Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "285411021",
    "label": "Climate Change [1]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/285411021"
}

{
    "id": "285411021",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/285411021",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Climate Change [1]",
    "description": "These records pertain to Global Climate Change.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/285411021",
    "identifierLocal": "CF00553-002",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)",
        "Dean Schulteiss' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2017/41-bpr-dpc-schulteiss-00553-002.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2017/41-bpr-dpc-schulteiss-00553-002.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2017/41-bpr-dpc-schulteiss-00553-002.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/285411021",
    "naId": 285411021,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2017/41-bpr-dpc-schulteiss-00553-002.pdf",
    "mediaId": "355521d769558991",
    "ocrText": "Originally Processed With FOIA(s):\nFOIA Number:\n2017-0310-F\n2017-0310-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the George Bush Presidential\nLibrary Staff.\nRecord Group/Collection:\nGeorge H.W. Bush Presidential Records\nCollection/Office of Origin:\nDomestic Policy Council\nSeries:\nSchulteiss, Dean, Files\nSubseries:\nSubject Files\nOA/ID Number:\nCF00553\nFolder ID Number:\nCF00553-002\nFolder Title:\nClimate Change [1]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nV\n7\n10\n4\n3\n9/27/91\nBackground papers on GEF\nTasked to State:\n1. Montreal Protocol Fund\n-\nstructure\nFile-\n-\nassessment\n2. UNCED\n-\nstate of play\n-\nG-77 proposal\n-\ndonor country positions\n3. Climate Change negotiations\n-\nproposals\nConfidential UNCED\n- G-77\n-\ndonor countries\nREMOVAL MB 7/3/17\n4. Assessment of GEF\n-\nresponsiveness to donor concerns\n-\ntransparency of process\n-\n-\nparticipation of recipient countries\n-\nparticipation of NGOs\n5. Assessment of Bank use of STAP, UNEP and UNDP.\n6. AID:\n-\nhow is parallel financing working?\n-\nhow do they see their relationship to other\nconventions?\n7. Compilation and review of governance and sub-governance\nprocedures.\nNot tasked:\n8. Relationship of GEF to international environment\nconventions:\n-\nMontreal Protocol\n-\nClimate Change\n-\nForests\n-\nBiological Diversity\n9. Overall Bank approach to sustainable\ndevelopment/integration of environmental objectives into\ncountry development strategies.\n1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT\nAND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)\nI. Background\nThe 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and\nDevelopment (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of\nthe landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.\n-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of\nprinciples that continue to guide our approach to\nenvironmental protection today.\n-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm\nConference and played a pivotal role in its success.\n-\nMany, especially NGOs, look to us to play the\nsame role in UNCED.\nUNCED has a broad mandate to set the international\nenvironmental agenda into the next century and to develop\nmeans for integrating environmental objectives and economic\ndevelopment\n-- It is to address the full range of specific\nenvironmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues\n(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,\ntechnology transfer and financial assistance.\nIt will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.\n-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)\nsessions.\n-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice\nStrong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory\nCommittee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).\nThe PrepCom has three working groups:\n-Working Group I:\n-\natmosphere (climate change, depletion of the\nozone layer, transboundary air pollution)\n-\nland resources (deforestation, desertification,\ndrought)\n-\nbiological diversity\n-\nbiotechnology\n-- Working Group II:\n-\noceans, seas and coastal areas, including their\nliving resources\nI\nfresh water resources\n-\nwastes and toxic chemicals.\n-- Working Group III:\nI\nlegal and institutional issues\nDRAFT\nFUNDING FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY\n1. NEXT STEPS\n-- SECRETARY BRADY TO ANNOUNCE U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO CORE\nFUND OF THE GEF (ANNUAL MEETING SPEECH IN BANGKOK\nOCTOBER 15) AND PROPOSE:\n-- REVISIONS IN GOVERNANCE TO PROVIDE FOR INTEGRATED\nRELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS\n-- EXPANDED ROLE AS COORDINATING MECHANISM FOR\nBILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS\nGLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\n-- PARALLEL FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR OTHER DONORS\nBASED ON U.S. MODEL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL\nRESOURCES AND ENHANCE COORDINATION ROLE\n-- CONSULT WITH G-7 COUNTERPARTS IN ADVANCE (CABLE AND\nINFORMAL MEETING IN BANGKOK OCTOBER 12).\n-- TRANSFER DISCUSSION OF FUNDING MECHANISM TO FINANCE\nMINISTRIES; TAKE UP DISCUSSIONS AT DECEMBER 4-5 MEETING\nOF GEF CONTRIBUTORS.\n2. FUNDING\nAGREE TO $50 MILLION FOR U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO CORE FUND/$50\nMILLION IN PARALLEL FINANCING THROUGH AID (i.e. ACCEPT\nCURRENT OBEY LANGUAGE)\n(a) Over three years translates into U.S. contribution of\n$300 million; presumably all or part of $150 million in\nparallel financing would have been made available in\nany event as part of AID's regular budget for global\nenvironmental issues.\n(b) Puts pressure on Japanese to make full contribution to\nthe core fund; puts pressure on other contributors to\nprovide additional support in parallel financing\nthrough bilateral assistance programs (some of this\nsupport may turn out to be additional depending on the\nspecific amounts other donors have already planned for\nthis purpose).\n(c) Could conceivably double the overall amount available\nto the GEF from approximately $1.4 billion to $2.8\nbillion; creates bigger number for presentation\npurposes in developing countries.\n(d) Puts U.S. in leadership position on this issue; should\nincrease U.S. leverage where it may be needed on other\nGEF issues such as governance and work program\nprovisions.\n3.\nRELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS\nGEF TO ACT AS GLOBAL REPOSITORY FOR FUNDS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL\nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INCLUDING THOSE THAT MAY BECOME\nAVAILABLE AS A RESULT OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON\nBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, ETC. GEF\nWILL CONTINUE AS A SEPARATE TRUST FUND AND BE LOCATED WITHIN\nTHE WORLD BANK GROUP UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS BASED ON DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES TO\nBE ADOPTED. UNDP AND UNEP REPRESENTATIVES PARTICIPATE IN\nMEETINGS AND ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN.\nGOVERNING ENTITIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS TO RETAIN\nTHEIR OWN ANALYTICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO REFER ALL\nFUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GEF.\n4.\nCOORDINATION\nEXPAND MANDATE OF GEF TO INCLUDE COORDINATION SERVICES FOR\nECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AND OTHER BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL\nPROGRAMS THAT SEEK TO ADDRESS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES;\nESTABLISH CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THESE COORDINATION\nPURPOSES.\n(a) Adds new element and more weight to GEF package; should\nprovide greater structure and sense of common purpose\nto bilateral assistance efforts in this area.\n(b) Could be particularly useful to smaller bilateral\nassistance programs that have modest resources for\nglobal environmental purposes and a limited field\npresence in developing countries.\n(c) Could serve as an inducement to elicit additional\nbilateral assistance contributions from smaller donors\nfor specific purposes.\n5.\nGOVERNANCE\nPLACE MECHANISM FOR GOVERNANCE OF GEF WITHIN THE WORLD BANK\nGROUP WITH PROVISION FOR BOARD OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS TO\nHAVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL\nMATTERS INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND WORK PROGRAM.\nSTRUCTURE BOARD DECISION-MAKING TO GIVE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES\nSIGNIFICANT MINORITY VOTING POWER BUT RETAIN CLEAR\nCONTRIBUTOR COUNTRY CONTROL (USING COMBINATION OF MEMBERSHIP\nVOTES AND VOTES BASED ON FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS)\n(a) Use of this mechanism would avoid undesirable elements\nof the alternatives being proposed:\n(i) Inappropriately large voice for developing\ncountries (i.e. variants being pushed by\ndeveloping countries based on UN formula of one\ncountry one vote)\n(2) Ceding too much control over GEF operations to the\nthree implementing agencies (this is a problem\nwith present GEF arrangements because semi-annual\nmeetings of contributor countries do not provide\nenough opportunity for effective control)\n(b) However, the Executive Board model will also be harder\nto sell to developing countries and clearly requires a\nbigger U.S. commitment to the process if it is to have\na chance for success.\n6.\nPROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS\n-- ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW WINDOW THAT WILL BE EXPECTED TO\nPROVIDE GRANT AND/OR GRANT-EQUIVALENT FUNDING FOR\nGLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.\n-- CONTINUE TO CONTAIN EXPANDED GEF OPERATIONS WITHIN\nCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES; LEAVE\nOPEN A COMMITMENT TO FUND INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR GLOBAL\nBENEFITS AS METHODOLOGY IS DEVELOPED AND ADDITIONAL\nFUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE.\n-- CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE NEED TO INCORPORATE RESULTS OF\nGEF EXPERIENCE INTO MAINSTREAM LENDING PROGRAMS OF\nMULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL DONORS.\n-- AVOID TIGHTLY BINDING COMMITMENT TO FUND INCREMENTAL\nCOSTS THAT CAN BE TIED TO GLOBAL BENEFIT. SUCH AN\nCOMMITMENT COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE A WORKING\nMETHODOLOGY IS NOT YET IN PLACE FOR MAKING DISTINCTIONS\nBETWEEN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL BENEFITS.\n-- IN SOME SPECIFIC AREAS SUCH AS ENERGY AND TROPICAL\nFOREST PROTECTION THE INCREMENTAL COST CONCEPT MIGHT\nENCOURAGE OPEN-ENDED DEMANDS FOR GRANTS OR CONCESSIONAL\nFUNDING FOR PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FINANCED THROUGH\nMAINSTREAM OPERATIONS.\n7.\nCONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATIONS\nBE PREPARED TO WORK FOR INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON GEF\nUNDERSTANDINGS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN U.S. LEGISLATION\nTHIS YEAR:\n(a) Clear guidelines for project selection\n(b) Balance among objectives of facility\n(c) Governmental and nongovernmental input into facility\nprocesses\n(d) Use of maximum leverage to attain facility objectives\n(e) Consultation with OECD\n(f) Funding of innovative projects that would not have been\nfunded in absence of facility and introduction of\nresults into mainstream lending\n(g) Contributor country oversight of individual projects in\nwork program and provisions for NGO participation\n(h) Prominent role for Scientific and Technical Advisory\nPanel\nCONFIDENTIAL\n10/15/91\nUS STRATEGY\nDRAFT\nfor UNCED\nOVERALL\nRecognizing that the preparatory process and the Rio\nmeeting are likely to be chaotic, highly politicized, and high\nprofile, we should focus our efforts on: (1) targeting\nachievements that serve our interests and demonstrate an\nappropriate commitment; and (2) averting bad ideas. Even if\nthe Conference is a mess, we will be positioned to point to\naccomplishments (or at least a positive agenda we sought to\npress). Moreover, having our own agenda will better position\nus to block a last minute rush by Conference participants to\npoor ideas. We have a good record and good proposals; we\nshould get credit for them. Also, it's hard to beat something\nwith nothing.\nPOSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENTS\nConclusion of a Statement of Principles on Forests\nConclusion of a Statement of Principles on Oceans\nFocus on the conservation of species (including drawing\nfrom our good record on habitats), including a process for\nthe \"Inventory and Assessment of Biological Diversity\".\n[Note: this is not the same as a convention on biological\ndiversity.]\nAgreement on a Process for Technology Cooperation in a\nmarket context.\nEndorsement of a reconstituted Global Environment Facility\nas the funding mechanism for international environmental\ntreaties.\nTo be completed by time of Rio Conference: a satisfactory\nframework Convention on Climate Change.\nNOTE: Concentration on forests and oceans, areas where we are\nstrong, could be the basis of a theme that we're concentrating\non approximately 75-80% of the Earth's surface (the figures\nvary depending on the definition of forests).\nCHALLENGES: Problems to Manage\nEarth Charter and Agenda 21\nFinancial Resources: sources, amounts and mechanisms.\nClimate Change negotiations and possible UNCED interference.\nBiological Diversity: avoid restrictions on Biological\nTechnology.\nTropical Rain Forests: develop workable program for\nBrazilian Rain Forest project endorsed by G-7.\nInstitutions: avoid establishing new ones; streamline\nexisting ones.\nDECLASSIFIED\nPER DOS WAIVER, November 6, 2015\nCONFIDENTIAL\nByMM NARA, Date 2/22/2018\nCON IDENTIAL\nStrategy: General\nDRAFT\nAssessment\nChaotic, high profile and highly politicized process and\nevent.\nUSG shouldn't be reactive: can get ahead of the curve and\nidentify key proposals we favor that can be accomplished\n(e.g. forest principles). This helps us set the terms of\nthe debate. We can then emphasize our positive agenda.\nDifficult to control documents like Earth Charter and\nAgenda 21: focus on getting USG proposals included,\nstopping bad ideas and limiting the effect of any result if\nit cannot be salvaged.\nKeep focus on key proposals -- the list of accomplishments\nwe can point to. Avoid being drawn into blackhole of\nwishlists. (Play offense, not defense, to the degree\npossible).\nUSG Work\n-- PCC review of PrepCom decisions: prepare reports and\nrecommendations for EPRG review.\n-- Establish small group on financial resources to\ndevelop USG proposal for changes in the GEF and to\ndevelop strategy for working this issue with major\ndonor countries.\n-- Prepare specific proposals for inclusion in Earth\nCharter and Agenda 21; these ideas should promote our\nthemes about research, sustainable development, and\nthe use of economic analysis and market mechanisms.\n--\nIdentify EC/Agenda 21 ideas we wish to stop.\nExternal Work\n-- Demarche key capitals through posts:\n-\nReiterate our strong interest in a successful and\nproductive UNCED;\n-\nNote our general assessment of and concerns about\nPrepcom process;\n-\nIndicate our intention to continue to move ahead\nwith specific proposals on forests, oceans,\ntechnology cooperation, etc.\n--\nTarget appropriate ministries in key capitals on\nspecific issues (e.g., finance ministries on financial\nresources and GEF).\n--\nUse major international conferences and meetings to\nfurther our objectives, e.g. OECD Environment and\nDevelopment Ministerial (Paris, December, 1991).\n-- Work issues during UNGA and UNGA Second Committee\nsessions (September - December, 1991).\nCONFIDENTIAL\n10/03/91\n15:37\n2026470217\n002\nUnited States Department of State\nBureau of Oceans and International\nEnvironmental and Scientific Affairs\nWashington, D.C. 20520\n3 October 1991\nTO:\nMembers of the PCC Subgroup on Environment\nand Health\nFROM:\nOES - Richard J. Smith #\nSUBJECT:\nDiscussion of October 10-11 Meeting of Ad Hoc\nGroup on Environment and Development\n(Preparatory to December 2-3 Joint Meeting of\nthe Development Assistance and Environment\nCommittees at Ministerial Level)\nA meeting of the PCC Subgroup on Environment and Health\nwill be convened tomorrow, October 4, at 4:00 p.m. in Room\n7835 (Main State) to discuss issues related to the upcoming\nmeeting of the Ad Hoc Group of the OECD Council on Environment\nand Development and to reach agreement on a Scope Paper for\nthis OECD meeting, a draft of which is attached for your\nreview prior to the meeting. The draft Scope Paper provides\nguidance on several important issues for the Ministerial\ncontained in a draft Ministerial Policy Statement, which is\nincluded in the package for your review.\nI am also including a discussion paper dealing with\nspecific initiatives related to technology cooperation for\nyour review.\n7\nPass onitz on\nto\n10/03/91\n15:37\n2026470217\n003\nOECD Ad Hoc Group\nOctober 10-11, 1991\nSCOPE PAPER\nOverview\nthe OECD Council by Resolution of 1991, agreed at its April\nThe ad hoc Group on Environment and Development, established by\nmeeting aims: that the December Joint Meeting should accomplish three\nO review OECD preparations for UNCED;\no provide a forum for debate by aid and environment ministers on\ncritical issues concerning the integration of development and\nbeyond 1992; and\nenvironmental policies, and for discussion of the process\nenvironmentally sound development.\nagree on actions by Member countries to promote sustainable,\nThe Group also agreed that the ministerial should produce a\npolicy statement setting forth the central issues concerning the\nintegration of environment and development, reflecting the\ncommitment of ministers to take action to promote sustainable\ndevelopment. The Secretariat has produced two drafts of the\npolicy statement and, based on comments received in August and\nearly September, will have a third draft ready for review and\ndiscussion at the October meeting.\nFor the United States, a broad objective of the joint ministerial\nis to produce agreement on the concept of sustainable\ndevelopment. The U.S. believes strongly that environmental\nprotection and economic growth go hand in hand. In developing\ncountries, a concern for the environment requires that OECD\ncountries make their development assistance, environmental and\neconomic policies mutually reinforcing. As environmental\ndegradation is a serious threat to sustainable growth, concern\nfor the environment must be a critical component of any\nsuccessful assistance program.\nIn exploring ways to integrate environment and development, the\nministers will examine issues of great importance and interest to\nthe 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. While\nintegration is a long-term and evolving objective within the OECD\nwhich will continue well past 1992, the results of the December\nministerial will certainly be an important contribution to UNCED.\nThe October meeting may offer the last opportunity to promote\nconsensus around U.S. views of the December Ministerial (although\nmeeting in November.\nthere may be increasing sentiment for one more preparatory\n10/03/91\n15:38\n2026470217\n004\n2\nU.S. Objectives for the December Ministerial\nAgree on how OECD environment ministries can support\ndevelopment ministries in helping developing countries\neffectively manage their environmental and natural resources\nfor sustainable economic growth.\nAgree to promote democratic systems, market-oriented economies\nand integration of economic and environmental policies in\ndeveloping countries as the most efficient and effective means\nof achieving development and environmental objectives.\nAgree on further improving efforts of OECD member countries to\nintegrate environmental concerns in development assistance\ndeveloping countries.\nprograms and economic (trade, debt, investment) policies toward\nExplore approaches to such UNCED issues as technology\ncooperation, financial resources, and Agenda 21.\nMinisterial Specific Points on the Agenda and Communique of the Joint\nThe section below provides summary remarks concerning each agenda\nitem for the December Ministerial and the corresponding sections\nof the draft Policy Statement.\nSustainable Development as a Shared and Integrating Objective\nThe purpose of this discussion should be to develop the context\nfor integrating development and environment policies, and to\nserve as a foundation for subsequent discussions on statements of\nobjectives and new areas of cooperation. Discussions here should\nclarify the ministerial understanding of sustainable development,\ndevelopment. and establish objectives for achieving the goals of sustainable\nOECD Response\nA discussion of the OECD response provides an opportunity to\nhighlight the public sector role in: 1) integrating environmental\nconsiderations in development programs, and 2) creating a policy\nenvironment conducive to addressing environmental constraints to\ndevelopment. The OECD should stress that the response should be\ndiscussed in terms of the significant member country efforts,\nboth nationally and in working with developing country\ngovernments, designed to promote economic growth and reduce\npoverty, including efforts encourage private sector investment.\n10/03/91\n15:39\n2026470217\n005\n3\nNew Partnerships\nThe United States should stress the point that environmentally\nsound development is primarily the responsibility of the\ndeveloping countries themselves, which will be the primary\nbeneficiaries of sustainable practices and policies. The concept\nthat addressing environmental constraints to development is in\nthe best interest of the developing countries (rather than done\nas a favor to the developed world) is essential in defining the\nessence of the new partnerships, with an emphasis on mutual\nrespect and mutual benefit.\nWhile the developing countries themselves should assume\nresponsibility for their own development and the role of the\nprivate sector is critical, the OECD Ministerial should reflect\nother aspects of \"new partnerships, \" namely, the commitment for\nOECD environment and development ministries to work more closely,\nboth bilaterally and multilaterally. In particular, Ministers\nshould endorse the DAC's Good Practices Papers.\nIntegrating Environment, Development and Economic Policies\nThe main U.S. objective for this section should be to agree with\nother Member countries to examine how to make OECD trade, debt\nand investment policies more supportive of environmentally\nsustainable development, and report preliminary findings to the\nDAC and to the OECD June 1992 Ministerial.\nTechnology Cooperation\nThe successful introduction and adaptation of technologies\nrequires a mutually supportive and non-confrontational process in\nwhich all parties benefit from the interaction. The term\n\"technology cooperation* is used to emphasize this point.