastal areas, including their
living resources
I
fresh water resources
-
wastes and toxic chemicals.
-- Working Group III:
I
legal and institutional issues
DRAFT
FUNDING FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
1. NEXT STEPS
-- SECRETARY BRADY TO ANNOUNCE U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO CORE
FUND OF THE GEF (ANNUAL MEETING SPEECH IN BANGKOK
OCTOBER 15) AND PROPOSE:
-- REVISIONS IN GOVERNANCE TO PROVIDE FOR INTEGRATED
RELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
-- EXPANDED ROLE AS COORDINATING MECHANISM FOR
BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
-- PARALLEL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR OTHER DONORS
BASED ON U.S. MODEL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES AND ENHANCE COORDINATION ROLE
-- CONSULT WITH G-7 COUNTERPARTS IN ADVANCE (CABLE AND
INFORMAL MEETING IN BANGKOK OCTOBER 12).
-- TRANSFER DISCUSSION OF FUNDING MECHANISM TO FINANCE
MINISTRIES; TAKE UP DISCUSSIONS AT DECEMBER 4-5 MEETING
OF GEF CONTRIBUTORS.
2. FUNDING
AGREE TO $50 MILLION FOR U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO CORE FUND/$50
MILLION IN PARALLEL FINANCING THROUGH AID (i.e. ACCEPT
CURRENT OBEY LANGUAGE)
(a) Over three years translates into U.S. contribution of
$300 million; presumably all or part of $150 million in
parallel financing would have been made available in
any event as part of AID's regular budget for global
environmental issues.
(b) Puts pressure on Japanese to make full contribution to
the core fund; puts pressure on other contributors to
provide additional support in parallel financing
through bilateral assistance programs (some of this
support may turn out to be additional depending on the
specific amounts other donors have already planned for
this purpose).
(c) Could conceivably double the overall amount available
to the GEF from approximately $1.4 billion to $2.8
billion; creates bigger number for presentation
purposes in developing countries.
(d) Puts U.S. in leadership position on this issue; should
increase U.S. leverage where it may be needed on other
GEF issues such as governance and work program
provisions.
3.
RELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
GEF TO ACT AS GLOBAL REPOSITORY FOR FUNDS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INCLUDING THOSE THAT MAY BECOME
AVAILABLE AS A RESULT OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, ETC. GEF
WILL CONTINUE AS A SEPARATE TRUST FUND AND BE LOCATED WITHIN
THE WORLD BANK GROUP UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS BASED ON DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES TO
BE ADOPTED. UNDP AND UNEP REPRESENTATIVES PARTICIPATE IN
MEETINGS AND ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN.
GOVERNING ENTITIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS TO RETAIN
THEIR OWN ANALYTICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO REFER ALL
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GEF.
4.
COORDINATION
EXPAND MANDATE OF GEF TO INCLUDE COORDINATION SERVICES FOR
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AND OTHER BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL
PROGRAMS THAT SEEK TO ADDRESS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES;
ESTABLISH CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THESE COORDINATION
PURPOSES.
(a) Adds new element and more weight to GEF package; should
provide greater structure and sense of common purpose
to bilateral assistance efforts in this area.
(b) Could be particularly useful to smaller bilateral
assistance programs that have modest resources for
global environmental purposes and a limited field
presence in developing countries.
(c) Could serve as an inducement to elicit additional
bilateral assistance contributions from smaller donors
for specific purposes.
5.
GOVERNANCE
PLACE MECHANISM FOR GOVERNANCE OF GEF WITHIN THE WORLD BANK
GROUP WITH PROVISION FOR BOARD OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS TO
HAVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL
MATTERS INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND WORK PROGRAM.
STRUCTURE BOARD DECISION-MAKING TO GIVE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
SIGNIFICANT MINORITY VOTING POWER BUT RETAIN CLEAR
CONTRIBUTOR COUNTRY CONTROL (USING COMBINATION OF MEMBERSHIP
VOTES AND VOTES BASED ON FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS)
(a) Use of this mechanism would avoid undesirable elements
of the alternatives being proposed:
(i) Inappropriately large voice for developing
countries (i.e. variants being pushed by
developing countries based on UN formula of one
country one vote)
(2) Ceding too much control over GEF operations to the
three implementing agencies (this is a problem
with present GEF arrangements because semi-annual
meetings of contributor countries do not provide
enough opportunity for effective control)
(b) However, the Executive Board model will also be harder
to sell to developing countries and clearly requires a
bigger U.S. commitment to the process if it is to have
a chance for success.
6.
PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
-- ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW WINDOW THAT WILL BE EXPECTED TO
PROVIDE GRANT AND/OR GRANT-EQUIVALENT FUNDING FOR
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.
-- CONTINUE TO CONTAIN EXPANDED GEF OPERATIONS WITHIN
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES; LEAVE
OPEN A COMMITMENT TO FUND INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR GLOBAL
BENEFITS AS METHODOLOGY IS DEVELOPED AND ADDITIONAL
FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE.
-- CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE NEED TO INCORPORATE RESULTS OF
GEF EXPERIENCE INTO MAINSTREAM LENDING PROGRAMS OF
MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL DONORS.
-- AVOID TIGHTLY BINDING COMMITMENT TO FUND INCREMENTAL
COSTS THAT CAN BE TIED TO GLOBAL BENEFIT. SUCH AN
COMMITMENT COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE A WORKING
METHODOLOGY IS NOT YET IN PLACE FOR MAKING DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL BENEFITS.
-- IN SOME SPECIFIC AREAS SUCH AS ENERGY AND TROPICAL
FOREST PROTECTION THE INCREMENTAL COST CONCEPT MIGHT
ENCOURAGE OPEN-ENDED DEMANDS FOR GRANTS OR CONCESSIONAL
FUNDING FOR PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FINANCED THROUGH
MAINSTREAM OPERATIONS.
7.
CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
BE PREPARED TO WORK FOR INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON GEF
UNDERSTANDINGS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN U.S. LEGISLATION
THIS YEAR:
(a) Clear guidelines for project selection
(b) Balance among objectives of facility
(c) Governmental and nongovernmental input into facility
processes
(d) Use of maximum leverage to attain facility objectives
(e) Consultation with OECD
(f) Funding of innovative projects that would not have been
funded in absence of facility and introduction of
results into mainstream lending
(g) Contributor country oversight of individual projects in
work program and provisions for NGO participation
(h) Prominent role for Scientific and Technical Advisory
Panel
CONFIDENTIAL
10/15/91
US STRATEGY
DRAFT
for UNCED
OVERALL
Recognizing that the preparatory process and the Rio
meeting are likely to be chaotic, highly politicized, and high
profile, we should focus our efforts on: (1) targeting
achievements that serve our interests and demonstrate an
appropriate commitment; and (2) averting bad ideas. Even if
the Conference is a mess, we will be positioned to point to
accomplishments (or at least a positive agenda we sought to
press). Moreover, having our own agenda will better position
us to block a last minute rush by Conference participants to
poor ideas. We have a good record and good proposals; we
should get credit for them. Also, it's hard to beat something
with nothing.
POSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENTS
Conclusion of a Statement of Principles on Forests
Conclusion of a Statement of Principles on Oceans
Focus on the conservation of species (including drawing
from our good record on habitats), including a process for
the "Inventory and Assessment of Biological Diversity".
[Note: this is not the same as a convention on biological
diversity.]
Agreement on a Process for Technology Cooperation in a
market context.
Endorsement of a reconstituted Global Environment Facility
as the funding mechanism for international environmental
treaties.
To be completed by time of Rio Conference: a satisfactory
framework Convention on Climate Change.
NOTE: Concentration on forests and oceans, areas where we are
strong, could be the basis of a theme that we're concentrating
on approximately 75-80% of the Earth's surface (the figures
vary depending on the definition of forests).
CHALLENGES: Problems to Manage
Earth Charter and Agenda 21
Financial Resources: sources, amounts and mechanisms.
Climate Change negotiations and possible UNCED interference.
Biological Diversity: avoid restrictions on Biological
Technology.
Tropical Rain Forests: develop workable program for
Brazilian Rain Forest project endorsed by G-7.
Institutions: avoid establishing new ones; streamline
existing ones.
DECLASSIFIED
PER DOS WAIVER, November 6, 2015
CONFIDENTIAL
ByMM NARA, Date 2/22/2018
CON IDENTIAL
Strategy: General
DRAFT
Assessment
Chaotic, high profile and highly politicized process and
event.
USG shouldn't be reactive: can get ahead of the curve and
identify key proposals we favor that can be accomplished
(e.g. forest principles). This helps us set the terms of
the debate. We can then emphasize our positive agenda.
Difficult to control documents like Earth Charter and
Agenda 21: focus on getting USG proposals included,
stopping bad ideas and limiting the effect of any result if
it cannot be salvaged.
Keep focus on key proposals -- the list of accomplishments
we can point to. Avoid being drawn into blackhole of
wishlists. (Play offense, not defense, to the degree
possible).
USG Work
-- PCC review of PrepCom decisions: prepare reports and
recommendations for EPRG review.
-- Establish small group on financial resources to
develop USG proposal for changes in the GEF and to
develop strategy for working this issue with major
donor countries.
-- Prepare specific proposals for inclusion in Earth
Charter and Agenda 21; these ideas should promote our
themes about research, sustainable development, and
the use of economic analysis and market mechanisms.
--
Identify EC/Agenda 21 ideas we wish to stop.
External Work
-- Demarche key capitals through posts:
-
Reiterate our strong interest in a successful and
productive UNCED;
-
Note our general assessment of and concerns about
Prepcom process;
-
Indicate our intention to continue to move ahead
with specific proposals on forests, oceans,
technology cooperation, etc.
--
Target appropriate ministries in key capitals on
specific issues (e.g., finance ministries on financial
resources and GEF).
--
Use major international conferences and meetings to
further our objectives, e.g. OECD Environment and
Development Ministerial (Paris, December, 1991).
-- Work issues during UNGA and UNGA Second Committee
sessions (September - December, 1991).
CONFIDENTIAL
10/03/91
15:37
2026470217
002
United States Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
3 October 1991
TO:
Members of the PCC Subgroup on Environment
and Health
FROM:
OES - Richard J. Smith #
SUBJECT:
Discussion of October 10-11 Meeting of Ad Hoc
Group on Environment and Development
(Preparatory to December 2-3 Joint Meeting of
the Development Assistance and Environment
Committees at Ministerial Level)
A meeting of the PCC Subgroup on Environment and Health
will be convened tomorrow, October 4, at 4:00 p.m. in Room
7835 (Main State) to discuss issues related to the upcoming
meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of the OECD Council on Environment
and Development and to reach agreement on a Scope Paper for
this OECD meeting, a draft of which is attached for your
review prior to the meeting. The draft Scope Paper provides
guidance on several important issues for the Ministerial
contained in a draft Ministerial Policy Statement, which is
included in the package for your review.
I am also including a discussion paper dealing with
specific initiatives related to technology cooperation for
your review.
7
Pass onitz on
to
10/03/91
15:37
2026470217
003
OECD Ad Hoc Group
October 10-11, 1991
SCOPE PAPER
Overview
the OECD Council by Resolution of 1991, agreed at its April
The ad hoc Group on Environment and Development, established by
meeting aims: that the December Joint Meeting should accomplish three
O review OECD preparations for UNCED;
o provide a forum for debate by aid and environment ministers on
critical issues concerning the integration of development and
beyond 1992; and
environmental policies, and for discussion of the process
environmentally sound development.
agree on actions by Member countries to promote sustainable,
The Group also agreed that the ministerial should produce a
policy statement setting forth the central issues concerning the
integration of environment and development, reflecting the
commitment of ministers to take action to promote sustainable
development. The Secretariat has produced two drafts of the
policy statement and, based on comments received in August and
early September, will have a third draft ready for review and
discussion at the October meeting.
For the United States, a broad objective of the joint ministerial
is to produce agreement on the concept of sustainable
development. The U.S. believes strongly that environmental
protection and economic growth go hand in hand. In developing
countries, a concern for the environment requires that OECD
countries make their development assistance, environmental and
economic policies mutually reinforcing. As environmental
degradation is a serious threat to sustainable growth, concern
for the environment must be a critical component of any
successful assistance program.
In exploring ways to integrate environment and development, the
ministers will examine issues of great importance and interest to
the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. While
integration is a long-term and evolving objective within the OECD
which will continue well past 1992, the results of the December
ministerial will certainly be an important contribution to UNCED.
The October meeting may offer the last opportunity to promote
consensus around U.S. views of the December Ministerial (although
meeting in November.
there may be increasing sentiment for one more preparatory
10/03/91
15:38
2026470217
004
2
U.S. Objectives for the December Ministerial
Agree on how OECD environment ministries can support
development ministries in helping developing countries
effectively manage their environmental and natural resources
for sustainable economic growth.
Agree to promote democratic systems, market-oriented economies
and integration of economic and environmental policies in
developing countries as the most efficient and effective means
of achieving development and environmental objectives.
Agree on further improving efforts of OECD member countries to
integrate environmental concerns in development assistance
developing countries.
programs and economic (trade, debt, investment) policies toward
Explore approaches to such UNCED issues as technology
cooperation, financial resources, and Agenda 21.
Ministerial Specific Points on the Agenda and Communique of the Joint
The section below provides summary remarks concerning each agenda
item for the December Ministerial and the corresponding sections
of the draft Policy Statement.
Sustainable Development as a Shared and Integrating Objective
The purpose of this discussion should be to develop the context
for integrating development and environment policies, and to
serve as a foundation for subsequent discussions on statements of
objectives and new areas of cooperation. Discussions here should
clarify the ministerial understanding of sustainable development,
development. and establish objectives for achieving the goals of sustainable
OECD Response
A discussion of the OECD response provides an opportunity to
highlight the public sector role in: 1) integrating environmental
considerations in development programs, and 2) creating a policy
environment conducive to addressing environmental constraints to
development. The OECD should stress that the response should be
discussed in terms of the significant member country efforts,
both nationally and in working with developing country
governments, designed to promote economic growth and reduce
poverty, including efforts encourage private sector investment.
10/03/91
15:39
2026470217
005
3
New Partnerships
The United States should stress the point that environmentally
sound development is primarily the responsibility of the
developing countries themselves, which will be the primary
beneficiaries of sustainable practices and policies. The concept
that addressing environmental constraints to development is in
the best interest of the developing countries (rather than done
as a favor to the developed world) is essential in defining the
essence of the new partnerships, with an emphasis on mutual
respect and mutual benefit.
While the developing countries themselves should assume
responsibility for their own development and the role of the
private sector is critical, the OECD Ministerial should reflect
other aspects of "new partnerships, " namely, the commitment for
OECD environment and development ministries to work more closely,
both bilaterally and multilaterally. In particular, Ministers
should endorse the DAC's Good Practices Papers.
Integrating Environment, Development and Economic Policies
The main U.S. objective for this section should be to agree with
other Member countries to examine how to make OECD trade, debt
and investment policies more supportive of environmentally
sustainable development, and report preliminary findings to the
DAC and to the OECD June 1992 Ministerial.
Technology Cooperation
The successful introduction and adaptation of technologies
requires a mutually supportive and non-confrontational process in
which all parties benefit from the interaction. The term
"technology cooperation* is used to emphasize this point.
Technology cooperation is one of the cross-cutting themes at
UNCED, and will be an important subject of discussion at the
Joint Ministerial. Other OECD countries will be looking to the
U.S. to take the lead. The U.S. will emphasize the importance of
strengthening capacity in developing countries and the critical
role of the private sector, and appropriate policies conducive to
private sector investment.
Building on the general objectives and philosophy articulated in
this scope paper, the USG should urge Ministers to support
technology cooperation, drawing on the existing cooperative
programs now underway or proposed by aid and environment agencies
in many OECD countries.
Note: One of the items the USG needs to consider is whether to
have Ministers consider and/or endorse specific initiatives
related to technology cooperation, and if so, what initiatives.
10/03/91
15:39
2026470217
006
4
The Private Sector
The U.S. recognizes the essential role of firms and market-based
mechanisms in achieving the broad objective of environmentally
sound development.
Financing Sustainable Development
The discussion of financing must move beyond G-77 calls for "new
and additional resources." The emphasis should be on developing
new approaches and new partnerships in which industrialized and
developing countries use existing resources to support mutually
beneficial activities. The U.S. should emphasize that the most
important source of financing for sustainable development, well
beyond the potential of publicly-funded assistance programs, is
the private sector, implemented through market-driven
investments.
It should be noted that within the G-77 island states and the
very poor nations are not in complete agreement with China and
Brazil on the issue of financing, which in turn differ in
perspective from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. These
differences should be explored as a possible means of advancing
the U.S. position.
We believe that, where appropriate, financial assistance should
help developing countries meet the incremental cost of
commitments assumed under new international environmental
agreements that have global benefits. The Global Environmental
Facility (GEF) should be the principal multilateral funding
mechanism to channel such assistance.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
The U.S. should use the occasion of the OECD Ministerial to
explore the positions of other delegations and to seek out
support among other countries for our position on the outstanding
issues still to be addressed in New York in March.
Other Issues:
Several countries, most notably France and Canada, will raise the
issue of inviting developing country representatives to the Joint
Ministerial. While the United States actively encourages full
developing country participation in creating new approaches to
integrating environment and development, we believe that the
Joint Ministerial should focus on the task of enhancing
coordination among aid and development ministries within OECD
member countries. Other fora can and should be used to maximize
developing country input into the debate on integrating
environment and development.
-10/03/91 15:40
2026470217
007
5
Note: The USG will need to consider the possibility of NGO
participation on the US delegation for the December meeting.
10/03/91
15:40
2026470217
1
008
2
CONFIDENTIAL
ORGANISATION FOR. ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Paris, drafted: 27-SEPT 1991
OLIS:
dist.:
DECLASSIFIED
Scale
PER E.O. 13526
C/ENV/DEV/MIN (91)1
LP/LM 2014-001
11/19/2013 MM
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
THIRD DRAFT
POLICY STATEMENT FOR DECEMBER 1991 OECD
MINISTERIAL MEETING ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
(Note by the Secretarist)
1. OECD and Ministers environment net together for the first time to the in
and heads of agencies responsible for at development the OECD
assistance December, to consider a co-operative new approach and & global challenge basis.
Paris, 2-3 sustainable development on both chaired & national by
of They achieving were joined by. The meeting was
Political Conclusions
was convened Ln recognition of the fact that contributing objectives. to
2. The meeting world-wide is one of the OECD' . central over the past
sustainable development by OECD and other countries world, three and
Yet, despite the major investments of the human condition in large parts by poverty, of the illiteracy,
decades, for a better quality future, continue to be diminished pollution of the
malnutrition, unemployment. and degradation of arable land. At the in same particular time, the ozone emergence layer
hopes increased population pressures,
air and water, and global-scale environmental problems, desertification, loss of
of depletion regional and climate change, degradation deforestation of water resources and and acid rain, systems calls for of
biological collective diversity, action by all nations to protect the basic life support
the Earth.
1
10/03/91
15:41
2026470217
009
3
the market economy has proved its An strength interdependent and vigour
3. Over recent years, change and adaptable economies. political
world economy open markets. OZCD countries if left committed to to
in promoting structural has been created which is increasingly based are firmly on
democracy, and But free it and has to be recognised that market the forces need to combat
this system. cannot adequately take into account urgent
themselves widespread poverty or long-term environment problems.
Nations Conference on Environment and Development between (UNCED) in
June developed 1992 can and provide developing countries for sustainable
4. The United the catalyst for a strengthened development partnership world-wide.
recognizing the interdependence of all nations, a strengthened therefore
pledge that OECD with Member other Governments in the developing world, must in be based and on
5. Ministers, Governments will strive to build Central
partnership is the Soviet Union. This partnership relative capacities.
Eastern reciprocal Europe commitments and by all countries based on their
6. OECD countries their consumption patterns place on the command. OECD in
recognize their special responsibility environment in this respect, and
view of the technologies to intensify their efforts further to promote
given the pressures and financial resources that they to reduce the burden
Governments pledge on the environment. They commit themselves Countries to assist a
more effective in fully benefitting from the development resources of new, will
their economies technological put co-operation with non-Member clean
these countries Ministers also recognize that additional both with have to
technologies. to developing countries if these are achieve to cope sustainable
be made available and global environment problems, as well as poverty.
national development and the economic growth needed to combat
7. Sustainable countries, countries in Central and Eastern Europe and effective Soviet
development is a shared objective. Towards this the and,
developing make commensurate commitments to good governance, and sound
Union will have to - including areas affecting the environment note the - need to
economic policies In this connection, Ministers permit slow
environmental policies. many countries where it is too rapid to stand
population growth in those As #. matter of priority, OECD members programmes. ready to
help sustainable developing development. countries that desire assistance with population
the important role of the private contribute sector as to provider solve
8. Ministers technical underline and financial resources which can the inclusion in 1991
of managerial, problems. In this connection they welcome Multinational
environmental chapter in the OECD Guidelines for of
of Enterprises an environmental and the Business Charter for Sustainable Development the
International Chamber of Commerce.
welcome the increasing involvement of non-Governmental in promoting
organisations by action at the grass environmental management. support
9. Ministers both in developed and developing countries root level. They also
the sustainable attention development being given to the role of women in
welcome the support that work within particular: the OECD framework can
10. provide Ministers to the UNCED process and thereafter. In
-- they welcome the Guidelines and Recommendations on environment and
10/03/91 15:41 2026470217
010
a prepared 4') the CECO Committee.
10/03/91
15:42
2026470217
5
011
5
-- they encourage the OECD to make widely available the result* of its
work on management of chemicals and wastes, biotechnology, energy,
cleaner technologies, transport, economic instruments and
environmental indicators:
-- they urge the DECD to intensify its work on other issues related to
sustainable development, inter alis on the relations between trade
and environment;
" they support the exchange of experiences in designing policy tools
and appraisal of anvironmental policies and programmes;
11.
(An initiative on capacity building?)
This Ministerial meeting takes place at a crucial moment in the
preparations 12. for the UNCED. Ministers have carefully considered the status of
the preparatory work and reiterate the strong support of their Governments for
the Conference and pledge their firm determination to make 1t a success.
Ministers agree to cionvene on . regular basis after the Conference in
Rio 13. do Janeiro to review progress on achieving the goals of sustainable
development and on integrating efforts of their respective agencies.
H x K
4
10/03/91
15:42
2026470217
012
6
addressing issues of sustainable development, OECD Governments which will
14. in the In future base their actions on the following considerations
elaborate on the conclusions above.
Sustainable Development as & Shared and Integrating objective
Environment and Development Ministers agree that sustainable
15. OECD is a common objective for all nations. It is a central element goals for
development strategy for the 1990s, to integrate environmental development of life for
the OECD's to achieve satisfactory economic and socio-cultural conditions term
and Ministers stress the importance of taking a longer
perspective all people. when addressing these issues, for example, taking preventive action
now to avoid higher costs in the future.
Ministers acknowledge that sustainable development must circle include of the
making under-development that links poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, high national population
16, OECD of substantial inroads into under-development. The vicious
and environmental degradation must be broken through sound
growth and social policies, supported by international development
economic co-operation. These efforts will be undercut, however, unless attention is
paid to maintaining the natural resource base.
The OECD Response
Encouraging progress is being made in OECD countries, for instance to by
17. and raw materials more efficiently, by increasing recourse lowering
using energy energy and cleaner fuels, by expanding forest cover, by of
renewable of some major air pollutants and by improving management
concentrations chemicals. Large investments in environmental research and development are
beginning to pay off.
such progress, however, falls well short of what is required. is Economic
policies and safeguards the interests of both present and
18. will have to CROWN that the use of this planet's resources future
sustainable Environmental considerations must be integrated into work the towards full
generations. of government policies. OECD countries must continue to and make
range substantial reduction of the overall pollution burden of renewable greater
further at energy conservation ** well as research and development the peer
efforts of energy. Progress in this respect will be monitored in by
sources of environmental policies within the OECD launched
Environmental review process Ministers in January 1991 as well as in the ongoing peer review
process of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
19. OECD between Development and Environment Ministries. This increased are an
Governments will take steps to reinforce co-operative working
arrangements should help ensure that environmental considerations that in
collaboration of all aid assisted projects and programmes and environment. turn
integral part objectives underpin initiatives in the field of the results of this
development Development and Enviromment Ministers will build on the both
meeting OECD to help ensure that their strategies properly integrate
development and environmental management objectives.
S
10/03/91 15:43
2026470217
013
7
20. assessments of all projects and programmes, financed by official development
In particular OECD Ministers commit themselves to rigorous environmental
assistance or otherwise officially supported, that raise significant
environmental issues. They will also take steps to ensure careful
environmental impact assessments of public investments within the borders of
their own countries.
21. recommendations for aid agencies on environment-related matters which have been
In this connection OECD Ministers endorse the guidelines and
adopted by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) :
Good Fractices for Country Environmental Surveys and Strategies;
Good Practices for Environmental Impact Assessment of Development
Projects;
Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Involuntary Displacement and
Resettlement in Development Projects:
Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Global Environmental Problems.
Ministers see these guidelines, and others which are still in the process of
preparation, as operational groundrules for aid agencies and the ongoing
dialogue with developing countries.
22. countries are committed to address in their domestic and international
More generally, policy coherence is a key challenge which OECD Member
policy-making. while aid is recognised as important for developing countries
in the pursuit of sustainable development, it alone is not sufficient. It must
form part of a strategy that integrates a. wide range of separate policies.
These policies relate to environment and development assistance but also
importantly to areas such as trade, agriculture, energy, investment, economic
policy and debt. Ministers are committed to the work initiated by the OECD
which will help identify constraints in these areas to sustainable development
and propose measures to overcome these barriers.
A Strengthened Partnership
All countries have a common interest and responsibility for the sound
23. and sustainable management of their natural resources and for the protection of
the global environment. Each country, therefore, must ensure that its
development process is environmentally sound and sustainable by establishing
the necessary policies and institutional framework. An important rationale for
establishing more effective partnerships between developed and developing
countries is to enable all countries to fulfill these responsabilities [and
meet their commitments in relation to the Eàrth Charter and Agenda 21, which
are to be adopted in June 1992).
nations 24. to create effective partnerships for sustainable development. While
OECD governments are prepared to work together with governments of all
governments have special responsibilities, the partnership concept must also
encompass the private sector and non-govermental organisations.
OECD Ministers realise that if developing countries are to be able to
25. cope successfully with their pressing development and environmental challenges
6
10/03/91
15:43
$2026470217
014
8
in contributing to the solution of global assisted and by regional OECD
and environmental to join others problems, their efforts will need to be
countries. Ministers are encouraged by the commitment to co-operative countries action as
on reflected national inter and alia in the Deijing, Bangkok, Tunis, Tlateloleo Langhawi
26. OECD global sustainable development by developing and
Declarations.
27. OECD European countries and in the Soviet with the commited Third
Ministers acknowledge the serious environment Union problems and of are the
Central to working and with Eastern them. This will not diminish their co-operation
World.
Integrating Environment, Development and Economic Policies
in sustainable development is underpinned by which good governance, involve
market-based and broad popular involvement in the challenge
28. Progress economic policies and participatory approaches orientation and
accountability of government policies. However, a key effective in the
pursuit integration and coherence of economic, social and environmental policies in all
implementation of sustainable development for 211 countries is the
aspects of national and international policy making.
analysis, including that of social and environmental alternatives costs to reach and
29. Economic should be used as a basis for choosing between and energy as well as
benefits, goals. Prices for raw materials exploitation,
sustainable should development reflect the full environmental costs of their that harm use
products Subsidies, taxes or other market interventions of
and development disposal. patterna or distort the efficient use and management natural
resources should be eliminated.