\nTechnology cooperation is one of the cross-cutting themes at\nUNCED, and will be an important subject of discussion at the\nJoint Ministerial. Other OECD countries will be looking to the\nU.S. to take the lead. The U.S. will emphasize the importance of\nstrengthening capacity in developing countries and the critical\nrole of the private sector, and appropriate policies conducive to\nprivate sector investment.\nBuilding on the general objectives and philosophy articulated in\nthis scope paper, the USG should urge Ministers to support\ntechnology cooperation, drawing on the existing cooperative\nprograms now underway or proposed by aid and environment agencies\nin many OECD countries.\nNote: One of the items the USG needs to consider is whether to\nhave Ministers consider and/or endorse specific initiatives\nrelated to technology cooperation, and if so, what initiatives.\n10/03/91\n15:39\n2026470217\n006\n4\nThe Private Sector\nThe U.S. recognizes the essential role of firms and market-based\nmechanisms in achieving the broad objective of environmentally\nsound development.\nFinancing Sustainable Development\nThe discussion of financing must move beyond G-77 calls for \"new\nand additional resources.\" The emphasis should be on developing\nnew approaches and new partnerships in which industrialized and\ndeveloping countries use existing resources to support mutually\nbeneficial activities. The U.S. should emphasize that the most\nimportant source of financing for sustainable development, well\nbeyond the potential of publicly-funded assistance programs, is\nthe private sector, implemented through market-driven\ninvestments.\nIt should be noted that within the G-77 island states and the\nvery poor nations are not in complete agreement with China and\nBrazil on the issue of financing, which in turn differ in\nperspective from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. These\ndifferences should be explored as a possible means of advancing\nthe U.S. position.\nWe believe that, where appropriate, financial assistance should\nhelp developing countries meet the incremental cost of\ncommitments assumed under new international environmental\nagreements that have global benefits. The Global Environmental\nFacility (GEF) should be the principal multilateral funding\nmechanism to channel such assistance.\nUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development\nThe U.S. should use the occasion of the OECD Ministerial to\nexplore the positions of other delegations and to seek out\nsupport among other countries for our position on the outstanding\nissues still to be addressed in New York in March.\nOther Issues:\nSeveral countries, most notably France and Canada, will raise the\nissue of inviting developing country representatives to the Joint\nMinisterial. While the United States actively encourages full\ndeveloping country participation in creating new approaches to\nintegrating environment and development, we believe that the\nJoint Ministerial should focus on the task of enhancing\ncoordination among aid and development ministries within OECD\nmember countries. Other fora can and should be used to maximize\ndeveloping country input into the debate on integrating\nenvironment and development.\n-10/03/91 15:40\n2026470217\n007\n5\nNote: The USG will need to consider the possibility of NGO\nparticipation on the US delegation for the December meeting.\n10/03/91\n15:40\n2026470217\n1\n008\n2\nCONFIDENTIAL\nORGANISATION FOR. ECONOMIC\nCO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT\nParis, drafted: 27-SEPT 1991\nOLIS:\ndist.:\nDECLASSIFIED\nScale\nPER E.O. 13526\nC/ENV/DEV/MIN (91)1\nLP/LM 2014-001\n11/19/2013 MM\nORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT\nTHIRD DRAFT\nPOLICY STATEMENT FOR DECEMBER 1991 OECD\nMINISTERIAL MEETING ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\n(Note by the Secretarist)\n1. OECD and Ministers environment net together for the first time to the in\nand heads of agencies responsible for at development the OECD\nassistance December, to consider a co-operative new approach and & global challenge basis.\nParis, 2-3 sustainable development on both chaired & national by\nof They achieving were joined by. The meeting was\nPolitical Conclusions\nwas convened Ln recognition of the fact that contributing objectives. to\n2. The meeting world-wide is one of the OECD' . central over the past\nsustainable development by OECD and other countries world, three and\nYet, despite the major investments of the human condition in large parts by poverty, of the illiteracy,\ndecades, for a better quality future, continue to be diminished pollution of the\nmalnutrition, unemployment. and degradation of arable land. At the in same particular time, the ozone emergence layer\nhopes increased population pressures,\nair and water, and global-scale environmental problems, desertification, loss of\nof depletion regional and climate change, degradation deforestation of water resources and and acid rain, systems calls for of\nbiological collective diversity, action by all nations to protect the basic life support\nthe Earth.\n1\n10/03/91\n15:41\n2026470217\n009\n3\nthe market economy has proved its An strength interdependent and vigour\n3. Over recent years, change and adaptable economies. political\nworld economy open markets. OZCD countries if left committed to to\nin promoting structural has been created which is increasingly based are firmly on\ndemocracy, and But free it and has to be recognised that market the forces need to combat\nthis system. cannot adequately take into account urgent\nthemselves widespread poverty or long-term environment problems.\nNations Conference on Environment and Development between (UNCED) in\nJune developed 1992 can and provide developing countries for sustainable\n4. The United the catalyst for a strengthened development partnership world-wide.\nrecognizing the interdependence of all nations, a strengthened therefore\npledge that OECD with Member other Governments in the developing world, must in be based and on\n5. Ministers, Governments will strive to build Central\npartnership is the Soviet Union. This partnership relative capacities.\nEastern reciprocal Europe commitments and by all countries based on their\n6. OECD countries their consumption patterns place on the command. OECD in\nrecognize their special responsibility environment in this respect, and\nview of the technologies to intensify their efforts further to promote\ngiven the pressures and financial resources that they to reduce the burden\nGovernments pledge on the environment. They commit themselves Countries to assist a\nmore effective in fully benefitting from the development resources of new, will\ntheir economies technological put co-operation with non-Member clean\nthese countries Ministers also recognize that additional both with have to\ntechnologies. to developing countries if these are achieve to cope sustainable\nbe made available and global environment problems, as well as poverty.\nnational development and the economic growth needed to combat\n7. Sustainable countries, countries in Central and Eastern Europe and effective Soviet\ndevelopment is a shared objective. Towards this the and,\ndeveloping make commensurate commitments to good governance, and sound\nUnion will have to - including areas affecting the environment note the - need to\neconomic policies In this connection, Ministers permit slow\nenvironmental policies. many countries where it is too rapid to stand\npopulation growth in those As #. matter of priority, OECD members programmes. ready to\nhelp sustainable developing development. countries that desire assistance with population\nthe important role of the private contribute sector as to provider solve\n8. Ministers technical underline and financial resources which can the inclusion in 1991\nof managerial, problems. In this connection they welcome Multinational\nenvironmental chapter in the OECD Guidelines for of\nof Enterprises an environmental and the Business Charter for Sustainable Development the\nInternational Chamber of Commerce.\nwelcome the increasing involvement of non-Governmental in promoting\norganisations by action at the grass environmental management. support\n9. Ministers both in developed and developing countries root level. They also\nthe sustainable attention development being given to the role of women in\nwelcome the support that work within particular: the OECD framework can\n10. provide Ministers to the UNCED process and thereafter. In\n-- they welcome the Guidelines and Recommendations on environment and\n10/03/91 15:41 2026470217\n010\na prepared 4') the CECO Committee.\n10/03/91\n15:42\n2026470217\n5\n011\n5\n-- they encourage the OECD to make widely available the result* of its\nwork on management of chemicals and wastes, biotechnology, energy,\ncleaner technologies, transport, economic instruments and\nenvironmental indicators:\n-- they urge the DECD to intensify its work on other issues related to\nsustainable development, inter alis on the relations between trade\nand environment;\n\" they support the exchange of experiences in designing policy tools\nand appraisal of anvironmental policies and programmes;\n11.\n(An initiative on capacity building?)\nThis Ministerial meeting takes place at a crucial moment in the\npreparations 12. for the UNCED. Ministers have carefully considered the status of\nthe preparatory work and reiterate the strong support of their Governments for\nthe Conference and pledge their firm determination to make 1t a success.\nMinisters agree to cionvene on . regular basis after the Conference in\nRio 13. do Janeiro to review progress on achieving the goals of sustainable\ndevelopment and on integrating efforts of their respective agencies.\nH x K\n4\n10/03/91\n15:42\n2026470217\n012\n6\naddressing issues of sustainable development, OECD Governments which will\n14. in the In future base their actions on the following considerations\nelaborate on the conclusions above.\nSustainable Development as & Shared and Integrating objective\nEnvironment and Development Ministers agree that sustainable\n15. OECD is a common objective for all nations. It is a central element goals for\ndevelopment strategy for the 1990s, to integrate environmental development of life for\nthe OECD's to achieve satisfactory economic and socio-cultural conditions term\nand Ministers stress the importance of taking a longer\nperspective all people. when addressing these issues, for example, taking preventive action\nnow to avoid higher costs in the future.\nMinisters acknowledge that sustainable development must circle include of the\nmaking under-development that links poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, high national population\n16, OECD of substantial inroads into under-development. The vicious\nand environmental degradation must be broken through sound\ngrowth and social policies, supported by international development\neconomic co-operation. These efforts will be undercut, however, unless attention is\npaid to maintaining the natural resource base.\nThe OECD Response\nEncouraging progress is being made in OECD countries, for instance to by\n17. and raw materials more efficiently, by increasing recourse lowering\nusing energy energy and cleaner fuels, by expanding forest cover, by of\nrenewable of some major air pollutants and by improving management\nconcentrations chemicals. Large investments in environmental research and development are\nbeginning to pay off.\nsuch progress, however, falls well short of what is required. is Economic\npolicies and safeguards the interests of both present and\n18. will have to CROWN that the use of this planet's resources future\nsustainable Environmental considerations must be integrated into work the towards full\ngenerations. of government policies. OECD countries must continue to and make\nrange substantial reduction of the overall pollution burden of renewable greater\nfurther at energy conservation ** well as research and development the peer\nefforts of energy. Progress in this respect will be monitored in by\nsources of environmental policies within the OECD launched\nEnvironmental review process Ministers in January 1991 as well as in the ongoing peer review\nprocess of the International Energy Agency (IEA).\n19. OECD between Development and Environment Ministries. This increased are an\nGovernments will take steps to reinforce co-operative working\narrangements should help ensure that environmental considerations that in\ncollaboration of all aid assisted projects and programmes and environment. turn\nintegral part objectives underpin initiatives in the field of the results of this\ndevelopment Development and Enviromment Ministers will build on the both\nmeeting OECD to help ensure that their strategies properly integrate\ndevelopment and environmental management objectives.\nS\n10/03/91 15:43\n2026470217\n013\n7\n20. assessments of all projects and programmes, financed by official development\nIn particular OECD Ministers commit themselves to rigorous environmental\nassistance or otherwise officially supported, that raise significant\nenvironmental issues. They will also take steps to ensure careful\nenvironmental impact assessments of public investments within the borders of\ntheir own countries.\n21. recommendations for aid agencies on environment-related matters which have been\nIn this connection OECD Ministers endorse the guidelines and\nadopted by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) :\nGood Fractices for Country Environmental Surveys and Strategies;\nGood Practices for Environmental Impact Assessment of Development\nProjects;\nGuidelines for Aid Agencies on Involuntary Displacement and\nResettlement in Development Projects:\nGuidelines for Aid Agencies on Global Environmental Problems.\nMinisters see these guidelines, and others which are still in the process of\npreparation, as operational groundrules for aid agencies and the ongoing\ndialogue with developing countries.\n22. countries are committed to address in their domestic and international\nMore generally, policy coherence is a key challenge which OECD Member\npolicy-making. while aid is recognised as important for developing countries\nin the pursuit of sustainable development, it alone is not sufficient. It must\nform part of a strategy that integrates a. wide range of separate policies.\nThese policies relate to environment and development assistance but also\nimportantly to areas such as trade, agriculture, energy, investment, economic\npolicy and debt. Ministers are committed to the work initiated by the OECD\nwhich will help identify constraints in these areas to sustainable development\nand propose measures to overcome these barriers.\nA Strengthened Partnership\nAll countries have a common interest and responsibility for the sound\n23. and sustainable management of their natural resources and for the protection of\nthe global environment. Each country, therefore, must ensure that its\ndevelopment process is environmentally sound and sustainable by establishing\nthe necessary policies and institutional framework. An important rationale for\nestablishing more effective partnerships between developed and developing\ncountries is to enable all countries to fulfill these responsabilities [and\nmeet their commitments in relation to the Eàrth Charter and Agenda 21, which\nare to be adopted in June 1992).\nnations 24. to create effective partnerships for sustainable development. While\nOECD governments are prepared to work together with governments of all\ngovernments have special responsibilities, the partnership concept must also\nencompass the private sector and non-govermental organisations.\nOECD Ministers realise that if developing countries are to be able to\n25. cope successfully with their pressing development and environmental challenges\n6\n10/03/91\n15:43\n$2026470217\n014\n8\nin contributing to the solution of global assisted and by regional OECD\nand environmental to join others problems, their efforts will need to be\ncountries. Ministers are encouraged by the commitment to co-operative countries action as\non reflected national inter and alia in the Deijing, Bangkok, Tunis, Tlateloleo Langhawi\n26. OECD global sustainable development by developing and\nDeclarations.\n27. OECD European countries and in the Soviet with the commited Third\nMinisters acknowledge the serious environment Union problems and of are the\nCentral to working and with Eastern them. This will not diminish their co-operation\nWorld.\nIntegrating Environment, Development and Economic Policies\nin sustainable development is underpinned by which good governance, involve\nmarket-based and broad popular involvement in the challenge\n28. Progress economic policies and participatory approaches orientation and\naccountability of government policies. However, a key effective in the\npursuit integration and coherence of economic, social and environmental policies in all\nimplementation of sustainable development for 211 countries is the\naspects of national and international policy making.\nanalysis, including that of social and environmental alternatives costs to reach and\n29. Economic should be used as a basis for choosing between and energy as well as\nbenefits, goals. Prices for raw materials exploitation,\nsustainable should development reflect the full environmental costs of their that harm use\nproducts Subsidies, taxes or other market interventions of\nand development disposal. patterna or distort the efficient use and management natural\nresources should be eliminated.\n30- Environmental within their respective social and cultural contexts. concerted Particular efforts\naction should take into account the needs of local\npopulations to be given to the impact on women. More of development\nattention should to involve wasen from the preparation stage and water\nwill planning, be required particularly in such sectors as forestry, agriculture\nmanagement. recall that the environment and the survival the of our environment planet is\n31. Ministers citizens of the world. The preservation of individual on a is\na matter for all therefore must influence the action of every education as a\ne. daily concern basis. that This underscores the role of environmental means\nof increasing the awareness of all citizens.\nin the international trade system are & vital have contribution . common\n32. Improvements development. Developed and developing countries mutually\nto interest sustainable in ensuring act as that A positive trade and force environmental for sustainable policies development. are Efforts at home by\nsupportive and to achieve higher levels of environmental protection issues must be\nindividual nations agreements to cope with global environmental international trade.\nand international implemented so as to avoid distortions in schieve major\ndesigned and policies must not undercut efforts to the\nConversely, environmental trade goals. Ministers support the continued study by OECD of the\n-3\n-10/03/91\n15:44\n2026470217\n4.\n015\n9\nlinkage between these issues and recommend this as an area for early attention\nby the GATT.\nMinisters note the growing global consensus on the need to slow\npopulation sustainable development. Improved living conditions, access to the and\n33. growth in those many countries where it is too high to education permit\nsecurity are the most essential preconditions for ensuring\neconomic demographic transition to more sustainable population rates. In addition,\noffering people in developing countries the opportunity to plan the\nhowever, of their families is essential to avoid an aggravation of already\ndifficult size social, economic and environmental problems. OECD Members stand\nready to support measures to improve women's economic and social effective conditions in\ndeveloping countries and to help establish, fund and implement\npopulation strategies and programmes as e matter of priority.\nTechnology Co-operation\nTechnological innovation and transfer of technology play an important\n34. role in tackling environmental problems world-wide. OECD Members are committed\nto co-operate with developing countries to improve their access to\nenvironmentally sound technologies and to enhance their capacity to use and\ndevelop these technologies by\n-- assisting the development of appropriate incentive structures,\npolicies, legislation and institutions;\n-- providing information on technology availability and options:\n-- using existing and new technical assistance programmes and facilities and\nto assist in building institutional capacities, providing experts\ntraining, supporting local research and development efforts, and\npromoting the transfer of technology more generally;\n-- addressing barriers to technology transfer.\nIn 8 market economy the access to technology under private ownership is\n35. largely determined by market considerations and economic and legal conditions. the\nPolicies of all countries should create propitious conditions to encourage\nprivate sector to innovate, market and use the technologies that contribute to\nsustainable development. Ministers welcome the initiatives of major\ncorporations in integrating environmental concerns into their practices as\nrecommended by OECD and the initiatives in several countries for public/private\nco-operation.\nFinancing Sustainable Development\n36. sustainable By development is and must be generated by the developing\nfar the largest proportion of the financial resources required countries for\nthemselves. CECD Ministers therefore recognise the need to promote an\nThis includes reforms of the international trade system, including improved to\ninternational economic climate that is conducive to sustainable development.\naccess: conditions in developing countries which are attractive\nmarket international investment; mobilisation of domestic savings; further progress in\nthe debt area and diversification of national economies. Public expenditures\n8\n-10/03/91\n15:44\n2026470217\n1\n016\n10\nin both developed and developing countries need to be carefully reviewed to\nmaximise their contribution to sustainable development, including particular\nattention to the scope for reallocating military expenditures.\nOECD Members recognise that substantial additional aid efforts will be\n37. required, in light of the huge development tasks ahead. Ministers pledge\nattention to both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of aid and note the\ntarget already established by international organisations for the future level\nof development assistance.\nOECD Members realise in particular that additional assistance, beyond\n(38. (and separate from) current levels of development support, will have to be made\navailable if developing countries are to play their part in coping with\nglebal-scale environmental problems.)\nDonor commitment to finding the means to support world-wide co-operation\n39. in protecting the environment is manifested by the recent creation of a special\nfund under the Montreal Protocol and the establishment of the Global\nEnvironmental Facility (GEF) under joint World Bank, UNEP and UNDP auspices.\nMinisters underline the potential role that the GEF can play as the\ninternational mechanism to provide additional assistance to developing\ncountries in the framework of the ongoing negotiations on the global\nenvironment, and thus note the desirability of expanding the number of\nparticipants. [while they agree that a proliferation of new funding mechanisms\nis to be avoided, issue-specific approaches such as the special fund of the\nMontreal Protocol may be preferable for global conventions.) They also\nrecognise the desirability of establishing decision-making procedures that\nadequately reflect the role of the recipient countries.