30- Environmental within their respective social and cultural contexts. concerted Particular efforts
action should take into account the needs of local
populations to be given to the impact on women. More of development
attention should to involve wasen from the preparation stage and water
will planning, be required particularly in such sectors as forestry, agriculture
management. recall that the environment and the survival the of our environment planet is
31. Ministers citizens of the world. The preservation of individual on a is
a matter for all therefore must influence the action of every education as a
e. daily concern basis. that This underscores the role of environmental means
of increasing the awareness of all citizens.
in the international trade system are & vital have contribution . common
32. Improvements development. Developed and developing countries mutually
to interest sustainable in ensuring act as that A positive trade and force environmental for sustainable policies development. are Efforts at home by
supportive and to achieve higher levels of environmental protection issues must be
individual nations agreements to cope with global environmental international trade.
and international implemented so as to avoid distortions in schieve major
designed and policies must not undercut efforts to the
Conversely, environmental trade goals. Ministers support the continued study by OECD of the
-3
-10/03/91
15:44
2026470217
4.
015
9
linkage between these issues and recommend this as an area for early attention
by the GATT.
Ministers note the growing global consensus on the need to slow
population sustainable development. Improved living conditions, access to the and
33. growth in those many countries where it is too high to education permit
security are the most essential preconditions for ensuring
economic demographic transition to more sustainable population rates. In addition,
offering people in developing countries the opportunity to plan the
however, of their families is essential to avoid an aggravation of already
difficult size social, economic and environmental problems. OECD Members stand
ready to support measures to improve women's economic and social effective conditions in
developing countries and to help establish, fund and implement
population strategies and programmes as e matter of priority.
Technology Co-operation
Technological innovation and transfer of technology play an important
34. role in tackling environmental problems world-wide. OECD Members are committed
to co-operate with developing countries to improve their access to
environmentally sound technologies and to enhance their capacity to use and
develop these technologies by
-- assisting the development of appropriate incentive structures,
policies, legislation and institutions;
-- providing information on technology availability and options:
-- using existing and new technical assistance programmes and facilities and
to assist in building institutional capacities, providing experts
training, supporting local research and development efforts, and
promoting the transfer of technology more generally;
-- addressing barriers to technology transfer.
In 8 market economy the access to technology under private ownership is
35. largely determined by market considerations and economic and legal conditions. the
Policies of all countries should create propitious conditions to encourage
private sector to innovate, market and use the technologies that contribute to
sustainable development. Ministers welcome the initiatives of major
corporations in integrating environmental concerns into their practices as
recommended by OECD and the initiatives in several countries for public/private
co-operation.
Financing Sustainable Development
36. sustainable By development is and must be generated by the developing
far the largest proportion of the financial resources required countries for
themselves. CECD Ministers therefore recognise the need to promote an
This includes reforms of the international trade system, including improved to
international economic climate that is conducive to sustainable development.
access: conditions in developing countries which are attractive
market international investment; mobilisation of domestic savings; further progress in
the debt area and diversification of national economies. Public expenditures
8
-10/03/91
15:44
2026470217
1
016
10
in both developed and developing countries need to be carefully reviewed to
maximise their contribution to sustainable development, including particular
attention to the scope for reallocating military expenditures.
OECD Members recognise that substantial additional aid efforts will be
37. required, in light of the huge development tasks ahead. Ministers pledge
attention to both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of aid and note the
target already established by international organisations for the future level
of development assistance.
OECD Members realise in particular that additional assistance, beyond
(38. (and separate from) current levels of development support, will have to be made
available if developing countries are to play their part in coping with
glebal-scale environmental problems.)
Donor commitment to finding the means to support world-wide co-operation
39. in protecting the environment is manifested by the recent creation of a special
fund under the Montreal Protocol and the establishment of the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) under joint World Bank, UNEP and UNDP auspices.
Ministers underline the potential role that the GEF can play as the
international mechanism to provide additional assistance to developing
countries in the framework of the ongoing negotiations on the global
environment, and thus note the desirability of expanding the number of
participants. [while they agree that a proliferation of new funding mechanisms
is to be avoided, issue-specific approaches such as the special fund of the
Montreal Protocol may be preferable for global conventions.) They also
recognise the desirability of establishing decision-making procedures that
adequately reflect the role of the recipient countries.
[40. OECD Ministers commit themselves to exploring other measures and new
initiatives to ensure that substantial additional assistance would be made
available to support globally beneficial action by developing countries.
]
New OECD Initiatives for Co-operation in Capacity Building
OECD Ministers pledge to give high priority to working with developing
41. countries, Central and Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union in
strengthening their national capacities to identify and manage environmental
problems. In addition to bilateral co-operation, efforts will be made to make
available to these countries the insights and knowledge derived from OECD work.
Ministers accordingly encourage the OECD to provide expanded and new
opportunities 42. to share its experience, documentation and data with non-Member
countries. This could take the form of special seminars and conferences;
invitations to technical meetings, information and data exchanges. The
following areas of special OECD expertise and IEA expertise in the area of
energy would be particularly suited to these types of co-operation:
-- tools for environmental management (environmental taxes and tax
policy, regulations):
-- integration of economic and environmental policies in specific
sectors (energy, agriculture, transport):
-- pollution control strategies, including costs and benefits;
0
-10/03/81 15:45
2026470217
1
017
11
MP safe management of hazardous chemicals and toxic substances;
-- cleaner technologies (government policies; information on technology
state-of-the art);
-- cleaner, more efficient energy supply systems;
- environmental performance measurement (environmental indicators,
revised national accounting systems, country reviews).
- the application and monitoring of the DAC Guidelines and
Recommendations in the fields of environment, institutional
development and technical co-operation.
(43. OECD Members will explore the utility and feasibility of establishing
with interested partners in developing countries a consultative process with a
view to providing improved and more systematic support for capacity building in
the area above.)
or Conference on Environment and Development
44.
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
provides at unique opportunity to formulate strategies for sustainable
development and to enter into strengthened partnerships to attack environmental
problems at national, regional and global levels. Further, it offers the
occasion for endorsing the Earth Charter, a consensus on yoals and priorities
for the 1990s and beyond, and for agreeing to commitments for concrete actions
as specified in Agenda 21. Ministers reiterate their countries' support for
the development of effective conventions on biodiversity and on climate change
in time for signature at the 1992 UN Conference as well as for a statement of
principles on forest management leading towards a Forest Convention. OECD
Ministers pledge high-level attendance and their best efforts to make the
Conference a success.
10
10/03/91
15:46
2026470217
018
Item for PCC Consideration on Technology Cooperation
Many OECD member states have particularly welcomed U.S.
leadership on the subject of technology cooperation, as presented
at the most recent UNCED preparatory meeting and elsewhere. They
are likely to seek out U.S. views at the OECD as to how and when
to proceed beyond the general articulation of the concept, to
more specific proposals for action. It would therefore be useful
to consider what specific proposals might be endorsed at the OECD
Ministerial that would serve U.S. interests in a range of fora.
The major thrust of much U.S. work on technology cooperation
might well be advanced most effectively in the context of the
climate change negotiations. A U.S. package on technology
cooperation for climate change could prove tactically useful at a
critical point in those important negotiations.
At the same time, the U.S. might strengthen support for our
objectives there and at UNCED by working with other DECD nations
to develop specific proposals on technology cooperation of a more
narrowly focused or technical nature (safe drinking water,
pesticide management, etc.) within the ORCD. That institution
has some unique strengths and capabilities in the Development
Cooperation Directorate, the Development Center, the Environment
Directorate and other directorates as well as the International
Energy Agency that could be drawn upon. It might be useful, in
furthering U.S. commitment to sustainable development, if the
U.S. were to advocate Ministerial endorsement in December of a
range of programs that reflect the comparative advantage and
special strength of the OECD as an institution to promote
sustainable development (for example, its work on economic
incentives, institution building on legislation and regulations,
pollution prevention or risk assesement/management). In this
regard, it would be most useful to have an indication from all
interested USG agencies as to which principal areas they believe
are most useful in making concrete progress toward sustainable
development. Since the Administrators for A.I.D. and EPA will
lead the U.S. delegation in December, it might be most useful for
those Agencies to develop more proposals, but proposals from all
should be solicited for interagency consideration.
Further, the U.S. might propose or support proposals from
other OECD member states to work together, in consultation with
key developing nations, to provide for means or mechanisms to
enhance the capacity-building which is an integral part of
technology cooperation. It would be useful to draw again from
the views of all concerned USG agencies to indicate what
mechanisms they would consider most effective and which ones are
already incorporated in their present or projected programs (thus
occasioning no additional commitment of resources).
REPORT
OF
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
WORKING GROUP
ON
INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT POLICY
25 JULY, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
INSTITUTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
FINANCE
LEGAL ISSUES
ANNEX 1: LIST OF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
INTRODUCTION
The Aspen Institute convened an international Working Group in Aspen,
Colorado, from 18-25 July, 1991, to discuss institutional, technology, financial
and legal issues that will fall within the scope of the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development. The members of the
Working Group, which was chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, are listed in Annex
1.
This report is based on the discussions of the Working Group. It does not
represent a document that has been approved by individual members of the
Group. It is, rather, a summary by the rapporteurs, issued on the authority of
the Chairman and the Aspen Institute, of the principal elements of the
Group's deliberations and of the recommendations and options that emerged
from its work. The report is submitted to participants in the third meeting of
the UNCED Preparatory Committee and to others interested in UNCED's
work in the hope that it may serve a useful and practical purpose in focusing
discussions and crystallizing decisions in the short time remaining before
UNCED itself convenes in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
Several general themes recurred throughout the Aspen Group's deliberations
and deserve to be highlighted at the outset. These themes are summarized in
the following four sections of this Introduction.
The Central Role of National, Subnational and Regional Governments and
Non-Governmental Organizations. The primary responsibility for
environmentally sound, or sustainable, development must rest with
governments at all levels, acting through a broadly participatory process
involving non-governmental organizations and groups (including the
private corporate sector) and private citizens and, where appropriate, in
conjunction with regional organizations. This applies to industrial and to
developing countries, both of which in different ways have proved unable or
unwilling to coordinate and integrate their policies related to environment
and development with a view to achieving sustainable development.
Strengthening the capacity of these national, subnational and regional
organizations for promoting sustainable development and reinforcing the
participatory nature of decision-making processes at all levels should be a
primary goal of all those, including international organizations, concerned
with sustainable development throughout the world. International
institutions, in the Working Group's view, should provide the necessary staff
support for this purpose.
Concern for the Future. Giving reality to the concept of sustainable
development implies that human beings should have a different view of the
relationship between the interests of the present and those of future
generations than is typically the case. This idea has important, and difficult,
implications across a number of fields. These include the adoption of full
social cost pricing as a means of ensuring that the externalities of human
behavior are adequately accounted for, and new legal concepts of
intergenerational equity. The Working Group believes that this heightened
concern for the future, even though the ways in which it can be made
operational may not be fully understood, should be a guiding light for
UNCED's work and for the implementation of the Agenda 21 action plan and
the specific Conventions that are likely to emerge from the Conference.
Concern for future generations should not be seen as diminishing concern for
the welfare of the present generation. The Working Group underlined the
importance of ensuring the right of each individual to freedom and adequate
conditions of life. At the same time, all persons bear the responsibility to
protect and improve the environment for present and future generations, as
well as for the sustainable use of natural resources, taking account of their
financial and technical capability to do so.
Consumption and Population. Unsustainable patterns of consumption and
population growth are two of the primary causes of global environmental
problems now and in the future. Achieving a path to sustainable
development requires changes in the behavior patterns that give rise to these
two phenomena. Such changes will require profound modifications in
individual, social, economic and political behavior. But without progress in
this direction even the best conceived action plans and institutional,
technological, financial and legal arrangements that the international
community might put in place would be for naught. The Aspen Working
Group did not address itself to these issues in detail, but recognized their
fundamental importance to the work of UNCED and to the prospects for
sustainable development.
Urgency and Timing. The Aspen Working Group's discussions reflected a
sense of urgency about the need for progress by governments and peoples
towards more sustainable development. Many of the institutional,
technological, financial and legal changes required to make such progress
may, nevertheless, take several years to implement. The Group's
recommendations and options ranged over measures that can be taken in the
short term and more fundamental changes that will take longer to achieve.
Where possible, this report distinguishes between these different time
horizons for action. A cardinal principle for UNCED, however, is to ensure
that actions taken in the short term are consistent with, and where possible
facilitate, measures that will take longer to adopt and implement. It would be
at best unfortunate if short term decisions were taken for reasons of
expediency or convenience that would have a high likelihood of impeding
desirable longer term changes or generating perverse consequences.
2
INSTITUTIONS
Defining the Problem
Protection of the environment and the processes of development are
inextricably linked. But governments have yet to draw the necessary
conclusions and adopt effective sustainable development strategies. As long
as sectoral policies and programs are not integrated at the national level,
governments are limited in their ability to promote coordination at the inter-
governmental level. Such improved coordination would make more
efficient use of existing resources.
Sustainable development will require new kinds of institutional capabilities,
particularly for cross-sectoral decision-making, public participation, and
continuing innovation. Action at the local level is the key. International
institutions should therefore do more to help national and local
organizations integrate environment and development in their planning,
and provide incentives to promote sustainable growth through the private
sector.
The wide range of multilateral activities and the growing influence of non-
governmental entities worldwide has substantially altered the landscape of
international institutions since the establishment of the United Nations and
the Bretton Woods institutions following the Second World War. The nature
of the challenges facing them today has also changed dramatically. The
Group believe that new emphasis on sustainable development in the
growing network of regional and global institutions -- governmental and
non-governmental -- should be strongly encouraged.
The increasing number of UN and other international organizations has also
led to overlapping responsibilities, and left a number of organizations of
doubtful value. At the same time, as new issues have become more urgent,
there are gaps in the existing system that must be filled. The Group
considered means to consolidate existing secretariat and inter-governmental
institutions, and considered new program areas.
The need to improve arrangements for independent review of performance
by international institutions, and their progress toward agreed objectives and
targets, also received attention. The Working Group emphasized the
importance of obtaining scientific and technical advice and contributions
from women, youth, indigenous peoples and other habitually under-
represented groups.
In examining improvements in institutional arrangements, the Working
Group distinguished between the secretariats of the United Nations system
and the responsibilities of inter-governmental decision-making bodies. It
1
commended steps to strengthen support staff functions, both to maintain the
momentum from UNCED and to review progress on Agenda 21, and to lay
the groundwork for far-reaching changes in the future. It noted certain
initiatives for reform of the UN system and other international institutions.
It was important that UNCED should take good account of them.
Capacity Building and Empowerment
Global and regional organizations should enhance national capabilities. The
empowerment of a broad range of local communities and citizens' groups to
enable them to take part in formulating and implementing sustainable
development was essential.
Coherent national policies were widely viewed as a prerequisite. For the
developing countries, they provided the foundation for external support by
identifying needs and priorities and a framework to ensure that such support
promoted sustainable development. This would require adequate funding.
The industrial countries also needed to adopt coherent policies for their own
sustainable development.
The Working Group examined the ways in which international institutions,
both global and regional, contributed to building national capabilities. This
point is considered in more detail in the sections on technology and finance.
It includes access to information, technical training, policy advice, mobilizing
financial resources, and reviewing performance of UN members as well as
the UN institutions themselves.
Making Better Use of What Exists
1. Specialized Agencies and Programs
While the Working Group acknowledged that many UN agencies and
programs were concerned with sustainable development, including notably
UNEP, UNDP, UNIDO, FAO, WHO and ILO, it focused particularly on UNEP
and UNDP. In respect of UNEP, the Group recommended:
strengthening UNEP's assessment functions through building
linkages with other UN system agencies in the Earthwatch
program, as well as through expanded working relations with
private research institutes and non-governmental organizations;
strengthening UNEP's role in the development of international
environmental law and "soft law" instruments, and in
performing secretariat functions arising from an increasing
number of international legal agreements;
2
strengthening UNEP's role with the general public and non-
governmental entities, as well as inter-governmental
institutions;
strengthening its role in reviewing UN programs in order to
catalyze activities to promote sustainable development;
discontinuing UNEP's role in project implementation, while
promoting closer collaboration at the regional level between
UNEP and UNDP to review national progress toward
sustainable development and to support training programs in
environmental planning and management.
In respect of UNDP, the Working Group recommended that:
UNDP should use its existing network to provide technical
support for devising and implementing policies for sustainable
development at the national and regional levels;
--
UNDP field offices, UNEP regional offices, and the other
regional and field offices of the UN system should combine their
skills and resources
In considering the review of program performance and the attainment of
national objectives and targets, there was support for periodically updating
the country reports presented to UNCED. These could be examined by the
strengthened inter-agency mechanisms and the Commission for Sustainable
Development proposed below, as well as by the donors' consultative groups
and roundtables for each country.
2. General Institutions
The Working Group considered the ways in which the UN General Assembly
and ECOSOC might help to create a global political consensus on sustainable
development. It recognized the need for rationalization of the subsidiary
bodies of both, and in this context noted the program of reform of the
economic and social sectors of the United Nations initiated in 1991, and the
expectation that a new Secretary-General would make important changes in
the UN Secretariat. As an example of gaps in the existing institutional
structure that needed to be filled, the Group specifically noted energy.
3. Improved Coordination
Inter-Agency Coordination for Sustainable Development. The Working
Group considered sustained staff follow-up to UNCED vital. It proposed
3
strengthening the role of the Administrative Committee on Coordination
(ACC) in this regard both through regular meetings devoted exclusively to
sustainable development and through the establishment of a task force on the
subject. The membership of the task force should include representatives of
the international financial and other relevant institutions outside the UN
system. In this fashion, the ACC could facilitate policy coordination among
UN agencies and programs and different sectoral areas, and monitor progress.
This task force could be chaired by a senior representative of the Commission
for Sustainable Development proposed below.
Pending establishment of the Commission, an interim arrangement to
facilitate coordination within the U.N. system would be to extend the
functions of the UNCED secretariat, drawing primarily on existing inter-
agency staff.
The Group supported the establishment of ad hoc working parties in sectoral
and cross-sectoral areas -- similar to those established by UNCED -- which in
consultation with government representatives would review relevant UN
system activities, develop inter-agency projects, and make recommendations
on future program activities. The Group agreed that provision should be
made for advice from under-represented groups, especially women.
An Integrated Global Watch Mechanism. The Group believed that
integrating social, economic, environmental and political information for
assessing risks was essential. It recognized also that such risks might have
security implications. It recommended new means for bringing together
under the Secretary-General relevant data and information and for drawing
to his attention and that of member states problems affecting sustainable
development.
Looking at Something New
New international legal agreements, particularly an agreement on climate
change, should be designed to lay the foundation for a coordinated
international system for the protection of the environment and to contribute
to the consolidation and rationalization of the existing UN system.
The Group noted recent proposals for the creation of an Environmental
Security Council and use of the Trusteeship Council to consider sustainable
development issues, and agreed that arrangements along these lines could
involve amendment of the UN Charter and might raise significant political
difficulties.
To ensure that sustainable development were treated as a high priority
throughout the international system and given sufficient political impetus
from governments, the Group recommended the establishment of an
4
intergovernmental Commission for Sustainable Development, which would
meet annually at ministerial level. The Commission, which would report to
the General Assembly through ECOSOC and act as the coordinating body of
the UN system (although it would not, of course, cut across the
responsibilities of individual agencies, programs or treaty bodies). It would
concentrate on identifying needs and priorities for sustainable development
and monitor progress on Agenda 21 and in the bodies likely to be set up by
Conventions on such specific issues as climate change, forests, and
biodiversity. Its functions would be deliberative, and it would provide policy
guidance for the UN system and other institutions involved in sustainable
development. The Commission would be serviced by a small secretariat,
drawing upon the staffs of the international system.
Parallel with the Commission, an advisory committee of independent
experts, including representatives of industry and the scientific and NGO
communities, would be established as a source of expert advice and review.
This Committee could subsume the functions of the Advisory Committee on
Science and Technology for Development. The relationship between the
Commission, the committee, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
should be examined. Account should also be taken of the recent proposal for
the establishment of an International Development Council.
The Group noted the proposal for a non-governmental commission of
experts, along the lines of the Brundtland Commission, to formulate
recommendations for institutional arrangements for sustainable
development capable of meeting the challenges of the next century. Such a
commission could explore in greater depth the range and scope of needed
reforms in light of decisions taken at UNCED, and make recommendations to
the 48th UNGA.
5
TECHNOLOGY
Defining the Problem.
Technology is a crucial component of progress towards sustainable
development. This issue has usually been discussed under the rubric of
technology "transfer" or, more recently, "cooperation". Neither term, in the
Working Group's view, adequately describes the processes needed to move
both industrial and developing countries on to a sustainable development
path. These processes can perhaps best be summarized as technology
development, both in industrial and developing countries, and technology
diffusion within and between countries at all levels of development.
The Working Group's deliberations focused on ways in which these processes
could be promoted, and the role that UNCED could usefully play through
Agenda 21.
The Working Group underlined the importance of the 'soft technologies' of
training, management and access to, and use of, information. Soft
technologies were essential to the exploitation of the 'hard technologies' of
plant and equipment. Many of the ideas discussed by the Group were directed
to ensuring the diffusion of soft technologies to ensure that the diffusion of
hard technologies would not be rendered ineffective by the inability to
assimilate and exploit them in sustainable fashion.
National Capacity Building
The Working Group recommended that UNCED should focus particularly on
ways in which the capacity of developing countries to develop and assimilate
hard and soft technologies appropriate to sustainable development could be
enhanced. Both international institutions and the private sector should
ensure that their technology initiatives support agreed national strategies.
Donor programs should incorporate provisions for sustained technical
training of indigenous experts and the development of maintenance and
managerial capabilities. Such programs must ensure that traditionally
excluded groups have the opportunity to participate, and must be subject to
external review and public oversight.
Technology assessment capabilities should be strengthened in both the
government and the non-government sectors in all countries so as to
facilitate sustainable development.
International financial institutions should give priority to cooperating with
private corporations and the technical assistance agencies to create the long-
term infrastructure required to sustain technology research, development and
innovation in developing countries. Through university partnerships
between industrial and developing countries, engineering and technical
education should incorporate environmental considerations into technology
research, development, application, maintenance, and management. Means
should also be found to promote technology cooperation between small and
medium sized enterprises in the private sector in the industrial and
developing countries.
Ways needed to be found to encourage the return to their home countries of
expatriate experts, who represent a reservoir of technical talent that could
facilitate the diffusion of technology.
Regional Institutions and Initiatives
UNCED should encourage regional environment, economic and
development organizations to coordinate and integrate their programs and
policies to promote capacity-building at the regional level. In the long term,
such regional organizations should aim to establish a network of institutions
to facilitate technology diffusion through training, research and
development, access to and dissemination of information, and exchange of
experience. In this respect, the efforts of UNDP to create a Sustainable
Development Network deserve encouragement.
UNCED should support the Global Change System for Analysis and Training
(START) initiative under the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. If
the social sciences were included with the natural sciences, the START
initiative could become a valuable tool for promoting sustainable
development through new regional institutions.
UNCED should also encourage better use of consultative groups to strengthen
regional and national capabilities to develop technologies for sustainable
development, along the lines of the Consultative Groups on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
The Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs) can play a special role in
facilitating technology diffusion between industrial and developing countries
and among developing countries. Donor agencies and countries should
develop and fund such tripartite arrangements as Third Country Training
Programs to support human resources development in developing countries
in close cooperation with the NIEs.
Availability of and Access to Information
Ensuring that developing countries have access to information about
environmentally sound technology for development should be a high
priority. UNCED should look at practical ways to encourage the synthesis of
2
information on the range and scope of available technologies in key sectors. It
would be useful to develop a network for synthesizing information on public
service system technologies relevant to improving the urban environment,
such as sewage and transport systems, and observation and monitoring.
International and non-governmental organizations should sponsor analyses
of successes and failures in technology and support appropriately qualified
institutions in the developing countries so that they may contribute to these
analyses.
UNCED should call on the corporate sector to:
cooperate in designing clearinghouse mechanisms and
networking arrangements to disseminate information on
technologies for sustainable development.
cooperate with development agencies to create demonstration
projects for key sectors and countries to carry out innovative
approaches to technology cooperation.
NGOs should continue to gather and publicize information on
environmentally-sound technologies and processes.
Market Incentives, Regulations and Standards
The Group stressed that national governments should develop regulatory
frameworks to provide incentives for the use of environmentally sound
technology in all sectors of their economies, including those that may still not
be fully incorporated into the market system. It recognized the critical
importance of motivating the private sector to develop and deploy more
environmentally benevolent technologies. To this end, governments should
provide a stable climate for technology investments; reform their existing
budgetary and fiscal policies, particularly in the energy, agriculture and forest
sectors; ensure that the environmental impacts of the exploitation of fossil
fuels, water and other resources are reflected in their prices; and eliminate
subsidies encouraging pollution and the use of technologies that are
environmentally unsustainable.
Further study is needed of those areas in which protection for intellectual
property rights is an impediment to the transfer of environmentally sound
technology. The Group underlined the need to ensure that those who had
developed ways of helping to preserve biodiversity should receive
appropriate benefits and protection.
UNCED should call on the corporate sector to:
3
suggest specific market based incentives that would motivate
them to find and implement cost-effective solutions to
environmental problems.
identify areas in which high environmental standards are a
priority and launch a coordinated program to encourage their
diffusion through supplier and contractor arrangements.
endorse the consistent application of environmental standards
and guidelines in corporate practice at home and abroad.
Industrial country governments should provide appropriate incentives for
corporations to engage in the diffusion of environmentally sound
technologies.
Research and Development
UNCED should support initiatives to encourage research and development of
environmentally sound technologies. In certain critical areas identified by
UNCED, donor consortia, the private sector, and other non-governmental
entities should collaborate in financing cooperative research and
development in developing countries and regions. The Japanese New Earth
21 initiative is an example of an initiative of this kind that envisages broad
international cooperation.
UNCED should recommend that methodologies be developed to apply full
social cost pricing to technology research and development and technology
assessment.
General
UNCED should endorse a statement of principles on technology, which
should include such ideas as that technology diffusion is a two-way street
within and among industrial and developing countries; that technology
development and diffusion should both help avoid risks to the global
environment and meet immediate basic needs for water, energy, food,
shelter, transport, and income generation; that particular support should be
given to managing population problems; and that countries with relevant
technology have a special responsibility to assist other countries gain access,
on mutually acceptable terms, to technologies that support sustainable
development.
In support of these objectives, UNCED should identify those sectors where
technology cooperation would make a substantial and immediate difference,
for example, in energy, agriculture, waste reduction, water quality, chemicals,
and population stabilization.
4
UNCED should identify key sectoral areas where analyses by international
organizations, private research institutes, NGOs, governments, and private
industry could identify specific and surmountable barriers to the diffusion of
environmentally sound technology. Once specific barriers were identified,
the need for concessional financing should be assessed, and appropriate
measures implemented, for example by drawing on such funding
mechanisms as the Global Environment Facility.
The industrial countries should be encouraged to apply far more widely in
their own economies technologies for sustainable development, not least in
the transport sector, in energy efficiency, and in the use of renewable energy
sources. In addition, industrial countries need to devote greater attention to
the problem of industrial conversion, including, but not limited to, the
conversion of defense industries.
5
FINANCE
Defining the Problem
Finance will be one of the most critical issues in the UNCED process, on
which the success of its other work will depend. Without adequate financial
arrangements, agreements on institutional, technology and legal issues
would be unlikely to succeed.
The effective participation of developing countries in creating national,
regional and global conditions for sustainable development require
substantial and adequate funding from a combination of public and private
sources.
Existing financial difficulties are related to macroeconomic factors, including
national economic policies, debt problems, terms of trade, commodity trends,
and financial and investment flows. The Group recognized that the context
for financing for sustainable development during the 1990s would be
constrained, but that there were opportunities for making better use of
existing resources, and for mobilizing additional ones should the UNCED
process lead to agreement on well-structured, imaginative and practical
measures.
In this context, discussion in the Working Group focused on:-
--
financial needs;
--
new and existing sources of finance;
--
management of financial resources.
Financial Needs
Substantial and adequate financial resources are needed:
--
In respect of achieving national sustainable development
(otherwise than under specific international legal obligations) in
order to:
-
develop and implement cost-effective national
policies and programs for achieving sustainable
development;
-
design and implement investment programs in
priority sectors to restore and ensure sustainable
development;
-
develop indigenous human capacity, through
education and training;
-
develop national monitoring, fact-finding and
forecasting techniques and abilities;
-
integrate full social and environmental costs into
economic activities, by adapting national
accounting procedures;
-
identify, develop and market domestic,
environmentally sound technologies, through
improved research and development;
-
assist in meeting the costs of environmentally
sound technologies;
-
assist in meeting basic poverty needs.