\n[40. OECD Ministers commit themselves to exploring other measures and new\ninitiatives to ensure that substantial additional assistance would be made\navailable to support globally beneficial action by developing countries.\n]\nNew OECD Initiatives for Co-operation in Capacity Building\nOECD Ministers pledge to give high priority to working with developing\n41. countries, Central and Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union in\nstrengthening their national capacities to identify and manage environmental\nproblems. In addition to bilateral co-operation, efforts will be made to make\navailable to these countries the insights and knowledge derived from OECD work.\nMinisters accordingly encourage the OECD to provide expanded and new\nopportunities 42. to share its experience, documentation and data with non-Member\ncountries. This could take the form of special seminars and conferences;\ninvitations to technical meetings, information and data exchanges. The\nfollowing areas of special OECD expertise and IEA expertise in the area of\nenergy would be particularly suited to these types of co-operation:\n-- tools for environmental management (environmental taxes and tax\npolicy, regulations):\n-- integration of economic and environmental policies in specific\nsectors (energy, agriculture, transport):\n-- pollution control strategies, including costs and benefits;\n0\n-10/03/81 15:45\n2026470217\n1\n017\n11\nMP safe management of hazardous chemicals and toxic substances;\n-- cleaner technologies (government policies; information on technology\nstate-of-the art);\n-- cleaner, more efficient energy supply systems;\n- environmental performance measurement (environmental indicators,\nrevised national accounting systems, country reviews).\n- the application and monitoring of the DAC Guidelines and\nRecommendations in the fields of environment, institutional\ndevelopment and technical co-operation.\n(43. OECD Members will explore the utility and feasibility of establishing\nwith interested partners in developing countries a consultative process with a\nview to providing improved and more systematic support for capacity building in\nthe area above.)\nor Conference on Environment and Development\n44.\nThe 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development\nprovides at unique opportunity to formulate strategies for sustainable\ndevelopment and to enter into strengthened partnerships to attack environmental\nproblems at national, regional and global levels. Further, it offers the\noccasion for endorsing the Earth Charter, a consensus on yoals and priorities\nfor the 1990s and beyond, and for agreeing to commitments for concrete actions\nas specified in Agenda 21. Ministers reiterate their countries' support for\nthe development of effective conventions on biodiversity and on climate change\nin time for signature at the 1992 UN Conference as well as for a statement of\nprinciples on forest management leading towards a Forest Convention. OECD\nMinisters pledge high-level attendance and their best efforts to make the\nConference a success.\n10\n10/03/91\n15:46\n2026470217\n018\nItem for PCC Consideration on Technology Cooperation\nMany OECD member states have particularly welcomed U.S.\nleadership on the subject of technology cooperation, as presented\nat the most recent UNCED preparatory meeting and elsewhere. They\nare likely to seek out U.S. views at the OECD as to how and when\nto proceed beyond the general articulation of the concept, to\nmore specific proposals for action. It would therefore be useful\nto consider what specific proposals might be endorsed at the OECD\nMinisterial that would serve U.S. interests in a range of fora.\nThe major thrust of much U.S. work on technology cooperation\nmight well be advanced most effectively in the context of the\nclimate change negotiations. A U.S. package on technology\ncooperation for climate change could prove tactically useful at a\ncritical point in those important negotiations.\nAt the same time, the U.S. might strengthen support for our\nobjectives there and at UNCED by working with other DECD nations\nto develop specific proposals on technology cooperation of a more\nnarrowly focused or technical nature (safe drinking water,\npesticide management, etc.) within the ORCD. That institution\nhas some unique strengths and capabilities in the Development\nCooperation Directorate, the Development Center, the Environment\nDirectorate and other directorates as well as the International\nEnergy Agency that could be drawn upon. It might be useful, in\nfurthering U.S. commitment to sustainable development, if the\nU.S. were to advocate Ministerial endorsement in December of a\nrange of programs that reflect the comparative advantage and\nspecial strength of the OECD as an institution to promote\nsustainable development (for example, its work on economic\nincentives, institution building on legislation and regulations,\npollution prevention or risk assesement/management). In this\nregard, it would be most useful to have an indication from all\ninterested USG agencies as to which principal areas they believe\nare most useful in making concrete progress toward sustainable\ndevelopment. Since the Administrators for A.I.D. and EPA will\nlead the U.S. delegation in December, it might be most useful for\nthose Agencies to develop more proposals, but proposals from all\nshould be solicited for interagency consideration.\nFurther, the U.S. might propose or support proposals from\nother OECD member states to work together, in consultation with\nkey developing nations, to provide for means or mechanisms to\nenhance the capacity-building which is an integral part of\ntechnology cooperation. It would be useful to draw again from\nthe views of all concerned USG agencies to indicate what\nmechanisms they would consider most effective and which ones are\nalready incorporated in their present or projected programs (thus\noccasioning no additional commitment of resources).\nREPORT\nOF\nTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE\nWORKING GROUP\nON\nINTERNATIONAL\nENVIRONMENT AND\nDEVELOPMENT POLICY\n25 JULY, 1991\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nINTRODUCTION\nINSTITUTIONS\nTECHNOLOGY\nFINANCE\nLEGAL ISSUES\nANNEX 1: LIST OF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Aspen Institute convened an international Working Group in Aspen,\nColorado, from 18-25 July, 1991, to discuss institutional, technology, financial\nand legal issues that will fall within the scope of the 1992 United Nations\nConference on Environment and Development. The members of the\nWorking Group, which was chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, are listed in Annex\n1.\nThis report is based on the discussions of the Working Group. It does not\nrepresent a document that has been approved by individual members of the\nGroup. It is, rather, a summary by the rapporteurs, issued on the authority of\nthe Chairman and the Aspen Institute, of the principal elements of the\nGroup's deliberations and of the recommendations and options that emerged\nfrom its work. The report is submitted to participants in the third meeting of\nthe UNCED Preparatory Committee and to others interested in UNCED's\nwork in the hope that it may serve a useful and practical purpose in focusing\ndiscussions and crystallizing decisions in the short time remaining before\nUNCED itself convenes in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.\nSeveral general themes recurred throughout the Aspen Group's deliberations\nand deserve to be highlighted at the outset. These themes are summarized in\nthe following four sections of this Introduction.\nThe Central Role of National, Subnational and Regional Governments and\nNon-Governmental Organizations. The primary responsibility for\nenvironmentally sound, or sustainable, development must rest with\ngovernments at all levels, acting through a broadly participatory process\ninvolving non-governmental organizations and groups (including the\nprivate corporate sector) and private citizens and, where appropriate, in\nconjunction with regional organizations. This applies to industrial and to\ndeveloping countries, both of which in different ways have proved unable or\nunwilling to coordinate and integrate their policies related to environment\nand development with a view to achieving sustainable development.\nStrengthening the capacity of these national, subnational and regional\norganizations for promoting sustainable development and reinforcing the\nparticipatory nature of decision-making processes at all levels should be a\nprimary goal of all those, including international organizations, concerned\nwith sustainable development throughout the world. International\ninstitutions, in the Working Group's view, should provide the necessary staff\nsupport for this purpose.\nConcern for the Future. Giving reality to the concept of sustainable\ndevelopment implies that human beings should have a different view of the\nrelationship between the interests of the present and those of future\ngenerations than is typically the case. This idea has important, and difficult,\nimplications across a number of fields. These include the adoption of full\nsocial cost pricing as a means of ensuring that the externalities of human\nbehavior are adequately accounted for, and new legal concepts of\nintergenerational equity. The Working Group believes that this heightened\nconcern for the future, even though the ways in which it can be made\noperational may not be fully understood, should be a guiding light for\nUNCED's work and for the implementation of the Agenda 21 action plan and\nthe specific Conventions that are likely to emerge from the Conference.\nConcern for future generations should not be seen as diminishing concern for\nthe welfare of the present generation. The Working Group underlined the\nimportance of ensuring the right of each individual to freedom and adequate\nconditions of life. At the same time, all persons bear the responsibility to\nprotect and improve the environment for present and future generations, as\nwell as for the sustainable use of natural resources, taking account of their\nfinancial and technical capability to do so.\nConsumption and Population. Unsustainable patterns of consumption and\npopulation growth are two of the primary causes of global environmental\nproblems now and in the future. Achieving a path to sustainable\ndevelopment requires changes in the behavior patterns that give rise to these\ntwo phenomena. Such changes will require profound modifications in\nindividual, social, economic and political behavior. But without progress in\nthis direction even the best conceived action plans and institutional,\ntechnological, financial and legal arrangements that the international\ncommunity might put in place would be for naught. The Aspen Working\nGroup did not address itself to these issues in detail, but recognized their\nfundamental importance to the work of UNCED and to the prospects for\nsustainable development.\nUrgency and Timing. The Aspen Working Group's discussions reflected a\nsense of urgency about the need for progress by governments and peoples\ntowards more sustainable development. Many of the institutional,\ntechnological, financial and legal changes required to make such progress\nmay, nevertheless, take several years to implement. The Group's\nrecommendations and options ranged over measures that can be taken in the\nshort term and more fundamental changes that will take longer to achieve.\nWhere possible, this report distinguishes between these different time\nhorizons for action. A cardinal principle for UNCED, however, is to ensure\nthat actions taken in the short term are consistent with, and where possible\nfacilitate, measures that will take longer to adopt and implement. It would be\nat best unfortunate if short term decisions were taken for reasons of\nexpediency or convenience that would have a high likelihood of impeding\ndesirable longer term changes or generating perverse consequences.\n2\nINSTITUTIONS\nDefining the Problem\nProtection of the environment and the processes of development are\ninextricably linked. But governments have yet to draw the necessary\nconclusions and adopt effective sustainable development strategies. As long\nas sectoral policies and programs are not integrated at the national level,\ngovernments are limited in their ability to promote coordination at the inter-\ngovernmental level. Such improved coordination would make more\nefficient use of existing resources.\nSustainable development will require new kinds of institutional capabilities,\nparticularly for cross-sectoral decision-making, public participation, and\ncontinuing innovation. Action at the local level is the key. International\ninstitutions should therefore do more to help national and local\norganizations integrate environment and development in their planning,\nand provide incentives to promote sustainable growth through the private\nsector.\nThe wide range of multilateral activities and the growing influence of non-\ngovernmental entities worldwide has substantially altered the landscape of\ninternational institutions since the establishment of the United Nations and\nthe Bretton Woods institutions following the Second World War. The nature\nof the challenges facing them today has also changed dramatically. The\nGroup believe that new emphasis on sustainable development in the\ngrowing network of regional and global institutions -- governmental and\nnon-governmental -- should be strongly encouraged.\nThe increasing number of UN and other international organizations has also\nled to overlapping responsibilities, and left a number of organizations of\ndoubtful value. At the same time, as new issues have become more urgent,\nthere are gaps in the existing system that must be filled. The Group\nconsidered means to consolidate existing secretariat and inter-governmental\ninstitutions, and considered new program areas.\nThe need to improve arrangements for independent review of performance\nby international institutions, and their progress toward agreed objectives and\ntargets, also received attention. The Working Group emphasized the\nimportance of obtaining scientific and technical advice and contributions\nfrom women, youth, indigenous peoples and other habitually under-\nrepresented groups.\nIn examining improvements in institutional arrangements, the Working\nGroup distinguished between the secretariats of the United Nations system\nand the responsibilities of inter-governmental decision-making bodies. It\n1\ncommended steps to strengthen support staff functions, both to maintain the\nmomentum from UNCED and to review progress on Agenda 21, and to lay\nthe groundwork for far-reaching changes in the future. It noted certain\ninitiatives for reform of the UN system and other international institutions.\nIt was important that UNCED should take good account of them.\nCapacity Building and Empowerment\nGlobal and regional organizations should enhance national capabilities. The\nempowerment of a broad range of local communities and citizens' groups to\nenable them to take part in formulating and implementing sustainable\ndevelopment was essential.\nCoherent national policies were widely viewed as a prerequisite. For the\ndeveloping countries, they provided the foundation for external support by\nidentifying needs and priorities and a framework to ensure that such support\npromoted sustainable development. This would require adequate funding.\nThe industrial countries also needed to adopt coherent policies for their own\nsustainable development.\nThe Working Group examined the ways in which international institutions,\nboth global and regional, contributed to building national capabilities. This\npoint is considered in more detail in the sections on technology and finance.\nIt includes access to information, technical training, policy advice, mobilizing\nfinancial resources, and reviewing performance of UN members as well as\nthe UN institutions themselves.\nMaking Better Use of What Exists\n1. Specialized Agencies and Programs\nWhile the Working Group acknowledged that many UN agencies and\nprograms were concerned with sustainable development, including notably\nUNEP, UNDP, UNIDO, FAO, WHO and ILO, it focused particularly on UNEP\nand UNDP. In respect of UNEP, the Group recommended:\nstrengthening UNEP's assessment functions through building\nlinkages with other UN system agencies in the Earthwatch\nprogram, as well as through expanded working relations with\nprivate research institutes and non-governmental organizations;\nstrengthening UNEP's role in the development of international\nenvironmental law and \"soft law\" instruments, and in\nperforming secretariat functions arising from an increasing\nnumber of international legal agreements;\n2\nstrengthening UNEP's role with the general public and non-\ngovernmental entities, as well as inter-governmental\ninstitutions;\nstrengthening its role in reviewing UN programs in order to\ncatalyze activities to promote sustainable development;\ndiscontinuing UNEP's role in project implementation, while\npromoting closer collaboration at the regional level between\nUNEP and UNDP to review national progress toward\nsustainable development and to support training programs in\nenvironmental planning and management.\nIn respect of UNDP, the Working Group recommended that:\nUNDP should use its existing network to provide technical\nsupport for devising and implementing policies for sustainable\ndevelopment at the national and regional levels;\n--\nUNDP field offices, UNEP regional offices, and the other\nregional and field offices of the UN system should combine their\nskills and resources\nIn considering the review of program performance and the attainment of\nnational objectives and targets, there was support for periodically updating\nthe country reports presented to UNCED. These could be examined by the\nstrengthened inter-agency mechanisms and the Commission for Sustainable\nDevelopment proposed below, as well as by the donors' consultative groups\nand roundtables for each country.\n2. General Institutions\nThe Working Group considered the ways in which the UN General Assembly\nand ECOSOC might help to create a global political consensus on sustainable\ndevelopment. It recognized the need for rationalization of the subsidiary\nbodies of both, and in this context noted the program of reform of the\neconomic and social sectors of the United Nations initiated in 1991, and the\nexpectation that a new Secretary-General would make important changes in\nthe UN Secretariat. As an example of gaps in the existing institutional\nstructure that needed to be filled, the Group specifically noted energy.\n3. Improved Coordination\nInter-Agency Coordination for Sustainable Development. The Working\nGroup considered sustained staff follow-up to UNCED vital. It proposed\n3\nstrengthening the role of the Administrative Committee on Coordination\n(ACC) in this regard both through regular meetings devoted exclusively to\nsustainable development and through the establishment of a task force on the\nsubject. The membership of the task force should include representatives of\nthe international financial and other relevant institutions outside the UN\nsystem. In this fashion, the ACC could facilitate policy coordination among\nUN agencies and programs and different sectoral areas, and monitor progress.\nThis task force could be chaired by a senior representative of the Commission\nfor Sustainable Development proposed below.\nPending establishment of the Commission, an interim arrangement to\nfacilitate coordination within the U.N. system would be to extend the\nfunctions of the UNCED secretariat, drawing primarily on existing inter-\nagency staff.\nThe Group supported the establishment of ad hoc working parties in sectoral\nand cross-sectoral areas -- similar to those established by UNCED -- which in\nconsultation with government representatives would review relevant UN\nsystem activities, develop inter-agency projects, and make recommendations\non future program activities. The Group agreed that provision should be\nmade for advice from under-represented groups, especially women.\nAn Integrated Global Watch Mechanism. The Group believed that\nintegrating social, economic, environmental and political information for\nassessing risks was essential. It recognized also that such risks might have\nsecurity implications. It recommended new means for bringing together\nunder the Secretary-General relevant data and information and for drawing\nto his attention and that of member states problems affecting sustainable\ndevelopment.\nLooking at Something New\nNew international legal agreements, particularly an agreement on climate\nchange, should be designed to lay the foundation for a coordinated\ninternational system for the protection of the environment and to contribute\nto the consolidation and rationalization of the existing UN system.\nThe Group noted recent proposals for the creation of an Environmental\nSecurity Council and use of the Trusteeship Council to consider sustainable\ndevelopment issues, and agreed that arrangements along these lines could\ninvolve amendment of the UN Charter and might raise significant political\ndifficulties.\nTo ensure that sustainable development were treated as a high priority\nthroughout the international system and given sufficient political impetus\nfrom governments, the Group recommended the establishment of an\n4\nintergovernmental Commission for Sustainable Development, which would\nmeet annually at ministerial level. The Commission, which would report to\nthe General Assembly through ECOSOC and act as the coordinating body of\nthe UN system (although it would not, of course, cut across the\nresponsibilities of individual agencies, programs or treaty bodies). It would\nconcentrate on identifying needs and priorities for sustainable development\nand monitor progress on Agenda 21 and in the bodies likely to be set up by\nConventions on such specific issues as climate change, forests, and\nbiodiversity. Its functions would be deliberative, and it would provide policy\nguidance for the UN system and other institutions involved in sustainable\ndevelopment. The Commission would be serviced by a small secretariat,\ndrawing upon the staffs of the international system.\nParallel with the Commission, an advisory committee of independent\nexperts, including representatives of industry and the scientific and NGO\ncommunities, would be established as a source of expert advice and review.\nThis Committee could subsume the functions of the Advisory Committee on\nScience and Technology for Development. The relationship between the\nCommission, the committee, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)\nshould be examined. Account should also be taken of the recent proposal for\nthe establishment of an International Development Council.