--
In respect of environmental degradation and catastrophe, joint
efforts to mobilize resources are needed to meet the cost of
measures to limit such environmental degradation and to
restore sustainable productive capacity.
--
In respect of new international legal obligations, in order to:
-
ensure that all developing countries are able to
participate effectively in the negotiation of
international legislative efforts relating to
sustainable development, including through the
development of indigenous human resources and
the provision of technical assistance;
-
meet the incremental costs in developing countries
of meeting international legal obligations that have
global benefits;
-
help meet transitional costs, including lost
opportunity costs, associated with meeting
international legal obligations relating to
sustainable development.
2
New and Existing Sources of Finance
The Group concluded that a combination of additional public and private
resources from various sources should be used and further developed, on the
basis of joint responsibility. In this regard, the Group recognized that
international development is a phased process in which the early stages can
require technical assistance and grant aid to strengthen human, institutional
and infrastructure capabilities, and to carry out pre-feasibility studies which
prepare the ground for non-concessional investments, the bulk of which
have come from private loans. In this sense overseas aid can be the catalyst
for sustainable development.
Much of the funding required for sustainable development could be found by
the adoption by governments, and multilateral and regional development
banks and the IMF, of appropriate national and international economic
policies, reducing military expenditures, redeployment of those market
interventions which encourage unsustainable development, the successful
conclusion of the Uruguay Round, measures to cope with the burdens of debt,
and the mobilization of private resources. In that regard, the Group reached
the following conclusions:
1. Public Investment and Funding
Improving on existing uses of ODA. Efforts should be undertaken to make
better use of existing bilateral and multilateral development assistance,
including better targeting of resources towards sustainable development.
Meeting, and increasing, existing ODA obligations. Countries should pay
outstanding contributions to international institutions relating to sustainable
development, especially the Multilateral Fund established under the
Montreal Protocol, the IBRD/UNDP/UNEP Global Environment Facility,
UNFPA, and the voluntary Trust Funds established to ensure the full and
effective participation of developing countries in the negotiations of Climate
Change and Biodiversity Conventions and UNCED;
Consideration should also be given to increasing assessed and voluntary
contributions to international institutions concerned with sustainable
development and to funds under their control. In particular, substantial
additional finance should be made available to UNEP.
In the interests of improving burden-sharing among industrial countries,
those which have not already done so should make the effort to raise their
overseas development assistance to internationally agreed targets.
2. Debt Relief
3
Public and private debt relief could become a significant source of finance, by
providing relief from onerous obligations and releasing local currency
funding. Further efforts should therefore be made to encourage "debt-for-
sustainable development", by using, as appropriate, public and private sector
debt to finance sustainable development programs in developing countries.
3. Fiscal Incentives, Market Mechanisms, and Charges.
Use of appropriate economic instruments should be considered at local,
national, regional and global levels. In this regard UNCED should emphasize
the importance of integrating full social and environmental costs into
economic activities. Fiscal incentives and disincentives can be used to
promote sustainable development.
Consideration should be given to market mechanisms to increase the
efficiency of pollution control, including the possible adoption of tradeable
emission permits at local, national, regional and global levels.
Consideration should also be given to appropriate and differential charges
and user-fees at local, national, regional and global levels, for use of the global
commons, including emissions and discharges into the atmosphere and
oceans.
4. Free Trade and Private Investment.
Recognizing that free trade is crucial to improving national economic and
financial capacity, access to markets should be improved by removing barriers
to trade adopted by governments and regional integration organizations,
especially those disguised as means of environmental protection.
To encourage direct foreign investment in sustainable development,
incentives to encourage transnational corporations and industrial enterprises
to invest in, and transfer environmentally sustainable technology to,
developing countries should be explored.
The possibility of creating new private investment funds should also be
explored as a means of channelling savings into companies in the developing
world whose technologies and products can contribute to sustainable
development.
Management of Financial Resources
A large proportion of the investment required to achieve sustainable
development must come from the private sector in both industrialized and
4
developing countries, and recognized that more efficient management of
public financial resources was critical to their catalytic role.
1.
The management of global financial resources requires the active
participation of, and close collaboration between, institutions whose activities
influence the funds available for sustainable development. These include
international and regional development finance institutions, bilateral
development assistance agencies, UNDP, UNEP, UNCTAD, GATT, specialist
funding arrangements (Montreal Protocol), developing country agencies and
institutions, private foundations and corporations. A proliferation of
management and administrative mechanisms for funding should be
avoided.
2. Public financial institutions, as well as such other agencies as the GATT,
should direct their activities to support sustainable development. In addition
to public investment and higher priority being given to capacity building,
programs should be designed to increase private sector and small-scale, grass
roots lending activities.
In this regard, and in the context of the current GATT negotiations, particular
attention should be given to:-
harmonizing technical standards relating to environmental
protection and sustainable development, while allowing higher
standards to be adopted where appropriate;
rationalizing lending programs in particular sectors and regions,
seeking also to fill any gaps which may exist;
committing such institutions to follow a Code of Conduct on
Sustainable Development.
3. Lessons learned from existing multilateral funds and facilities should be
closely analyzed, particularly those relating to:-
the Multilateral Fund established under the Montreal Protocol;
the IBRD/UNEP/UNDP Global Environment Facility (GEF);
the UNEP Voluntary Fund;
4. The GEF, recently established as a pilot project for a period of three years
under the auspices of the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP, constitutes an
initiative which should be carefully monitored, evaluated, and improved
upon. Considering that the management of resources for the Montreal
Protocol are now incorporated within the GEF, UNCED could consider using
5
the GEF to serve as an umbrella multilateral organization for channelling
additional resources linked to specific conventions, including the preparation
of national strategies.
In particular issues such as governance, structure and scope, priorities in
allocating resources should be set to respond to the specific requirements of
each particular convention and the interests of the involved parties.
General
The Group recommended that detailed costings and estimates to assess
financial needs to achieve local, national, regional and global sustainable
development be undertaken on a sectoral and geographical basis so as to
provide a solid foundation for the design and financing of sustainable
development programs.
Considering the critical importance of finance in the UNCED negotiations, it
is important to move as rapidly as possible to enlist the active support and
participation of key financial institutions. The UNCED Secretariat should
consider convening one or more informal Working Groups of
representatives of the financial institutions identified above to begin the
process of mobilizing financial resources as the preparations for UNCED
proceed.
6
LEGAL ISSUES
Introduction
The frontiers of international environmental law need to be moved forward.
Sustainable development requires the adoption of substantive legal
obligations capable of effective and equitable implementation at national,
regional and global levels.
The international law-making process needs to be enhanced. The
effectiveness and usefulness of general international legal instruments on
environment and development depends on the widest possible participation
of all states in the negotiation of these instruments. Measures are needed to
ensure the full and effective participation of developing countries in the
negotiation of regional and global legal instruments, including building
indigenous capacity and providing technical assistance.
Sustainable development could also be advanced by the elaboration of non-
binding instruments, and the development of rules of customary
international law, as well as general principles of law.
The use of international institutions and their respective organs in the
development and implementation of new global and regional legal
instruments should be consolidated. Due regard should be given to
maintaining and developing expertise and continuity in the secretariats and
staffs of such institutions.
International legal instruments should be adopted and implemented at the
most appropriate level. In this regard, consideration should be given to
developing regional legal instruments and protocols which integrate
environment and development, taking account of the particular
characteristics and needs of different regions.
In international law-making processes, obligations of countries should be
commensurate with their contribution to the deterioration of the global
commons and to the degradation of the environment and depletion of
natural resources, particularly in relation to the provision of financial and
technological assistance.
In international economic integration and free trade processes, specifically
those involving both industrial and developing countries, provisions should
be made to:
1
ensure that those processes are conducive to sustainable
development do not repeat economic development models,
patterns and practices which have proved to be environmentally
damaging and unsustainable;
ensure that those processes do not perpetuate or take advantage
of insufficient domestic environmental legislation, or its
implementation, or of poverty conditions in developing
countries.
After a wide-ranging discussion on legal issues, the Working Group made the
following recommendations to assist UNCED in framing fundamental
principles on general rights and obligations in the field of environment and
development for possible inclusion in an Earth Charter, and in developing
international environmental law in the light of the need to integrate
environment and development.
Earth Charter
The Working Group discussed the desirability of incorporating into an Earth
Charter to be adopted by UNCED principles on general rights and obligations
of states and regional integration organizations, taking due account of all the
regional preparatory conferences.
In the Group's view, the following points, which are neither comprehensive
nor presented in any order of priority, should be reflected in the Earth Charter
to develop the Principles to be found in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration:
respect for intergenerational equity and responsibility;
--
the responsibility of states, including, where appropriate,
differentiated responsibility;
the precautionary principle;
recognition that international law on the environment should
be mostly preventive in nature;
the need for prior risk assessment and risk minimization;
the principle of subsidiarity, namely that decisions should be
taken and implemented at the lowest of the national, regional or
global levels, depending on which is the most appropriate;
recognition that threats to the environment may constitute
threats to the maintenance of international peace and security;
2
full integration of social and environmental costs into
accounting and costing processes;
liability for environmental damage;
introduction of sustainable development into international law-
making and decision-making;
--
the rights of individuals, groups and organizations to:
-
express their views freely;
-
obtain, publish and distribute information without
legal or administrative impediment;
-
participate fully in legislative, administrative and
judicial processes, including environmental impact
assessment procedures;
the obligation of states, international institutions and regional
integration organizations to:
-
provide free, open and effective information;
-
exchange information;
protection of the livelihood and culture of indigenous peoples
from activities which might adversely affect their natural
environment;
the principle that all persons should have access to, and
sustainable use of, the resources of the global commons;
recognition of the contribution to sustainable development from
enhancement of the role of women in the development of
international environmental law.
Development of International Environmental Law.
The Working Group discussed possible areas for the development of
international environmental law, in the light of the need to integrate
environment and development and taking into account the special needs and
concerns of developing countries.
The Working Group believed that the International Law Commission could
make an important contribution to the further development of
international environmental law.
3
The Working Group agreed that, in addition to adopting an Earth Charter
declaring basic rights and obligations of States, as well as regional integration
organizations, and of non-governmental entities in the field of environment
and development, the substantive rules of international law of environment
and development should be developed by:
--
establishing appropriate rules relating to trade and
environment, particularly by
-
ensuring that international trading arrangements,
including the GATT, promote sustainable
development;
-
ensuring that national standards or rules of
environmental protection are not used for
protectionist purposes;
-
convening the GATT Environment Committee to
assist in defining how trade measures can properly
be used for environmental purposes;
rationalizing, and improving on, existing instruments
establishing ecological reserves;
identifying any gaps in legal regimes; developing where
necessary new regional and global instruments where gaps exist
in existing instruments; closing gaps; and in the light of the
principles and points identified as requiring reflection in the
Earth Charter, including for international environmental law:
-
forests;
-
oceans, regional seas and coastal zone management;
-
soil erosion and desertification;
-
atmospheric pollution;
-
conservation of marine resources, including
driftnet fishing;
-
environmental protection clauses in law of warfare;
-
management of freshwater resources, including
groundwater;
-
the cryosphere;
-
vulnerable ecosystems.
harmonizing standards of, as well as approaches to, existing
regional and global legal instruments, while allowing the
adoption of higher standards where appropriate, and ensuring
the compatibility of new instruments;
4
where appropriate, harmonizing national regulatory standards
on a regional basis, and within or between states;
further developing rules of intergenerational equity and
responsibility, as well as the rules of liability for environmental
damage;
The Working Group agreed that the implementation of regional and global
international law of environment and development should be strengthened
by:
encouraging the appropriate and necessary conditions for greater
accession to, and ratification of, international legal instruments,
including the identification and removal of impediments, and
the development of appropriate techniques, such as the use of
grace periods for developing countries;
developing and enhancing monitoring and reporting techniques
and requirements, particularly through building indigenous
capacity in developing countries;
improving flows of information to and between States, regional
integration organizations and non-governmental entities by
developing regional and global legal instruments to ensure
-
the right of effective access of all persons to
environmental information;
-
appropriate participation in environmental impact
assessments of activities and policies which might
have an international impact;
and, to that end, identifying an appropriate international
institution, such as UNEP or UNDP, which could develop and
manage a computerized data-base system;
ensuring the incorporation of international legal obligations
into national legal systems;
developing improved techniques for the prevention of conflicts,
including fact-finding mechanisms;
further developing mechanisms and techniques for reviewing
the effectiveness and implementation of international legal
instruments;
5
minimizing the legal, economic and social costs of achieving
environmental goals;
improving the compulsory settlement of disputes relating to
environment and development, by inter alia,
-
enhancing the role of the International Court of
Justice, taking advantage of the facilities provided
for by its Statute and Rules of Procedure;
-
considering the establishment of an international
center for the settlement of environment disputes
(ICSED), to arbitrate on disputes between states, or
between states and non-governmental entities;
-
considering the establishment of international
procedures to enable individuals and associations
of individuals to seek redress against governments
which breach their obligations under international
environmental law;
-
developing the role of national and regional courts
and tribunals in enforcing national, regional and
international rights and obligations.
The Role of Non-Governmental Entities.
The role of non-governmental entities should be developed by, inter alia:
ensuring their participation, as appropriate, in the international
decision-making process;
encouraging their role in implementing international
obligations and standards at the national, regional and global
level, as appropriate;
enhancing national and local legal and other remedies available
to non-governmental entities for the implementation of
standards and obligations, without discrimination on the
grounds of nationality, and on the basis of the right of equal
access in the context of transboundary claims.
6
ANNEX 1
Aspen Institute Working Group on
International Environment and Development
Policy
Aspen, Colorado
July 18-25, 1991
Chairman: Sir Crispin Tickell
List of Participants
Chester Cooper
Resources for the Future
Angela Cropper
Consultant, Development Policy and Planning,
Trinidad and Tobago
Christine Dawson
Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State
Lars-Gøran Engfeldt
Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden to the
United Nations
Fabio Feldmann
Federal Deputy, Camara dos Deputados, Brazil
Luigi Ferrari Bravo
Chief, Servizio del Contenzioso Diplomatico,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rome
Robert Fri
President, Resources for the Future
Shinji Fukukawa
Executive Vice President, Kobe Steel, Ltd.
Burhanudeen Gafoor
Permanent Mission of Singapore to the United
Nations
Richard Gardner
Professor of Law, Columbia University
Genady Golubev
Professor, Faculty of Geography, Moscow State
University
Scott Hajost
Environmental Defense Fund
David Hopper
Senior Vice President, Haldor Topsoe, Inc.
Ashok Khosla
President, Development Alternatives, India
Ismat Kittani
Consultant to the Secretary-General, UNCED
Warren Lindner
Executive Director, Center for Our Common
Future, Geneva
James MacNeill
Senior Fellow, Institute for Research on Public
Policy, Ottawa
Christopher Makins
Vice President, Policy Programs, Aspen Institute
John Martin
U.K. Permanent Mission to the United Nations
William Nitze
President, Alliance to Save Energy
R. K. Pachauri
Director, Tata Energy Research Institute, India
Jane Pratt
UNCED Coordinator, The World Bank
Atiq Rahman
Director, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies
Francisco Sagasti
Senior Advisor, EXTDR, The World Bank
Mahamed Sahnoun
Diplomatic Advisor to the President of Algeria
Pavol Sepelak
Czechoslovak Permanent Mission to the United
Nations, New York
Alberto Szekely
Mexico
Augustus Tanoh
Executive Director, Finance and Administration,
Ghana National Petroleum Corporation
Peter Thacher
World Resources Institute
Crispin Tickell
Warden, Green College, Oxford
Edith Brown Weiss
Office of the General Counsel, Environmental
Protection Agency
Hugh Wynne-Edwards
Chief Executive Officer, Terracy Inc.
Taizo Yakushiji
Professor, Keio University
Ruqiu Ye
Professor of Environmental Chemistry, National
Environmental Protection Agency, China
Rapporteurs
Lee Kimball
Senior Associate for Institutions, World Resources
Institute
Philippe Sands
Director, Centre for International Environmental
Law
Program Assistant
Stephanie Nelson
The Aspen Institute
THE
PRESIDENT
OFFICE OFTHE OF OFFICE OF AND BUDGET OF THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
DATE: 8-6-91
PAGES FOLLOWING 70
TO:
Distribution
FROM:
NORMAN HARTNESS
(202) 395 - 6840
FAX (202) 395 - 6899
COMMENTS: A U.S. response on UNCED
atmospheric issues to be
added to those transmitted 8-5
EXECU TIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
20503
August 5, 1991
TO:
Norman Distribution Hartness List
FROM:
SUBJ:
Note re U. S. UNCED paper for August 12
Preparatory
Committee meeting August 12 - Sept. 4 in
Geneva -
Protection of the Atmosphere.
Attached is a document, A/CONF.151/PC/42/Add.1, prepared by U. N.
staff to serve as the basis for discussions at the August 12th
meeting seeking agreement on options which relate to atmospheric
issues. "Agenda 21" is seen as a set of options which will be
agreed upon for implementation during the next decade and the
21st century.
Also attached are papers prepared by U. S. agency staff as a
response to this U. N. Options for Agenda 21 paper:
Topic Update - Climate Change (3 pages)
Statement by the U.S. Delegation on Climate Change (3 p.)
Sectoral Issues Related to Climate Change (6 p.)
Supplemental Points: Sectoral Issues (4 p.)
Topic Update: Transboundary Air Pollution (4 p.)
Supplemental Points: Ozone (2 p.)
Please review the U. S. draft papers, identify any problems, and
return your comments to us not later than COB Wednesday, August
7th. [ Telephone: 395 - 6840
FAX: 395 - 6899]
Distribution List:
Richard Porter, WHO
Jim Fitzhenry, WHO
Theresa Gorman, OPD
Ken Yale, OSTP
Fred Bernthal, NSF
Chris Dawson, State Dept.
Gary Evans, USDA
Barry Hartmann, DOJ
Alan Hecht, EPA
Jeff Holmstead, WHO
Ed Cassidy, DOI
J.R. Spradley, DOC/NOAA
John Cohrssen, OVP
William C. Bartley, USTR
Linda Stuntz, DOE
Ray Squitieri, CEA
Bob Watson, NASA
AUGH05-1991
15:59
OES
SCT
93956899
OPTIONS FOR AGENDA 21 RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES
Preparatory Committee for the
UN Conference on Environment and Development
Mr. Chairman, the United States once again expresses its
respect for the considerable effort that went into producing
document A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1 on climate-related "Options for
Agenda 21". Upon reading, it is clear that this paper follows
from document A/CONF.151/PC/60 on "Sectoral Issues" related to
climate change. Both documents reveal a commendable desire by
the Secretariat to help this Preparatory Committee set the
stage for a successful and productive Conference.
As one document flows from the other, however, it is not
surprising that both would raise similar concerns. In both
cases, the United States is deeply concerned that all the
necessary linkages have not been fully examined and that we are
encroaching on the jurisdiction of the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
Decision 2/8 of the Prepcom requested the Secretary General
to "investigate further the interconnections between the issue
of climate and environmental and developmental issues at
national, regional and global levels, covering agriculture,
AUG-05-1991 15:59 DES/SCT
93956899
- 2 -
biodiversity, energy, forestry, industry, oceans, transport and
cross-sectoral issues, and to report to the Preparatory
Committee at its third session, in order to enable it to
consider at that session the preparation of related proposals
for discussion
:
Thus, we had expected this document to
help us consider proposals related to these linkages between
various environmental and economic issues, and among sectors.
This is a critical role for UNCED to play: to bring together
the separate analyses ongoing in different fora and to help
integrate environmental and developmental needs.
Like the paper on Sectoral Issues, however, this document
focuses almost exclusively on making specific policy
recommendations to address one environmental issue climate
change - through one sector energy. This lamentably does not
sufficiently assist us in our consideration of the many
interrelated sectors and issues, such as linkages between
proposed response strategies in the industrialized countries
and economic growth in the developing countries. How then are
we to develop proposals that adequately consider such linkages?
Ideally, the background document on Sectoral Issues would
have provided information on or analysis of the linkages and
this document would have based its discussion on that
information and analysis. But because the Sectoral paper
concentrated instead on making policy recommendations primarily
AUG-25-1991 16:00 FROM DES SCT
- 3 -
in one sector and did not investigate the cross-issue or
cross-sectoral questions, we do not have before us the analysis
and information supporting these options for Agenda 21.
This lack of analysis of the linkages between sectors and
issues also results in marked differences in the approaches
advocated in the different papers on the various sectors. For
instance, in the discussion of climate change in the background
document on forests, A/CONF.151/PC/64, paragraph 172 states
that the use of forests as sinks might be expanded "where it is
ecologically viable, socially acceptable, and economically
feasible in the broadest sense." These are useful criteria
that should be applied in determining responses to a variety of
other environmental issues, including climate change. Yet
nowhere in the Agenda 21 options paper on climate change do we
find an acknowledgement that other environmental, social,
political CI economic factors should be considered in choosing
response strategies.
Also like the background sectoral document, this option
paper focuses almost exclusively on policy recommendations to
address climate change even though paragraph 5 explicitly notes
that the INC will be negotiating the very same issues this
paper raises. In delineating such recommendations, this
document impinges on the responsibilities of the INC as the
single negotiating process for climate change. As we stated
AUG-25-1991 16:00 FROM DES/SCT
93956899
- 4 -
earlier, this is contrary to UNGA resolution 45/212 and
decision 2/8 of this Preparatory Committee. In this respect,
paragraph 8 rightly assigns the responsibility for determining
commitments to the INC. Paragraph 9 similarly accedes
responsibility to the parties to the Montreal Protocol for
negotiating commitments to protect the ozone.
In this paper also there is no consideration of the other
sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. Even if it were our
role in the Preparatory Committee, this failure to be
comprehensive makes this paper of limited value in suggesting
appropriate responses to climate change. The essential need to
take a comprehensive approach to climate change was reflected
in the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the Ministerial Declaration of the Second
World Climate Conference, and the carefully crafted terms of
reference for the two INC Working Groups. Both this paper and
the Sectoral paper, on the other hand, adopt a narrow approach
that runs the risk of being unnecessarily costly and
environmental counterproductive.
Because of this paper focusses narrowly on policy
recommendations related to energy and climate change, the
United States strongly believes that it would be inappropriate
to develop Agenda 21 items based on this paper or the Sectoral
Issues paper. Rather than engage in a duplicative and
AUG-05-1991 16:01 FROM DES/SIT
- 5 -
inappropriate discussion, we strongly suggest that development
of these Agenda 21 items be deferred to the next session of the
Preparatory Committee. We will, we hope, have the benefit of
further elucidation of the important linkages among
environmental and development issues by then. We should also
have a better perspective on the precise results of the INC
negotiations will be more apparent then.
We look forward to that discussion.
08/06/91
06:57
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
002/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 1
U.S. RESPONSE
DOCUMENT NO: A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
TITLE:
Protection of the Atmosphere: Options for Agenda-21
Report of the Secretary-General of the Conference
INTRODUCTION
1. This paper was prepared by the Secretariat in response to the
decision of the Preparatory Committee at its second session, in
which the Secretary General was requested to investigate
further the interconnections between the issues of climate and
environmental and developmental and cross-sectoral issues, and to
report to the Preparatory Committee at its third session, in order
to enable it to consider at that session the preparation of related
proposals for discussion at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development". 1/
2. As explained in the background paper 2/, the main atmosphere
issues are linked to each other, to other issues, and to sectors.
Background papers on Transboundary Air Pollution 3/ and on the
Protection of the Ozone Layer 4/ have now been prepared. As the
key sources of climate change, and other atmosphere-related
problems are the sectors using and converting fossil fuels, the
major response options lie in this area. This paper suggests
possible response options for Agenda-21, concentrating on the
energy sector. Options for areas, such as Oceans, Forests,
Agriculture and Water are available in other papers prepared for
the Preparatory Committee.
U.S. Position:
Decision 2/8 specifically charged the Secretary General with
exploring the linkages between climate change and other
environmental issues and between sectors. By focussing
instead on making policy recommendations in primarily one
sector - energy - to address one issue - climate change - this
document raises three major concerns: (1) it does not ensure
that these linkages are fully considered, (2) it intrudes on
the role of the INC as the single negotiating process on
climate change, and (3) it fails to take a comprehensive
approach to climate change.
Moreover, the background document on Sectoral Issues did not
provide sufficient information or analysis even of the energy
08/06/91
06:58
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
003/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 2
sector, instead concentrating on policy recommendations which
are repeated and expanded in this document. Thus the
rationale for the options presented in this document is not
clear.
Rather than discuss options based on this document and the
sectoral paper, therefore, the Preparatory Committee should
request further elucidation of the linkages between climate
change, development, and other environmental issues.
Suggested Revisions:
Delete the last three sentences of paragraph 2 beginning with
"As the key sources of climate change
Replace them with "Background papers have been prepared for
the other environmental issues to be addressed at the UNCED.
Further analysis of the linkages between these issues is
necessary for later consideration by the Preparatory
Committee.
3. Energy is necessary for development. Its production and use,
however, are the sources of the most serious local, regional and
global environmental problems, and consequently are constraints to
sustainable development. The overall environment-development
objective requires that sufficient energy be available in forms
that are environmentally sound. Energy efficiency measures, the
promotion of environmentally sound energy systems, and programmes
to reduce wasteful energy consumption patterns are essential in the
achievement of these objectives.
U.S. Position:
It is not clear that energy is the source of the most serious
environmental problems. Ozone depletion, for example, is not
principally due to energy sector activities. In any case,
comparing the severity of environmental problems does not seem
like a very useful exercise, particularly in a paper intended
to address linkages between issues and sectors. Nor is it
clear that energy production and use is necessarily a
constraint on sustainable development, particularly as this
paragraph acknowledges that it is a necessary condition for
development.
Suggested Revisions:
Delete the second sentence of paragraph 3.
In the last sentence change the unnecessarily normative phrase
"programmes to reduce wasteful energy consumption" to "energy
conservation programmes".
08/06/91
06:58
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5
004/019
A/CON7.151/FC/42/ADD.1
Face 3
4. It is recognized that some of these goais cannot be
accomplished overnight, especially in the developing countries.
Current energy consumption levels are so low in some of them that
increased energy use
will be essential, even to attain basic standards of economic
welfare.
U.S. Position:
The United States recognizes that energy production and
consumption is a necessary condition for economic growth.
Given that low-polluting technology can be developed and
employed, however, increased energy services does not
necessitate linearly increasing pollution.
5. The paper starts with overall Atmosphere-wide Goals, followed
by five Proposed Programme Areas. A number of actions are listed
under each programme area. More details concerning these actions
will be developed by the fourth session of the Preparatory
Committee. Many of the goals and objectives referred to in this
paper will either be negotiated by or coordinated with the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Close cooperation of the UNCED preparatory
process with the INC process, thus continues to be important.
U.S. Position:
Insofar as the INC is the single authorized negotiating
process, all goals and objectives for addressing climate
change must be developed by the INC alone.
Suggested Revisions:
o Delete "
either
" and "
or coordinated with
" in
the fourth sentence.
o Change the last sentence to read "Thus it continues to be
important that the UNCED preparatory process be kept informed
of progress in the INC and that the UNCED Preparatory
Committee endeavour to ensure that the INC is kept aware of
the linkages between climate change and other environmental
and developmental issues.
6. There needs to be sufficient funds available, especially for
the developing countries, to enable the transition to a more
sustainable energy future, especially through capacity building,
technology development and transfer. New ways of raising large
amounts of funds need to be found, and existing financial
institutions need strengthening. Some of these issues are dealt
with in this paper, under each of the proposed programme areas.
Others are dealt with in the cross-sectoral papers prepared for the
08/06/91 06:59
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
005/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 4
Preparatory Committee on financial resources and technology.
U.S. Position:
The United States believes that existing financial resources
can be employed to promote development that is more
environmentally sound.
Moreover, financial resources should be tied to the level of
incremental costs incurred. More analysis is necessary to
establish what those costs might be in light of the specific
obligations imposed and taking into consideration the unique
characteristics of each country. In fact, the sectoral paper
asserted that a number of measures would involve no or very
little costs.