\nThe Group noted the proposal for a non-governmental commission of\nexperts, along the lines of the Brundtland Commission, to formulate\nrecommendations for institutional arrangements for sustainable\ndevelopment capable of meeting the challenges of the next century. Such a\ncommission could explore in greater depth the range and scope of needed\nreforms in light of decisions taken at UNCED, and make recommendations to\nthe 48th UNGA.\n5\nTECHNOLOGY\nDefining the Problem.\nTechnology is a crucial component of progress towards sustainable\ndevelopment. This issue has usually been discussed under the rubric of\ntechnology \"transfer\" or, more recently, \"cooperation\". Neither term, in the\nWorking Group's view, adequately describes the processes needed to move\nboth industrial and developing countries on to a sustainable development\npath. These processes can perhaps best be summarized as technology\ndevelopment, both in industrial and developing countries, and technology\ndiffusion within and between countries at all levels of development.\nThe Working Group's deliberations focused on ways in which these processes\ncould be promoted, and the role that UNCED could usefully play through\nAgenda 21.\nThe Working Group underlined the importance of the 'soft technologies' of\ntraining, management and access to, and use of, information. Soft\ntechnologies were essential to the exploitation of the 'hard technologies' of\nplant and equipment. Many of the ideas discussed by the Group were directed\nto ensuring the diffusion of soft technologies to ensure that the diffusion of\nhard technologies would not be rendered ineffective by the inability to\nassimilate and exploit them in sustainable fashion.\nNational Capacity Building\nThe Working Group recommended that UNCED should focus particularly on\nways in which the capacity of developing countries to develop and assimilate\nhard and soft technologies appropriate to sustainable development could be\nenhanced. Both international institutions and the private sector should\nensure that their technology initiatives support agreed national strategies.\nDonor programs should incorporate provisions for sustained technical\ntraining of indigenous experts and the development of maintenance and\nmanagerial capabilities. Such programs must ensure that traditionally\nexcluded groups have the opportunity to participate, and must be subject to\nexternal review and public oversight.\nTechnology assessment capabilities should be strengthened in both the\ngovernment and the non-government sectors in all countries so as to\nfacilitate sustainable development.\nInternational financial institutions should give priority to cooperating with\nprivate corporations and the technical assistance agencies to create the long-\nterm infrastructure required to sustain technology research, development and\ninnovation in developing countries. Through university partnerships\nbetween industrial and developing countries, engineering and technical\neducation should incorporate environmental considerations into technology\nresearch, development, application, maintenance, and management. Means\nshould also be found to promote technology cooperation between small and\nmedium sized enterprises in the private sector in the industrial and\ndeveloping countries.\nWays needed to be found to encourage the return to their home countries of\nexpatriate experts, who represent a reservoir of technical talent that could\nfacilitate the diffusion of technology.\nRegional Institutions and Initiatives\nUNCED should encourage regional environment, economic and\ndevelopment organizations to coordinate and integrate their programs and\npolicies to promote capacity-building at the regional level. In the long term,\nsuch regional organizations should aim to establish a network of institutions\nto facilitate technology diffusion through training, research and\ndevelopment, access to and dissemination of information, and exchange of\nexperience. In this respect, the efforts of UNDP to create a Sustainable\nDevelopment Network deserve encouragement.\nUNCED should support the Global Change System for Analysis and Training\n(START) initiative under the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. If\nthe social sciences were included with the natural sciences, the START\ninitiative could become a valuable tool for promoting sustainable\ndevelopment through new regional institutions.\nUNCED should also encourage better use of consultative groups to strengthen\nregional and national capabilities to develop technologies for sustainable\ndevelopment, along the lines of the Consultative Groups on International\nAgricultural Research (CGIAR).\nThe Newly Industrializing Economies (NIEs) can play a special role in\nfacilitating technology diffusion between industrial and developing countries\nand among developing countries. Donor agencies and countries should\ndevelop and fund such tripartite arrangements as Third Country Training\nPrograms to support human resources development in developing countries\nin close cooperation with the NIEs.\nAvailability of and Access to Information\nEnsuring that developing countries have access to information about\nenvironmentally sound technology for development should be a high\npriority. UNCED should look at practical ways to encourage the synthesis of\n2\ninformation on the range and scope of available technologies in key sectors. It\nwould be useful to develop a network for synthesizing information on public\nservice system technologies relevant to improving the urban environment,\nsuch as sewage and transport systems, and observation and monitoring.\nInternational and non-governmental organizations should sponsor analyses\nof successes and failures in technology and support appropriately qualified\ninstitutions in the developing countries so that they may contribute to these\nanalyses.\nUNCED should call on the corporate sector to:\ncooperate in designing clearinghouse mechanisms and\nnetworking arrangements to disseminate information on\ntechnologies for sustainable development.\ncooperate with development agencies to create demonstration\nprojects for key sectors and countries to carry out innovative\napproaches to technology cooperation.\nNGOs should continue to gather and publicize information on\nenvironmentally-sound technologies and processes.\nMarket Incentives, Regulations and Standards\nThe Group stressed that national governments should develop regulatory\nframeworks to provide incentives for the use of environmentally sound\ntechnology in all sectors of their economies, including those that may still not\nbe fully incorporated into the market system. It recognized the critical\nimportance of motivating the private sector to develop and deploy more\nenvironmentally benevolent technologies. To this end, governments should\nprovide a stable climate for technology investments; reform their existing\nbudgetary and fiscal policies, particularly in the energy, agriculture and forest\nsectors; ensure that the environmental impacts of the exploitation of fossil\nfuels, water and other resources are reflected in their prices; and eliminate\nsubsidies encouraging pollution and the use of technologies that are\nenvironmentally unsustainable.\nFurther study is needed of those areas in which protection for intellectual\nproperty rights is an impediment to the transfer of environmentally sound\ntechnology. The Group underlined the need to ensure that those who had\ndeveloped ways of helping to preserve biodiversity should receive\nappropriate benefits and protection.\nUNCED should call on the corporate sector to:\n3\nsuggest specific market based incentives that would motivate\nthem to find and implement cost-effective solutions to\nenvironmental problems.\nidentify areas in which high environmental standards are a\npriority and launch a coordinated program to encourage their\ndiffusion through supplier and contractor arrangements.\nendorse the consistent application of environmental standards\nand guidelines in corporate practice at home and abroad.\nIndustrial country governments should provide appropriate incentives for\ncorporations to engage in the diffusion of environmentally sound\ntechnologies.\nResearch and Development\nUNCED should support initiatives to encourage research and development of\nenvironmentally sound technologies. In certain critical areas identified by\nUNCED, donor consortia, the private sector, and other non-governmental\nentities should collaborate in financing cooperative research and\ndevelopment in developing countries and regions. The Japanese New Earth\n21 initiative is an example of an initiative of this kind that envisages broad\ninternational cooperation.\nUNCED should recommend that methodologies be developed to apply full\nsocial cost pricing to technology research and development and technology\nassessment.\nGeneral\nUNCED should endorse a statement of principles on technology, which\nshould include such ideas as that technology diffusion is a two-way street\nwithin and among industrial and developing countries; that technology\ndevelopment and diffusion should both help avoid risks to the global\nenvironment and meet immediate basic needs for water, energy, food,\nshelter, transport, and income generation; that particular support should be\ngiven to managing population problems; and that countries with relevant\ntechnology have a special responsibility to assist other countries gain access,\non mutually acceptable terms, to technologies that support sustainable\ndevelopment.\nIn support of these objectives, UNCED should identify those sectors where\ntechnology cooperation would make a substantial and immediate difference,\nfor example, in energy, agriculture, waste reduction, water quality, chemicals,\nand population stabilization.\n4\nUNCED should identify key sectoral areas where analyses by international\norganizations, private research institutes, NGOs, governments, and private\nindustry could identify specific and surmountable barriers to the diffusion of\nenvironmentally sound technology. Once specific barriers were identified,\nthe need for concessional financing should be assessed, and appropriate\nmeasures implemented, for example by drawing on such funding\nmechanisms as the Global Environment Facility.\nThe industrial countries should be encouraged to apply far more widely in\ntheir own economies technologies for sustainable development, not least in\nthe transport sector, in energy efficiency, and in the use of renewable energy\nsources. In addition, industrial countries need to devote greater attention to\nthe problem of industrial conversion, including, but not limited to, the\nconversion of defense industries.\n5\nFINANCE\nDefining the Problem\nFinance will be one of the most critical issues in the UNCED process, on\nwhich the success of its other work will depend. Without adequate financial\narrangements, agreements on institutional, technology and legal issues\nwould be unlikely to succeed.\nThe effective participation of developing countries in creating national,\nregional and global conditions for sustainable development require\nsubstantial and adequate funding from a combination of public and private\nsources.\nExisting financial difficulties are related to macroeconomic factors, including\nnational economic policies, debt problems, terms of trade, commodity trends,\nand financial and investment flows. The Group recognized that the context\nfor financing for sustainable development during the 1990s would be\nconstrained, but that there were opportunities for making better use of\nexisting resources, and for mobilizing additional ones should the UNCED\nprocess lead to agreement on well-structured, imaginative and practical\nmeasures.\nIn this context, discussion in the Working Group focused on:-\n--\nfinancial needs;\n--\nnew and existing sources of finance;\n--\nmanagement of financial resources.\nFinancial Needs\nSubstantial and adequate financial resources are needed:\n--\nIn respect of achieving national sustainable development\n(otherwise than under specific international legal obligations) in\norder to:\n-\ndevelop and implement cost-effective national\npolicies and programs for achieving sustainable\ndevelopment;\n-\ndesign and implement investment programs in\npriority sectors to restore and ensure sustainable\ndevelopment;\n-\ndevelop indigenous human capacity, through\neducation and training;\n-\ndevelop national monitoring, fact-finding and\nforecasting techniques and abilities;\n-\nintegrate full social and environmental costs into\neconomic activities, by adapting national\naccounting procedures;\n-\nidentify, develop and market domestic,\nenvironmentally sound technologies, through\nimproved research and development;\n-\nassist in meeting the costs of environmentally\nsound technologies;\n-\nassist in meeting basic poverty needs.\n--\nIn respect of environmental degradation and catastrophe, joint\nefforts to mobilize resources are needed to meet the cost of\nmeasures to limit such environmental degradation and to\nrestore sustainable productive capacity.\n--\nIn respect of new international legal obligations, in order to:\n-\nensure that all developing countries are able to\nparticipate effectively in the negotiation of\ninternational legislative efforts relating to\nsustainable development, including through the\ndevelopment of indigenous human resources and\nthe provision of technical assistance;\n-\nmeet the incremental costs in developing countries\nof meeting international legal obligations that have\nglobal benefits;\n-\nhelp meet transitional costs, including lost\nopportunity costs, associated with meeting\ninternational legal obligations relating to\nsustainable development.\n2\nNew and Existing Sources of Finance\nThe Group concluded that a combination of additional public and private\nresources from various sources should be used and further developed, on the\nbasis of joint responsibility. In this regard, the Group recognized that\ninternational development is a phased process in which the early stages can\nrequire technical assistance and grant aid to strengthen human, institutional\nand infrastructure capabilities, and to carry out pre-feasibility studies which\nprepare the ground for non-concessional investments, the bulk of which\nhave come from private loans. In this sense overseas aid can be the catalyst\nfor sustainable development.\nMuch of the funding required for sustainable development could be found by\nthe adoption by governments, and multilateral and regional development\nbanks and the IMF, of appropriate national and international economic\npolicies, reducing military expenditures, redeployment of those market\ninterventions which encourage unsustainable development, the successful\nconclusion of the Uruguay Round, measures to cope with the burdens of debt,\nand the mobilization of private resources. In that regard, the Group reached\nthe following conclusions:\n1. Public Investment and Funding\nImproving on existing uses of ODA. Efforts should be undertaken to make\nbetter use of existing bilateral and multilateral development assistance,\nincluding better targeting of resources towards sustainable development.\nMeeting, and increasing, existing ODA obligations. Countries should pay\noutstanding contributions to international institutions relating to sustainable\ndevelopment, especially the Multilateral Fund established under the\nMontreal Protocol, the IBRD/UNDP/UNEP Global Environment Facility,\nUNFPA, and the voluntary Trust Funds established to ensure the full and\neffective participation of developing countries in the negotiations of Climate\nChange and Biodiversity Conventions and UNCED;\nConsideration should also be given to increasing assessed and voluntary\ncontributions to international institutions concerned with sustainable\ndevelopment and to funds under their control. In particular, substantial\nadditional finance should be made available to UNEP.\nIn the interests of improving burden-sharing among industrial countries,\nthose which have not already done so should make the effort to raise their\noverseas development assistance to internationally agreed targets.\n2. Debt Relief\n3\nPublic and private debt relief could become a significant source of finance, by\nproviding relief from onerous obligations and releasing local currency\nfunding. Further efforts should therefore be made to encourage \"debt-for-\nsustainable development\", by using, as appropriate, public and private sector\ndebt to finance sustainable development programs in developing countries.\n3. Fiscal Incentives, Market Mechanisms, and Charges.\nUse of appropriate economic instruments should be considered at local,\nnational, regional and global levels. In this regard UNCED should emphasize\nthe importance of integrating full social and environmental costs into\neconomic activities. Fiscal incentives and disincentives can be used to\npromote sustainable development.\nConsideration should be given to market mechanisms to increase the\nefficiency of pollution control, including the possible adoption of tradeable\nemission permits at local, national, regional and global levels.\nConsideration should also be given to appropriate and differential charges\nand user-fees at local, national, regional and global levels, for use of the global\ncommons, including emissions and discharges into the atmosphere and\noceans.\n4. Free Trade and Private Investment.\nRecognizing that free trade is crucial to improving national economic and\nfinancial capacity, access to markets should be improved by removing barriers\nto trade adopted by governments and regional integration organizations,\nespecially those disguised as means of environmental protection.\nTo encourage direct foreign investment in sustainable development,\nincentives to encourage transnational corporations and industrial enterprises\nto invest in, and transfer environmentally sustainable technology to,\ndeveloping countries should be explored.\nThe possibility of creating new private investment funds should also be\nexplored as a means of channelling savings into companies in the developing\nworld whose technologies and products can contribute to sustainable\ndevelopment.\nManagement of Financial Resources\nA large proportion of the investment required to achieve sustainable\ndevelopment must come from the private sector in both industrialized and\n4\ndeveloping countries, and recognized that more efficient management of\npublic financial resources was critical to their catalytic role.\n1.\nThe management of global financial resources requires the active\nparticipation of, and close collaboration between, institutions whose activities\ninfluence the funds available for sustainable development. These include\ninternational and regional development finance institutions, bilateral\ndevelopment assistance agencies, UNDP, UNEP, UNCTAD, GATT, specialist\nfunding arrangements (Montreal Protocol), developing country agencies and\ninstitutions, private foundations and corporations. A proliferation of\nmanagement and administrative mechanisms for funding should be\navoided.\n2. Public financial institutions, as well as such other agencies as the GATT,\nshould direct their activities to support sustainable development. In addition\nto public investment and higher priority being given to capacity building,\nprograms should be designed to increase private sector and small-scale, grass\nroots lending activities.\nIn this regard, and in the context of the current GATT negotiations, particular\nattention should be given to:-\nharmonizing technical standards relating to environmental\nprotection and sustainable development, while allowing higher\nstandards to be adopted where appropriate;\nrationalizing lending programs in particular sectors and regions,\nseeking also to fill any gaps which may exist;\ncommitting such institutions to follow a Code of Conduct on\nSustainable Development.\n3. Lessons learned from existing multilateral funds and facilities should be\nclosely analyzed, particularly those relating to:-\nthe Multilateral Fund established under the Montreal Protocol;\nthe IBRD/UNEP/UNDP Global Environment Facility (GEF);\nthe UNEP Voluntary Fund;\n4. The GEF, recently established as a pilot project for a period of three years\nunder the auspices of the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP, constitutes an\ninitiative which should be carefully monitored, evaluated, and improved\nupon. Considering that the management of resources for the Montreal\nProtocol are now incorporated within the GEF, UNCED could consider using\n5\nthe GEF to serve as an umbrella multilateral organization for channelling\nadditional resources linked to specific conventions, including the preparation\nof national strategies.\nIn particular issues such as governance, structure and scope, priorities in\nallocating resources should be set to respond to the specific requirements of\neach particular convention and the interests of the involved parties.\nGeneral\nThe Group recommended that detailed costings and estimates to assess\nfinancial needs to achieve local, national, regional and global sustainable\ndevelopment be undertaken on a sectoral and geographical basis so as to\nprovide a solid foundation for the design and financing of sustainable\ndevelopment programs.\nConsidering the critical importance of finance in the UNCED negotiations, it\nis important to move as rapidly as possible to enlist the active support and\nparticipation of key financial institutions. The UNCED Secretariat should\nconsider convening one or more informal Working Groups of\nrepresentatives of the financial institutions identified above to begin the\nprocess of mobilizing financial resources as the preparations for UNCED\nproceed.\n6\nLEGAL ISSUES\nIntroduction\nThe frontiers of international environmental law need to be moved forward.\nSustainable development requires the adoption of substantive legal\nobligations capable of effective and equitable implementation at national,\nregional and global levels.\nThe international law-making process needs to be enhanced. The\neffectiveness and usefulness of general international legal instruments on\nenvironment and development depends on the widest possible participation\nof all states in the negotiation of these instruments. Measures are needed to\nensure the full and effective participation of developing countries in the\nnegotiation of regional and global legal instruments, including building\nindigenous capacity and providing technical assistance.\nSustainable development could also be advanced by the elaboration of non-\nbinding instruments, and the development of rules of customary\ninternational law, as well as general principles of law.\nThe use of international institutions and their respective organs in the\ndevelopment and implementation of new global and regional legal\ninstruments should be consolidated. Due regard should be given to\nmaintaining and developing expertise and continuity in the secretariats and\nstaffs of such institutions.\nInternational legal instruments should be adopted and implemented at the\nmost appropriate level. In this regard, consideration should be given to\ndeveloping regional legal instruments and protocols which integrate\nenvironment and development, taking account of the particular\ncharacteristics and needs of different regions.