The United States believes that the Global Environmental
Facility would be the appropriate mechanism for providing
financial assistance to cover any incremental costs incurred
by developing countries in addressing global environmental
issues.
Also, mechanisms other than central funds, such as debt-for
nature swaps, might be employed where appropriate.
Suggested Revisions:
Delete the phrase "New ways of raising large amounts of money
need to be found and If so that the second sentence now
reads "Existing financial institutions need strengthening.' "
ATMOSPHERE-WIDE GOALS
7. Some of the atmosphere-wide goals are now under negotiation in
other fora. Their full quantification needs to wait for these
processes to conclude. However, actions which could contribute to
those goals can be initiated even now. Other, longer term goals
will need to be developed by the Preparatory Committee.
U.S. Position:
The INC, the parties to the Montreal Protocol and the parties
to LRTAP have the responsiblity for developing both short-term
and long-term goals and actions to address, respectively,
climate change, ozone depletion and the only established case
of multilateral transboundary air pollution. The role of
UNCED should be to ensure that the linkages among
environmental issues, and between these issues and development
issues, are fully elaborated. UNCED should ensure that these
other fora are informed of these linkages.
It is not possible to elaborate actions to support goals that
are being elaborated elsewhere without prejudicing the
08/06/91
07:00
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5
006/019
A/CONE
negotiation of those goals. Thus, UNCED should not endorse
specific actions to address climate change; these must await
the conclusion of the INC negotiations. Similarly, because
ozone depletion and transboundary air pollution are already
being addressed in other fora, UNCED should not call for new
actions that go beyond the goals already elaborated in those
fora.
It is also not possible for UNCED to elaborate longer term
goals on any of these specific issue without pre-empting or,
at least, duplicating the work underway under the INC,
Montreal Protocol or LRTAP.
Thus, the United States believes that the commitments and
actions described in paragraphs 8-12, as they deal with
specific issues, should be elaborated in the appropriate fora,
not UNCED. As described below, the Preparatory Committee
could encourage participation in these fora or the
establishment of similar fora, where appropriate.
Suggested Revisions:
Replace paragraph 7 with: "Goals related to climate change are
now under negotiation in the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee. Goals related to the protection of the ozone layer
have been established and are subject to review under the
Montreal Protocol. While other types of transboundary air
pollution have not been addressed in a global legal
instrument, several bilateral, as well as the UNECE Convention
on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, have addressed
these issues. The Preparatory Committee might elaborate how
these discussions in these fora relate to other environment
and development issues, to insure that the linkages among
these atmospheric issues, other environmental issues and
development issues are adequately considered."
GHG/Ozone Depleting Substances Emissions Limitations
8. Commitments for greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, as
negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.
9. Commitments for ozone-depleting substances, as negotiated and
agreed under the Montreal Protocol.
Reducing Air Pollution
10. Commitments for emissions of SOX, NOx, and VOCs, as
exemplified by the protocols to the Convention on Long Range
Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and further efforts for
reducing emissions of toxic heavy metals and persistent organic
08/06/91 07:00
202 647 0191
STATE OES EGC
5
007/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 6
compounds.
11. Development of authoritative guidelines for ambient air
quality, taking into account human health risks and, as
appropriate, other environmental risks of major air pollutants.
12. Efforts by developing countries to reduce human exposure to
excessive air pollution (including indoor) from domestic biomass
and fossil fuel burning, especially as it affects women and
children.
PROPOSED PROGRAMME AREAS:
13. The following major energy-related programme areas are
proposed as options for consideration by the Preparatory Committee;
PROMOTING THE ENERGY TRANSITION
INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ENERGY SYSTEMS
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERNS AND
LIFE STYLES
ADDRESSING THE UNCERTAINTIES: THE ATMOSPHERE
14. Each of these will help in the achievement of one or more of
the Atmosphere-wide Goals, as well as for other issues. Within
each programme area, a number of actions will need to be
undertaken. A number of these need to be undertaken for more than
one programme area.
U.S. Position:
It is not clear that these programs will necessarily achieve,
much less are the best way to achieve, the goals elaborated in
paragraphs 7-12. For instance, how much does the energy
sector have to do with ozone depletion? Moreover, all other
factors contributing to climate change about half of current
human contributions - are ignored.
On the contrary, these programs have been suggested pursuant
to a decision specifically on climate change, and are intended
to address that one issue. Thus, such programs should be
elaborated by the INC, not the UNCED, in a comprehensive
fashion. Rather than endorse these narrow programs, the
Preparatory Committee should instead concentrate on further
elaboration of the linkages between climate change and other
environmental, and developmental, issues.
Suggested Revisions:
o Delete paragraphs 13-41 pending further elaboration of
08/06/91 07:01
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
008/019
A/CONF 151/P0/42/ADD.1
shee
linkages, and development of options addressing those
linkages, not specific environmental issues or sectors.
A. PROMOTING THE ENERGY TRANSITION
Basis for Action
15. A number of actions will be required to support the overall
transition to a more sustainable energy future, independent of the
fuel source, or the energy consumption sector concerned.
Objectives and Goals
16. Countries and international organizations could take steps to
ensure that data and information required for the energy transition
will be developed, and made available.
17. Countries and international organizations could ensure the
availability of capacity, especially in developing countries to
undertake the necessary technical, research, development and
implementation measures.
Suggested Revision:
o In paragraph 17, change " ensure the availability of
capacity
" to "endeavor to facilitate the development of
capacity If
Activities
18. National Energy-Environment Accounts are key prerequisites for
understanding the energy system, and preparing policy interventions
activities. for increased energy efficiency, and other energy sector
a.
Country-level energy-environment accounts, coordinated at
the regional level, as appropriate, could be developed,
and made widely available [by 1995-1997].
b. Countries could make available by the same dates,
detailed studies of the costs of different energy paths,
particularly in respect of greenhouse gas reduction
strategies.
U.S. Position:
The obligations for exchanging information related to climate
change is subject to negotiation under the INC. A process for
sharing information and analysis related to climate change has
been established under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
08/06/91 07:01
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5
009/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 8
Change (IPCC). Involvement of the Preparatory Committee in
this exchange would pre-empt the work of the INC, or at least
duplicate the work of the IPCC.
Suggested Revision:
Delete "
particularly in respect of greenhouse gas
reduction strategies."
C. The relevant UN bodies could coordinate the development
of methodologies for country-level integrated
energy-environment accounting, promoting harmonized data
presentation and analysis.
19. Least-cost Energy Planning can be useful for making
cost-effective choices.
a. Least-cost energy planning could be adopted by countries,
and promoted in the private sectors using real cost
prices, with a longer term aim of using full economic and
environmental costs.
U.S. Position:
The United States supports the adoption of least-cost energy
planning and has undertaken a number of steps to promote it in
the United States.
20. Pricing and other Economic Mechanisms will be essential
elements:
a. Governments and UN and other international organizations
could, in collaboration with the private sector, promote
policy research on, and implementation of, measures to
achieve energy-related goals by utilizing market,
competitive and pricing mechanisms (e.g taxes, tradeable
entitlements, incentives and disincentives, etc.), and
could exchange information on the relative effectiveness
of various policies and techniques.
U.S. Position:
The United States supports the use of market mechanisms to
achieve appropriate environmental goals.
21. Education and Information concerning the role of, potentials
for, and different possibilities of energy efficiency are crucial,
both at national and international levels.
Bill
0191
STATE CESVEGO
Page
a. Education and awareness raising programmes concerning
energy efficiency, environmentally sound energy systems,
could be introduced or intensified in all countries.
U.S. Position:
The United States believes that education and public awareness
program are an important component of most environmental
programs.
b. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with governments
and NGOs, could intensify efforts at collecting,
analyzing information. and disseminating to key target groups relevant
22. Capacity building will be crucial to allow developing
countries to develop and implement environmentally sound energy
technologies and system, at local regional and national levels.
a. The relevant UN bodies and international donors, in
cooperation with governments and NGOs, could provide
substantially increased technical and financial
assistance to developing countries to building up their
technical managerial, planning and administrative
capacities to enable them to develop, and implement
environmentally sound energy systems.
U.S. Position:
The United States believes that capacity building is broader
than climate change and should be incorporated into countries'
overall development strategies.
Moreover, existing financial resources can be employed to
promote development that is more environmentally sound.
Moreover, financial resources should be tied to the level of
incremental costs incurred. More analysis is necessary to
establish what those costs might be in light of the specific
obligations imposed and taking into consideration the unique
characteristics of each country.
Suggested Revisions:
Delete H
substantially increased
If
23. Changes to Existing and New Mechanisms of technical and
financial assistance are needed at national, regional and global
levels. Within the UN, as there is no lead agency responsible for
energy, there are two options: strengthening of the existing,
diverse capacities, and creating new coordinating or implementing
08/06/91
07:02
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5.
011/019
A/CONN
251/PC/42/ADD.0
institutions.
a. The UN could mandate an independent, high-level energy
efficiency commission, to undertake advocacy role at the
international level on energy efficiency and
environmentally sound energy systems.
b. UN System activities presently dealing with energy need
to be strengthened, to ensure that efforts are
concentrated on increased environmentally sound energy
system utilization.
C.
The UN could set up a new institution to deal with
energy. A number of options are possible, including:
(1) UN Energy Co-ordination Unit, with small
secretariat, improving coordination of
energy-related activities.
(2) Central UN Energy Programme, with modest
funding, with catalytic, coordinating role;
(3) Central UN Energy Agency, with large funding,
undertaking the whole spectrum of
energy-related activities;
d.
Relevant UN bodies could set up "collaborating centers"
with existing or new governmental or non-governmental
institutions to assist countries and UN agencies to
implement environmentally sound energy activities.
U.S. Position:
The United States believes that the Global Environmental
Facility should be the umbrella mechanism for supporting
environmental projects having global environmental benefits.
The United States could not support the creation of such UN
institutions, as described in subparagraphs a-c, without a
much better understanding of the terms of reference for the
group, a clear determination of a need that could not be
fulfilled by existing institutions either within or outside
the U.N. system, a demonstration of suitable expertise to
fulfill its functions, and an understanding that any such
institutions would be funded from existing U.N. resources.
Suggested Revisions:
Delete the term
"
and
financial
" in the first
sentence.
Replace the second sentence with "Further consideration should
be given to methods for according energy a higher priority
08/06/91 07:03
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5.
012/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 11
within institutions." the UN, making maximum possible use of existing
o Delete subparagraphs a-c.
e. Countries could ensure that public financial institutions, at
the national and international level, review their programmes
to determine the extent to which the are contributing to or
promoting investments that encourage the use of
environmentally sound energy systems.
U.S. Position:
The United States agrees that methods for using existing
institutions and resources to better serve both environmental
and development objectives should be fully explored.
B. INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
U.S. Position:
In general this section relies too heavily on setting
standards, creating adminstrative barriers to further
efficiency improvements, rather than creating incentives for
the continual development and dissemination of new
technologies. No or little consideration is given to other
factors, such as economic cost, in proposing these measures.
In some cases, such as in subparagraph 27e, policies are
recommended without an indication of how these might be
implemented.
Basis for Action
24. While energy efficiency is now widely regarded as a key area
for action in all countries, and because it has the technical
potential for producing quickly, multiple and permanent
environmental and economic benefits, it has to be pursued much more
vigorously than hitherto.
Objectives and Goals
25. Each country could increase its institutional capacities and
policy focus to support the management of energy demand and, where
appropriate, the reduction of fossil fuel use or its growth per
unit of output in the major energy-using sectors.
Activities
26. Setting targets and developing legislation, regulations and
other institutional arrangements will be crucial for promoting
08/06/91
07:04
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5.
013/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.J
Page 12
energy efficiency, and environmentally sound energy systems, both
at the national and international levels.
a. Countries could set energy efficiency standards on
specific technologies and for economic sectors, as
appropriate. These could be coordinated at regional
levels, where relevant.
27. The transport sector raises in particularly acute form the
conflicts between energy, environment and development and the wide
ranging responses that might be applied to them. Given the
importance of the automobile as an energy (fossil) user, and as a
major polluter, automobile efficiencies and emissions must be the
focus.
a. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with regional
organizations could invite, through an international
conference, major motor vehicle [aircraft and ship]
manufacturers to agree on progressively increasing fuel
performance and emission standards, to be harmonized
between different transportation sectors where
appropriate.
b. Countries could set up their own national fuel
performance and emission standards, to be coordinated
regionally or globally, as appropriate, and to be
compatible with internationally accepted criteria and
norms.
C. Countries could introduce, or strengthen pricing, and
other economic mechanisms, which discourage large
fuel-consuming and polluting vehicles and encourage
alternative fuels.
d. Countries could review the means at their disposal to
promote more efficient and less polluting mass transit,
and prepare appropriate plans to implement these.
e. Countries could promote life styles and economic
activities which require less travel, through improved
telecommunications, and appropriate spatial
redistribution of living/working space.
C. PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Basis for Action
28. Most of the energy produced and used today is done in
unsustainable ways. We must move toward a transition to
Environmentally Sound Energy Systems (ESES). On the one hand, we
08/06/91 07:04
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
014/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 13
must use the conventional energy sources, such as fossil fuels,
nuclear energy, traditional biomass, etc., in ways which respect
the environment. There is a considerable scope for improvement in
all the sectors. More importantly, we must pursue vigorously the
path to increased reliance on renewable, environmentally sound
energy systems.
Objectives and Goals
29. The long-term objective is to implement an energy transition
from the present fossil-fuel-based culture to one relying on
environmentally sound energy systems (ESES). During the
transition, fossil fuels will continue to be important. It is
essential that new developments employ the most efficient and least
polluting technologies.
30. Countries could set objectives of increasing the percent and
absolute contribution of ESES to the supply mix. Regional and
global indicative targets could also be set, and national and
international figures for reliance on ESES could be made available.
Countries could also set objectives for increasing reliance on
specific renewable ESES, such as biomass, or solar.
U.S. Position:
It is not clear how a system could be determined to be
environmentally sound at any one point in time, or how such
determinations could be revised in a timely manner with
improved scientific understanding and technological
development.
31. An additional objective is to increase the amount of money
devoted to research and development for ESES, both in absolute
terms, and relative to the amount spent on conventional energy.
The long-term objective is to reverse the present trends where most
money is spent on conventional energy systems.
Activities
32. Setting Targets in the renewable ESES area will be crucial for
success, both in terms of the desired level of use, and in terms of
financial and other commitments of governments to reach those
targets.
a. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with governments
and NGOs could develop mutually agreeable criteria, on a
national or regional scale, as appropriate, for the
classification of energy systems as environmentally sound
(ESES).
08/06/91
07:05
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5.
015/019
The United States would be concerned that the development of
such classifications could create an administrative barrier to
further, environmentally sound innovation. How would these
classifications be kept up-to-date with the latest
technological and scientific advances? What one body could
possibly review all the scientific, environmental and economic
research related to environmental issues, as well as the
developing products and technologies, in a timely manner? A
more dynamic, effective and efficient approach would be to use
market-based mechanisms to reduce externalities, and allow
industry to develop and deploy the increasingly sound energy
systems.
b. Following evaluation, countries could classify their
energy supply systems, and set up targets for ESES's
contribution to the overall supply mix, both in absolute
and in percentage terms.
C. Countries, as well as regional and international bodies,
could agree to review research priorities to ensure
substantially increased funding to research and
development on ESES, particularly on renewable energy
systems, to a level where ESES receive the majority of
R&D funding by [2000].
d. Developing countries could promote alternatives to
fuelwood, where its use causes unsustainable
environmental stress.
D. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERNS AND LIFE STYLES
Basis for Action
33. Basic energy service needs of a large number [#, ### millions]
of people are not being met. There must now be a concerted effort
to provide everybody with sufficient energy services for
sustainable livelihoods.
U.S. Position:
Per capita energy use is not an accurate measure of the
standard of living. Undoubtedly, energy is one of many inputs
needed for economic growth and development. But any
particular level of energy consumption is not sufficient in
itself to ensure a desirable standard of living. Moreover,
living standards may rise without energy consumption per
capita necessarily rising also. Thus, the underlying
philosophy to this entire section is misplaced. We should
08/06/91
07:05
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
016/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 15
instead concentrate on promoting environmentally sound energy
production and consumption as a more direct means to improve
the standard of life.
34. At the same time, some of the critical global and regional
environmental problems stem from an overuse of energy. While there
is no "energy shortage" as such, the overall price (environmental,
extraction, political, etc.) we have to pay for additional energy
supplies is increasing, and there are plenty of reasons why
limiting consumption of energy resources will have beneficial
impacts. Consequently, there is need for rationalizing and
containing energy consumption at the global level.
U.S. Position:
Insofar as the economic costs of energy production increases,
market prices will increase and induce reduce consumption
without intervention. If there are still environmental or
other reasons for using less energy which the market does not
redress, then governments may need to act to correct those
specific market failures. But limiting energy use or
production is not an end in itself, and ignores the potential
for increased overall environmentally sound energy production
and consumption through improved technology. Imposing a cap
arbitarily will cause economic problems unnecessarily.
Objectives and Goals
35. Countries could develop indicators for Basic Energy Service
Requirements, make them an integral part of conditions for
sustainable livelihoods, and develop plans for everybody to have
access to these.
36. Countries could develop indicators for [Maximum] [Sufficient]
Energy Service Requirements, and plans to not go beyond these
requirements.
U.S. Position
Certainly, there is significant variation in energy use
between nations and regions, but one cannot simply use per
capita energy consumption as an indicator of whether "basic
energy service needs" are being met. Energy use varies for a
number of reasons, including differences in climate,
topography, population density, land size, and structure of
the economy. One country may, for instance, use more energy
because it produces and exports goods with a higher energy
content than another. Conversely, the country that imports
and consumes that good may appear to be consuming less energy.
08/06/91
07:06
202 647 0181
STATE OES EGC
017/019
A/CONP.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 16
Also, how would one account for differences in resource
endowments in an establishing acceptable levels of energy
consumption?.
Activities
37. A number of actions will be required, both to increase access
to energy services for some, and reduce overall consumption levels
of others. Many of the actions outlined in the "Energy Efficiency"
section would also be useful for consumption reduction strategies.
In addition:
a. Countries could immediately undertake end-use energy
surveys, to establish indicators of Basic and
[Maximum] [Sufficient] Energy Service Requirements, and
the number of people, households, industries, who are
below and above. The information could be made widely
available.
b. Countries could develop and implement programmes, with
assistance from the relevant UN bodies, regional
organizations, donor agencies, and NGOs to ensure that in
a given time-frame, everybody has access to the basic
requirements.
C. Countries could introduce incentives to reduce the number
of people, households, industries who are above the
[Maximum] [Sufficient] Energy Service Requirements.
d. Countries could support initiatives promoting clean
technologies, waste minimization and recycling with a
view to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Suggested Revisions:
o Replace " energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions"
in subparagraph d with " pollution."
E. ADDRESSING THE UNCERTAINTIES: ATMOSPHERE
Basis for action
U.S. Position:
While the United States supports the concepts reflected in
paragraphs 38-41, provisions related research and monitoring
will be key components of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change. As such elaboration of those provisions is best
08/06/91
07:06
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
5.
018/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 17
conducted within the INC.
38. Substantial knowledge of the atmosphere has been gained
through international co-operation and exchange of data and
information to all nations. However, concern with climate change,
air pollution, and ozone depletion has created new demands for
scientific information. Better understanding of physical and
chemical properties of the atmosphere is needed, through expanding
and strengthening research programmes, developing comprehensive
observing systems to monitor the atmosphere and the climate system
as a whole, and to detect trends, variations and changes of the
atmospheric behavior in a timely manner.
Suggested Revisions:
o Change ".... scientific information. " in the second
sentence to scientific and economic information...."
o Add to the end of the paragraph: "Better understanding of the
economic, social and political implications of changes in the
atmosphere and climate are also needed, and of possible
response to those changes.
Objectives and goals
39. Countries could agree to promote cooperation in conducting
research to improve the understanding of the physical, chemical,
biological, economic and social processes that influence the
Earth's climate system (e.g., oceans, land, atmosphere & biosphere)
at global and regional scales.
Suggested Revisions:
O change ".... that influence the " to N that influence
and are influenced by the....' "
40. Countries could agree to promote developing and maintaining
systematic observations of the climate system, in particular
through the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS).
41. Countries could agree to preserve, and collect data and
information on the atmosphere and the climate system as a whole,
and to exchange these data and information to the fullest extent
possible.
Suggested Revisions:
o change " collect data M to " collect physical,
chemical, biological, economic and social data..."
Activities
08.06/91 07:07
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
019/019
A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1
Page 18
a. The relevant UN-bodies, in co-operation with governments,
industry, research institutions, and NGOs could identify
priority areas of scientific, technical, and
socio-economic research and particularly the critical
linkages to atmosphere and climate needed to support
decision making, and ensure implementation.
Suggested Revisions:
Change "The relevant UN-bodies
n to "The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
-
b. Countries could promote process of free, unrestricted
exchange of data and information related to the
atmosphere and climate.
Suggested Revisions:
Change n
process of free, unrestricted exchange of data
If to "
the full and open sharing of data
"
c. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with countries and
NGOs could promote co-operation in the development of
early warning systems concerning changes in the climate
system.
OFFICE OF THE MANAGE PRESIDENT STATES BUDGET OF THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
bcc: Richard Porter
August 7, 1991
NOTE TO ROBERT B. ZOELLICK
From: Bob Grady
RE: UNCED
Beg
Bob:
I will be taking some much needed vacation time on Friday
and will thus not be able to make your meeting regarding UNCED.
I did, however, want to offer the following two points:
1.) I believe that UNCED can be turned into a positive and
certainly manageable event for the USG if we can agree on clear
policy guidance and provide it to those in the bureaucracy who
are now preparing for the conference. Specifically, I believe
there are six or seven objectives that we can agree on at the
policy level (and that we can "live with" as a government) which,
if clearly set out, can form the basis of the negotiating efforts
of all those who attend prepcoms, write papers, etc. Indeed, I
believe that those who are already focused on the conference, but
who are worried that senior officials are not, would actually
welcome the guidance.
My nominees for a handful of satisfactory objectives for the
U.S. at UNCED would include the following:
-
Agreement on process and institutional issues of the sort
discussed in Elliot Richardson's paper (published by the World
Resources Institute) which I believe he sent you. Richardson
basically suggested the establishment of an ongoing international
forum, (NOT A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE!! to discuss and make
progress on issues such as forests, climate change, etc. He did
propose that it be staffed with a small secretariat;
-
Agreement on a global forest convention, or, at a minimum, a
statement of principles leading to a convention;
-
Agreement on a framework convention on climate change
(comprehensive, and adaptable over time). A rather significant
subsidiary question that will undoubtedly arise here is whether
the U.S. will accept net greenhouse gas stabilization as the
specific objective of the framework convention. My own
prediction is that this is where the negotiations are inevitably
headed and, while it is certainly too early to concede the point
now, this issue will have to be faced squarely by the time we get
to Rio;
-
Agreement to make progress on improving the science
associated with the loss of biodiversity. Experts in this field
(e.g., Tom Lovejoy at the Smithsonian) will tell you that our
capacity to actually measure or monitor what is happening to
species is primitive at best. While it will indeed be difficult
to agree on a set of perscriptions with respect to the loss of
biodiversity (especially given the track on which those
negotiations had been headed), it might be relatively easier to
achieve consensus on a monitoring/science/mapping effort aimed at
the question of biodiversity;
-
Agreement on agressive efforts to protect the world's
oceans, and especially its living marine resources. As discussed
at London, we hold the high ground on this issue; and
-
A program of research, data collection, mapping, and
monitoring, so that the world will be working off of a common
data base when considering the full range of environmental
issues.
2.) I believe that U.S. businesses should actually be encouraged
to participate as NGOs at Rio. The UNCED conference constitutes
an excellent opportunity for them to highlight various forms of
American technology which will be capable of helping to meet the
growing world demand for environmental solutions. I believe that
encouraging U.S. firms to look at UNCED as kind of an
"environmental export promotion fair" will serve both U.S.
commercial interests and U.S. policy interests.
I will be back in the office sometime late in the day on
Wednesday, August 14th, if you would like to discuss this
further.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
USUNCED Coordination Center
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503
395-3110/Fax 395-3744
August 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Persons and Organizations on the USUNCED Mailing List
FROM:
David H. Stebbing, USUNCED Coordination Center
SUBJECT: U.S. Statements at UNCED PrepCom 3, Geneva, Aug. 12 -
Sept. 4, 1991
To speed the process of getting materials to you, we are
enclosing the statements and proposals submitted by the U.S. in
the Working Group sessions held during the first two weeks of
PrepCom 3. U.S. statements delivered in the latter half of the
meeting will follow in a subsequent mailing. This package
includes the following documents:
U.S. Delegation List
U.S. Approach to "Agenda 21"
Working Group I
Atmosphere
Integrated Land Resources and Sustainable Agriculture
Desertification
Forests
Principles for a Global Forest Convention/Agreement
Biological Diversity
Biotechnology
Working Group II
Oceans
Principles on the Use and Protection of the Marine Environment
Freshwater
Toxic Chemicals
Hazardous Waste
Solid Wastes
Working Group III
General Principles
Environmental Principles
Survey of Existing Agreements and Instruments
Dispute Resolution
Institutional Issues
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)
THIRD PREPARATORY COMMITTEE MEETING
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND: AUGUST 12 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991
U.S. DELEGATION
Head of Delegation
Curtis Bohlen
Assistant Secretary of State, Oceans &
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Alternate Heads of Delegation
Robert Ryan
Coordinator, U.S. UNCED Preparations
Morris Abram
Ambassador, U.S. Mission, Geneva
Advisors
Jonathan Moore
Ambassador to ECOSOC, USUN
Maureen Bannon
Department of Defense/Office of the
Representative for Oceans Policy Affairs
Patricia Bliss-Guest
Council on Environmental Quality/Associate
Director, International Law & Policy
Richard Bradley
Office of the Secretary of Energy
Nancy Carter
OES/Population Coordinator
Ed Cassidy
Department of the Interior/Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Policy
David Cottingham
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)/Director, Ecology &
Conservation
Christine Dawson
Office of the Secretary of State
Susan Drake
Environmental Protection Agency/UN Programs
Paula Feeney
U.S. Mission/Geneva
David Joslyn
Agency for International Development Liaison
to USUN/FAO, Rome
Gerald Kamens
Agency for International Development/UNCED
Jeff Kovar
Legal Adviser/OES
Gary Larsen
U.S. Forest Service (detail to OES)
Steven McGann
USUN/ECOSOC/UNCED
John McGuinness
International Organizations/Deputy Director,
Technical Organizations
Jeff Miotke
OES/Global Change
Robert Reinstein
OES/Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment
Eleanor Savage
OES/Director, Ecology Health & Conservation
Tucker Scully
OES/Director, Oceans Affairs
Nance Styles
U.S. Mission, Geneva
Maureen Walker
OES/Oceans Affairs
Harlan Watson
Department of the Interior/Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Water & Science
Ted Williams
Department of Energy/Environmental Affairs
CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORS TO THE U.S. DELEGATION
Congressman James Scheuer
Chair, Natural Resources, Agriculture
Research and Environment, Committee on
Science, Space & Technology
Congressman Gerry Sikorski Committee on Energy and Commerce
OFFICIAL OBSERVERS TO THE U.S. DELEGATION
Congressional Staff
Susan Fletcher
Congressional Research Service
Nancy Carman
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Dave Finnegan
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Charles Ingebretson
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Steve Polanski
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Carol Parker
Staff of Congressman Gerry Sikorski
Philip Schiliro
Staff of Congressman Henry Waxman
NGO Representatives
Scott Hajost
CAPE '92
Norene Kennedy
US Council on International Business
Gareth Porter
Environment and Energy Study Institute
Tom Spaulding
InterAction
Michelle Sullivan
US Council on International Business
THE U.S. APPROACH TO "AGENDA 21"
AT UNCED PREPCOM 3, GENEVA, AUGUST 12 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991
UNCED offers an excellent opportunity to shape a new, practical
and comprehensive approach to international environmental
cooperation as we enter the 21st century. The principal U.S. goal
for UNCED is to facilitate international cooperation in programs
which build on the concept of sustainable development and that fully
integrate environment and development strategies.
We clearly recognize that U.S. leadership will be an essential
ingredient in the kind of UNCED results the world deserves and
expects. Our strong record in managing our own environmental
problems provides an excellent base for initiatives to promote
sustainable development internationally. In the same way that
constructive U.S. leadership gave impetus to the highly successful
Montreal Protocol Process to combat ozone depletion, we seek to
catalyze a dynamic approach to Agenda 21.
The first two Preparatory Committee meetings set out an agenda,
resolved procedural points, and discussed the substance of most
issues before UNCED. It is critical to the success of UNCED that
PrepCom 3 negotiations begin, in the words of Chairman Tommy Koh,
"to make action-oriented recommendations on all issues."
The U.S. is prepared to make such recommendations. We will
table concrete proposals on a wide variety of issues and hope that
other governments do the same. We are pleased to see that the UNCED
Secretariat has produced or will produce 49 reports for
consideration at PrepCom 3. By and large, these are thoughtful
responses to the requests of PrepComs 1 and 2, produced under tight
deadlines. We appreciate that.
Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of UNCED, proposes that a
major outcome of the Conference should be an action program entitled
"Agenda 21." This framework for the full range of UNCED decisions
stresses the integrated relationships of environment and development
issues. The starting point for Agenda 21 is the broad UNCED mandate
set out in UN General Assembly Resolution 44/228 and subsequent
decisions of the Preparatory Committee. The UNCED Secretariat has
circulated an analysis of each issue as the basis for the action
proposals presented as "Options for Agenda 21."
The U.S. supports the concept of an Agenda 21; we believe that
further work will be required regarding form and substance. The
following sections address the "program areas" listed by the
Secretariat, which are the building blocks of Agenda 21, and briefly
describe the U.S. approach to Agenda 21 for the ten environmental
issues to be addressed by Working Groups 1 and 2, and the four
cross-sectoral issues to be addressed by the Plenary. (In a number
of areas, for example financial resources, Agenda 21 proposals will
- 2 -
not be considered until the fourth PrepCom next year.) The overall
U.S. approach to all Agenda 21 program areas must be seen, of
course, in relation to our positions on financial and other
cross-cutting issues.
LAND RESOURCES
Proposed Program Areas: (A) protection and management of fragile
ecosystems; (B) an integrated approach to land resource planning and
management; and (C) sustainable agriculture and rural development;
the latter includes: sector policy review, planning and programming;
grassroots participation and development of human resources;
integrated production system management; diversification of rural
incomes; land resources conservation and management; water resources
for agriculture; conservation and utilization of genetic resources;
integrated pest management; sustainable plant nutrition; rural
energy.
U.S. Approach
In the U.S. view, the proposed options represent a comprehensive
program leading toward sustainable agriculture and improved land
resource management. We would particularly emphasize: (A) human
resource development, (B) pilot projects to test prescriptions, (C)
multiple use as the key to successful land management, (D) the
combination of research and best known management practices, (E)
significant participation in the land resource management process by
affected citizens, and (F) decentralized decision-making. We
particularly emphasize that approaches to these concerns must be
consistent with GATT principles and efforts to reform agricultural
trade arrangements. The program outlined is ambitious and costly.
Achieving it by the year 2000 as targeted is clearly unrealistic.
Given the importance of the subject to poor countries, particularly
in Africa, we look forward to seeing the Agenda 21 options for
desertification, which the UNCED Secretariat has not yet presented.
FORESTS
Proposed Program Areas: (A) forest inventories and land availability
assessment for afforestation; (B) mechanisms for global/regional/
national afforestation and reforestation; (C) assessment of
potential forest impacts on climate change; (D) protection of
selected forest ecosystems; (E) large scale planting programs; (F)
regional/national rehabilitation of degraded lands; (G) expansion of
community and social forestry in developing countries; (H) industry
and trade in forest products; (I) training, research and research
dissemination; and (J) forest accounting and mechanisms for
assessing the economic value of forests.
U.S. Approach
UNCED PrepCom 3 will consider "Guiding Principles for a Consensus on
Forests." At the London Economic Summit, the G-7 countries
undertook to achieve, by the time of UNCED, "agreement on principles
- 3 -
for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all
types of forest, leading to a framework convention. This should be
in a form both acceptable to the developing countries where tropical
forests grow and consistent with the objective of a global forest
convention or agreement" set at the Houston Economic Summit. The
U.S. has distributed a proposal for forest principles. The U.S.
will seek an approach to Agenda 21 that is not inconsistent with the
U.S. proposal.
BIODIVERSITY
Proposed Program Areas: (A) information on biodiversity; (B)
maximization and spread of the benefits of biodiversity; (C)
improved conservation of biological resources; and (D) enhanced
capacity to manage biodiversity.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. is participating in the negotiations for a global framework
biological diversity convention being conducted under the auspices
of UNEP. U.S. objectives for this convention include the
furtherance of the conservation of biological diversity -- primarily
in situ, but also ex situ -- within and beyond national
jurisdiction; to expand cooperation in acquiring base-line data,
monitoring, and other research on species and habitat; and to ensure
access to biological resources on a non-discriminatory basis.
Options selected for Agenda 21 should be those which support these
objectives. However, care must be taken that Agenda 21 not attempt
to duplicate or anticipate the convention, which the U.S. and most
other member states of UNEP look upon as the primary vehicle for
global cooperation. It would be useful for PrepCom 3 to begin to
prioritize the most urgent tasks listed in the ambitious options
paper which do not come under the immediate purview of the
convention.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Proposed Program Areas: (A) advanced biotechnology applications in
sustainable agriculture; (B) improved human health through
biotechnology; (C) prevention of environmental degradation through
the judicious application of biotechnology; and (D) effective safety
procedures.
U.S. Approach
The United States, fully recognizing the potential benefits and
risks of biotechnologies, supports the stated UNCED objective of
facilitating the sound development and application of
biotechnology. The United States also maintains that the regulation
of industry and its products should be dealt with on the national
level by individual countries and their governments. Such
regulation typically has been based upon risk assessment as defined
for particular environment and cultures. Therefore, the United
- 4 -
States believes that it is desirable for the nations of the world to
harmonize sound scientific practices and economic principles in
developing and commercializing products of biotechnology. Efforts
to this end currently are underway within a variety of international
organizations participated in, and supported by, the U.S. However,
the U.S. opposes onerous and inflexible international regulations
and guidelines on research and development. Further, we would not
want to create unrealistic expectations as to the potential of the
newer biotechnologies for vastly improving living conditions,
especially in the near term. We therefore plan to take exception to
certain themes in the UNCED Secretariat background paper and, in
parallel, to propose modifications to a number of the options for
Agenda 21.
ATMOSPHERE
Proposed Program Areas: (A) the energy transition; (B) energy
efficiency; (C) environmentally sound energy systems; (D)
sustainable energy consumption patterns and life styles; and (E)
research on the atmosphere.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. strongly supports: (A) the integrity of the independent
negotiating process on climate change under the International
Negotiating Committee (INC), (B) effective inmplementation of the
Montreal Protocol regime to combat ozone depletion and (C)
international cooperation to improve ambient air quality and address
problems of transboundary air pollution. We believe Agenda 21
options on the atmosphere should concentrate on interconnections
between climate change and other sustainable development issues and
on efforts to help developing countries deal with increasingly
serious air pollution problems. Instead, the options presented
focus exclusively on recommendations to address one environmental
issue, climate change, through one sector, energy. Irrespective of
any potential merit in the options outlined, these options not only
unnecessarily interfere with the work of the INC but fail to
consider all sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. The U.S. will
argue for a complete restructuring of this section of Agenda 21.
OCEANS
Proposed Program Areas: (A) integrated management of coastal areas
and exclusive economic ones; (B) management of living marine
resources on the high seas; (C) sustainable use of living marine
resources under national jurisdiction; (D) maintenance of ecosystems
and biodiversity; (E) prevention and control of land based marine
pollution; (F) prevention and control of sea-based marine pollution;
(G) international and regional cooperation; (H) capacity building;
and (I) addressing critical uncertainties for ocean management and
climate change.
- 5 -
U.S. Approach
The U.S. sees a need to restructure the proposed Agenda 21 oceans
options in order to establish a clear set of objectives and to
reflect more adequately the work contained in the Secretariat
background paper. At present, they are internally inconsistent,
over-sectoralized and confusing. Moreover, they intermingle
ecological concepts with juridical concepts involving settled areas
of customary international law as reflected in the 1982 UN Law of
the Sea Convention. As indicated in our detailed submission to
PrepCom 2 (A/Conf. 151/PC/WG.II/CRP.7), the U.S. looks to UNCED for
substantive progress in promoting: (A) the elaboration of principles
on land-based sources of marine pollution emphasizing pollution
prevention, the application of economically efficient clean
technologies and the use of appropriate economic incentives, (B)
cooperation in coastal zone management techniques, including through
international organizations, with emphasis on capacity building and
regional interaction, (C) conservation of marine living resources
through the application of ecosystem, multi-species management, (D)
cooperation through relevant international organizations in
integrated monitoring of the marine environment and (E) improved
coordination of regional and international coastal and marine
programs.
FRESHWATER
Proposed Program Areas: (A) water resource assessment; (B)
protection of water quality; (C) drinking water supply and
sanitation; (D) water and sustainable urban development; and (E)
water for sustainable agricultural development.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. is committed to the establishment of a pollution prevention
principle for water quality, including the application of recycling
and other low pollution production technologies. We will also
stress the need for all countries to work together toward a
pollution prevention system which steers away from traditional
end-of-the-pipe treatment that fails to minimize or limit the source
of contaminants. We look forward to participating in the Dublin
Conference in January 1992, which will formulate precise options for
the fresh water section of Agenda 21.
TOXIC CHEMICALS
Proposed Program Areas: (A) an expanded and accelerated
international assessment of chemical risks; (B) harmonized
classification and labeling of chemicals; (C) information exchange
on toxic chemicals; (D) establishment of risk reduction programs;
and (E) a strengthening of national capabilities and capacities for
management of chemicals.
- 6 -
U.S. Approach
The United States made comprehensive proposals in this area at
PrepCom 2. The U.S. supports increased international cooperation to
enable countries to implement economically efficient programs for
managing and reducing risks associated with the manufacture, trade,
use and disposal of toxic substances. Regarding trade, the U.S.
favors full implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
Procedure, but not a legally binding instrument or general
provisions that would restrict trade in domestically prohibited
products. The harmonization of classification and labeling
standards involves a number of entities, which should not be
duplicating effort; important work is being done, in particular, in
the OECD Chemicals Program and, within the U.N. system, the
International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). The U.S. strongly
favors a broad-based approach for reducing chemicals risk which
could involve both regulatory and non-regulatory measures. These
should include a code of conduct on industrial chemicals paralleling
the FAO Pesticides Code; national toxic release inventories;
adoption by UNCED of guiding principles for accurately communicating
risk to the public; and establishment of national risk communication
programs by member states. Industry initiatives can serve as an
important complement to government regulatory programs.
WASTES
Proposed Program Areas: (A) promotion of waste prevention and
minimization through "cleaner production" methods, resource
recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses
of wastes; (B) enhancement of knowledge and information on economics
of hazardous waste management; (C) increased knowledge about
environmental and health impacts of hazardous wastes; (D) promotion
of institutional capacities in hazardous waste management; and (E)
strengthened international co-operation in monitoring transboundary
movements of hazardous waste, in particular the prevention of
illegal traffic, and assessing environmental and health impacts of
those movements.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. places great importance on sound waste management practices
and policies and supports international cooperation on waste
management issues to promote this end. The U.S. would particularly
emphasize: (A) full implementation of the Basel Convention; (B)
harmonization of policies, strategies and measures for reducing
risks to human health and the environment from hazardous and other
wastes in an economically efficient manner; (C) information exchange
on clean technologies to reduce waste generation; (D) information
exchange to promote use of new methods for resource recovery.
- 7 -
POVERTY
Proposed Program Areas: (A) promotion of sustainable livelihoods;
(B) reduction of demographic pressures; (C) human development; and
(D) the living conditions of the poor.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. recognizes that environmental degradation and poverty are
interlinked and often result from similar causes; thus, that
policies should be integrated for improving living standards for the
poor and for protecting the environment. Neither problem can be
addressed effectively through large unspecified resource transfers.
The bulk of U.S. efforts to help end poverty aim at eventual
self-reliance. To achieve environmental goals, assistance should
take the form of specific programs for action in land, freshwater,
forests, and oceans. The U.S. will oppose specific and unrealistic
deadlines for the elimination of poverty. The U.S. endorses the
objective of expanded population programs and will suggest
additional measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Proposed Program Areas: (A) basic health needs related to the
environment; (B) control of communicable diseases; (C) meeting the
urban health challenge; and (D) reduction of health risks from
environmental pollution and hazards.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. emphasizes that human health concerns are highly relevant
to this conference on environment and development and that the
sectoral interests of health, environment and development must be
considered in each case. Basic human needs for clean air, pure
water, safe food, and sanitation should be met by measures to
prevent problems rather than relying on the more difficult
remediation procedures. Communicable diseases should be prevented
wherever possible through sound principles of hygiene and
vaccination. Particular emphasis should be directed towards
diseases with major environmental interfaces such as malaria,
cholera, tuberculosis and polio. Measures to reduce environmental
toxic compounds and injuries in the work place should be strongly
supported. Particular emphasis should be directed towards the
reduction of heavy metals such as lead and mercury, as they rank as
being the most significant world-wide preventive measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Proposed Program Areas: (A) a strengthened role of education in
society in its widest sense for achieving sustainable development;
(B) reorientation of formal education towards environment and
development; (C) improved education and training within development
programs; (D) facilitation of access to information and improved
- 8 -
communication; (E) strengthened community participation and
partnership; and (F) improvement in the supportive role of the
international system.
U.S. Approach
The U.S. generally supports the objectives of the new initiatives
outlined in the Secretariat paper on environmental and developmental
education. In our view, more attention needs to be given to
including both environmental and developmental aspects. We
particularly support the need for more cooperation using existing
international mechanisms to enhance the wide availability of
information relevant to environmental and developmental education.
As the document states, "environmental education needs to be
recognized by all as an essential part of basic learning." Many of
the initiatives called for in the document have already begun in the
U.S. or are being developed in response to the requirements of the
National Environmental Education Act of 1990.
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Proposed Program Areas: (A) adequate shelter for all; (B) human
settlements management; (C) land resource management; (D)
environmental infrastructure: water, sanitation, drainage, and solid
waste management; (E) energy and transport; (F) construction; and
(G) human resource development and capacity building for human
settlement development.
U.S. Approach
The UNCED Secretariat draft Agenda 21 basically views cities and
rural settlements as providing an opportunity for more efficient use
of resources, simultaneously promoting development and reducing
stress on the environment. The U.S. supports and will seek to
emphasize measures that serve to improve public and private sector
management capabilities and collaboration and to promote better
resource use, services, and waste disposal.
OPTIONS FOR AGENDA 21 RELATED TO ATMOSPHERE
Statement by the U.S. Delegation
Preparatory Committee for the
UN Conference on Environment and Development
August 13, 1991
Mr. Chairman, the United States once again expresses its
respect and appreciation for the considerable effort that went
into producing documents A/CONF.151/PC/60 on "Sectoral Issues"
and A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1 on "Options for Agenda 21" related
to the atmosphere. Both documents reveal a commendable desire
by the Secretariat to help this Preparatory Committee set the
stage for a successful and productive Conference.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that you requested specific
comments on the five programmatic areas identified in paragraph
13 of the Agenda 21 options paper. However, the United States
would like to make a number of more fundamental points about
these two papers.
In this regard, it is worth noting again the statements
made earlier by you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary General Strong
stressing the limited time available to this Committee and the
enormous scope of work before us. With so much work facing us
and so little time, the fruits for Rio must be cultivated and
harvested in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
We should look to other organizations and fora within and
without the UN system for pertinent material, which we can then
integrate and harmonize. For example, the work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) referred to
yesterday might be incorporated for consideration. This
Preparatory Committee need not till all the soil, plant all the
seeds and reap all the harvests for UNCED.
With regard to specifics, the Sectoral Issues and Agenda 21
papers raise a number of points which the United States could
support. For instance, the Sectoral paper discusses in several
paragraphs, such as 31, 41 and 43, actions which have a number
of environmental and economic benefits. In keeping with the
First Assessment Report of the IPCC, the United States agrees
that options which provide multiple benefits deserve much
further consideration. We also agree with the point in
paragraphs 38 and 48 that taking advantage of such options is
one way in which both industrialized and developing countries
might participate in the global response to climate change. We
also find intriguing the possibility, suggested in paragraph 49
and elsewhere, that the technology may exist to allow
developing countries to "leapfrog" to a more environmentally
benign development path. Consistent with section E of the
8/13/91
- 2 -
Agenda 21 paper, the United States is engaged with its Western
Hemisphere neighbors in promoting research to reduce
uncertainties through common and coordinated efforts on climate
research.
However, the United States is deeply concerned about many
aspects of both documents. Most importantly, UN General
Assembly Resolution 45/212 established "a single
intergovernmental negotiating process
for the preparation
of an effective framework convention on climate change."
Consistent with 45/212, this Preparatory Committee adopted
decision 2/8 to "avoid duplicating or pre-empting the work of"
the INC, IPCC and the biodiversity negotiating forum.
Any discussion of policy recommendations, if focussed on
climate change, necessarily duplicates and potentially
pre-empts the work of the INC. Being produced as the result of
a decision specifically on climate change, these two documents
unfortunately do duplicate and pre-empt the work of the INC.
Paragraph 3 of the Sectoral Issues paper is particularly
troubling in this respect; it suggests that UNCED is
responsible for developing climate change response strategies
with input from the INC and other fora. This is not what the
General Assembly intended, which was that the INC develop the
international response with input from other fora.
Decision 2/8 of this Committee requested the Secretary
General to "investigate further the interconnections between
the issue of climate and environmental and developmental issues
at national, regional and global levels, covering agriculture,
biodiversity, energy, forestry, industry, oceans, transport and
cross-sectoral issues, and to report to the Preparatory
Committee at its third session, in order to enable it to
consider at that session the preparation of related proposals
for discussion Thus, we had expected these documents to
help us consider proposals related to these linkages between
various environmental and developmental issues and among
various sectors. This is a critical role for UNCED to play: to
bring together the separate analyses ongoing in different fora
and to integrate environmental and developmental needs.
We note that the introduction to the Sectoral Issues paper
states that other sectors are dealt with in other papers
prepared for this session. But we believe that the decision
taken at our last session contemplated such an analysis in a
single document to enable us to consider the linkages among
sectors and specific areas of concern. Unfortunately, however,
the Sectoral Issues and Agenda 21 papers both focus almost
exclusively on making specific policy recommendations to
address one environmental issue climate change through one
sector energy. Neither document sheds much light on other
8/13/91
- 3 -
linkages. Nor do the separate documents on Forestry, Oceans,
Agriculture, Biodiversity, etc, help in this regard. At most,
these other documents mention climate change as a potential
threat in these sectors, some allude in very general terms to
the development implications of potential impacts, and almost
none explore the other linkages, such as the development
implications of various response strategies. How then are we
to develop proposals that adequately address these linkages?
Ideally, the background document on Sectoral Issues would
have provided information and analysis of the linkages and the
Agenda 21 options would have been based on that information and
analysis. But because the Sectoral Issues paper concentrates
instead on making broad generalizations and policy
recommendations primarily in one sector and does not elucidate
the cross-issue or cross-sectoral questions, we do not have
before us the analysis or information supporting these options
for Agenda 21.
This lack of integration defeats the purpose of examining
the linkages: we need to understand clearly how these various
issues affect each other. How do actions in one sector affect
other sectors? What, if any, role can nuclear power play in
helping to address the environmental problems that result from
the energy sector? What inherent economic or physical
limitations are there on the use of solar energy or biomass
fuels? How might biodiversity be affected by different
forestry practices and policies? Where do environmental and
development goals seem to coincide and where do they seem to
conflict? How can policies be designed to pursue both goals?
How do we promote a full partnership of equals between the
North and the South? How does economic growth in one part of
the world affect the rest of the world?
This lack of consideration of the linkages between sectors
and issues also results in marked differences in the approaches
advocated in the different papers on the various sectors. For
instance, in the discussion of climate change in the background
document on forests, A/CONF.151/PC/64, paragraph 172 states
that the use of forests as sinks might be expanded "where it is
ecologically viable, socially acceptable, and economically
feasible in the broadest sense." These are useful criteria
that should be applied in considering responses to a variety of
environmental issues, including climate change. Yet nowhere in
the Agenda 21 options paper on atmosphere do we find any
acknowledgement that other environmental, social, political, or
economic factors should be considered in choosing response
strategies. Similarly, document A/CONF.151/PC/50 on the
"Utilization of Economic Instruments" summarizes some possible
applications of market mechanisms to environmental issues. But
these concepts are not reflected in either of the papers on
8/13/91
- 4 -
atmospheric issues. Instead, these two papers before us
advocate extensive and potentially expensive regulation and
centralization of decision making.
In any case, any discussion of response options for
addressing climate change must be comprehensive, including the
sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases. Even if it were our
role in the Preparatory Committee, this failure to be
comprehensive makes this paper of limited valued in suggesting
appropriate responses to climate change. The essential need to
take a comprehensive approach to climate change was reflected
in the First Assessment Report of the IPCC, the Ministerial
Declaration of the Second World Climate Conference, and the
carefully crafted terms of reference for the two INC Working
Groups. Both the Agenda 21 and the Sectoral Issues papers, on
the other hand, adopt a narrow approach that runs the risk of
being unnecessarily costly and environmentally counter-
productive. The ongoing work of the IPCC also looks across all
greenhouse gases and sectors to identify possible options,
taking into account economic feasibility, development concerns,
other environmental effects and cross-sectoral linkages. We
recommend that this Committee review the work of the IPCC and
consider its relevance to UNCED's broad environment and
development mandate.
Regarding the five specific programmatic areas suggested in
the Agenda 21 paper, the United States agrees that these areas
are clearly relevant and important to a variety of
environmental issues. However, the approach taken is
inappropriate in our view. First, it is too interventionist,
leading in the direction of command and control measures that
possibly infringe on national sovereignty. Second, in taking
this rather inflexible approach, it is likely to be less
efficient and effective. Third, and most important, it
infringes on the INC as the single negotiating forum for
climate, contrary to decision 2/8 and General Assembly
Resolution 45/212.
The United States has a number of specific comments on
individual paragraphs. However, it would be duplicative and
inappropriate to develop Agenda 21 items based on these
papers. It is our strong inclination to defer development of
Agenda 21 options on the atmosphere to the next session of the
Preparatory Committee. By then, we will hopefully have the
benefit of further elucidation of the important linkages among
environmental and development issues, as well as a better sense
of the results of the INC negotiations. We must wait to see
what the INC will produce and not interfere in the single
negotiating process established by the General Assembly.
We are interested to hear the views of other delegations.
8/13/91
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
FIRST STATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON INTEGRATED LAND RESOURCES
Geneva, August 16, 1991 (a.m.)
Mr. Chairman, to deal objectively with the crisis of global land
degradation, we must first be able to clearly identify the actual
pressures which drive current practices. To this end, we view
the Secretariat reports on Protection and Management of Land
Resources as, on the whole, both insightful and comprehensive.
Their definition of land and its uses emphasizes the holistic and
integrated nature likely solutions.
The Secretariat documentation before us on parts A and B of Agenda
21 appropriately seeks an integrated approach to the closely
interlinked causes of land deterioration. I shall focus my
remarks this morning on the options for an integrated approach to
planning and mangement of land resources, and return later with
our views on sustainable agriculture and rural development.
PC/63's list of guiding principles for protection and management
of land resources is very useful and should be made widely
available for land use planners. The problem, as suggested in the
paper, is to, first, select appropriate actions, and, then, to
accurately assess progress toward achieving these principles.
Today, within each of our countries, a variety of institutions,
ministries, and departments have responsibilities regarding the
various factors contributing to land degradation. As accurately
recognized in the Secretariat Report, it would be exceedingly
difficult and unproductive to create a new global body to attempt
to integrate all land management topics. Rather, we should focus
on better coordination of existing bureaucracies and institutions.
The discussion of the integrative framework illustrates something
of the dilemma faced when we move from general principles to
action. Most coordinated actions in land use are directed by
governments. Thus, units of action are most often political
agencies. On the public lands of the Western United States, for
instance, the Bureau of Land Management has developed
interdisciplinary land use plans for multiple, or "sustainable"
development, with legal involvement of local governments and
strong public participation. This agency is negotiating a
protocol to pilot test this process in a developing country.
2
As suggested in PC 63 and Agenda 21 options, integration is the
key to successful land resources. Almost none of these resources
serve a unique function nor exist independently of their
surroundings. Sustainability has become one of the watchwords in
the United States' own national efforts as well as in our
financial cooperation with other countries. It is important,
first, to understand fully the problems we face. Then, we must
bring to bear the best known management practices we can find to
turn the results of our research into the effective and decisive
actions needed to preserve and regenerate our precious land
resources.
PC/61 and the proposed Agenda 21 Options for Parts A and B contain
a thoughtful discussion of data requirements, planning tools of
various sorts, and the development of the skilled people needed to
carry out the multiple tasks outlined. But there is no assessment
of the cost of creating and maintaining such services. Before
final recommendations are made on these items, costs should be
estimated and realistic implementation schedules developed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we see Secretariat paper 42/addendum 2 as a
superior review of the problems besetting our fragile
environment. The list of tasks ahead is quite complete. Two
elements are especially important -- the development of human
resources and the recommendations for pilot projects to test our
prescriptions before adopting universal programs.
Regarding the first element, human resources development and
capacity building are indeed very important to the accomplishment
of our objectives. The U.S. acknowledges that a massive effort,
as suggested in the proposed Agenda 21 option for this subject,
would indeed by required to achieve all of the proposed planning
and management objectives quickly. We suggest, however, that we
are talking about a needed series of very complex changes in
social and economic patterns of life, and that we would do better
to focus at least our relatively short-term efforts on a more
limited target which is capable of achievement within the human
and financial resources likely to be available to us.
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
SECOND STATEMENT BY U.S. DELEGATION ON INTEGRATED LAND RESOURCES
Geneva, August 16, 1991 (p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, Secretariat Report 61 on Sustainable Agriculture
correctly focuses on the April FAO/Netherlands Conference on
Agriculture and the Environment. That meeting's outcome was the
Den Bosch Declaration, which called for fundamental changes in the
way we look at sustainable agriculture and rural development,
first of which is the need for broad participation in the
political process of defining and developing integrated farm
management systems.
Such popular participation, employing market processes, and
adjusting for conflicts of interest among concerned individuals,
groups, and nations, is, in our view, essential to the ultimate
goal of protecting land resources. We will be interested in
seeing how the consensus of that very useful Conference and the
Den Bosch Declaration are incorporated both into Agenda 21 options
and into FAO's programs, and what specific actions, both
conceptually and administratively, FAO will take to achieve more
integration in its program.
Turning to the proposed Agenda 21 options on sustainable
agriculture and rural development, I would like first to address
briefly what we see as some important omissions.
First, as several, but not many, delegations have earlier noted,
the suggested options say little about the key role in integrated
land resource management of women, of indigenous people and other
local rural populations, and of farmers in general. I realize
that inserting in our UNCED documents mere words about the
importance of these groups is not nearly enough. And the
insertion of such verbiage does not, per se, do much to solve the
problem. But at least verbal recognition of the importance of
these real actors in changing the land is a useful first step in a
necessary consciousness raising -- which will hopefully be
succeeded by specific actions designed to insure a voice to people
who are often unheard in the corridors of power, where decisions
are made on appropriate land use management.