\nIn international law-making processes, obligations of countries should be\ncommensurate with their contribution to the deterioration of the global\ncommons and to the degradation of the environment and depletion of\nnatural resources, particularly in relation to the provision of financial and\ntechnological assistance.\nIn international economic integration and free trade processes, specifically\nthose involving both industrial and developing countries, provisions should\nbe made to:\n1\nensure that those processes are conducive to sustainable\ndevelopment do not repeat economic development models,\npatterns and practices which have proved to be environmentally\ndamaging and unsustainable;\nensure that those processes do not perpetuate or take advantage\nof insufficient domestic environmental legislation, or its\nimplementation, or of poverty conditions in developing\ncountries.\nAfter a wide-ranging discussion on legal issues, the Working Group made the\nfollowing recommendations to assist UNCED in framing fundamental\nprinciples on general rights and obligations in the field of environment and\ndevelopment for possible inclusion in an Earth Charter, and in developing\ninternational environmental law in the light of the need to integrate\nenvironment and development.\nEarth Charter\nThe Working Group discussed the desirability of incorporating into an Earth\nCharter to be adopted by UNCED principles on general rights and obligations\nof states and regional integration organizations, taking due account of all the\nregional preparatory conferences.\nIn the Group's view, the following points, which are neither comprehensive\nnor presented in any order of priority, should be reflected in the Earth Charter\nto develop the Principles to be found in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration:\nrespect for intergenerational equity and responsibility;\n--\nthe responsibility of states, including, where appropriate,\ndifferentiated responsibility;\nthe precautionary principle;\nrecognition that international law on the environment should\nbe mostly preventive in nature;\nthe need for prior risk assessment and risk minimization;\nthe principle of subsidiarity, namely that decisions should be\ntaken and implemented at the lowest of the national, regional or\nglobal levels, depending on which is the most appropriate;\nrecognition that threats to the environment may constitute\nthreats to the maintenance of international peace and security;\n2\nfull integration of social and environmental costs into\naccounting and costing processes;\nliability for environmental damage;\nintroduction of sustainable development into international law-\nmaking and decision-making;\n--\nthe rights of individuals, groups and organizations to:\n-\nexpress their views freely;\n-\nobtain, publish and distribute information without\nlegal or administrative impediment;\n-\nparticipate fully in legislative, administrative and\njudicial processes, including environmental impact\nassessment procedures;\nthe obligation of states, international institutions and regional\nintegration organizations to:\n-\nprovide free, open and effective information;\n-\nexchange information;\nprotection of the livelihood and culture of indigenous peoples\nfrom activities which might adversely affect their natural\nenvironment;\nthe principle that all persons should have access to, and\nsustainable use of, the resources of the global commons;\nrecognition of the contribution to sustainable development from\nenhancement of the role of women in the development of\ninternational environmental law.\nDevelopment of International Environmental Law.\nThe Working Group discussed possible areas for the development of\ninternational environmental law, in the light of the need to integrate\nenvironment and development and taking into account the special needs and\nconcerns of developing countries.\nThe Working Group believed that the International Law Commission could\nmake an important contribution to the further development of\ninternational environmental law.\n3\nThe Working Group agreed that, in addition to adopting an Earth Charter\ndeclaring basic rights and obligations of States, as well as regional integration\norganizations, and of non-governmental entities in the field of environment\nand development, the substantive rules of international law of environment\nand development should be developed by:\n--\nestablishing appropriate rules relating to trade and\nenvironment, particularly by\n-\nensuring that international trading arrangements,\nincluding the GATT, promote sustainable\ndevelopment;\n-\nensuring that national standards or rules of\nenvironmental protection are not used for\nprotectionist purposes;\n-\nconvening the GATT Environment Committee to\nassist in defining how trade measures can properly\nbe used for environmental purposes;\nrationalizing, and improving on, existing instruments\nestablishing ecological reserves;\nidentifying any gaps in legal regimes; developing where\nnecessary new regional and global instruments where gaps exist\nin existing instruments; closing gaps; and in the light of the\nprinciples and points identified as requiring reflection in the\nEarth Charter, including for international environmental law:\n-\nforests;\n-\noceans, regional seas and coastal zone management;\n-\nsoil erosion and desertification;\n-\natmospheric pollution;\n-\nconservation of marine resources, including\ndriftnet fishing;\n-\nenvironmental protection clauses in law of warfare;\n-\nmanagement of freshwater resources, including\ngroundwater;\n-\nthe cryosphere;\n-\nvulnerable ecosystems.\nharmonizing standards of, as well as approaches to, existing\nregional and global legal instruments, while allowing the\nadoption of higher standards where appropriate, and ensuring\nthe compatibility of new instruments;\n4\nwhere appropriate, harmonizing national regulatory standards\non a regional basis, and within or between states;\nfurther developing rules of intergenerational equity and\nresponsibility, as well as the rules of liability for environmental\ndamage;\nThe Working Group agreed that the implementation of regional and global\ninternational law of environment and development should be strengthened\nby:\nencouraging the appropriate and necessary conditions for greater\naccession to, and ratification of, international legal instruments,\nincluding the identification and removal of impediments, and\nthe development of appropriate techniques, such as the use of\ngrace periods for developing countries;\ndeveloping and enhancing monitoring and reporting techniques\nand requirements, particularly through building indigenous\ncapacity in developing countries;\nimproving flows of information to and between States, regional\nintegration organizations and non-governmental entities by\ndeveloping regional and global legal instruments to ensure\n-\nthe right of effective access of all persons to\nenvironmental information;\n-\nappropriate participation in environmental impact\nassessments of activities and policies which might\nhave an international impact;\nand, to that end, identifying an appropriate international\ninstitution, such as UNEP or UNDP, which could develop and\nmanage a computerized data-base system;\nensuring the incorporation of international legal obligations\ninto national legal systems;\ndeveloping improved techniques for the prevention of conflicts,\nincluding fact-finding mechanisms;\nfurther developing mechanisms and techniques for reviewing\nthe effectiveness and implementation of international legal\ninstruments;\n5\nminimizing the legal, economic and social costs of achieving\nenvironmental goals;\nimproving the compulsory settlement of disputes relating to\nenvironment and development, by inter alia,\n-\nenhancing the role of the International Court of\nJustice, taking advantage of the facilities provided\nfor by its Statute and Rules of Procedure;\n-\nconsidering the establishment of an international\ncenter for the settlement of environment disputes\n(ICSED), to arbitrate on disputes between states, or\nbetween states and non-governmental entities;\n-\nconsidering the establishment of international\nprocedures to enable individuals and associations\nof individuals to seek redress against governments\nwhich breach their obligations under international\nenvironmental law;\n-\ndeveloping the role of national and regional courts\nand tribunals in enforcing national, regional and\ninternational rights and obligations.\nThe Role of Non-Governmental Entities.\nThe role of non-governmental entities should be developed by, inter alia:\nensuring their participation, as appropriate, in the international\ndecision-making process;\nencouraging their role in implementing international\nobligations and standards at the national, regional and global\nlevel, as appropriate;\nenhancing national and local legal and other remedies available\nto non-governmental entities for the implementation of\nstandards and obligations, without discrimination on the\ngrounds of nationality, and on the basis of the right of equal\naccess in the context of transboundary claims.\n6\nANNEX 1\nAspen Institute Working Group on\nInternational Environment and Development\nPolicy\nAspen, Colorado\nJuly 18-25, 1991\nChairman: Sir Crispin Tickell\nList of Participants\nChester Cooper\nResources for the Future\nAngela Cropper\nConsultant, Development Policy and Planning,\nTrinidad and Tobago\nChristine Dawson\nPolicy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State\nLars-Gøran Engfeldt\nDeputy Permanent Representative of Sweden to the\nUnited Nations\nFabio Feldmann\nFederal Deputy, Camara dos Deputados, Brazil\nLuigi Ferrari Bravo\nChief, Servizio del Contenzioso Diplomatico,\nMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Rome\nRobert Fri\nPresident, Resources for the Future\nShinji Fukukawa\nExecutive Vice President, Kobe Steel, Ltd.\nBurhanudeen Gafoor\nPermanent Mission of Singapore to the United\nNations\nRichard Gardner\nProfessor of Law, Columbia University\nGenady Golubev\nProfessor, Faculty of Geography, Moscow State\nUniversity\nScott Hajost\nEnvironmental Defense Fund\nDavid Hopper\nSenior Vice President, Haldor Topsoe, Inc.\nAshok Khosla\nPresident, Development Alternatives, India\nIsmat Kittani\nConsultant to the Secretary-General, UNCED\nWarren Lindner\nExecutive Director, Center for Our Common\nFuture, Geneva\nJames MacNeill\nSenior Fellow, Institute for Research on Public\nPolicy, Ottawa\nChristopher Makins\nVice President, Policy Programs, Aspen Institute\nJohn Martin\nU.K. Permanent Mission to the United Nations\nWilliam Nitze\nPresident, Alliance to Save Energy\nR. K. Pachauri\nDirector, Tata Energy Research Institute, India\nJane Pratt\nUNCED Coordinator, The World Bank\nAtiq Rahman\nDirector, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies\nFrancisco Sagasti\nSenior Advisor, EXTDR, The World Bank\nMahamed Sahnoun\nDiplomatic Advisor to the President of Algeria\nPavol Sepelak\nCzechoslovak Permanent Mission to the United\nNations, New York\nAlberto Szekely\nMexico\nAugustus Tanoh\nExecutive Director, Finance and Administration,\nGhana National Petroleum Corporation\nPeter Thacher\nWorld Resources Institute\nCrispin Tickell\nWarden, Green College, Oxford\nEdith Brown Weiss\nOffice of the General Counsel, Environmental\nProtection Agency\nHugh Wynne-Edwards\nChief Executive Officer, Terracy Inc.\nTaizo Yakushiji\nProfessor, Keio University\nRuqiu Ye\nProfessor of Environmental Chemistry, National\nEnvironmental Protection Agency, China\nRapporteurs\nLee Kimball\nSenior Associate for Institutions, World Resources\nInstitute\nPhilippe Sands\nDirector, Centre for International Environmental\nLaw\nProgram Assistant\nStephanie Nelson\nThe Aspen Institute\nTHE\nPRESIDENT\nOFFICE OFTHE OF OFFICE OF AND BUDGET OF THE UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nNATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION\nDATE: 8-6-91\nPAGES FOLLOWING 70\nTO:\nDistribution\nFROM:\nNORMAN HARTNESS\n(202) 395 - 6840\nFAX (202) 395 - 6899\nCOMMENTS: A U.S. response on UNCED\natmospheric issues to be\nadded to those transmitted 8-5\nEXECU TIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\n20503\nAugust 5, 1991\nTO:\nNorman Distribution Hartness List\nFROM:\nSUBJ:\nNote re U. S. UNCED paper for August 12\nPreparatory\nCommittee meeting August 12 - Sept. 4 in\nGeneva -\nProtection of the Atmosphere.\nAttached is a document, A/CONF.151/PC/42/Add.1, prepared by U. N.\nstaff to serve as the basis for discussions at the August 12th\nmeeting seeking agreement on options which relate to atmospheric\nissues. \"Agenda 21\" is seen as a set of options which will be\nagreed upon for implementation during the next decade and the\n21st century.\nAlso attached are papers prepared by U. S. agency staff as a\nresponse to this U. N. Options for Agenda 21 paper:\nTopic Update - Climate Change (3 pages)\nStatement by the U.S. Delegation on Climate Change (3 p.)\nSectoral Issues Related to Climate Change (6 p.)\nSupplemental Points: Sectoral Issues (4 p.)\nTopic Update: Transboundary Air Pollution (4 p.)\nSupplemental Points: Ozone (2 p.)\nPlease review the U. S. draft papers, identify any problems, and\nreturn your comments to us not later than COB Wednesday, August\n7th. [ Telephone: 395 - 6840\nFAX: 395 - 6899]\nDistribution List:\nRichard Porter, WHO\nJim Fitzhenry, WHO\nTheresa Gorman, OPD\nKen Yale, OSTP\nFred Bernthal, NSF\nChris Dawson, State Dept.\nGary Evans, USDA\nBarry Hartmann, DOJ\nAlan Hecht, EPA\nJeff Holmstead, WHO\nEd Cassidy, DOI\nJ.R. Spradley, DOC/NOAA\nJohn Cohrssen, OVP\nWilliam C. Bartley, USTR\nLinda Stuntz, DOE\nRay Squitieri, CEA\nBob Watson, NASA\nAUGH05-1991\n15:59\nOES\nSCT\n93956899\nOPTIONS FOR AGENDA 21 RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE\nSTATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES\nPreparatory Committee for the\nUN Conference on Environment and Development\nMr. Chairman, the United States once again expresses its\nrespect for the considerable effort that went into producing\ndocument A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1 on climate-related \"Options for\nAgenda 21\". Upon reading, it is clear that this paper follows\nfrom document A/CONF.151/PC/60 on \"Sectoral Issues\" related to\nclimate change. Both documents reveal a commendable desire by\nthe Secretariat to help this Preparatory Committee set the\nstage for a successful and productive Conference.\nAs one document flows from the other, however, it is not\nsurprising that both would raise similar concerns. In both\ncases, the United States is deeply concerned that all the\nnecessary linkages have not been fully examined and that we are\nencroaching on the jurisdiction of the Intergovernmental\nNegotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate\nChange.\nDecision 2/8 of the Prepcom requested the Secretary General\nto \"investigate further the interconnections between the issue\nof climate and environmental and developmental issues at\nnational, regional and global levels, covering agriculture,\nAUG-05-1991 15:59 DES/SCT\n93956899\n- 2 -\nbiodiversity, energy, forestry, industry, oceans, transport and\ncross-sectoral issues, and to report to the Preparatory\nCommittee at its third session, in order to enable it to\nconsider at that session the preparation of related proposals\nfor discussion\n:\nThus, we had expected this document to\nhelp us consider proposals related to these linkages between\nvarious environmental and economic issues, and among sectors.\nThis is a critical role for UNCED to play: to bring together\nthe separate analyses ongoing in different fora and to help\nintegrate environmental and developmental needs.\nLike the paper on Sectoral Issues, however, this document\nfocuses almost exclusively on making specific policy\nrecommendations to address one environmental issue climate\nchange - through one sector energy. This lamentably does not\nsufficiently assist us in our consideration of the many\ninterrelated sectors and issues, such as linkages between\nproposed response strategies in the industrialized countries\nand economic growth in the developing countries. How then are\nwe to develop proposals that adequately consider such linkages?\nIdeally, the background document on Sectoral Issues would\nhave provided information on or analysis of the linkages and\nthis document would have based its discussion on that\ninformation and analysis. But because the Sectoral paper\nconcentrated instead on making policy recommendations primarily\nAUG-25-1991 16:00 FROM DES SCT\n- 3 -\nin one sector and did not investigate the cross-issue or\ncross-sectoral questions, we do not have before us the analysis\nand information supporting these options for Agenda 21.\nThis lack of analysis of the linkages between sectors and\nissues also results in marked differences in the approaches\nadvocated in the different papers on the various sectors. For\ninstance, in the discussion of climate change in the background\ndocument on forests, A/CONF.151/PC/64, paragraph 172 states\nthat the use of forests as sinks might be expanded \"where it is\necologically viable, socially acceptable, and economically\nfeasible in the broadest sense.\" These are useful criteria\nthat should be applied in determining responses to a variety of\nother environmental issues, including climate change. Yet\nnowhere in the Agenda 21 options paper on climate change do we\nfind an acknowledgement that other environmental, social,\npolitical CI economic factors should be considered in choosing\nresponse strategies.\nAlso like the background sectoral document, this option\npaper focuses almost exclusively on policy recommendations to\naddress climate change even though paragraph 5 explicitly notes\nthat the INC will be negotiating the very same issues this\npaper raises. In delineating such recommendations, this\ndocument impinges on the responsibilities of the INC as the\nsingle negotiating process for climate change. As we stated\nAUG-25-1991 16:00 FROM DES/SCT\n93956899\n- 4 -\nearlier, this is contrary to UNGA resolution 45/212 and\ndecision 2/8 of this Preparatory Committee. In this respect,\nparagraph 8 rightly assigns the responsibility for determining\ncommitments to the INC. Paragraph 9 similarly accedes\nresponsibility to the parties to the Montreal Protocol for\nnegotiating commitments to protect the ozone.\nIn this paper also there is no consideration of the other\nsources and sinks of greenhouse gases. Even if it were our\nrole in the Preparatory Committee, this failure to be\ncomprehensive makes this paper of limited value in suggesting\nappropriate responses to climate change. The essential need to\ntake a comprehensive approach to climate change was reflected\nin the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel\non Climate Change, the Ministerial Declaration of the Second\nWorld Climate Conference, and the carefully crafted terms of\nreference for the two INC Working Groups. Both this paper and\nthe Sectoral paper, on the other hand, adopt a narrow approach\nthat runs the risk of being unnecessarily costly and\nenvironmental counterproductive.\nBecause of this paper focusses narrowly on policy\nrecommendations related to energy and climate change, the\nUnited States strongly believes that it would be inappropriate\nto develop Agenda 21 items based on this paper or the Sectoral\nIssues paper. Rather than engage in a duplicative and\nAUG-05-1991 16:01 FROM DES/SIT\n- 5 -\ninappropriate discussion, we strongly suggest that development\nof these Agenda 21 items be deferred to the next session of the\nPreparatory Committee. We will, we hope, have the benefit of\nfurther elucidation of the important linkages among\nenvironmental and development issues by then. We should also\nhave a better perspective on the precise results of the INC\nnegotiations will be more apparent then.\nWe look forward to that discussion.\n08/06/91\n06:57\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n002/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 1\nU.S. RESPONSE\nDOCUMENT NO: A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nTITLE:\nProtection of the Atmosphere: Options for Agenda-21\nReport of the Secretary-General of the Conference\nINTRODUCTION\n1. This paper was prepared by the Secretariat in response to the\ndecision of the Preparatory Committee at its second session, in\nwhich the Secretary General was requested to investigate\nfurther the interconnections between the issues of climate and\nenvironmental and developmental and cross-sectoral issues, and to\nreport to the Preparatory Committee at its third session, in order\nto enable it to consider at that session the preparation of related\nproposals for discussion at the United Nations Conference on\nEnvironment and Development\". 1/\n2. As explained in the background paper 2/, the main atmosphere\nissues are linked to each other, to other issues, and to sectors.\nBackground papers on Transboundary Air Pollution 3/ and on the\nProtection of the Ozone Layer 4/ have now been prepared. As the\nkey sources of climate change, and other atmosphere-related\nproblems are the sectors using and converting fossil fuels, the\nmajor response options lie in this area. This paper suggests\npossible response options for Agenda-21, concentrating on the\nenergy sector. Options for areas, such as Oceans, Forests,\nAgriculture and Water are available in other papers prepared for\nthe Preparatory Committee.\nU.S. Position:\nDecision 2/8 specifically charged the Secretary General with\nexploring the linkages between climate change and other\nenvironmental issues and between sectors. By focussing\ninstead on making policy recommendations in primarily one\nsector - energy - to address one issue - climate change - this\ndocument raises three major concerns: (1) it does not ensure\nthat these linkages are fully considered, (2) it intrudes on\nthe role of the INC as the single negotiating process on\nclimate change, and (3) it fails to take a comprehensive\napproach to climate change.\nMoreover, the background document on Sectoral Issues did not\nprovide sufficient information or analysis even of the energy\n08/06/91\n06:58\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n003/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 2\nsector, instead concentrating on policy recommendations which\nare repeated and expanded in this document. Thus the\nrationale for the options presented in this document is not\nclear.\nRather than discuss options based on this document and the\nsectoral paper, therefore, the Preparatory Committee should\nrequest further elucidation of the linkages between climate\nchange, development, and other environmental issues.\nSuggested Revisions:\nDelete the last three sentences of paragraph 2 beginning with\n\"As the key sources of climate change\nReplace them with \"Background papers have been prepared for\nthe other environmental issues to be addressed at the UNCED.\nFurther analysis of the linkages between these issues is\nnecessary for later consideration by the Preparatory\nCommittee.\n3. Energy is necessary for development. Its production and use,\nhowever, are the sources of the most serious local, regional and\nglobal environmental problems, and consequently are constraints to\nsustainable development. The overall environment-development\nobjective requires that sufficient energy be available in forms\nthat are environmentally sound. Energy efficiency measures, the\npromotion of environmentally sound energy systems, and programmes\nto reduce wasteful energy consumption patterns are essential in the\nachievement of these objectives.\nU.S. Position:\nIt is not clear that energy is the source of the most serious\nenvironmental problems. Ozone depletion, for example, is not\nprincipally due to energy sector activities. In any case,\ncomparing the severity of environmental problems does not seem\nlike a very useful exercise, particularly in a paper intended\nto address linkages between issues and sectors. Nor is it\nclear that energy production and use is necessarily a\nconstraint on sustainable development, particularly as this\nparagraph acknowledges that it is a necessary condition for\ndevelopment.\nSuggested Revisions:\nDelete the second sentence of paragraph 3.\nIn the last sentence change the unnecessarily normative phrase\n\"programmes to reduce wasteful energy consumption\" to \"energy\nconservation programmes\".\n08/06/91\n06:58\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5\n004/019\nA/CON7.151/FC/42/ADD.1\nFace 3\n4. It is recognized that some of these goais cannot be\naccomplished overnight, especially in the developing countries.\nCurrent energy consumption levels are so low in some of them that\nincreased energy use\nwill be essential, even to attain basic standards of economic\nwelfare.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States recognizes that energy production and\nconsumption is a necessary condition for economic growth.\nGiven that low-polluting technology can be developed and\nemployed, however, increased energy services does not\nnecessitate linearly increasing pollution.\n5. The paper starts with overall Atmosphere-wide Goals, followed\nby five Proposed Programme Areas. A number of actions are listed\nunder each programme area. More details concerning these actions\nwill be developed by the fourth session of the Preparatory\nCommittee. Many of the goals and objectives referred to in this\npaper will either be negotiated by or coordinated with the\nIntergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention\non Climate Change. Close cooperation of the UNCED preparatory\nprocess with the INC process, thus continues to be important.\nU.S. Position:\nInsofar as the INC is the single authorized negotiating\nprocess, all goals and objectives for addressing climate\nchange must be developed by the INC alone.\nSuggested Revisions:\no Delete \"\neither\n\" and \"\nor coordinated with\n\" in\nthe fourth sentence.\no Change the last sentence to read \"Thus it continues to be\nimportant that the UNCED preparatory process be kept informed\nof progress in the INC and that the UNCED Preparatory\nCommittee endeavour to ensure that the INC is kept aware of\nthe linkages between climate change and other environmental\nand developmental issues.\n6. There needs to be sufficient funds available, especially for\nthe developing countries, to enable the transition to a more\nsustainable energy future, especially through capacity building,\ntechnology development and transfer. New ways of raising large\namounts of funds need to be found, and existing financial\ninstitutions need strengthening. Some of these issues are dealt\nwith in this paper, under each of the proposed programme areas.\nOthers are dealt with in the cross-sectoral papers prepared for the\n08/06/91 06:59\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n005/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 4\nPreparatory Committee on financial resources and technology.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States believes that existing financial resources\ncan be employed to promote development that is more\nenvironmentally sound.\nMoreover, financial resources should be tied to the level of\nincremental costs incurred. More analysis is necessary to\nestablish what those costs might be in light of the specific\nobligations imposed and taking into consideration the unique\ncharacteristics of each country. In fact, the sectoral paper\nasserted that a number of measures would involve no or very\nlittle costs.\nThe United States believes that the Global Environmental\nFacility would be the appropriate mechanism for providing\nfinancial assistance to cover any incremental costs incurred\nby developing countries in addressing global environmental\nissues.\nAlso, mechanisms other than central funds, such as debt-for\nnature swaps, might be employed where appropriate.\nSuggested Revisions:\nDelete the phrase \"New ways of raising large amounts of money\nneed to be found and If so that the second sentence now\nreads \"Existing financial institutions need strengthening.' \"\nATMOSPHERE-WIDE GOALS\n7. Some of the atmosphere-wide goals are now under negotiation in\nother fora. Their full quantification needs to wait for these\nprocesses to conclude. However, actions which could contribute to\nthose goals can be initiated even now. Other, longer term goals\nwill need to be developed by the Preparatory Committee.\nU.S. Position:\nThe INC, the parties to the Montreal Protocol and the parties\nto LRTAP have the responsiblity for developing both short-term\nand long-term goals and actions to address, respectively,\nclimate change, ozone depletion and the only established case\nof multilateral transboundary air pollution. The role of\nUNCED should be to ensure that the linkages among\nenvironmental issues, and between these issues and development\nissues, are fully elaborated. UNCED should ensure that these\nother fora are informed of these linkages.\nIt is not possible to elaborate actions to support goals that\nare being elaborated elsewhere without prejudicing the\n08/06/91\n07:00\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5\n006/019\nA/CONE\nnegotiation of those goals. Thus, UNCED should not endorse\nspecific actions to address climate change; these must await\nthe conclusion of the INC negotiations. Similarly, because\nozone depletion and transboundary air pollution are already\nbeing addressed in other fora, UNCED should not call for new\nactions that go beyond the goals already elaborated in those\nfora.\nIt is also not possible for UNCED to elaborate longer term\ngoals on any of these specific issue without pre-empting or,\nat least, duplicating the work underway under the INC,\nMontreal Protocol or LRTAP.\nThus, the United States believes that the commitments and\nactions described in paragraphs 8-12, as they deal with\nspecific issues, should be elaborated in the appropriate fora,\nnot UNCED. As described below, the Preparatory Committee\ncould encourage participation in these fora or the\nestablishment of similar fora, where appropriate.\nSuggested Revisions:\nReplace paragraph 7 with: \"Goals related to climate change are\nnow under negotiation in the Intergovernmental Negotiating\nCommittee. Goals related to the protection of the ozone layer\nhave been established and are subject to review under the\nMontreal Protocol. While other types of transboundary air\npollution have not been addressed in a global legal\ninstrument, several bilateral, as well as the UNECE Convention\non Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, have addressed\nthese issues. The Preparatory Committee might elaborate how\nthese discussions in these fora relate to other environment\nand development issues, to insure that the linkages among\nthese atmospheric issues, other environmental issues and\ndevelopment issues are adequately considered.\"\nGHG/Ozone Depleting Substances Emissions Limitations\n8. Commitments for greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, as\nnegotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.\n9. Commitments for ozone-depleting substances, as negotiated and\nagreed under the Montreal Protocol.\nReducing Air Pollution\n10. Commitments for emissions of SOX, NOx, and VOCs, as\nexemplified by the protocols to the Convention on Long Range\nTransboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and further efforts for\nreducing emissions of toxic heavy metals and persistent organic\n08/06/91 07:00\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES EGC\n5\n007/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 6\ncompounds.\n11. Development of authoritative guidelines for ambient air\nquality, taking into account human health risks and, as\nappropriate, other environmental risks of major air pollutants.\n12. Efforts by developing countries to reduce human exposure to\nexcessive air pollution (including indoor) from domestic biomass\nand fossil fuel burning, especially as it affects women and\nchildren.\nPROPOSED PROGRAMME AREAS:\n13. The following major energy-related programme areas are\nproposed as options for consideration by the Preparatory Committee;\nPROMOTING THE ENERGY TRANSITION\nINCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY\nPROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ENERGY SYSTEMS\nPROMOTING SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERNS AND\nLIFE STYLES\nADDRESSING THE UNCERTAINTIES: THE ATMOSPHERE\n14. Each of these will help in the achievement of one or more of\nthe Atmosphere-wide Goals, as well as for other issues. Within\neach programme area, a number of actions will need to be\nundertaken. A number of these need to be undertaken for more than\none programme area.\nU.S. Position:\nIt is not clear that these programs will necessarily achieve,\nmuch less are the best way to achieve, the goals elaborated in\nparagraphs 7-12. For instance, how much does the energy\nsector have to do with ozone depletion? Moreover, all other\nfactors contributing to climate change about half of current\nhuman contributions - are ignored.\nOn the contrary, these programs have been suggested pursuant\nto a decision specifically on climate change, and are intended\nto address that one issue. Thus, such programs should be\nelaborated by the INC, not the UNCED, in a comprehensive\nfashion. Rather than endorse these narrow programs, the\nPreparatory Committee should instead concentrate on further\nelaboration of the linkages between climate change and other\nenvironmental, and developmental, issues.\nSuggested Revisions:\no Delete paragraphs 13-41 pending further elaboration of\n08/06/91 07:01\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n008/019\nA/CONF 151/P0/42/ADD.1\nshee\nlinkages, and development of options addressing those\nlinkages, not specific environmental issues or sectors.\nA. PROMOTING THE ENERGY TRANSITION\nBasis for Action\n15. A number of actions will be required to support the overall\ntransition to a more sustainable energy future, independent of the\nfuel source, or the energy consumption sector concerned.\nObjectives and Goals\n16. Countries and international organizations could take steps to\nensure that data and information required for the energy transition\nwill be developed, and made available.\n17. Countries and international organizations could ensure the\navailability of capacity, especially in developing countries to\nundertake the necessary technical, research, development and\nimplementation measures.\nSuggested Revision:\no In paragraph 17, change \" ensure the availability of\ncapacity\n\" to \"endeavor to facilitate the development of\ncapacity If\nActivities\n18. National Energy-Environment Accounts are key prerequisites for\nunderstanding the energy system, and preparing policy interventions\nactivities. for increased energy efficiency, and other energy sector\na.\nCountry-level energy-environment accounts, coordinated at\nthe regional level, as appropriate, could be developed,\nand made widely available [by 1995-1997].\nb. Countries could make available by the same dates,\ndetailed studies of the costs of different energy paths,\nparticularly in respect of greenhouse gas reduction\nstrategies.\nU.S. Position:\nThe obligations for exchanging information related to climate\nchange is subject to negotiation under the INC. A process for\nsharing information and analysis related to climate change has\nbeen established under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate\n08/06/91 07:01\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5\n009/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 8\nChange (IPCC). Involvement of the Preparatory Committee in\nthis exchange would pre-empt the work of the INC, or at least\nduplicate the work of the IPCC.\nSuggested Revision:\nDelete \"\nparticularly in respect of greenhouse gas\nreduction strategies.\"\nC. The relevant UN bodies could coordinate the development\nof methodologies for country-level integrated\nenergy-environment accounting, promoting harmonized data\npresentation and analysis.\n19. Least-cost Energy Planning can be useful for making\ncost-effective choices.\na. Least-cost energy planning could be adopted by countries,\nand promoted in the private sectors using real cost\nprices, with a longer term aim of using full economic and\nenvironmental costs.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States supports the adoption of least-cost energy\nplanning and has undertaken a number of steps to promote it in\nthe United States.\n20. Pricing and other Economic Mechanisms will be essential\nelements:\na. Governments and UN and other international organizations\ncould, in collaboration with the private sector, promote\npolicy research on, and implementation of, measures to\nachieve energy-related goals by utilizing market,\ncompetitive and pricing mechanisms (e.g taxes, tradeable\nentitlements, incentives and disincentives, etc.), and\ncould exchange information on the relative effectiveness\nof various policies and techniques.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States supports the use of market mechanisms to\nachieve appropriate environmental goals.\n21. Education and Information concerning the role of, potentials\nfor, and different possibilities of energy efficiency are crucial,\nboth at national and international levels.\nBill\n0191\nSTATE CESVEGO\nPage\na. Education and awareness raising programmes concerning\nenergy efficiency, environmentally sound energy systems,\ncould be introduced or intensified in all countries.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States believes that education and public awareness\nprogram are an important component of most environmental\nprograms.\nb. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with governments\nand NGOs, could intensify efforts at collecting,\nanalyzing information. and disseminating to key target groups relevant\n22. Capacity building will be crucial to allow developing\ncountries to develop and implement environmentally sound energy\ntechnologies and system, at local regional and national levels.\na. The relevant UN bodies and international donors, in\ncooperation with governments and NGOs, could provide\nsubstantially increased technical and financial\nassistance to developing countries to building up their\ntechnical managerial, planning and administrative\ncapacities to enable them to develop, and implement\nenvironmentally sound energy systems.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States believes that capacity building is broader\nthan climate change and should be incorporated into countries'\noverall development strategies.\nMoreover, existing financial resources can be employed to\npromote development that is more environmentally sound.\nMoreover, financial resources should be tied to the level of\nincremental costs incurred. More analysis is necessary to\nestablish what those costs might be in light of the specific\nobligations imposed and taking into consideration the unique\ncharacteristics of each country.\nSuggested Revisions:\nDelete H\nsubstantially increased\nIf\n23. Changes to Existing and New Mechanisms of technical and\nfinancial assistance are needed at national, regional and global\nlevels. Within the UN, as there is no lead agency responsible for\nenergy, there are two options: strengthening of the existing,\ndiverse capacities, and creating new coordinating or implementing\n08/06/91\n07:02\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5.\n011/019\nA/CONN\n251/PC/42/ADD.0\ninstitutions.\na. The UN could mandate an independent, high-level energy\nefficiency commission, to undertake advocacy role at the\ninternational level on energy efficiency and\nenvironmentally sound energy systems.\nb. UN System activities presently dealing with energy need\nto be strengthened, to ensure that efforts are\nconcentrated on increased environmentally sound energy\nsystem utilization.\nC.\nThe UN could set up a new institution to deal with\nenergy. A number of options are possible, including:\n(1) UN Energy Co-ordination Unit, with small\nsecretariat, improving coordination of\nenergy-related activities.\n(2) Central UN Energy Programme, with modest\nfunding, with catalytic, coordinating role;\n(3) Central UN Energy Agency, with large funding,\nundertaking the whole spectrum of\nenergy-related activities;\nd.\nRelevant UN bodies could set up \"collaborating centers\"\nwith existing or new governmental or non-governmental\ninstitutions to assist countries and UN agencies to\nimplement environmentally sound energy activities.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States believes that the Global Environmental\nFacility should be the umbrella mechanism for supporting\nenvironmental projects having global environmental benefits.\nThe United States could not support the creation of such UN\ninstitutions, as described in subparagraphs a-c, without a\nmuch better understanding of the terms of reference for the\ngroup, a clear determination of a need that could not be\nfulfilled by existing institutions either within or outside\nthe U.N. system, a demonstration of suitable expertise to\nfulfill its functions, and an understanding that any such\ninstitutions would be funded from existing U.N. resources.\nSuggested Revisions:\nDelete the term\n\"\nand\nfinancial\n\" in the first\nsentence.\nReplace the second sentence with \"Further consideration should\nbe given to methods for according energy a higher priority\n08/06/91 07:03\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5.\n012/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 11\nwithin institutions.\" the UN, making maximum possible use of existing\no Delete subparagraphs a-c.\ne. Countries could ensure that public financial institutions, at\nthe national and international level, review their programmes\nto determine the extent to which the are contributing to or\npromoting investments that encourage the use of\nenvironmentally sound energy systems.\nU.S. Position:\nThe United States agrees that methods for using existing\ninstitutions and resources to better serve both environmental\nand development objectives should be fully explored.\nB. INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY\nU.S. Position:\nIn general this section relies too heavily on setting\nstandards, creating adminstrative barriers to further\nefficiency improvements, rather than creating incentives for\nthe continual development and dissemination of new\ntechnologies. No or little consideration is given to other\nfactors, such as economic cost, in proposing these measures.\nIn some cases, such as in subparagraph 27e, policies are\nrecommended without an indication of how these might be\nimplemented.\nBasis for Action\n24. While energy efficiency is now widely regarded as a key area\nfor action in all countries, and because it has the technical\npotential for producing quickly, multiple and permanent\nenvironmental and economic benefits, it has to be pursued much more\nvigorously than hitherto.\nObjectives and Goals\n25. Each country could increase its institutional capacities and\npolicy focus to support the management of energy demand and, where\nappropriate, the reduction of fossil fuel use or its growth per\nunit of output in the major energy-using sectors.\nActivities\n26. Setting targets and developing legislation, regulations and\nother institutional arrangements will be crucial for promoting\n08/06/91\n07:04\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5.\n013/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.J\nPage 12\nenergy efficiency, and environmentally sound energy systems, both\nat the national and international levels.\na. Countries could set energy efficiency standards on\nspecific technologies and for economic sectors, as\nappropriate. These could be coordinated at regional\nlevels, where relevant.\n27. The transport sector raises in particularly acute form the\nconflicts between energy, environment and development and the wide\nranging responses that might be applied to them. Given the\nimportance of the automobile as an energy (fossil) user, and as a\nmajor polluter, automobile efficiencies and emissions must be the\nfocus.\na. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with regional\norganizations could invite, through an international\nconference, major motor vehicle [aircraft and ship]\nmanufacturers to agree on progressively increasing fuel\nperformance and emission standards, to be harmonized\nbetween different transportation sectors where\nappropriate.\nb. Countries could set up their own national fuel\nperformance and emission standards, to be coordinated\nregionally or globally, as appropriate, and to be\ncompatible with internationally accepted criteria and\nnorms.\nC. Countries could introduce, or strengthen pricing, and\nother economic mechanisms, which discourage large\nfuel-consuming and polluting vehicles and encourage\nalternative fuels.\nd. Countries could review the means at their disposal to\npromote more efficient and less polluting mass transit,\nand prepare appropriate plans to implement these.\ne. Countries could promote life styles and economic\nactivities which require less travel, through improved\ntelecommunications, and appropriate spatial\nredistribution of living/working space.\nC. PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ENERGY SYSTEMS\nBasis for Action\n28. Most of the energy produced and used today is done in\nunsustainable ways. We must move toward a transition to\nEnvironmentally Sound Energy Systems (ESES). On the one hand, we\n08/06/91 07:04\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n014/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 13\nmust use the conventional energy sources, such as fossil fuels,\nnuclear energy, traditional biomass, etc., in ways which respect\nthe environment. There is a considerable scope for improvement in\nall the sectors. More importantly, we must pursue vigorously the\npath to increased reliance on renewable, environmentally sound\nenergy systems.\nObjectives and Goals\n29. The long-term objective is to implement an energy transition\nfrom the present fossil-fuel-based culture to one relying on\nenvironmentally sound energy systems (ESES). During the\ntransition, fossil fuels will continue to be important. It is\nessential that new developments employ the most efficient and least\npolluting technologies.\n30. Countries could set objectives of increasing the percent and\nabsolute contribution of ESES to the supply mix. Regional and\nglobal indicative targets could also be set, and national and\ninternational figures for reliance on ESES could be made available.