Second, a few other omissions. We believe there should be some
mention in Agenda 21 of the impact of land-based contaminants on
marine pollution, a vital subject covered at some length in this
Working Group's discussions on ocean protection. We would also
like to see even greater focus in the Options on alternative
cultivation systems, using traditional farming methods, as well as
more experimentation with lower inputs of agricultural chemicals
2
as a means to conserve the land resource base and to reduce toxics
in the soil. Over recent decades, both developed and developing
countries understandably made substantial use of such chemicals,
as fertilizers, as herbicides, and as pesticides. It's time now,
we believe, to do some serious rethinking on the subject, to see
what we all have learned from our experience, and, particularly,
in the case of pesticides and herbicides, to urgently look into
alternative non-chemical techniques -- not, by any means, as an
exclusive way of dealing with the real problems at hand, but
rather, in a genuine and non-finger pointing effort, to come to an
effective balance between our needs for food and our needs for
stemming or hopefully reversing the degradation of our precious
land resources.
We will submit to the Secretariat Monday, for consideration during
this Prepcom by the delegations assembled here, some specific
wording changes. Let me now, however, highlight just a few of the
more important ones.
We think that, where intensification of farming systems is not
possible, specific mention should be made of "non-farm activities,
such as light manufacturing, farm commodity processing,
agribusiness, recreation and tourism.
Second, we have some difficulty with certain of the proposed
actions on plant and animal genetic resources, which seem to
anticipate and, in some cases, preempt the proposed Biological
Diversity Convention. A number of those suggested actions should,
in our view, be limited or at least deferred until the Convention
negotiations have progressed to a more definitive stage,
Lastly, regarding the objective of having functioning land-use
systems in place by the year 2000, that goal is unquestionably
correct as a long-term objective, but even the highly
industrialized countries are unlikely to achieve full local action
in eight years. While specific land resource allocation and
management targets may be useful for mobilizing public attention
and support, it is crucial that they be realistic in terms of: (a)
the great difficulties in changing often long-standing economic
and social policies and customs which play a great role in land-
use decisions; (b) the possible internal and external resources
likely to be available to assist in this effort; and (c) the
likely unfortunate and counterproductive consequences of
establishing and publicizing specific goals which prove to be very
unrealistic. For these reasons, we would oppose setting any
specific target of this nature -- which would, in our view lack
credibility and raise questions as to UNCED's serious intent.
3
In closing, I would not want the above remarks to be seen as an
overall unhappiness with the comprehensive options list presented
by the Secretariat on part C. To the contrary, where we have not
commented, we are indeed mostly quite pleased by the thrust of the
options, and commend the drafters both for their breadth and for
their dreams.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, the Agenda 21 goals for land resources
depict, indeed, a very ambitious program. We think that
attempting to reach these goals by the year 2000 is not
realistic. This is particularly the case if there is to be
significant participation in the land resources planning process
by those citizens most affected by the results of such planning.
The U.S. stands ready to assist in developing country efforts to
broaden democratic processes -- and if I can come back, full
cycle, to where I began these remarks, we believe that only
through such fuller popular participation can we effectively
address the problems which today stand in the way of better
management of the world's land resources.
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
THIRD SESSION
STATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON DESERTIFICATION
Geneva, August 22, 1991
Mr. Chairman, we commend the candid and comprehensive analyses
of the causes and consequences of desertification contained in
PC/62. We agree that desertification is a most intractable and
often irreversible process. Caused largely by humans,
desertification is closely related in its origins to the
problems of land degradation and deforestation discussed here
last week.
In fact, we think these problems are so closely linked that it
may not be practical over the long term to deal with
desertification as an isolated phenomenon. The term itself has
always been a clumsy one and might better, in our view, now be
replaced with the general concept of "land degradation" or
"degradation of the natural resource base."
This is particularly relevant given the recent information
reported from remote sensing specialists that the Sahara has
stopped its expansion and is now retreating -- in this case,
due to climate variation. Technicians in this field of
expertise and many of the delegates here know that the term
"desertification" is meant to include land degradation in many
arid or semi-arid regions of the world, and not simply that
lying in the path of a clearly defined "desert." But we
believe use of that term will continue to create confusion in
the minds of those very people at the grass roots level who are
being asked to cope with the problem.
We agree with the candid summary, contained in the Secretariat
report, of the major shortcomings of the Plan of Action to
Combat Desertification, or the PACD. We also concur with the
comment in PC/62 that, despite the efforts to carry out that
plan, desertification remains unabated, and that, indeed, more
land is now desertified than was the case in 1967 when the PACD
was adopted.
Further, we do not believe that DESCON, the Desertification
Control Consultative Group has been able to make a significant
contribution to anti-desertification efforts. Given the
failure of efforts in this sector to date (as outlined in the
UN Report on last December's Seventh Regular Session of DESCON,
Rome), the key to achieving success in this area sèems to be
integration of anti-desertification efforts into national
-2-
development programs or national environmental action plans.
This will require that such efforts be viewed within the
context of land degradation, land use, and overall national
development efforts.
In many instances, governments will have to face squarely the
need for improvements in their national economic and land
management policies. We concur, accordingly, in the call of
UNSO (the UN Sudano-Sahelian Office) for more governmental
emphasis on economic and other incentives, consciousness
raising, education, alternative or supplementary production
systems, and agricultural intensification. And, as mentioned
in the Secretariat report, there is a need for greater
community participation in country plans to combat
desertification.
We believe that, in many of the affected countries,
organizations already exist to channel concessionary resource
flows, particularly through the multilateral development banks
and donor organizations. As we said in PrepCom 2, the United
States welcomes, and supports financially, the efforts of the
various UN agencies in combatting this form of land
degradation, and particularly want to commend the good work in
the Sahel of UNSO , and we encourage UNEP's continued
cooperation with these efforts. The United States also
contributes substantially, through its bilateral economic
assistance programs, to a variety of national and regional
anti-desertification efforts, particularly in Africa.
In some cases, affected countries -- 22 in Africa to date --
are developing National Environmental Action Plans with the
help of the World Bank. In these cases the multilateral
development banks can be of great help in coordinating a
national effort, and will go a long way in focussing the
limited resources available to help resolve problems in this
sector.
Lastly, we would like to point out that, just as is the case in
deforestation, possible solutions lie not only in improved
schemes of integrated land management, but also in the efforts
of developing countries, assisted by donor countries, to deal
with poverty, unplanned urban development, and pressures to
farm marginal lands to feed their burgeoning populations.
In summary, the U.S. Government believes that UNEP should
continue to assume the lead in creating the long-term
perspective essential to the resolution of desertification
problems. We believe UNEP should acquire the staff necessary
to aid the affected countries in developing national action
plans to combat desertification, and that these plans be
integrated into national development plans. We welcome the
-3-
promised UNEP composite report on desertification. But we
wonder if there is any way to speed up its final approval so
that UNCED participants can avail themselves of its findings
prior to next spring's session of the UNEP Governing Council
and subsequent transmission to the United Nations General
Assembly.
If that cannot be done on a more timely basis, possibly the
Secretariat could flesh out the rather generally worded
programmatic framework for Agenda 21, using the report of UNSO
and the annexes contained in PC/62. Many of the eventual
specific actions in Agenda 21 will most likely be related to
those needed for overall land resource management, such as more
integrated land-use planning and serious efforts to secure a
greater popular participation by indigenous people and other
farmers. Despite the similarity of likely solutions, however,
desertification is an important enough problem to devote
special attention to the special land problems of arid and
semi-arid areas of many developing countries.
Mr. Chairman, desertification is often a result of the tensions
that often seem to exist between the needs for development and
the need to protect our environment. The challenge posed to
UNCED by this problem -- as by so many others we face here and
in Rio -- is how to develop a workable plan for sustainable
development that goes beyond words and allows us to manage the
world's lands for the long-term benefit of both development and
the environment.
US OPENING REMARKS
Topic: Conservation and Development of Forests
Preparatory Committee for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development
Third Session
Geneva, August 14, 1991
Mr. Chairman:
My government has studied with great interest and
in considerable depth the Secretariat documentation on
forests prepared for this session of the PrepCom. Let me
say at the outset that the United States remains firmly
committed to the negotiation of a free-standing global
framework convention on forests. We believe such a
convention -- on all forests: tropical, temperate and
boreal -- is urgently needed. Our preference would be to
have it concluded in time for UNCED, but we recognize that
others face various constraints in this regard and do not
necessarily share our views as to timing. Last month in
London, we joined others of the Group of Seven in
reiterating the commitment to a convention. As stated in
the London Summit Declaration: "We aim to achieve by
the time of UNCED:
agreement on principles for the
management, conservation and sustainable development of
all types of forest, leading to a framework convention."
We believe that this set of principles must be in a form
that is acceptable to developing countries with tropical
forests.
We recognize UNCED as the appropriate forum for
discussion of principles for a global forest consensus, as
was agreed at the last Preparatory Committee meeting.
Our discussions at that time showed there is considerable
commonality in the views expressed by many countries
regarding the scope of a global consensus on forests and
the topics to be addressed in moving toward agreement on
forest principles. On this basis, the U.S. has developed
a proposal, which we have asked the Secretariat to
distribute as an informal document in English, and which
will be be available as Conference Document
A/CONF.151/PC/WGI/L.20. This document represents our
current thinking on those principles. We are aware that
other countries and non-governmental organizations have
developed proposals as well, and several have shared them
with us. They further demonstrate that there are many
areas of like thinking which can be the basis of reaching
agreement on principles in time for UNCED.
-2-
UNCED Secretariat document A/CONF.151/PC/65,
"Guiding Principles for Consensus on Forests," offers many
opportunities to make progress on a consensus text. While
we recognize that much work remains to be done, we would
support the document's use as a starting point. We will
make further suggestions based on the principles paper
referred to above.
Document A/CONF.151/PC/42/Add.3, "Options for
Agenda 21," contains many excellent program elements. We
would like to see it take a more balanced, holistic
approach. At present, the agenda is overly focused on
climate change and afforestation issues. We will be
seeking certain modifications and additions to place
increased emphasis on the multiple aspects and benefits of
forests, particularly as related to productivity,
sustainable management, development, international trade,
biological diversity and ecological stability. We will
also be calling for greater attention to monitoring,
inventory and research, education and training, technical
cooperation, and the use of market mechanisms to achieve
multiple benefits. The latter should include reseach on
the economic valuation of natural resources and ecosystems
services. Air pollution should also be addressed, as well
as rehabilitation and recovery of degraded forest land.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, to return to our opening
theme, agreement on a well-balanced set of guiding
principles within this forum will permit rapid progress
toward a framework convention, to be concluded as soon as
possible. My delegation believes what this and the
following PrepCom meeting achieve in arriving at a
consensus on forests has the potential for being one of
the most significant outcomes of UNCED.
UNITED
NATIONS
A
General Assembly
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
14 August 1991
Original: ENGLISH
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Third session
Geneva, 12 August - 4 September 1991
Working Group I
Agenda item 3 (a)
LAND RESOURCES: DEFORESTATION
Proposal on Forest Principles submitted by the United States of America
Attached are a set of proposed principles and related actions that might
form the basis for reaching consensus on the elements of a global convention
or agreement on forests. Taken together, the principles and related actions
could serve to provide an international framework for nationally-based actions.
The "general principles" are meant to define the nature and structure of
a forest agreement, whereas the "specific principles" identify areas of forest
policy and management. Based on the principles, countries would be free to
develop national strategies and take beneficial actions best suited to local
conditions. The potential actions listed are illustrative of such
implementation actions that might be taken.
GE.91-71851/6985a
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 2
I. PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBAL FOREST CONVENTION/AGREEMENT
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. Global stewardship
Countries have a responsibility to engage in cooperative stewardship to
improve global environmental quality for mutual benefit. They also have a
sovereign right to manage their domestic natural resources pursuant to their
domestic policies. Global stewardship and sustainable development depend upon
the integration of healthy environmental quality and robust economic growth.
2. Global participation
Improvements in the management of forest resources will have global
benefits. All countries share an interest in promoting such benefits, and all
should share in efforts to achieve them.
3. International cooperation
Countries should be encouraged to realize their shared forestry goals
through cooperative international arrangements. Such arrangements to improve
forest resource management could include provision of education and training,
research and monitoring, forest management planning expertise and financial
and technical assistance.
4. Comprehensive coverage
All types of forests - boreal, temperate and tropical - and all types of
global forest benefits, including economic, environmental, social and cultural
- should be addressed in an agreement. This includes attention to the
sustainable use of forests for, inter alia, forest products, biodiversity,
greenhouse gas sequestration and indigenous peoples.
5.
Flexible, performance-based approach
Progress on forestry should be measured by the results obtained, to allow
maximum scope for creative, diverse, innovative and cost-effective policies
that contribute to global forest benefits. Policies and practices should be
flexible and able to respond to changing circumstances and new information.
Countries should be able to pursue results through their own choices of
specific forest management practices, both to respect the autonomy of
sovereign States and to enhance the cost-effectiveness and dynamism of
policies by allowing them to match local needs and opportunities.
6. Use of market mechanisms
To enhance flexibility and effectiveness, the use of market forces and
mechanisms to achieve forestry goals should be encouraged, both domestically
and internationally.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 3
7. Integration of policies
Policies should comport with forestry objectives in such areas as
economics and trade (including taxes, subsidies and tariffs), financial and
technical assistance, and property rights and land tenure.
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES RELATING TO PARTICULAR FOREST CONCERNS
8. Sustainable management
Promote sustainable management and stewardship of forests to meet present
and future human needs for economic and ecological services. Act
cooperatively for sustainable development combining healthy environmental
quality and robust economic growth. Reduce adverse effects on forests by
improving the efficiency of using land resources to meet human needs.
9. Conservation of forest diversity
Endeavour to conserve, maintain, restore and enhance the biological
diversity of forested ecosystems, including genetic, species, ecosystems and
landscape diversity.
10. Reforestation and rehabilitation
Strive to maintain and increase the total quantity and quality of forests
to the extent economically and environmentally justified and appropriate.
11. Climate change
Seek to expand the use of forests as sinks and reservoirs for greenhouse
gases, and endeavour to help forests adapt to potential climate change and
changing atmospheric composition.
12. Air pollution
Seek appropriate actions to address the adverse effects of air pollution
on forest growth and productivity wherever economically and environmentally
justified.
13. Indigenous peoples and established local communities
Respect the needs of indigenous peoples who use forests as the basis for
their livelihood, social organization or cultural identity. Recognize the
need of established local communities which depend upon forest resources to
have an economic stake in sustainable forest use. Raise local community
awareness of the effects of their actions on forests and promote compatibility
of their actions with attainment of forest management objectives.
14. Fuelwood and energy
Find means to meet the demands for fuel for cooking, heating and other
energy while avoiding deforestation and degradation of forests.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 4
15. Economics and trade
Integrate sustainable forest use objectives and policies with economic
and trade policies. Harness market forces to achieve national, regional and
international forest management goals. Foster use of debt-for-nature swaps
and other innovative means.
16. Research and inventory
Expand forestry research, inventory and monitoring of the biological,
physical, social, economic and other key variables that affect or are
components of forest resources, forest ecosystems and forest use to meet
multiple objectives.
17. Education and training
Strengthen institutional capabilities, improve education in the science,
technology and economics of forests and forest management, and ensure full
public access to information and public input to the decision-making processes
related to forest management.
18. Financial and technical assistance
Use financial and technical assistance resources fully and efficiently to
help countries implement national, regional and international forestry
programmes aimed at the conservation and sustainable use of forests. Ensure
that development assistance is consistent with sound forest use and
stewardship.
II. POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PRINCIPLES OF A
GLOBAL FOREST CONVENTION/AGREEMENT
A.
What kinds of actions would be appropriate for a framework
convention/agreement?
1. A framework convention or agreement on global forests should establish
general obligations for the parties. The framework agreement could
appropriately include:
(a) Development of and means to provide the scientific, technological,
and economic knowledge needed as the basis for continuing international
discussion and cooperation;
(b) General obligations for participants to support the principles of
the agreement in ways suitable to their circumstances;
(c) Appropriate institutions to facilitate continuing scientific,
technological and economic assessment, cooperative research, and general
obligations;
(d) Provision for any subsequent protocols for which the scientific and
other assessments may show a need.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 5
Inventory and research
2. An adequate base of scientific, technological and economic knowledge and
data about the world's forests is needed, both to support continuing
international discussion and cooperation under an agreement and to provide the
basis for improved forest management. A cooperative international programme
could assess the current inventory and status of forest resources, future
trends, and the status of non-forest uses which put pressure on forest
resources.
3. Further research is needed in a number of areas, including the
biological, physical, social and economic components of forest resources and
ecosystems. Examples of areas needing further research include the
measurement of multiple benefits, gaining a better understanding of key or
leverage variables which affect forests, improving strategies for sound
management, and better understanding of causes and alternatives to forest
clearing.
Education and training
4. Countries with forest resources need to have the scientific and technical
human resource capabilities to manage their forests effectively. Countries
with expertise in forest management can help build these human and
institutional capabilities. Because improved forest management can improve
local economic performance at the same time that it delivers global forest
benefits, providing education and training can serve the interests of both
groups of countries.
Strategies for improving forest management
5. Countries could undertake, as a general obligation under an agreement, to
develop and publish explicit national strategies for improving forest
management.
6. Bilateral and multilateral assistance institutions could develop
strategies to help their assistance programmes give forestry objectives
appropriate priority and emphasis.
7. As a part of the development of such strategies, countries and assistance
institutions should review policies and practices aimed at non-forest
objectives in order to coordinate and integrate them with forest objectives.
B. Specific potential actions
8. The following are specific potential actions which fall into the three
categories described above - inventory and research, education and training,
and strategies for improving forest management. They are listed under the
headings for specific principles relating to particular forest concerns.
Sustainable management
9. Undertake, as a general obligation, to develop and publish explicit
national strategies for improving forest management.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 6
10. Undertake, as a general obligation, to review major national policies and
actions for their impacts on forests.
Conservation of forest diversity
11. Support a cooperative international effort to develop ways to measure and
monitor biological diversity, to do research in support of the conservation of
forest diversity and to provide technical and financial assistance to these
efforts. Biological diversity encompasses diversity of species, habitats, and
ecosystems. Additional work is needed to improve understanding and
measurement of these factors.
12. Expand existing efforts to integrate biological diversity goals with
multilateral and bilateral development activities.
Climate change
13. Support an expanded international cooperative programme of research into:
(a) The potential impacts of climate atmosphere change on forest
productivity, health and diversity;
(b) Development, demonstration and enhancement of forest-based
technologies that are economically sound while reducing further growth in net
emissions of greenhouse gases;
(c) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies and
practices to increase and enhance natural sinks of greenhouse gases;
(d) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies and
management practices that will aid forest managers to adapt to climate and
atmosphere change, while maintaining forest productivity, health and diversity;
(e) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies that use
the potential of forests to provide an environmentally acceptable substitute
for non-renewable energy sources.
14. Support an expansion of current international science, technical
assistance, training, education, and fire management cooperation with a goal
of reducing the destructive loss of forest resources to fire and a goal of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from forest and savannah fires.
Air pollution
15. Initiate a cooperative effort with countries with temperate and boreal
forests to understand the effects of air pollution on forest productivity,
health and diversity; to assess the damage to such forests from air pollution;
to determine likely causes; to establish monitoring systems; and to evaluate
restorative actions.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 7
Reforestation and rehabilitation
16. Support through an appropriate international institution an inventory and
assessment of deforested lands to help countries identify those lands that
would produce the highest economic and other benefits from afforestation.
Both lands recently deforested and lands deforested in the longer-term past
could be evaluated using satellite imagery and on-the-ground assessment.
17. Take steps, domestically and through cooperative international
arrangements, to enhance the quantity and quality of boreal, temperate and
tropical forests.
18. Cooperatively assess the kinds of government policies and arrangements
that discourage or encourage conversions of forest lands - tax structures,
forest and agricultural incentives, land tenure arrangements, leasing or
contracting procedures for harvest, and so forth.
19. Cooperatively expand technical and managerial assistance to developing
countries to assist them in restoring degraded lands and their associated
natural processes. Aid in developing sustainable multiple-use management
plans, developing appropriate policy, legislation and administrative
management plans.
20. Encourage public/private initiatives such as the Central America and
Mexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative (CAMCORE). This international
association of private companies, academic institutions and government
agencies has the specific mission of preserving the genetic resources and
economic potential of relatively little-known tropical coniferous tree species.
Inventory and research
21. Support a cooperative, international inventory programme:
(a) To develop improved forest inventory and monitoring criteria and
techniques;
(b) To carry out an inventory of the world's forests, on a continuing
and regular basis, assessing their:
(i) Sustainable capability to meet demands for forest products,
services and non-market values;
(ii) Health;
(iii) Biological diversity, including species, habitat and ecosystem
diversity;
(iv) Deforestation rates and patterns;
(v) Ecological changes;
(vi) Other current and projected changes, including conversion to
other uses;
(vii) The effects and sustainability of forest management practices.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 8
22. Initiate new international cooperative research programmes on tropical
forests, agroforestry, sustainable development, forest diversity, forest
health management, temperate forests, boreal forests, and reforestation of
deforested and degraded forest lands. Proposals could include:
(a) Expanded emphasis on forest research in existing research centres of
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR);
(b) Establishment of new regional forest research institutes under CGIAR
(the United States could express interest in cooperating in the development of
a tropical forest research centre in Latin America in the Amazon basin);
(c) Increased commitment to support tropical forest research in existing
institutions such as the Institute of Tropical Forestry, Puerto Rico, the
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Hawaii and the tropical woods programme
at the Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI;
(d) Identification and evaluation of key leverage variables: factors
such as timber prices, food prices, taxes and subsidies, tariffs, property
rights, air pollution and others that critically affect forest resource use;
(e) Establishment of a boreal forest cooperative programme to expand and
coordinate research to assess resources, monitor productivity, health and
diversity of ecosystems and evaluate sustainable forest practices for boreal
forests;
(f) Advanced work in the valuation and comparison of multiple forest
benefits, such as commercial forest products, non-forest products such as
agriculture, fuelwood, pharmaceuticals, biodiversity, indigenous peoples'
homelands and ecological services.
Education and training
23. Support in close coordination and cooperation with the network of
regional forest research institutes and other ongoing international
programmes, the development of a programme of formal and technical training
designed to assure that all countries with forest resources have the
institutional capabilities and access to the most up-to-date scientific
resources, information and capabilities needed:
(a) To manage their forest resources in an economically and
environmentally sound manner at the governmental level;
(b) To provide their farmers, agroforesters, and other non-governmental
resource users with the extension services, technical assistance and other
knowledge needed for sound use of forest resources.
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20
page 9
Financial and technical assistance
24. Review bilateral and multilateral assistance programmes with a view,
inter alia:
(a) To improve the long-term health and productivity of forest resources
for the production of employment, income, forest products, services,
recreation and habitat;
(b) To developing and publishing explicit strategies which give
appropriate priority to projects or aspects of projects which focus on the
sustainable use of forest and land resources to meet human needs for food,
fuel, shelter and economic development;
(c) To ameliorate the adverse effects on the health and productivity of
forest and land resources from other economic development projects.
25. Provide an international institution to coordinate information on
debt-for-nature swaps by identifying swap opportunities and partners, drafting
model agreements, brokering transactions and generally assisting countries and
non-governmental organizations in such arrangements.
26. Look to the Global Environmental Fund of the World Bank as the source of
funding for environmental improvements in the world's forests.
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT BY US DELEGATION ON
CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
(PrepCom III - Geneva - August 20, 1991)
The Secretariat is to be congratulated for its
comprehensive, thoughtful, and balanced documents on the
conservation of biological diversity. The scope of the
proposed actions is immense, and we must begin to set
priorities which will allow us as individual nations, and as
members of regional and international organizations, to make
the most effective use of available resources. Our suggestions
for additions to the "Options for Agenda 21" on this topic
focus primarily on the introduction of certain economic and
dovelopmental concepts centering on the proper valuation of
ecosystems and the elements of biological diversity, and how
they might relate to conservation issues. We would hope that
in a second iteration of this options paper, there might be a
more complete elaboration of concerns relating to sustainable
development and how the conservation of biological diversity
could best be integrated into developmental planning.
We are encouraged by -- and support -- the emphasis placed
on increasing and harmonizing research on species, habitats,
and above all, ecosystems. The diversity of life constitutes a
unique resource for current and future generations. However,
we are uncertain even of the magnitude of that resource. Many
of the activities suggested in the options paper will enable us
to increase our knowledge in that regard.
There is also a need for action now. We must identify
specific activities to be undertaken immediately. In general,
the US is opposed to setting targets and timetables for the
scale and for the beginning or ending of these activities. In
many cases, dates and targets are not realistic, and in others,
they invite postponement of an immediate action. In some
instances, if an activity is desirable -- and achievable -- it
should be started as soon as possible and carried through to
completion as soon as possible -- if indeed coming to some sort
of closure is part of the activity's concept. In many cases,
activities should remain open-ended, and evolve. In many
cases, the appropriate scale of the activity is uncertain;
hence, cosential. a flexible approach to both scale and timing is
At the same time, this forum should not attempt to
anticipate or preempt the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee (INC) on Biological Diversity. As we look at the
proposed activities, we should bear in mind that some are more
appropriately addressed in the formal negotiating process of
the INC.
-2-
Research and education are two areas that appear among the
most fruitful for UNCED's consideration. We need to know what
we have, how best to conserve and use it wisely, and how to
fully appreciate the costs and benefits of such conservation
and wise use, as well as of the costs of failing to husband our
biological resources. It appears that destruction of
biodiversity is often the result of inadequate understanding of
the practical value to human society of its conservation.
we would like to draw the Working Group's attention to the
fact that there already exists in the developing world at least
one model institution which has made great contributions to the
sustainable use of, appreciation for, education about, and
conservation of biodiversity. It is the Instituto Nacional de
Biodiversidad (InBio), in Costa Rica. As an example of what it
has been able to accomplish on the research side, its committee
identifies gaps in the knowledge about the country's biota,
both from area and taxon standpoints, and fills these gaps by
training parataxonomists. This procedure has been so efficient
that Costa Rica has been able to expand its national insect
collection in one year from 50,000 to 2 million prepared
specimens. The InBio is also addressing land management and
development issues, and is pioneering some novel approaches in
the area of market-driven contracts with industry. As we begin
to give shape to our proposed research and education
activities, we suggest that it would be instructive to study
the InBio model with a view toward understanding how it might
be adapted for use elsewhere, and profiting from lessons
learned by it.
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
US STATEMENT ON UNGA DOCUMENT 151/PC/67
"ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY:
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES"
(PrepCom III - Geneva - August 22, 1991)
We are in general agreement with the stated objectives of
UNCED PrepCom to facilitate the safe development and
application of biotechnology techniques and products to
problems of human health and environment, especially for
developing countries. We rear the present approach by the
UNCED Secretariat will not, however, advance these aims.
The report of the Secretary-General of the conference
entitled "Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology:
Background and Issues," or Document A/CONF.151/PC/67, is
especially problematic. It is entirely unacceptable to our
government as it stands, as it demonstrates a lack of
familiarity with many aspects of biotechnology and the relevant
it would have to undergo substantial revision, preferably by
literature. For the US Government to, in any Way, endorse it,
experts in the field. Without such rewriting, this document,
through its inaccurate and disproportionate view of risks of
the new biotechnologies, as well as inflated expectations of
their potential short-term benefits, is likely to lead to the
creation of serious obstacles to the development and transfer
products. This is the antithesis of what the UNCED process is
to the developing world of biotechnologies and biotechnology
supposed to be about.
we find three major shortcomings in the above-mentioned
document. The first and fundamental one is that it fails to
convey a clear understanding of the continuum that exists
between "conventional" biotechnology, i.e., plant breeding, and
"new" biotechnology, i.e., use of recombinant DNA.
a failure to recognize that the term or concept of "GMO," " or
Unfortunately, this deficiency leads directly and inevitably to
genetically manipulated organism, is not relevant when
discussing the environmentally sound management of
biotechnology. Whether an organism has been manipulated or not
does not bear on risk to the environment. What is important
and relevant are the characteristics of the end-product and how
familiar we are with them. To treat GMO's as inherently
to dangerous solely because of the way they have been produced is
burdensome to nations of the developing world.
regulatory straight-jacket. This will be particularly
put ourselves in an uncomfortable and wholly-unnecessary,
-2-
The view of the US Government is that genetic manipulation
of innumerable organisms by many techniques -- new and old --
has been carried out for decades, if not centuries. We are,
therefore, familiar with these organisms and their products
through experience in research, development and commerce. As
stated above, safety reviews and regulation should focus on the
characteristics and risks of the biotechnology product, and not
on the process by which it is created (US National Research
Council, 1988; National Council on Competitiveness Report,
1991.) This conclusion is strongly supported by numerous
scientific studies. The lack of clarity in regard to old
versus new biotechnologies, to the terms "transgenic" and "GMO"
and their significance, and to the safety aspects of
biotechnology products, is evident in paragraphs 19, 25, 32,
discussion. 68, 70-74, and 129, inter alia, of the document under
The second major shortcoming derives from the first. The
basic misunderstandings of both science and safety
characteristics discussed above have caused an inappropriate
and overly intense focus on risk. It is unbalanced in that it
does not give sufficient consideration to the vast experience
of governments, industry and consumers with genetically-altered
organisms used for many years, in both contained and
uncontained environments, to produce all manner of essential
products and services. This large body of experience with past
developments in medicine and agriculture provides a sound basis
for risk assessment and prediction. It also shows that
biotechnology products are likely to be, for the most part,
safer and more environmentally friendly than those they will
supplement or replace.