\nCountries could also set objectives for increasing reliance on\nspecific renewable ESES, such as biomass, or solar.\nU.S. Position:\nIt is not clear how a system could be determined to be\nenvironmentally sound at any one point in time, or how such\ndeterminations could be revised in a timely manner with\nimproved scientific understanding and technological\ndevelopment.\n31. An additional objective is to increase the amount of money\ndevoted to research and development for ESES, both in absolute\nterms, and relative to the amount spent on conventional energy.\nThe long-term objective is to reverse the present trends where most\nmoney is spent on conventional energy systems.\nActivities\n32. Setting Targets in the renewable ESES area will be crucial for\nsuccess, both in terms of the desired level of use, and in terms of\nfinancial and other commitments of governments to reach those\ntargets.\na. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with governments\nand NGOs could develop mutually agreeable criteria, on a\nnational or regional scale, as appropriate, for the\nclassification of energy systems as environmentally sound\n(ESES).\n08/06/91\n07:05\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5.\n015/019\nThe United States would be concerned that the development of\nsuch classifications could create an administrative barrier to\nfurther, environmentally sound innovation. How would these\nclassifications be kept up-to-date with the latest\ntechnological and scientific advances? What one body could\npossibly review all the scientific, environmental and economic\nresearch related to environmental issues, as well as the\ndeveloping products and technologies, in a timely manner? A\nmore dynamic, effective and efficient approach would be to use\nmarket-based mechanisms to reduce externalities, and allow\nindustry to develop and deploy the increasingly sound energy\nsystems.\nb. Following evaluation, countries could classify their\nenergy supply systems, and set up targets for ESES's\ncontribution to the overall supply mix, both in absolute\nand in percentage terms.\nC. Countries, as well as regional and international bodies,\ncould agree to review research priorities to ensure\nsubstantially increased funding to research and\ndevelopment on ESES, particularly on renewable energy\nsystems, to a level where ESES receive the majority of\nR&D funding by [2000].\nd. Developing countries could promote alternatives to\nfuelwood, where its use causes unsustainable\nenvironmental stress.\nD. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERNS AND LIFE STYLES\nBasis for Action\n33. Basic energy service needs of a large number [#, ### millions]\nof people are not being met. There must now be a concerted effort\nto provide everybody with sufficient energy services for\nsustainable livelihoods.\nU.S. Position:\nPer capita energy use is not an accurate measure of the\nstandard of living. Undoubtedly, energy is one of many inputs\nneeded for economic growth and development. But any\nparticular level of energy consumption is not sufficient in\nitself to ensure a desirable standard of living. Moreover,\nliving standards may rise without energy consumption per\ncapita necessarily rising also. Thus, the underlying\nphilosophy to this entire section is misplaced. We should\n08/06/91\n07:05\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n016/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 15\ninstead concentrate on promoting environmentally sound energy\nproduction and consumption as a more direct means to improve\nthe standard of life.\n34. At the same time, some of the critical global and regional\nenvironmental problems stem from an overuse of energy. While there\nis no \"energy shortage\" as such, the overall price (environmental,\nextraction, political, etc.) we have to pay for additional energy\nsupplies is increasing, and there are plenty of reasons why\nlimiting consumption of energy resources will have beneficial\nimpacts. Consequently, there is need for rationalizing and\ncontaining energy consumption at the global level.\nU.S. Position:\nInsofar as the economic costs of energy production increases,\nmarket prices will increase and induce reduce consumption\nwithout intervention. If there are still environmental or\nother reasons for using less energy which the market does not\nredress, then governments may need to act to correct those\nspecific market failures. But limiting energy use or\nproduction is not an end in itself, and ignores the potential\nfor increased overall environmentally sound energy production\nand consumption through improved technology. Imposing a cap\narbitarily will cause economic problems unnecessarily.\nObjectives and Goals\n35. Countries could develop indicators for Basic Energy Service\nRequirements, make them an integral part of conditions for\nsustainable livelihoods, and develop plans for everybody to have\naccess to these.\n36. Countries could develop indicators for [Maximum] [Sufficient]\nEnergy Service Requirements, and plans to not go beyond these\nrequirements.\nU.S. Position\nCertainly, there is significant variation in energy use\nbetween nations and regions, but one cannot simply use per\ncapita energy consumption as an indicator of whether \"basic\nenergy service needs\" are being met. Energy use varies for a\nnumber of reasons, including differences in climate,\ntopography, population density, land size, and structure of\nthe economy. One country may, for instance, use more energy\nbecause it produces and exports goods with a higher energy\ncontent than another. Conversely, the country that imports\nand consumes that good may appear to be consuming less energy.\n08/06/91\n07:06\n202 647 0181\nSTATE OES EGC\n017/019\nA/CONP.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 16\nAlso, how would one account for differences in resource\nendowments in an establishing acceptable levels of energy\nconsumption?.\nActivities\n37. A number of actions will be required, both to increase access\nto energy services for some, and reduce overall consumption levels\nof others. Many of the actions outlined in the \"Energy Efficiency\"\nsection would also be useful for consumption reduction strategies.\nIn addition:\na. Countries could immediately undertake end-use energy\nsurveys, to establish indicators of Basic and\n[Maximum] [Sufficient] Energy Service Requirements, and\nthe number of people, households, industries, who are\nbelow and above. The information could be made widely\navailable.\nb. Countries could develop and implement programmes, with\nassistance from the relevant UN bodies, regional\norganizations, donor agencies, and NGOs to ensure that in\na given time-frame, everybody has access to the basic\nrequirements.\nC. Countries could introduce incentives to reduce the number\nof people, households, industries who are above the\n[Maximum] [Sufficient] Energy Service Requirements.\nd. Countries could support initiatives promoting clean\ntechnologies, waste minimization and recycling with a\nview to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas\nemissions.\nSuggested Revisions:\no Replace \" energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions\"\nin subparagraph d with \" pollution.\"\nE. ADDRESSING THE UNCERTAINTIES: ATMOSPHERE\nBasis for action\nU.S. Position:\nWhile the United States supports the concepts reflected in\nparagraphs 38-41, provisions related research and monitoring\nwill be key components of the Framework Convention on Climate\nChange. As such elaboration of those provisions is best\n08/06/91\n07:06\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n5.\n018/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 17\nconducted within the INC.\n38. Substantial knowledge of the atmosphere has been gained\nthrough international co-operation and exchange of data and\ninformation to all nations. However, concern with climate change,\nair pollution, and ozone depletion has created new demands for\nscientific information. Better understanding of physical and\nchemical properties of the atmosphere is needed, through expanding\nand strengthening research programmes, developing comprehensive\nobserving systems to monitor the atmosphere and the climate system\nas a whole, and to detect trends, variations and changes of the\natmospheric behavior in a timely manner.\nSuggested Revisions:\no Change \".... scientific information. \" in the second\nsentence to scientific and economic information....\"\no Add to the end of the paragraph: \"Better understanding of the\neconomic, social and political implications of changes in the\natmosphere and climate are also needed, and of possible\nresponse to those changes.\nObjectives and goals\n39. Countries could agree to promote cooperation in conducting\nresearch to improve the understanding of the physical, chemical,\nbiological, economic and social processes that influence the\nEarth's climate system (e.g., oceans, land, atmosphere & biosphere)\nat global and regional scales.\nSuggested Revisions:\nO change \".... that influence the \" to N that influence\nand are influenced by the....' \"\n40. Countries could agree to promote developing and maintaining\nsystematic observations of the climate system, in particular\nthrough the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS).\n41. Countries could agree to preserve, and collect data and\ninformation on the atmosphere and the climate system as a whole,\nand to exchange these data and information to the fullest extent\npossible.\nSuggested Revisions:\no change \" collect data M to \" collect physical,\nchemical, biological, economic and social data...\"\nActivities\n08.06/91 07:07\n202 647 0191\nSTATE OES/EGC\n019/019\nA/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1\nPage 18\na. The relevant UN-bodies, in co-operation with governments,\nindustry, research institutions, and NGOs could identify\npriority areas of scientific, technical, and\nsocio-economic research and particularly the critical\nlinkages to atmosphere and climate needed to support\ndecision making, and ensure implementation.\nSuggested Revisions:\nChange \"The relevant UN-bodies\nn to \"The\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\"\n-\nb. Countries could promote process of free, unrestricted\nexchange of data and information related to the\natmosphere and climate.\nSuggested Revisions:\nChange n\nprocess of free, unrestricted exchange of data\nIf to \"\nthe full and open sharing of data\n\"\nc. The relevant UN bodies, in cooperation with countries and\nNGOs could promote co-operation in the development of\nearly warning systems concerning changes in the climate\nsystem.\nOFFICE OF THE MANAGE PRESIDENT STATES BUDGET OF THE UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nbcc: Richard Porter\nAugust 7, 1991\nNOTE TO ROBERT B. ZOELLICK\nFrom: Bob Grady\nRE: UNCED\nBeg\nBob:\nI will be taking some much needed vacation time on Friday\nand will thus not be able to make your meeting regarding UNCED.\nI did, however, want to offer the following two points:\n1.) I believe that UNCED can be turned into a positive and\ncertainly manageable event for the USG if we can agree on clear\npolicy guidance and provide it to those in the bureaucracy who\nare now preparing for the conference. Specifically, I believe\nthere are six or seven objectives that we can agree on at the\npolicy level (and that we can \"live with\" as a government) which,\nif clearly set out, can form the basis of the negotiating efforts\nof all those who attend prepcoms, write papers, etc. Indeed, I\nbelieve that those who are already focused on the conference, but\nwho are worried that senior officials are not, would actually\nwelcome the guidance.\nMy nominees for a handful of satisfactory objectives for the\nU.S. at UNCED would include the following:\n-\nAgreement on process and institutional issues of the sort\ndiscussed in Elliot Richardson's paper (published by the World\nResources Institute) which I believe he sent you. Richardson\nbasically suggested the establishment of an ongoing international\nforum, (NOT A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE!! to discuss and make\nprogress on issues such as forests, climate change, etc. He did\npropose that it be staffed with a small secretariat;\n-\nAgreement on a global forest convention, or, at a minimum, a\nstatement of principles leading to a convention;\n-\nAgreement on a framework convention on climate change\n(comprehensive, and adaptable over time). A rather significant\nsubsidiary question that will undoubtedly arise here is whether\nthe U.S. will accept net greenhouse gas stabilization as the\nspecific objective of the framework convention. My own\nprediction is that this is where the negotiations are inevitably\nheaded and, while it is certainly too early to concede the point\nnow, this issue will have to be faced squarely by the time we get\nto Rio;\n-\nAgreement to make progress on improving the science\nassociated with the loss of biodiversity. Experts in this field\n(e.g., Tom Lovejoy at the Smithsonian) will tell you that our\ncapacity to actually measure or monitor what is happening to\nspecies is primitive at best. While it will indeed be difficult\nto agree on a set of perscriptions with respect to the loss of\nbiodiversity (especially given the track on which those\nnegotiations had been headed), it might be relatively easier to\nachieve consensus on a monitoring/science/mapping effort aimed at\nthe question of biodiversity;\n-\nAgreement on agressive efforts to protect the world's\noceans, and especially its living marine resources. As discussed\nat London, we hold the high ground on this issue; and\n-\nA program of research, data collection, mapping, and\nmonitoring, so that the world will be working off of a common\ndata base when considering the full range of environmental\nissues.\n2.) I believe that U.S. businesses should actually be encouraged\nto participate as NGOs at Rio. The UNCED conference constitutes\nan excellent opportunity for them to highlight various forms of\nAmerican technology which will be capable of helping to meet the\ngrowing world demand for environmental solutions. I believe that\nencouraging U.S. firms to look at UNCED as kind of an\n\"environmental export promotion fair\" will serve both U.S.\ncommercial interests and U.S. policy interests.\nI will be back in the office sometime late in the day on\nWednesday, August 14th, if you would like to discuss this\nfurther.\nDEPARTMENT OF STATE\nUSUNCED Coordination Center\n722 Jackson Place, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20503\n395-3110/Fax 395-3744\nAugust 30, 1991\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nPersons and Organizations on the USUNCED Mailing List\nFROM:\nDavid H. Stebbing, USUNCED Coordination Center\nSUBJECT: U.S. Statements at UNCED PrepCom 3, Geneva, Aug. 12 -\nSept. 4, 1991\nTo speed the process of getting materials to you, we are\nenclosing the statements and proposals submitted by the U.S. in\nthe Working Group sessions held during the first two weeks of\nPrepCom 3. U.S. statements delivered in the latter half of the\nmeeting will follow in a subsequent mailing. This package\nincludes the following documents:\nU.S. Delegation List\nU.S. Approach to \"Agenda 21\"\nWorking Group I\nAtmosphere\nIntegrated Land Resources and Sustainable Agriculture\nDesertification\nForests\nPrinciples for a Global Forest Convention/Agreement\nBiological Diversity\nBiotechnology\nWorking Group II\nOceans\nPrinciples on the Use and Protection of the Marine Environment\nFreshwater\nToxic Chemicals\nHazardous Waste\nSolid Wastes\nWorking Group III\nGeneral Principles\nEnvironmental Principles\nSurvey of Existing Agreements and Instruments\nDispute Resolution\nInstitutional Issues\nUnited States Department of State\nWashington, D.C. 20520\n1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)\nTHIRD PREPARATORY COMMITTEE MEETING\nGENEVA, SWITZERLAND: AUGUST 12 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991\nU.S. DELEGATION\nHead of Delegation\nCurtis Bohlen\nAssistant Secretary of State, Oceans &\nInternational Environmental and Scientific Affairs\nAlternate Heads of Delegation\nRobert Ryan\nCoordinator, U.S. UNCED Preparations\nMorris Abram\nAmbassador, U.S. Mission, Geneva\nAdvisors\nJonathan Moore\nAmbassador to ECOSOC, USUN\nMaureen Bannon\nDepartment of Defense/Office of the\nRepresentative for Oceans Policy Affairs\nPatricia Bliss-Guest\nCouncil on Environmental Quality/Associate\nDirector, International Law & Policy\nRichard Bradley\nOffice of the Secretary of Energy\nNancy Carter\nOES/Population Coordinator\nEd Cassidy\nDepartment of the Interior/Deputy Assistant\nSecretary, Policy\nDavid Cottingham\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration (NOAA)/Director, Ecology &\nConservation\nChristine Dawson\nOffice of the Secretary of State\nSusan Drake\nEnvironmental Protection Agency/UN Programs\nPaula Feeney\nU.S. Mission/Geneva\nDavid Joslyn\nAgency for International Development Liaison\nto USUN/FAO, Rome\nGerald Kamens\nAgency for International Development/UNCED\nJeff Kovar\nLegal Adviser/OES\nGary Larsen\nU.S. Forest Service (detail to OES)\nSteven McGann\nUSUN/ECOSOC/UNCED\nJohn McGuinness\nInternational Organizations/Deputy Director,\nTechnical Organizations\nJeff Miotke\nOES/Global Change\nRobert Reinstein\nOES/Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment\nEleanor Savage\nOES/Director, Ecology Health & Conservation\nTucker Scully\nOES/Director, Oceans Affairs\nNance Styles\nU.S. Mission, Geneva\nMaureen Walker\nOES/Oceans Affairs\nHarlan Watson\nDepartment of the Interior/Deputy Assistant\nSecretary, Water & Science\nTed Williams\nDepartment of Energy/Environmental Affairs\nCONGRESSIONAL ADVISORS TO THE U.S. DELEGATION\nCongressman James Scheuer\nChair, Natural Resources, Agriculture\nResearch and Environment, Committee on\nScience, Space & Technology\nCongressman Gerry Sikorski Committee on Energy and Commerce\nOFFICIAL OBSERVERS TO THE U.S. DELEGATION\nCongressional Staff\nSusan Fletcher\nCongressional Research Service\nNancy Carman\nHouse Foreign Affairs Committee\nDave Finnegan\nHouse Energy and Commerce Committee\nCharles Ingebretson\nHouse Energy and Commerce Committee\nSteve Polanski\nSenate Foreign Relations Committee\nCarol Parker\nStaff of Congressman Gerry Sikorski\nPhilip Schiliro\nStaff of Congressman Henry Waxman\nNGO Representatives\nScott Hajost\nCAPE '92\nNorene Kennedy\nUS Council on International Business\nGareth Porter\nEnvironment and Energy Study Institute\nTom Spaulding\nInterAction\nMichelle Sullivan\nUS Council on International Business\nTHE U.S. APPROACH TO \"AGENDA 21\"\nAT UNCED PREPCOM 3, GENEVA, AUGUST 12 - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991\nUNCED offers an excellent opportunity to shape a new, practical\nand comprehensive approach to international environmental\ncooperation as we enter the 21st century. The principal U.S. goal\nfor UNCED is to facilitate international cooperation in programs\nwhich build on the concept of sustainable development and that fully\nintegrate environment and development strategies.\nWe clearly recognize that U.S. leadership will be an essential\ningredient in the kind of UNCED results the world deserves and\nexpects. Our strong record in managing our own environmental\nproblems provides an excellent base for initiatives to promote\nsustainable development internationally. In the same way that\nconstructive U.S. leadership gave impetus to the highly successful\nMontreal Protocol Process to combat ozone depletion, we seek to\ncatalyze a dynamic approach to Agenda 21.\nThe first two Preparatory Committee meetings set out an agenda,\nresolved procedural points, and discussed the substance of most\nissues before UNCED. It is critical to the success of UNCED that\nPrepCom 3 negotiations begin, in the words of Chairman Tommy Koh,\n\"to make action-oriented recommendations on all issues.\"\nThe U.S. is prepared to make such recommendations. We will\ntable concrete proposals on a wide variety of issues and hope that\nother governments do the same. We are pleased to see that the UNCED\nSecretariat has produced or will produce 49 reports for\nconsideration at PrepCom 3. By and large, these are thoughtful\nresponses to the requests of PrepComs 1 and 2, produced under tight\ndeadlines. We appreciate that.\nMaurice Strong, Secretary-General of UNCED, proposes that a\nmajor outcome of the Conference should be an action program entitled\n\"Agenda 21.\" This framework for the full range of UNCED decisions\nstresses the integrated relationships of environment and development\nissues. The starting point for Agenda 21 is the broad UNCED mandate\nset out in UN General Assembly Resolution 44/228 and subsequent\ndecisions of the Preparatory Committee. The UNCED Secretariat has\ncirculated an analysis of each issue as the basis for the action\nproposals presented as \"Options for Agenda 21.\"\nThe U.S. supports the concept of an Agenda 21; we believe that\nfurther work will be required regarding form and substance. The\nfollowing sections address the \"program areas\" listed by the\nSecretariat, which are the building blocks of Agenda 21, and briefly\ndescribe the U.S. approach to Agenda 21 for the ten environmental\nissues to be addressed by Working Groups 1 and 2, and the four\ncross-sectoral issues to be addressed by the Plenary. (In a number\nof areas, for example financial resources, Agenda 21 proposals will\n- 2 -\nnot be considered until the fourth PrepCom next year.) The overall\nU.S. approach to all Agenda 21 program areas must be seen, of\ncourse, in relation to our positions on financial and other\ncross-cutting issues.\nLAND RESOURCES\nProposed Program Areas: (A) protection and management of fragile\necosystems; (B) an integrated approach to land resource planning and\nmanagement; and (C) sustainable agriculture and rural development;\nthe latter includes: sector policy review, planning and programming;\ngrassroots participation and development of human resources;\nintegrated production system management; diversification of rural\nincomes; land resources conservation and management; water resources\nfor agriculture; conservation and utilization of genetic resources;\nintegrated pest management; sustainable plant nutrition; rural\nenergy.\nU.S. Approach\nIn the U.S. view, the proposed options represent a comprehensive\nprogram leading toward sustainable agriculture and improved land\nresource management. We would particularly emphasize: (A) human\nresource development, (B) pilot projects to test prescriptions, (C)\nmultiple use as the key to successful land management, (D) the\ncombination of research and best known management practices, (E)\nsignificant participation in the land resource management process by\naffected citizens, and (F) decentralized decision-making. We\nparticularly emphasize that approaches to these concerns must be\nconsistent with GATT principles and efforts to reform agricultural\ntrade arrangements. The program outlined is ambitious and costly.\nAchieving it by the year 2000 as targeted is clearly unrealistic.\nGiven the importance of the subject to poor countries, particularly\nin Africa, we look forward to seeing the Agenda 21 options for\ndesertification, which the UNCED Secretariat has not yet presented.