Third, we are concerned that an undue burden is being
placed on the new biotechnologies to solve the world's health,
food and environmental problems by the year 2000. While it is
reasonable to expect that biotechnology will make useful
contributions, it will take many years of research and
development for this to occur, and even then it will not be the
answer to all our problems. We hold the progress of
commercialization of biotechnology products in the US and other
countries as an example: products have been far slower in
coming, and more modest in impact, than the popular press has
led the public to expect. We need to be realistic about the
timeframes and expectations that can be placed on future
developments in biotechnology, and examine the progress that
can be made with our current knowledge, preventive measures --
such as clean drinking water -- and existing medical
technologies to improve health and alleviate hunger throughout
the world.
-3-
Finally, we would appreciate recognition of the
fundamental fact that while technology cooperation among
governments and with the private sector is a primary goal of
UNCED, as well as the US, intellectual property rights have
been key to advances in biotechnology. If there is to be
continued participation by industry in research and
development, intellectual property rights must be respected.
In an attempt to assist the Secretariat, US experts in the
field of biotechnology from the Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and other
agencies submitted through the Department of State detailed
comments on an earlier version of the document under
discussion. An expert from the Department of Agriculture also
participated in the London workshop to help clarify the US
view. We note that only a small number of our previous
detailed corrections and suggestions have been embodied in the
current version of the document. We are disappointed and
frustrated that the great majority were not accepted.
70 and 71, which discuss methods for safety assurance for new
In this regard, we were particularly struck by paragraphs
and inflexible approach described as "step-by-step" that is
biotechnology products. This draft material lays out a rigid
contrary to the findings of every authoritative study of these
issues that has been done to date, even though a number of
those studies are cited in this draft. In particular, at the
the 1986 OECD findings on the need for and basis of a flexible
London workshop, our representative described at some length
approach that can take into account the past experience and
body of data directly relevant to these questions. In London,
facilitate adaptations in response based on the rapidly growing
assurances were given by members of the UNCED Secretariat that
this information would be reflected in the re-draft. It is
not. This failure renders useless or misleading much, if not
most, of what follows paragraphs 70-71 on the topics of risk
assessment and management.
We will list a few other details to demonstrate what we
regard as the inadequacies of the background document. The
following comments are only representative, reflecting a few of
our more serious reservations to the existing draft.
The material in paragraphs 19-20 is seriously out of
date. As of this writing, no less than 15 crops, transformed
with respect to over 40 distinct characters, have been tested
in the US alone. To date, over 200 field tests have been
conducted in the US alone. The worldwide total is
significantly higher in both categories. None of these field
tests has resulted in any negative safety consequences.
-4-
Paragraph 23 scriously misstates the situation with
respect to the environmental implications of transgenic plants
resistant to horbicides. Authoritative refutations of this
view can be found in "Herbicide-Resistant Crops" (report of the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, May 1991) and
in "Harvest of Hope" (Natural Resources Defense Council, May
1991), and throughout the primary literature.
Paragraph 24 pushes conclusions with respect to engineered
resistances to viral diseases farther than the data justify.
Some of the judgments in this paragraph are highly speculative,
not backed by data, and unsupportably optimistic.
Paragraph 28 vastly overstates the average yield gains
that can be expected from bovine somatotrophin. A May 1991
report from the US office of Technology Assessment estimates
average gain for an individual farm in the United States
(incorporating high-quality food supplements and intensive
management techniques) at 12 percent, not 41 percent.
institutional mechanisms that will allow the transfer or
Paragraph 54 states that "the challenge is to develop
acquisition of propriety biotechnology applications from
developed countries, particularly the private sector, to the
benefit of developing countries." In the US view, this
statement is inaccurate, as these mechanisms exist now in the
form of licensing and other commercial arrangements.
Paragraphs 70ff, on general principles for safety in
biotechnology, present an excessively inflexible view that is
at least five years out of date. The focus on GMO's is not
helpful, creating more problems than it resolves. This
material also ignores the key finding of all the major
authoritative examinations of this issue, that any regulatory
approach must be flexible, so as to facilitate adaptations in
response to increases in knowledge, experience, and
understanding in this rapidly developing field. It also
misstates the case with respect to the possible categorization
virtually all the authoritative studies.
of risk levels for transgenic products, again contradicting
Paragraph 110 overstates the need for contingency plans
and mitigation procedures. Certainly, in selected cases, they
are appropriate. For tomatoes or maize, particularly in North
America, experience to date demonstrates that for the most
part, they are not. To state the need in such absolute, and
unqualified, inflexible terms, is, in our opinion, supportive
of our contention that this document will create precisely the
avoid. kinds of barriers to new technologies that UNCED wishes to
-5-
comments the US does not agree with the substance of or the
Further, part to OECD report which is not yet completed they released. refer in
Paragraphs an 113 and 114 are inappropriate as
on monitoring.
work remaining for within which to complete the preparatory limited time
In view of these numerous defects, and the
and ensuring productive that the "Options for Agenda 21" are as focussed be
to UNCED, we strongly urge that future efforts committee devoted
document, energy PC67. expended in efforts to repair this badly no further flawed
be as possible. we recommend that
particularly serious stimulating it to help address successful,
In the spirit in of making the Rio conference and
additional challenges facing developing countries, some of the
21." suggestions (separately) for the Options We offer for Agenda some
PROTECTION OF OCEANS, ALL KINDS OF SEAS INCLUDING
ENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS, COASTAL AREAS
AND THE PROTECTION, RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THEIR LIVING RESOURCES
Preparatory Committee for the 1992
UN Conference on Environment and Development
August 12, 1991
Mr. Chairman,
The United States notes with appreciation the considerable effort
that went into the preparations of the documents for Working
Group II, related to oceans. These papers raise a number of
points of great interest to the United States and we thank the
Secretariat for bringing them to our attention.
The United States believes that the UNCED forum provides a unique
opportunity to further concrete objectives in the oceans arena
and will continue to pursue substantive progress in promoting:
-- elaboration of principles, as initial fulfillment of the
provision of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the
Sea, to deal with landbased sources of marine pollution;
-- encouragement of cooperation in coastal zone management
techniques, including through the relevant international
organizations with an emphasis upon developing local capacity and
regional interaction;
-- application of ecosystem, multi-species management of marine
living resources, in order to provide for conservation, including
rational use, of fisheries populations;
-- cooperation through the relevant international organizations
in integrated monitoring of the marine environment; and
-- improved coordination of regional and international coastal
and marine programs.
The United States welcomes the background papers and believes
they can provide an important basis for action. The United
States believes that it is essential to articulate a clear set of
objectives for the oceans as a basis for action at the national,
regional and international level. In this regard, the United
States would draw the Chairman's attention to the document
introduced by the United States at the last session
(A/CONF/151/PC/WG.II/CRP7). We look forward to Working Group II
discussions where we hope to contribute to the clarification of
objectives and activities anticipated in the oceans arena.
- 2-
Turning to the specifics of the Options for Agenda 21 paper (42
Add. 6), the United States supports many of the objectives and
action items. However, we believe that Working Group II can
improve the options for Agenda 21 at this PrepCom by refocusing
it to achieve consensus on the objectives of the overall paper as
well as identify appropriate objectives for the various ocean
sectors.
The paper espouses taking an integrated approach to ocean and
coastal resource management. We wholeheartedly endorse this.
However, the section of the paper which presents the sectoral
objectives and action items segregates all of the discussions.
For this reason, we think we should re-organize the paper to
emphasize the need for integrated science, data collection, and
capacity building necessary to accomplish truly integrated
management of ocean and coastal resources. Mr. Chairman, we
would be happy to provide you with specific ideas of how we might
accomplish this. We look forward to hearing from others and hope
that there will be enough time allotted to this important task.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNITED
NATIONS
A
General Assembly
Distr.
LIMITED
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15
13 August 1991
Original: ENGLISH
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Third Session
Geneva, 12 August-4 September 1991
Working Group II
Agenda item 2
PROTECTION OF THE OCEANS AND ALL KINDS OF SEAS, INCLUDING
ENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS, AND COASTAL AREAS AND
THE PROTECTION, RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR
LIVING RESOURCES
Principles on the use and protection of the marine environment
Contribution submitted by the delegation of the
United States of America to Working Group II at
the third session of the Preparatory Committee
for the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development
Oceans
Principles on the Use and Protection of the Marine Environment
The marine environment - comprising all ocean and coastal waters,
including inter-tidal zones and salt water marshes, as well as adjacent
coastal and riparian land areas, and extending, in the case of watercourses,
up to the freshwater limit - forms an integrated whole whose health is
essential to the protection of the environment of the planet and the sustained
use of its resources.
GE.91-71824/1142H
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15
page 2
In order to maintain and sustain the life-support and productive capacity
of the marine environment, for both present and future generations, action is
required at the national, regional, and global level. To this end, States,
consistent with international law and in particular the relevant rights and
obligations set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
shall promote:
General
1. Reduction as far as practicable of the risk that human activities will
cause irreversible change in or long-term adverse effects upon the marine
environment, including coastal and marine ecosystems;
2. Preservation of the biological diversity and productivity of marine
species and maintenance of the ecological relationships among populations of
such species;
3. Integration of protection of the marine environment into overall
environmental and economic development policies;
4. Development of national income accounting practices that reflect changes
in value resulting from uses of the marine environment, including pollution,
loss of marine resources and habitat destruction;
Management
5. Development and implementation of integrated programmes for understanding
and managing the coastal zone;
6. Development and implementation of integrated programmes for understanding
and managing marine ecosystems;
7. Prior assessment of the potential significant adverse environmental
impacts of major governmental policies, programmes and projects upon the
marine environment;
8. Acquisition and availability of information and data adequate for prior
assessments of the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of and
informed judgements about major governmental policies, programmes and projects
affecting the marine environment;
Marine species
9. Ensuring as far as practicable that human activities do not result in the
decrease of any population of marine specifies below a level at which its
recruitment is stable, specifically below a level close to that which ensures
the greatest net annual increment;
10. Restoration to the levels set forth in principle 9 of populations of
marine species that have been depleted by harvesting;
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15
page 3
11. Protection and restoration of populations of endangered or threatened
marine mammals, sea turtles and other species that inhabit or depend upon the
marine environment;
12. Provision of reliable and adequate data and information, including
verifiable catch and effort statistics, on the commercial harvesting of
populations of marine species, including by-catch statistics in order to
assess and predict the effects of such harvesting;
13. Use of selective fishing gear and practices that avoid significant waste
of catch of target populations of marine species or in the significant
by-catch of non-target species, including marine mammals, sea-birds and
turtles;
14. Introduction of new fishing practices and fishing gear only if prior
assessment demonstrates that such gear or practice will not result in
significant waste of catch of target populations or in the significant
by-catch of non-target species, including marine mammals, sea-birds and
turtles;
15. Ensuring that each population of marine species that is the target of
fishing activities is harvested in areas and at the stage of its life cycle
that ensures maximum economic efficiency, consistent with these principles;
16. Ensuring that high-seas fisheries are not directed toward straddling
stocks of marine species fully utilized by fisheries on the same populations
in adjacent coastal waters;
Protected areas
17. Designation of areas of the marine environment for special protection in
order to protect rare or fragile ecosystems;
18. Special measures to preserve the habitats of populations of marine
species, including designation of marine and coastal protected areas, in
particular breeding, spawning and nursery areas, as well as areas of high
biodiversity;
19. Designation of marine sites for the purpose of preserving or restoring
their scientific, wilderness, recreational or aesthetic value, as well as for
monitoring changes in the marine environment and to preserve unique
opportunities for scientific research;
Marine pollution
20. Economic incentives to limit industrial and agricultural practices that
produce, as emissions, by-products or residues, potential pollutants of the
marine environment;
21. Adoption and implementation of measures necessary to prevent, reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment from all sources;
A/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15
page 4
22. Adoption and implementation, as a matter of priority, of measures to
prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from
land-based sources;
23. Special measures to eliminate or reduce to the minimum practicable the
discharge of pollutants that are bio-accumulative;
24. Coordination and integration of measures to protect the marine
environment in such fashion as to reinforce each other and achieve maximum
benefit in the protection of that environment;
25. Coordination and integration of marine environmental protection measures
with other environmental protection measures in such fashion as to achieve
maximum benefit in the protection of the environment as a whole;
Marine scientific research and monitoring
26. Scientific research on and regular monitoring of the marine environment,
in areas within, as well as beyond, the limits of national jurisdiction;
27. Collection, as a matter of priority, of data and information necessary
for determining the need for, and assessing the effectiveness of, measures to
protect and preserve the marine environment and its resources;
28. Coordination and integration of national and international programmes of
scientific research on and monitoring of the marine environment to take
maximum advantage of opportunities to collect data and information necessary
for understanding the oceans and for action to protect the marine environment
and its resources;
Data and information management
29. The storage, archiving, analysis, and full and open sharing of data and
information resulting from scientific research on and monitoring of the marine
environment;
30. Development of standard, intercalibrated procedures, methods and
measuring techniques to ensure the comparability and compatibility of data and
information resulting from scientific research on and monitoring of the marine
environment;
Public participation
31. Access for individuals, groups and organizations concerned with marine
environmental issues to all relevant information and provision of
opportunities for consultation and participation in planning and
decision-making concerning activities which may affect the marine environment;
32. Regular exchange and public availability of information on actions to
implement these principles.
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1991
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON FRESHWATER RESOURCES
(PrepCom 3 - Geneva - August 14, 1991)
Mr. Chairman, we wish to compliment the Secretary-General
and his staff for preparing a complete report which summarizes
the many complex issues related to protecting the freshwater
resources of the globe. We share the view of many, that
heightened competition for adequate supplies and accelerated
stress on the quality of our surface water and ground water
resources will continue to have significant effects on economic
security, human health, ecological vitality, and political
stability.
Demands for freshwater now exceed the reliable water supply
in many regions of the world. The lack of supply often creates
conflicts between competing water uses. Droughts experienced in
parts of Africa, Europe and Asia reinforce the devastation
associated with water shortfalls. In addition, floods continue
to occur worldwide creating a different freshwater problem. The
task to address freshwater quantity and quality issues is
challenging.
The United States supports in large measure the general focus
and the specific recommendations proposed to this PrepCom under
its "Options for Agenda 21." While the draft outlines a wide
spectrum of objectives, some of these goals should receive the
bulk of attention with regards to concrete recommendations for
implementation:
-- to achieve significant gains in the delivery of
microbiologically-safe drinking water;
-- to establish treatment facilities for sanitary wastes from
rural and urban areas, and treatment facilities for all major
categories of industries;
-- to foster through all bilateral and multilateral endeavors,
the adoption of waste minimization and water conservation
measures;
-- to evaluate the consequences of water development projects on
the physical, chemical, and biological character of freshwater
resources, and to weigh such environmental issues on an equal
basis with considerations of the economic costs and benefits of
such proposed projects;
-- to recognize that the conservation and improvement of aquatic
species, habitats, and ecosystems are goals which must be
recognized as vital to the long-term health, economic, and
political stability of the world;
-- to recognize further that low water flows and discharges of
pollutants not only affect our fisheries and wildlife, but also
seriously jeopardize our estuaries;
-- to improve prediction and forecasting of surface water surges
to reduce flood damage;
-- to recognize that, although there is disagreement over the
magnitude expected through global climate change, even small
changes could affect our water resources and predictiability of
water supplies; risk assessment and global climate change should
be considered when predicting freshwater supplies;
-- to recognize that demands for freshwater now exceed reliable
supply, causing conflict over allocation of this resource.
The United States generally supports the incorporation of
quantitative measures such as criteria and standards for gauging
the success of freshwater resource protection programs, a
concept embodied in the options analysis. The concept will only
be meaningful, however, if consensus is achieved on the
definition of the objective measures.
The U.S. places great importance on the outcome of the
International Conference on Water and the Environment scheduled
to take place in Dublin, Ireland, January 1992. We believe that
the freshwater program activities for Agenda 21 should reflect
the outcome of this Conference. We urge the Secretariat to
encourage the WMO Conference to closely follow the guidelines
for work set forth in the decisions of the UNCED. The U.S. will
be sending water experts to the Conference.
U.N. CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. STATEMENT ON TOXICS ITEM
(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 21, 1991)
Mr. Chairman,
We wish to commend the Secretary General and his staff
for preparing papers on toxic chemicals which discuss a
wide range of issues and identify a number of important
programs involved in chemicals within and outside of the
U.N. system. We believe that the challenge facing
organizations concerned with the protection of human
health and the environment is managing and reducing risks
associated with the manufacture, trade, use and disposal
of toxic substances.
The U.S. supports and is committed to the following
approaches:
-- Greater harmonization of control standards and
assessment methodologies to facilitate free trade, reduce
costs and the number of animals used in toxicological
testing, and provide more consistent information of
chemicals risk. There should be a coordinated effort among
UN agencies such as ILO, IPCS, FAO, UNEP and WHO. The
IPCS should have a greater role in the interagency
process.
-- Risk reduction and pollution prevention as the central
tenets of any chemicals control program. The U.S.
strongly favors a broad-based approach for reducing
chemical risk which could involves both regulatory and
non-regulatory measures, including the use of more
environmentally benign products and processes, emissions
inventories, labelling, use restrictions, economic
incentives, and bans. The U.S. does not support efforts to
list hazardous chemicals for eventual phase-out as safer
substitutes are identified. This "all or nothing approach"
ignores risk reduction alternatives short of a ban which
would allow for continued use of a chemical under specific
conditions where risk would be considered acceptable.
-- Use of a pollution prevention decision-making hierarchy
which consists of the following: (1) source reduction
(including chemical substitution, technology changes and
improved management practices), (2) responsible recycling
and reuse, (3) improved treatment technologies, and (4)
improved disposal technologies. This hierarchy of options
-2-
should be considered within a life-cycle approach to
chemicals management covering chemicals manufacture,
trade, use and disposal.
-- Reductions in the over-dependence on the use of
agricultural chemicals through alternative farming
practices, integrated pest management, or other
appropriate means. Sound pest management is a small but
important component of sustainable agriculture.
-- Endorse the principle of Community-Right-To-Know (CRTK)
and member states to establish national programs which
provide public access to information about chemical
stockpiles and emissions.
-- Countries to implement UNEP's program on Awareness and
Preparedness for Emergencies at the Local Level (APELL)
and other programs consistent with the OECD's Guiding
Principles for Accident Prevention, Preparedness and
Response. The U.S. also looks forward to the world-wide
use of the UNEP/OECD
International Directory of Regional Response Centers and
the UNEP pilot study establishing a Center for Urgent
Environmental Assistance.
-- Support for Industry Initiatives like Responsible Care.
Such initiatives go beyond government regulation,
requiring members of chemicals trade associations to
adhere to specific standards of environmentally sound
chemicals management. The U.S. strongly supports these
efforts and believes they can serve as an important
complement to government regulatory programs.
-- Strengthening IPCS: The International Program on
Chemical Safety (IPCS) is well positioned to play a major
role in efforts to harmonize international chemicals
standards and methods, as well as assist in the
coordination of international activities involving
chemicalsIPCS has been highly effective in achieving its
mission of evaluating chemical risks and providing
training and material on chemical safety. The U.S. favors
proposals for strengthening IPCS.
-- Prioritizing Work on Chemicals: Better prioritization
and coordination of international work will facilitate
sound environmental management of toxic chemicals
world-wide, avoiding duplication of effort, identifying
gaps, and targeting limited resources more efficiently.
The U.S. agrees that it is important to direct
international work in chemicals assessment and management
toward those chemicals which pose the greatest risks to
human health and the environment.
-3-
-- Strengthening the chemicals management regulatory
infrastructure. Coordination and strengthening of UN
training and technical assistance programs which cover
chemical evaluation, safety, emergency preparedness and
response, risk management and reduction, environmental and
human health monitoring, data management, pesticide
regulation, other areas of chemicals control.
Among the principles listed in the Secretariat paper,
the US would suggest three additions: 1) recognition of
the role of and responsibilities of the various parties
(governmental, nongovernmental and international) engaged
in chemical trade and use to implement practical systems
for the exchange of information, technical assistance and
regulatory cooperation; 2) Community Right-To-Know
approach which allows the public access to information
about the risks to human health and the environment posed
by chemicals; and 3) risk reduction as a central focus of
chemicals management taking into account the entire life
cycle of chemicals.
The US recommends the following proposals for
consideration in Agenda 21:
-- Toxic Chemical Release Inventories - UNCED review
emissions inventory programs as possible tool for reducing
risk associated with toxic chemicals and consider how
information on setting up and maintaining these types of
programs can be better shared internationally, possibly
through a clearinghouse mechanism or guidance
documentation. The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)
program in the U.S. requires manufacturing facilities
using significant quantities of toxic chemicals to report
annually on the total emissions of these substances; this
information is then made available to the public. Since
TRI's enactment many of the largest manufacturers have
made or are committed to make significant reductions in
emissions of hazardous chemicals. Although other factors
may have contributed to these reductions, the information
generated and disclosed under TRI has helped companies to
identify and correct inefficient processes and motivated
them to voluntarily reduce emissions for reasons of public
accountability and environmental responsibility. Like
many new programs TRI is not without its flaws, however,
the U.S. believes that similar emissions inventory
programs, adapted to particular country or regional needs,
could serve as an effective risk reduction tool within a
broader chemicals management structure. As with any
program involving information collection, governments
should be careful to collect only essential information in
the most efficient manner feasible and without unduly
burdening to respondents.
-4-
-- Risk Communication Guidelines - UNCED adoption of
guiding principles for risk communication. Simply making
chemical risk data available is not sufficient to ensure
that the public will accurately perceive this
information. Sound principles for communication risk
include: (1) accepting and including the public as a
legitimate partner in decisions concerning risk, (2)
carefully planning communications to the public, (3)
providing the public the opportunity to make comments, (4)
coordinating and cooperating with non-governmental
entities such as physicians or local officials, (5)
providing media guidance.
-- Code of Conduct for Industrial Chemicals - Encourage
UNEP to invite industry to develop an internationally
agreed upon Code of Principles for the Management and
Trade in Chemicals which would provide a flexible
framework for developing countries to establish their own
chemicals control programs. The proposed Code for
industrial chemicals would parallel the voluntary FAO Code
on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in International
Trade and cover testing, handling, labelling, packaging,
trade, and information exchange.
-- Intergovernmental Mechanism for Chemical Risk
Assessment and Management - Increased coordination may be
encouraged through the establishment of a unit to oversee
and coordinate activities of U.N. agencies and other
national and international organizations involved in
chemicals assessment and management.
Recommendations the US will not support include:
-- A legally binding instrument. Given that countries
have yet to gain experience from participating in a
functioning PIC procedure, the U.S. believes that efforts
to "strengthen" PIC through a legally binding instrument
are premature.
-- Establishment of an international mechanism to regulate
and prohibit, as appropriate, trade in products
(chemicals, wastes, processes, technologies) which are
banned or severely restricted in their country of origin.
This proposal appears to duplicate work in other fora
(e.g. UNEP/FAO PIC procedure).
-- New international regulatory procedures or requirements
for certain chemical products such as food additives,
color additives, and drugs. All of these products are
already closely and adequately controlled by other
mechanisms.
-5-
- Restriction of trade in domestically prohibited
products. The US believes that restrictions on exports of
such products may be appropriate in limited circumstances
and only when there is domestic legislation prohibiting
the import of the products.
In summary, the U.S. is committed to pursuing global
solutions to global problems. The cumulative impact of
more sound environmental management of chemicals in
international trade and within U..N. member states will be
a planet less at risk to the hazards of toxic chemicals.
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT BY THE US DELEGATION ON HAZARDOUS WASTE
(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 19, 1991)
Madame Chairperson,
In the view of the US delegation, the most important item
before UNCED in the area of hazardous waste management is the
expedited implementation of the Basel Convention to Control
Transboundary Movements of Wastes, and we believe the bulk of
resources in the waste area should be devoted to this end.
After the Convention is implemented, it can served as the
central mechanism for additional waste work, such as on
recycling, waste minimization and training programs in
hazardous waste management.
The United States Congress is now considering legislative
proposals to allow domestic implementation of the Basel
Convention, including a proposal developed by the President to
ban all exports of hazardous waste except where there is a
bilateral agreement with the receiving country.
We support the overall UNCED objective of a "cradle to
grave" framework for hazardous waste management, in both
developed and developing nations. The U.S. has long supported
such a concept for hazardous waste management and in 1980, it
enacted the most stringent hazardous waste management standards
in the world.
The U.S. also supports the UNCED objective of waste
prevention and minimization as an important element in any
waste management regime. However, the U.S. opposes the
establishment of specific quantitative targets, both because we
lack the authority to act on such targets, and because the
current state of measurements in this area is inadequate to
ascertain absolute measures of progress.
The activities suggested as possibilities in Agenda 21 for
achieving significant waste reduction are generally viable
ones. However, we do not believe that investigations of the
economic impacts associated with waste generation and
management is a high priority for Agenda 21. While its
inclusion is, of course, appropriate to a full work program, it
is relatively difficult to measure across nations, given the
significant difference in waste management standards and
economic benefits associated with waste generation in terms of
goods in commerce.
Each of the activities associated with the goal of
enhancing national institution capacities in hazardous waste
management are reasonable mechanisms to achieve that end.
However, the U.S. cautions against a commitment to extensive
new efforts given the prevailing resource constraints. In our
view, support should not be given to a revolving fund as
referred to in number 31 of Agenda 21 at this time.
5
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. POSITION ON "ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF SOLID
WASTES AND SEWAGE-RELATED ISSUES: BACKGROUND"
(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 20, 1991)
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is an issue of
growing concern in the United States principally because we are
experiencing a regional imbalance between the quantity of MSW
generated and the capacity to dispose of it. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is working within our nation's existing
statutory framework to help alleviate the problems posed by
this imbalance of MSW generated by government, industry,
business, and our citizenry.
Within the United States, the management of MSW is the
primary responsibility of state and local governments. The
federal role is one of facilitation. EPA establishes the
framework within which states and localities carry out their
responsibilities regarding MSW management. EPA also assists in
the exchange of relevant information among the various state
and local governments. The agency stresses the use of the
concept of integrated waste management, a holistic approach
involving the use of some or all of the four waste management
options: source reduction, recycling, incineration with energy
recovery and safe disposal. The appropriate combination of
these options can be molded into an integrated waste management
system where each component complements the others to manage
the waste safely and efficiently.
The US Government supports the three-tiered hierarchy
advocated in the report. First is source reduction to reduce
the volume and toxicity of MSW. Next is recycling to divert
materials from landfills and incinerators, conserve energy, and
slow the depletion of nonrenewable natural resources. Last is
safe disposal, including landfilling and incineration. We also
emphasize that planning is essential to ensure that waste
management systems are appropriately integrated and effective
and that requisite infrastructures are provided. We believe
that the document places appropriate emphasis on the importance
of the planning process.
EPA believes that it can reduce reliance on the disposal
option through source reduction techniques such as the
elimination of unnecessary packaging and increased emphasis on
reusable products. We are also optimistic about the future of
recycling. In the United States, our rate of recycling
increased as much between 1986 and 1988 as it did between 1960
and 1986. In the last few years, we have seen a substantial
increase in the number of recycling programs established by our
local governments. Over 2700 communities now provide curbside
collection of recyclables, an increase of well over 250 percent
over a two year period. Over the same timeframe, we have seen
a doubling in the number of composting programs.
The US is continuing to work with state and local
governments to encourage waste minimization in our businesses
and our households, to help establish markets for recycled
products, to identify ways to improve the economics of
collecting and recycling recoverable materials, to promote yard
waste composting, and to ensure the safe disposal of those
materials that cannot be eliminated through source reduction or
recycled.
Similar to recycling programs of many governments, we would
invite the United Nations to develop an internal recycling
program for paper, sluminum etc.
In conclusion, the U.S. approach to MSW management is
consistent with the principles articulated in the report and
are pleased with the emphasis placed on waste minimization as a
means of reducing reliance on solid waste disposal options. We
believe that the document, as a background paper, provides a
useful framework for discussion.
STATEMENT OF U.S. POSITION
UNCED PREPCOM III
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES (A/CONF.151/PC/78)
Mr. Chairman,
There has been much talk, although little formal discussion
among governments, of an "Earth Charter." The Secretary
General has spoken of it quite a bit. We have also seen quite
a lot of hard work by various non-governmental organizations
focusing on this issue, much of it covering very different
ground.
Yet, calling for an "Earth Charter," as some have,
presupposes a consensus about the need for a certain type of
document and agreement on the purposes it might serve. That
consensus does not exist. The United States has not reached a
decision on whether there should be an "Earth Charter." Let us
first examine our needs and purposes, then decide how to
express them. I would like to take this opportunity to review
for you the United States' views on this matter.
First, a note of caution. We have already considered in
this group a long list of existing international legal
instruments on the environment, many of which create very
8/20/91
- 2 -
important legal obligations and require specified actions. The
number of international political statements on the environment
is also large and growing as are lists of competing
environmental principles, as is evident in the extensive note
prepared by the Secretariat. Yet there is always a temptation
to defer the hard questions of adherence to existing
instruments in favor of expending energy drafting still more
high-sounding principles. The temptation is of course much
greater before a conference as universal and important as
UNCED. But the need to do something about the lack of effect
given existing instruments and statements of principles is also
more acute at UNCED.
We are anxious to hear others' views on both the concept of
such a document and its content. Let me assure you that the
United States is ready and eager to discuss the issues and
ideas that might be embodied in this or some other document
containing non-binding principles. In fact, we have specific
suggestions about what principles UNCED should endorse.
UNCED Principles Should Build on the Stockholm Declaration
The principles of the Stockholm Declaration are now twenty
years old, and many of them have become widely accepted by
- 3 -
states. Some, such as Principle 21, which so elegantly
describes the essential relationship between a state's
sovereignty over its natural resources and its obligation to
prevent environmental harm to foreign states, must not be
disturbed. We should not try to replace the Stockholm
principles. Rather, we should build on its foundations and our
twenty years of experience. We should look forward, to our
hopes for a sustainable future.
UNCED Principles Should Reflect Basic Principles of Democracy
Essential to Sustainable Development
The right of individuals and groups to participate in the
government of their country at a local and national level is a
fundamental tenet of democracy, enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Equally fundamental are the basic
individual and group freedoms that are the birthright of all
human beings: the right to free expression of ideas, to
assemble peacefully, to seek and disseminate information, to
participate in public debates.
No new statement of environmental principles would be
adequate without a recognition of these rights because
sustainable development can only be accomplished through the
democratization of environment and development policy-making.
Accordingly, UNCED should proclaim basic principles related to
- 4 -
the participation of the public in government decision-making
about the environment and development. UNCED should also set
forth guidelines for governments on the sharing of information
with the public and other governments about the environment and
development. It should also include essential points related
to public participation in environmental impact assessments,
which should be conducted by all states prior to undertaking
major domestic actions with potential significant effects on
the environment.
UNCED Principles Should Reflect the Central Role that Market
Mechanisms Play to Achieve Sustainable Development
The importance of free markets and market mechanisms to
economic development and environmental protection has become
more and more apparent with the decline of the centrally
planned economies and revelations about the environmental
damage they wrought. Around the world, governments are seeking
to develop market-based solutions to development and
environmental problems.
An UNCED statement should reflect the importance of market
principles by affirming the principle that a polluter must pay
the costs to the environment of his pollution, stating the
general need for markets to reflect full economic accounting of
environmental costs and benefits, and the use of a variety of
- 5 -
economic instruments, such as emission charges, tradeable
permits, and reductions of subsidies, to harness market forces
in the service of environment and development goals. These
instruments are more environmentally effective and more
economical than central "comand-and-control" technology-based
approaches, and therefore are critical to the integration of
environment and development.
UNCED Should Define a New Relationship with the Biosphere
In our conversations over the last few months we have heard
many times of the need for the countries of the world to
redefine their relationship to the Earth and its ecosystems.
We are becoming more and more aware of the interdependence of
all the world's life systems. It would be appropriate for us,
representing the countries of the world, to make a statement
recognizing fully our interdependence.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the
Secretariat for the very useful background information the
Secretariat has provided for our consideration of this agenda
item. We governments now have the information we need to carry
on our work. Whatever approach we decide to take, let us not
engage in simply repeating the language of the past, much of
which represents less than a consensus view. Our job as
governments is to move the debate forward.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
The Following are principles reflected in the Statement of the
United States of America to Working Group III of August 20, 1991.
They are presented to the Chairman of the Working Group at his
request for use by the Secretariat in compiling a non-paper. This
non-paper will be a compilation of principles submitted by
interested delegations, for presentation. to the Working Group to
consider in informal sessions.
I. UNCED SHOULD DEFINE A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BIOSPHERE
-- We, the people of the world, understand that the Earth is a
unique, whole and interdependent system. We are conscious that
many of our past perceptions and relationships are no longer
adequate, and that we must teach ourselves and our children that
whatever we humans do to the world in which we live, we do to
ourselves.
-- In light of our understanding of the planet as a functioning
whole, in which all of its ecosystems are interrelated, we fully
recognize our mutual interdependence. We must live in balance with
nature to ensure the continuity and quality of life for future
generations.
II. UNCED PRINCIPLES SHOULD REFLECT BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
-- Sustainable development requires the democratization of
environment and development decision-making. To this end, wider
participation of individuals, groups and organizations at all
levels, local, national, regional and international, will be
essential.
-- In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
individuals, groups and organizations concerned with the
environment and development have the right to participate in the
government of their country at a local and national level. This
right includes the rights to express ideas freely, to assemble
peacefully, to seek and disseminate information, and to participate
in public debate.
-- To further these ends, the following rights should also be
respected by all states and incorporated in national laws and
regulations.
(a) Community Access to Information
-
Individuals, groups and organizations should have
access to information relevant to the environment on
products and activities which have or are likely to have
a significant impact on the environment, and on
environmental protection measures.
- Communities should have access to information about
hazardous materials and the potentially serious impacts
of industrial accidents in their area, including
information on contingency planning, and should be
informed immediately when such accidents occur.
- National authorities should make available at regular
intervals reports on the state of the environment.
(b) Consideration of the Public's View
-
The views of the public should be taken into account
in government decision-making processes related to the
environment and development.
- Competent authorities should facilitate and
encourage public participation, inter-alia, by providing
wide notification to the public of relevant policies,
plans and activities, by making information widely
available, and by receiving public views, including
through the convening of open public fora.
(c) Environmental Impact Assessment
-
For any proposed activity or any proposed major
change to an activity which is likely to have a
significant impact on the national environment and which
is subject to a decision of a competent authority, an
environmental impact assessment should be undertaken.
-
As part of an environmental impact assessment, the
public should be provided, for examination and comment,
information about any proposed activity; about reasonable
alternatives, where appropriate, including the
alternative of no action; about the environment likely to
be affected; about the likely environmental impacts of
the proposed activity and its alternatives; about
appropriate measure for mitigating adverse environmental
impacts; and about uncertainties and gaps in knowledge.
- Individuals, groups and organizations should have
the opportunity to transmit comments on proposed
activities to the competent authority before the final
decision is taken.
-
A final decision should take into account the
results of the environmental impact assessment as well as
the comments received from the public and should be
published promptly.
-
States should provide an opportunity to the public
in areas outside their territory to participate in
relevant environmental impact assessment procedures
regarding activities which are likely to have a
significant adverse transboundary impact on their local
environment and should see to it that the opportunity
provided to the public of the affected country is
equivalent to that provided to their own public.
(d) Enforcement
-
In matters related to the environment, states should
provide access to administrative and judicial procedures
for contesting decisions of competent authorities and
private persons and entities that may be unlawful or may
infringe on rights under the law. Such procedures should
also provide appropriate remedies.
-
In matters related to the environment, governments
should extend access to administrative and judicial
procedures to all groups and organizations with a
recognized legal interest. States should also extend
access in such matters to individuals, groups and
organizations with a recognized legal interest who are
outside their jurisdiction on an equivalent basis to
those who are inside their jurisdiction.
III. UNCED PRINCIPLES SHOULD REFLECT THE CENTRAL ROLE THAT MARKET
MECHANISMS PLAY TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
-- Open and free markets at the national, regional and
international levels are fundamental to the achievement of
sustainable development. Market forces and mechanisms, and other
economic instruments, including emission charges, tradeable
permits, and reductions of subsidies, need to be harnessed to
achieve sustainable development goals at each of these levels. To
this end, environment and development objectives and policies
should be integrated with economic and trade policies.
-- Polluters should bear the costs of pollution they cause,
including the expenses and carrying out the necessary pollution
prevention and control measures introduced by public authorities to
protect the environment.
-- Markets should reflect full economic accounting of
environmental costs and benefits.
U.S. STATEMENT OF POSITION
SURVEY OF EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS,
AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
(A/CONF.151/PC/77)
Mr. Chairman,
One of the principal tasks of this Working Group is to
prepare an annotated list of existing international agreements
and instruments in the environmental field, with detailed
commentary. Another is to examine possible areas for the
further development of international environmental law, with
appropriate consideration of integration with development
issues and the needs and concerns of developing countries.
The Secretariat has made a significant contribution to
our work in its note on this topic. It has provided us with a
detailed list of criteria and other considerations to take into
account in evaluating the effectiveness and operation of these
international agreements and instruments. It has also
suggested general areas for examination before recommendations
are made as to the further development of international law.
The report of the Siena Forum will also be a useful source of
background material for our work.
8/19/91
2
Because, however, the Secretariat's note was received
with relatively little time before the beginning of this
Preparatory Committee, we have not been able to examine the
agreements listed in the text and evaluate them under the
criteria listed. We believe this work is critical, and should
be carried out in capitals, or by an ad hoc group of government
experts following this session of the Prepcom. We therefore
propose that governments undertake this task between this
meeting and the next.
At the next Prepcom, governments may meet to compare
their work, or the work of an ad hoc group, and begin the
preparation of the annotated list called for in the terms of
reference for Working Group III. This work, which will require
close and careful deliberation by experts, should be initiated
and carried out by interested governments. We do not believe
that general criteria can be refined to such a point that
evaluations can be made on a purely factual and objective basis
without direct participation of governments.
We also have some suggestions for adding to the lists
of agreements included in the Secretariat's note. The list it
has provided of existing agreements is quite comprehensive, but
we have a few specific additional suggestions, which we can
propose at the appropriate time. Moreover, we believe it would
3
be helpful for the Secretariat to provide in the report of this
session of the Prepcom, if possible, a catalogue of significant
agreements covering shared natural resources in addition to
those included in the note on transboundary watercourses.
Because of their number, of course, this list could only be a
representative sample. This addition to the list is important,
however, because such agreements play an important role in the
creation of international law, and are potentially useful
models for situations in other regions.
The report of this meeting could also usefully include
a list of ongoing negotiations of instruments and agreements in
the field of the environment, as well as ongoing work in
international bodies (such as UNEP, OECD, etc.), to create
non-binding standards. A catalogue of ongoing negotiations
will help considerably our task of identifying areas in which
further development is necessary.
In addition, the potential usefulness of regional and
bilateral agreements as models for other countries and regions
is another area that should be considered by governments in
evaluating the need for the further development of
international law.
4
Finally, we need guidance from the other working groups
as to which topics, issues or regions are currently in need of
new agreements or instruments. A few come easily to mind. The
United States notes that there is a great need for a framework
convention on the conservation and sustainable use of forests.
The problem of land-based sources of marine pollution is now
under active consideration for further work. There are
regional and international marine living resources in need of
additional legal protection.
Mr. Chairman, a comprehensive look at existing
international environmental law is a big task, but a fruitful
one. It is necessary before we can evaluate where additional
codification is necessary.
U.S. STATEMENT OF POSITION
ON HEXAGONALE COUNTRIES' PROPOSALS ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(A/CONF.151/PC/L.29 & A/CONF.151/PC/WG.III/L.1)
The peaceful settlement of disputes is a fundamental
purpose of the UN Charter, and should be pursued by all
states. The United States is strongly in favor of the
development of international dispute settlement mechanisms, and
we have studied the proposal of the Hexagonale countries
carefully.
The U.S. view is that dispute resolution mechanisms
should be incorporated into international agreements, and
should be designed by the parties to the agreement to be
responsive to the specific types of disputes that may arise
under that agreement. The United States is not, however, in
favor of the development of a single institution or mechanism
for the settlement of all international disputes related to the
environment.
The Hexagonale proposal on the "Settlement of
International Disputes Concerning the Environment" seems to
share this basic approach. The proposal describes various
elements for consideration in the creation of dispute
resolution mechanisms and calls for them to be incorporated in
bi- or multi-lateral treaties. To the extent the proposal is
general in nature, the United States can accept in principle
the practical value of setting forth a compendium of dispute
settlement procedures to which governments may refer when
negotiating international agreements regarding the protection
of the environment, and can support efforts by the Prepcom to
draft such a reference document.
The Hexagonale proposal on the "Prevention of
International Disputes Concerning the Environment" takes a
different approach. It proposes that a convention be drafted
under the auspices of UNEP to create a standing mechanism that
could be invoked at any time by a state party where that
state's "territory is likely to be impaired by transboundary
environmental effects of activities or omissions on the
territory of other States." The procedure would involve the
appointment of an inquiry commission that would be empowered to
gather facts, including through on-site inspections, and issue
a report to be deposited with UNEP.
8/23/91
-2 - -
In the U.S. view, this procedure would not be necessary
where there was no dispute between states. It is only when
states are unable to reach agreement through discussions and
the exchange of information that the resort to international
mechanisms is necessary. We have difficulty imagining a
situation where this procedure would be invoked where a state
concerned with potential adverse environmental effects in its
territory were satisfied with consultations undertaken with its
neighbor.
The United States could support elements of this
proposal as additional procedures to be set out under the
Hexagonale proposal for settlement of international disputes.
However, various aspects of the proposal raise significant
questions needing further clarification, and would require
careful consideration to be acceptable.
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992
UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Geneva, August 22, 1991
Working Group III, Agenda Item 5, Document 80
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, the United States believes that the time
is overdue for drawing up plans for organizational
arrangements to improve the UN's role in environmental and
developmental matters. Discussions over the past few months
in several separate forums, non-official as well as
official, have disclosed wide agreement about the general
dimensions of the institutional issues before us. In
addition, a number of countries, the U.S. among them, have
put forth some specific suggestions for achieving the
desired institutional improvements. We also have before us,
of course, the helpful outlines of issues and possibilities
provided by the Secretariat in Document 80 for this session,
and Document 36 for the last session.
Requirements
These extensive preliminary efforts lead to the
conclusion that institutional improvements should consist of
six principal elements:
- the initiation and operation of an intergovernmental
process to guide the application or implementation of
sustainable development in the UN system;
- the establishment of an effective interagency
coordinating mechanism for all elements of the UN system
involved with environment and/or development;
- the involvement in the coordinating effort of
organizations associated with the UN system, especially
international financial mechanisms or institutions such
as the World Bank and other multilateral development
banks;
- the inclusion of relevant non-governmental, private
voluntary, scientific, and private-sector (especially
business and industrial) organizations and interests in
the process;
2
- the enhancement of existing agencies or organizations in
the UN system, through strengthening and/or reform, as
appropriate;
- the promotion of environment/development activities and
programs with a regional or national focus.
These elements can and should be addressed in conformity
with two broad guidelines:
- optimal use of existing institutions and organizational
assets, and
- reliance on budgetary support derived from current or
planned UN
financial resources.
Building on the suggestions we put forth earlier (see
document A/CONF.151/PC/WG III/L.4), and taking into account
comments made in response to those suggestions, the United
States now proposes to accomplish these purposes in the
following ways. Successful application of these proposals,
of course, would be based on the expectation that
Governments act in a manner consistent with them in all the
organizations and forums in which they participate --
especially in ensuring that the various UN specialized
agencies and programs conform to system-wide coordination
recommendations and decisions.
Summary of Proposals
The institutional adjustments we now suggest consist of
four main measures:
- a possible combination of existing ECOSOC committees
into a single intergovernmental committee to deal in a
comprehensive way with the more political aspects of
environment and development or sustainable development;
- an annual joint (or combined) UNDP-UNEP session on
environment and development or sustainable development
as part of the UNDP Council's agenda;
- a high level, effective coordinating mechanism for UN
and related agencies and programs, co-chaired by the
UNDP Administrator and the UNEP Executive Director;
- regionally and nationally focused efforts built around
or based on the existing UNDP Roundtable/World Bank
Consultative Group of donors and UN agencies.
3
Intergovernmental Deliberations
A two-fold intergovernmental process could be
established to address environment and development or
sustainable development concerns from the political and
technical perspectives. Politically, a great deal of
ongoing intergovernmental effort may be required to ensure
the effective implementation of UNCED's outcomes, as
embodied in Agenda 21 or otherwise. Comprehensive and
coherent attention to the complete configuration of UNCED
recommendations will be indispensable to the success of this
endeavor. Much can be achieved in this regard through
reports to and debates by the General Assembly, in
accordance with an appropriate (perhaps biannual or
quadrennial) schedule, as suggested by Resolution 44/228's
description of the General Assembly as the appropriate
political forum for discussion of international
environmental policy. Indeed, in many aspects of ocean
policy, a wide range of subjects is already regularly
considered under the General Assembly item on the Law of the
Sea -- a valuable process the principal features of which
should be suitably preserved.
However, a forum for a more focused discussion may also
be needed. In any case, a number of existing
intergovernmental committees addressing closely related
matters could be incorporated into the process of monitoring
and reviewing the implementation of UNCED's results. In
keeping with the guidelines mentioned earlier, no new
intergovernmental bodies or processes should be set up,
except by combining -- or transferring resources from --
existing bodies or processes judged to be of lower priority
or lesser effectiveness.
In keeping with this approach, three existing UN
committees seem to recommend themselves for close
examination. The Committee on New and Renewable Sources of
Energy, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the
Committee on Science and Technology for Development might
usefully be combined into a more comprehensive committee to
deal with environment and development or sustainable
development. Such an entity could serve as the forum for
following and promoting the implementation of Agenda 21 and
other outcomes of UNCED -- especially those pertaining to
Governments. It could also provide the means for
non-governmental groups (NGO's, PVO's, scientific, business,
labor, etc.) to participate in the implementation of UNCED's
results, perhaps along the lines worked out for NGO
participation in the UNCED Preparatory Committee.
4
A separate but closely related intergovernmental process
to address the more technical aspects of
environment/development or sustainable development concerns
can be readily implemented through the use of the existing
governing bodies of the UN Environment Program and the UN
Development Program. The annual UNDP Council meeting could
include an environmental or sustainable development subset
of its agenda, with the additional participation of UNEP
Governing Council members who are not also members of the
UNDP Council. This tightly focused joint (or combined)
session of the two program councils could take appropriate
action on sustainable development matters or
environment/development issues for the UN system, subject to
final review and approval by the relevant higher level
organs of the UN.
Precisely what those organs are should be addressed as
part of the larger UN reform process now in progress. We
should not wait for conclusion of that process before we
initiate organizational enhancements to the UN's environment
and development interests and activities. We should try now
to develop self-contained proposals capable of effective
application to, or incorporation into, a number of possible
larger reform schemes.
Interagency Coordination
An interagency coordinating mechanism to handle
environment and development, or sustainable development,
questions could be formed under the co-chairmanship, or
other appropriate joint management arrangement, of the UNDP
Administrator and the UNEP Executive Director. The
coordinating mechanism would be modeled in part on the
successful aspects of the earlier board set up to coordinate
environmental activities, which was later merged with the
Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), with
appropriate additions to or deletions from that board's
original functions. An additional model could be found in
the current work of the Consultative Committee on
Substantive Questions (Operational Activities), a
subordinate body of the ACC, which handles the UN's
involvement in development efforts.
5
The coordinating mechanism would most usefully be based
in New York -- the UN's policy-making center -- and be made
up of senior representatives from every UN entity with
substantial environmentally or developmentally related
activities. Perhaps the most important function of the
coordinating mechanism would be to provide continuous
liaison between UNEP and UNDP, as well as coordinating the
major environmental and developmental efforts of other UN
bodies. A principal goal would be to ensure the preparation
and consideration of environmental impact assessments for
all UN-related projects and development activities. Support
for the coordinating mechanism could be provided by
redirecting the resources now devoted to the Designated
Officials on Environmental Matters (DOEM) and the Committee
of International Development Institutions on the Environment
(CIDIE), and by secondments of staff from each of the major
agencies represented in the coordinating process.
Higher level monitoring or, if necessary, oversight, of
the coordinating mechanism could be carried out by the
Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), which is
chaired by the Secretary General and currently tasked with
coordination of environmental and developmental activities
in the UN system. Subsequently, if experience so warrants,
the coordinating process could be placed under the
supervision of a designated (e.g. DIESA) or reassigned (e.g.
DIEC) senior Secretariat official, who reports or would
report directly to the Secretary General.
The coordinating mechanism would in the first instance
ensure that UNDP's activities were in proper consonance with
the requirements for sustainable development, and that UNEP
was effectively supporting the effort. At the same time,
the coordinating process would examine the environmentally
and developmentally significant activities and plans of each
UN agency, and recommend adjustments where appropriate. To
ensure the effective operation of the coordinating
mechanism, continued active attention by Governments would
be essential. As members of each of the executive or
governing bodies of the participating organizations, it
would be incumbent upon Governments to see to it that those
organizations cooperate and lend their full support to the
process -- and, where necessary, modify their own programs
and activities to conform to the guidance and direction
which the process would provide.
6
Coordination with Financial Institutions
Representation and participation in the coordinating
process on the part of associated organizations and
institutions, especially the international financial
institutions, is of critical importance. It is necessary to
explore ways to involve the World Bank in the overall
coordinating process, and in particular, to consider whether
and how to link the Global Environment Facility to the
coordinating mechanism. The GEF already includes UNDP and
UNEP in a tripartite arrangement with the World Bank, so
that a linkage to a mechanism co-chaired by the heads of
UNEP and UNDP might be accomplished in a straightforward
manner. However, the actual implementation of the linkage
might best await completion of the GEF's pilot phase.
In any case, the World Bank must be a full and active
participant in any effective process for coordinating
international environment and development activities.
Similarly, efforts should be made to bring in the private
financial sector in some appropriate way, as well.
Indications of some possibilities in this regard have
recently emerged in the CIDIE context, for example, and
these should be examined for their prospects and potential.
Non-Governmental Participation
Equally important to the success of the overall scheme
for institutional enhancements and improvements is the
inclusion of the non-governmental, scientific and private
sectors in the process in appropriate ways. This could be
achieved by inviting and permitting representatives of these
organizations to contribute to the deliberations of the
comprehensive committee on environment and development, as
suggested above, and perhaps the annual joint UNDP-UNEP
session on environment and development as well.
It may also be possible eventually to include them in
some fashion in the UN interagency coordinating mechanism's
process. Currently, UNEP invites rather broad NGO
observation/participation in its Governing Council
proceedings, and the International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU) has active working relationships with UNESCO
and WMO, while business and industrial groups have had and
are now reactivating ties to UNIDO. These circumstances and
arrangements, and others like them, should be further
explored for possible use in helping to bring about
involvement by these groups in the overall process.
8
Conclusion
Once this overall intergovernmental and interagency
process is fully operational, experience gained from it
could provide the basis for considering further
organizational and institutional arrangements to improve
international environmental and developmental efforts.
However, the planning and preparation needed to get the
process underway, as well as the gradually increasing
momentum of related but disparate activities now in
progress, argue for timely decisions soon about the
directions to be taken. We can ill afford protracted delay
without risking the loss of opportunities which now present
themselves.
7
Agency Improvements
The enhancement of all existing agencies, organizations
and programs of the UN system is a constant process which
requires better attention in order to be successful. In the
area (s) of environment and development, UNDP has an
institutional improvement process already underway, and UNEP
is embarking upon one. Efforts are needed to ensure that
UNCED's outcomes are taken into account in these UNEP and
UNDP processes, through attention on the part of the
Governments which are members of the respective governing
bodies, and through effective operation of the interagency
coordinating mechanism. As the coordinating process
develops, it will also be necessary to ensure that other
participating agencies make appropriate modifications to
their programs and activities.
Regional and National Levels
Environmental and developmental activities with a
regional and national focus are increasingly at the center
of programmatic concerns in UNEP and UNDP. Regional seas
and regional lake/river basin programs are underway in UNEP,
for example, and UNDP has begun to implement plans for a
Sustainable Development Network. In addition, the already
established UNDP Roundtable/World Bank Consultative Group
provides a process which includes donors and UN agencies in
efforts to coordinate development assistance to particular
regional and national recipients.
These ongoing efforts can be further developed and
exploited to achieve greater concentration of environmental
and developmental undertakings at the regional and national
levels -- especially in regard to the improvement of
institutional capacities at these levels. UNDP field
offices, UNEP regional offices, other regional and field
offices of the UN system, and the UN regional economic
commissions should also combine their skills and resources
in support of sustainable development activities at regional
and national levels. Either separately or in connection
with this approach, UN staff -- especially at the field
level -- should receive appropriate in-service training to
ensure their maximum effectiveness in contributing to the
effort. Some concrete, albeit informal, proposals along
these lines have already been developed which merit
appropriate formal consideration in time for decisions by
Governments prior to UNCED, and/or approval by UNCED itself.
1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)
I.
Background
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of
the landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.
-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of
principles that continue to guide our approach to
environmental protection today.
-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm
Conference and played a pivotal role in its success.
-
Many, especially NGOs, look to us to play the
same role in UNCED.
UNCED has a broad mandate to set the international
environmental agenda into the next century and to develop
means for integrating environmental objectives and economic
development
--
It is to address the full range of specific
environmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues
(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,
technology transfer and financial assistance.
It will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.
-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)
sessions.
-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice
Strong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory
Committee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).
The PrepCom has three working groups:
Working Group I:
-
atmosphere (climate change, depletion of the
ozone layer, transboundary air pollution)
-
land resources (deforestation, desertification,
drought)
-
biological diversity
-
biotechnology
--
Working Group II:
-
oceans, seas and coastal areas, including their
living resources
-
fresh water resources
-
wastes and toxic chemicals.
--
Working Group III:
-
legal and institutional issues
1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)
I. Background
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of
the landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.
-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of
principles that continue to guide our approach to
environmental protection today.
-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm
Conference and played a pivotal role in its success.
-
Many, especially NGOs, look to us to play the
same role in UNCED.
UNCED has a broad mandate to set the international
environmental agenda into the next century and to develop
means for integrating environmental objectives and economic
development
-- It is to address the full range of specific
environmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues
(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,
technology transfer and financial assistance.
It will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.
-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)
sessions.
-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice
Strong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory
Committee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).
The PrepCom has three working groups:
-Working Group I:
-
atmosphere (climate change, depletion of the
ozone layer, transboundary air pollution)
-
land resources (deforestation, desertification,
drought)
-
biological diversity
-
biotechnology
--
Working Group II:
-
oceans, seas and coastal areas, including their
living resources
-
fresh water resources
-
wastes and toxic chemicals.
--
Working Group III:
-
legal and institutional issues