\nFORESTS\nProposed Program Areas: (A) forest inventories and land availability\nassessment for afforestation; (B) mechanisms for global/regional/\nnational afforestation and reforestation; (C) assessment of\npotential forest impacts on climate change; (D) protection of\nselected forest ecosystems; (E) large scale planting programs; (F)\nregional/national rehabilitation of degraded lands; (G) expansion of\ncommunity and social forestry in developing countries; (H) industry\nand trade in forest products; (I) training, research and research\ndissemination; and (J) forest accounting and mechanisms for\nassessing the economic value of forests.\nU.S. Approach\nUNCED PrepCom 3 will consider \"Guiding Principles for a Consensus on\nForests.\" At the London Economic Summit, the G-7 countries\nundertook to achieve, by the time of UNCED, \"agreement on principles\n- 3 -\nfor the management, conservation and sustainable development of all\ntypes of forest, leading to a framework convention. This should be\nin a form both acceptable to the developing countries where tropical\nforests grow and consistent with the objective of a global forest\nconvention or agreement\" set at the Houston Economic Summit. The\nU.S. has distributed a proposal for forest principles. The U.S.\nwill seek an approach to Agenda 21 that is not inconsistent with the\nU.S. proposal.\nBIODIVERSITY\nProposed Program Areas: (A) information on biodiversity; (B)\nmaximization and spread of the benefits of biodiversity; (C)\nimproved conservation of biological resources; and (D) enhanced\ncapacity to manage biodiversity.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. is participating in the negotiations for a global framework\nbiological diversity convention being conducted under the auspices\nof UNEP. U.S. objectives for this convention include the\nfurtherance of the conservation of biological diversity -- primarily\nin situ, but also ex situ -- within and beyond national\njurisdiction; to expand cooperation in acquiring base-line data,\nmonitoring, and other research on species and habitat; and to ensure\naccess to biological resources on a non-discriminatory basis.\nOptions selected for Agenda 21 should be those which support these\nobjectives. However, care must be taken that Agenda 21 not attempt\nto duplicate or anticipate the convention, which the U.S. and most\nother member states of UNEP look upon as the primary vehicle for\nglobal cooperation. It would be useful for PrepCom 3 to begin to\nprioritize the most urgent tasks listed in the ambitious options\npaper which do not come under the immediate purview of the\nconvention.\nBIOTECHNOLOGY\nProposed Program Areas: (A) advanced biotechnology applications in\nsustainable agriculture; (B) improved human health through\nbiotechnology; (C) prevention of environmental degradation through\nthe judicious application of biotechnology; and (D) effective safety\nprocedures.\nU.S. Approach\nThe United States, fully recognizing the potential benefits and\nrisks of biotechnologies, supports the stated UNCED objective of\nfacilitating the sound development and application of\nbiotechnology. The United States also maintains that the regulation\nof industry and its products should be dealt with on the national\nlevel by individual countries and their governments. Such\nregulation typically has been based upon risk assessment as defined\nfor particular environment and cultures. Therefore, the United\n- 4 -\nStates believes that it is desirable for the nations of the world to\nharmonize sound scientific practices and economic principles in\ndeveloping and commercializing products of biotechnology. Efforts\nto this end currently are underway within a variety of international\norganizations participated in, and supported by, the U.S. However,\nthe U.S. opposes onerous and inflexible international regulations\nand guidelines on research and development. Further, we would not\nwant to create unrealistic expectations as to the potential of the\nnewer biotechnologies for vastly improving living conditions,\nespecially in the near term. We therefore plan to take exception to\ncertain themes in the UNCED Secretariat background paper and, in\nparallel, to propose modifications to a number of the options for\nAgenda 21.\nATMOSPHERE\nProposed Program Areas: (A) the energy transition; (B) energy\nefficiency; (C) environmentally sound energy systems; (D)\nsustainable energy consumption patterns and life styles; and (E)\nresearch on the atmosphere.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. strongly supports: (A) the integrity of the independent\nnegotiating process on climate change under the International\nNegotiating Committee (INC), (B) effective inmplementation of the\nMontreal Protocol regime to combat ozone depletion and (C)\ninternational cooperation to improve ambient air quality and address\nproblems of transboundary air pollution. We believe Agenda 21\noptions on the atmosphere should concentrate on interconnections\nbetween climate change and other sustainable development issues and\non efforts to help developing countries deal with increasingly\nserious air pollution problems. Instead, the options presented\nfocus exclusively on recommendations to address one environmental\nissue, climate change, through one sector, energy. Irrespective of\nany potential merit in the options outlined, these options not only\nunnecessarily interfere with the work of the INC but fail to\nconsider all sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. The U.S. will\nargue for a complete restructuring of this section of Agenda 21.\nOCEANS\nProposed Program Areas: (A) integrated management of coastal areas\nand exclusive economic ones; (B) management of living marine\nresources on the high seas; (C) sustainable use of living marine\nresources under national jurisdiction; (D) maintenance of ecosystems\nand biodiversity; (E) prevention and control of land based marine\npollution; (F) prevention and control of sea-based marine pollution;\n(G) international and regional cooperation; (H) capacity building;\nand (I) addressing critical uncertainties for ocean management and\nclimate change.\n- 5 -\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. sees a need to restructure the proposed Agenda 21 oceans\noptions in order to establish a clear set of objectives and to\nreflect more adequately the work contained in the Secretariat\nbackground paper. At present, they are internally inconsistent,\nover-sectoralized and confusing. Moreover, they intermingle\necological concepts with juridical concepts involving settled areas\nof customary international law as reflected in the 1982 UN Law of\nthe Sea Convention. As indicated in our detailed submission to\nPrepCom 2 (A/Conf. 151/PC/WG.II/CRP.7), the U.S. looks to UNCED for\nsubstantive progress in promoting: (A) the elaboration of principles\non land-based sources of marine pollution emphasizing pollution\nprevention, the application of economically efficient clean\ntechnologies and the use of appropriate economic incentives, (B)\ncooperation in coastal zone management techniques, including through\ninternational organizations, with emphasis on capacity building and\nregional interaction, (C) conservation of marine living resources\nthrough the application of ecosystem, multi-species management, (D)\ncooperation through relevant international organizations in\nintegrated monitoring of the marine environment and (E) improved\ncoordination of regional and international coastal and marine\nprograms.\nFRESHWATER\nProposed Program Areas: (A) water resource assessment; (B)\nprotection of water quality; (C) drinking water supply and\nsanitation; (D) water and sustainable urban development; and (E)\nwater for sustainable agricultural development.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. is committed to the establishment of a pollution prevention\nprinciple for water quality, including the application of recycling\nand other low pollution production technologies. We will also\nstress the need for all countries to work together toward a\npollution prevention system which steers away from traditional\nend-of-the-pipe treatment that fails to minimize or limit the source\nof contaminants. We look forward to participating in the Dublin\nConference in January 1992, which will formulate precise options for\nthe fresh water section of Agenda 21.\nTOXIC CHEMICALS\nProposed Program Areas: (A) an expanded and accelerated\ninternational assessment of chemical risks; (B) harmonized\nclassification and labeling of chemicals; (C) information exchange\non toxic chemicals; (D) establishment of risk reduction programs;\nand (E) a strengthening of national capabilities and capacities for\nmanagement of chemicals.\n- 6 -\nU.S. Approach\nThe United States made comprehensive proposals in this area at\nPrepCom 2. The U.S. supports increased international cooperation to\nenable countries to implement economically efficient programs for\nmanaging and reducing risks associated with the manufacture, trade,\nuse and disposal of toxic substances. Regarding trade, the U.S.\nfavors full implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)\nProcedure, but not a legally binding instrument or general\nprovisions that would restrict trade in domestically prohibited\nproducts. The harmonization of classification and labeling\nstandards involves a number of entities, which should not be\nduplicating effort; important work is being done, in particular, in\nthe OECD Chemicals Program and, within the U.N. system, the\nInternational Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). The U.S. strongly\nfavors a broad-based approach for reducing chemicals risk which\ncould involve both regulatory and non-regulatory measures. These\nshould include a code of conduct on industrial chemicals paralleling\nthe FAO Pesticides Code; national toxic release inventories;\nadoption by UNCED of guiding principles for accurately communicating\nrisk to the public; and establishment of national risk communication\nprograms by member states. Industry initiatives can serve as an\nimportant complement to government regulatory programs.\nWASTES\nProposed Program Areas: (A) promotion of waste prevention and\nminimization through \"cleaner production\" methods, resource\nrecovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses\nof wastes; (B) enhancement of knowledge and information on economics\nof hazardous waste management; (C) increased knowledge about\nenvironmental and health impacts of hazardous wastes; (D) promotion\nof institutional capacities in hazardous waste management; and (E)\nstrengthened international co-operation in monitoring transboundary\nmovements of hazardous waste, in particular the prevention of\nillegal traffic, and assessing environmental and health impacts of\nthose movements.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. places great importance on sound waste management practices\nand policies and supports international cooperation on waste\nmanagement issues to promote this end. The U.S. would particularly\nemphasize: (A) full implementation of the Basel Convention; (B)\nharmonization of policies, strategies and measures for reducing\nrisks to human health and the environment from hazardous and other\nwastes in an economically efficient manner; (C) information exchange\non clean technologies to reduce waste generation; (D) information\nexchange to promote use of new methods for resource recovery.\n- 7 -\nPOVERTY\nProposed Program Areas: (A) promotion of sustainable livelihoods;\n(B) reduction of demographic pressures; (C) human development; and\n(D) the living conditions of the poor.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. recognizes that environmental degradation and poverty are\ninterlinked and often result from similar causes; thus, that\npolicies should be integrated for improving living standards for the\npoor and for protecting the environment. Neither problem can be\naddressed effectively through large unspecified resource transfers.\nThe bulk of U.S. efforts to help end poverty aim at eventual\nself-reliance. To achieve environmental goals, assistance should\ntake the form of specific programs for action in land, freshwater,\nforests, and oceans. The U.S. will oppose specific and unrealistic\ndeadlines for the elimination of poverty. The U.S. endorses the\nobjective of expanded population programs and will suggest\nadditional measures.\nENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH\nProposed Program Areas: (A) basic health needs related to the\nenvironment; (B) control of communicable diseases; (C) meeting the\nurban health challenge; and (D) reduction of health risks from\nenvironmental pollution and hazards.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. emphasizes that human health concerns are highly relevant\nto this conference on environment and development and that the\nsectoral interests of health, environment and development must be\nconsidered in each case. Basic human needs for clean air, pure\nwater, safe food, and sanitation should be met by measures to\nprevent problems rather than relying on the more difficult\nremediation procedures. Communicable diseases should be prevented\nwherever possible through sound principles of hygiene and\nvaccination. Particular emphasis should be directed towards\ndiseases with major environmental interfaces such as malaria,\ncholera, tuberculosis and polio. Measures to reduce environmental\ntoxic compounds and injuries in the work place should be strongly\nsupported. Particular emphasis should be directed towards the\nreduction of heavy metals such as lead and mercury, as they rank as\nbeing the most significant world-wide preventive measures.\nENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION\nProposed Program Areas: (A) a strengthened role of education in\nsociety in its widest sense for achieving sustainable development;\n(B) reorientation of formal education towards environment and\ndevelopment; (C) improved education and training within development\nprograms; (D) facilitation of access to information and improved\n- 8 -\ncommunication; (E) strengthened community participation and\npartnership; and (F) improvement in the supportive role of the\ninternational system.\nU.S. Approach\nThe U.S. generally supports the objectives of the new initiatives\noutlined in the Secretariat paper on environmental and developmental\neducation. In our view, more attention needs to be given to\nincluding both environmental and developmental aspects. We\nparticularly support the need for more cooperation using existing\ninternational mechanisms to enhance the wide availability of\ninformation relevant to environmental and developmental education.\nAs the document states, \"environmental education needs to be\nrecognized by all as an essential part of basic learning.\" Many of\nthe initiatives called for in the document have already begun in the\nU.S. or are being developed in response to the requirements of the\nNational Environmental Education Act of 1990.\nHUMAN SETTLEMENTS\nProposed Program Areas: (A) adequate shelter for all; (B) human\nsettlements management; (C) land resource management; (D)\nenvironmental infrastructure: water, sanitation, drainage, and solid\nwaste management; (E) energy and transport; (F) construction; and\n(G) human resource development and capacity building for human\nsettlement development.\nU.S. Approach\nThe UNCED Secretariat draft Agenda 21 basically views cities and\nrural settlements as providing an opportunity for more efficient use\nof resources, simultaneously promoting development and reducing\nstress on the environment. The U.S. supports and will seek to\nemphasize measures that serve to improve public and private sector\nmanagement capabilities and collaboration and to promote better\nresource use, services, and waste disposal.\nOPTIONS FOR AGENDA 21 RELATED TO ATMOSPHERE\nStatement by the U.S. Delegation\nPreparatory Committee for the\nUN Conference on Environment and Development\nAugust 13, 1991\nMr. Chairman, the United States once again expresses its\nrespect and appreciation for the considerable effort that went\ninto producing documents A/CONF.151/PC/60 on \"Sectoral Issues\"\nand A/CONF.151/PC/42/ADD.1 on \"Options for Agenda 21\" related\nto the atmosphere. Both documents reveal a commendable desire\nby the Secretariat to help this Preparatory Committee set the\nstage for a successful and productive Conference.\nMr. Chairman, I realize that you requested specific\ncomments on the five programmatic areas identified in paragraph\n13 of the Agenda 21 options paper. However, the United States\nwould like to make a number of more fundamental points about\nthese two papers.\nIn this regard, it is worth noting again the statements\nmade earlier by you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary General Strong\nstressing the limited time available to this Committee and the\nenormous scope of work before us. With so much work facing us\nand so little time, the fruits for Rio must be cultivated and\nharvested in the most efficient and effective manner possible.\nWe should look to other organizations and fora within and\nwithout the UN system for pertinent material, which we can then\nintegrate and harmonize. For example, the work of the\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) referred to\nyesterday might be incorporated for consideration. This\nPreparatory Committee need not till all the soil, plant all the\nseeds and reap all the harvests for UNCED.\nWith regard to specifics, the Sectoral Issues and Agenda 21\npapers raise a number of points which the United States could\nsupport. For instance, the Sectoral paper discusses in several\nparagraphs, such as 31, 41 and 43, actions which have a number\nof environmental and economic benefits. In keeping with the\nFirst Assessment Report of the IPCC, the United States agrees\nthat options which provide multiple benefits deserve much\nfurther consideration. We also agree with the point in\nparagraphs 38 and 48 that taking advantage of such options is\none way in which both industrialized and developing countries\nmight participate in the global response to climate change. We\nalso find intriguing the possibility, suggested in paragraph 49\nand elsewhere, that the technology may exist to allow\ndeveloping countries to \"leapfrog\" to a more environmentally\nbenign development path. Consistent with section E of the\n8/13/91\n- 2 -\nAgenda 21 paper, the United States is engaged with its Western\nHemisphere neighbors in promoting research to reduce\nuncertainties through common and coordinated efforts on climate\nresearch.\nHowever, the United States is deeply concerned about many\naspects of both documents. Most importantly, UN General\nAssembly Resolution 45/212 established \"a single\nintergovernmental negotiating process\nfor the preparation\nof an effective framework convention on climate change.\"\nConsistent with 45/212, this Preparatory Committee adopted\ndecision 2/8 to \"avoid duplicating or pre-empting the work of\"\nthe INC, IPCC and the biodiversity negotiating forum.\nAny discussion of policy recommendations, if focussed on\nclimate change, necessarily duplicates and potentially\npre-empts the work of the INC. Being produced as the result of\na decision specifically on climate change, these two documents\nunfortunately do duplicate and pre-empt the work of the INC.\nParagraph 3 of the Sectoral Issues paper is particularly\ntroubling in this respect; it suggests that UNCED is\nresponsible for developing climate change response strategies\nwith input from the INC and other fora. This is not what the\nGeneral Assembly intended, which was that the INC develop the\ninternational response with input from other fora.\nDecision 2/8 of this Committee requested the Secretary\nGeneral to \"investigate further the interconnections between\nthe issue of climate and environmental and developmental issues\nat national, regional and global levels, covering agriculture,\nbiodiversity, energy, forestry, industry, oceans, transport and\ncross-sectoral issues, and to report to the Preparatory\nCommittee at its third session, in order to enable it to\nconsider at that session the preparation of related proposals\nfor discussion Thus, we had expected these documents to\nhelp us consider proposals related to these linkages between\nvarious environmental and developmental issues and among\nvarious sectors. This is a critical role for UNCED to play: to\nbring together the separate analyses ongoing in different fora\nand to integrate environmental and developmental needs.\nWe note that the introduction to the Sectoral Issues paper\nstates that other sectors are dealt with in other papers\nprepared for this session. But we believe that the decision\ntaken at our last session contemplated such an analysis in a\nsingle document to enable us to consider the linkages among\nsectors and specific areas of concern. Unfortunately, however,\nthe Sectoral Issues and Agenda 21 papers both focus almost\nexclusively on making specific policy recommendations to\naddress one environmental issue climate change through one\nsector energy. Neither document sheds much light on other\n8/13/91\n- 3 -\nlinkages. Nor do the separate documents on Forestry, Oceans,\nAgriculture, Biodiversity, etc, help in this regard. At most,\nthese other documents mention climate change as a potential\nthreat in these sectors, some allude in very general terms to\nthe development implications of potential impacts, and almost\nnone explore the other linkages, such as the development\nimplications of various response strategies. How then are we\nto develop proposals that adequately address these linkages?\nIdeally, the background document on Sectoral Issues would\nhave provided information and analysis of the linkages and the\nAgenda 21 options would have been based on that information and\nanalysis. But because the Sectoral Issues paper concentrates\ninstead on making broad generalizations and policy\nrecommendations primarily in one sector and does not elucidate\nthe cross-issue or cross-sectoral questions, we do not have\nbefore us the analysis or information supporting these options\nfor Agenda 21.\nThis lack of integration defeats the purpose of examining\nthe linkages: we need to understand clearly how these various\nissues affect each other. How do actions in one sector affect\nother sectors? What, if any, role can nuclear power play in\nhelping to address the environmental problems that result from\nthe energy sector? What inherent economic or physical\nlimitations are there on the use of solar energy or biomass\nfuels? How might biodiversity be affected by different\nforestry practices and policies? Where do environmental and\ndevelopment goals seem to coincide and where do they seem to\nconflict? How can policies be designed to pursue both goals?\nHow do we promote a full partnership of equals between the\nNorth and the South? How does economic growth in one part of\nthe world affect the rest of the world?\nThis lack of consideration of the linkages between sectors\nand issues also results in marked differences in the approaches\nadvocated in the different papers on the various sectors. For\ninstance, in the discussion of climate change in the background\ndocument on forests, A/CONF.151/PC/64, paragraph 172 states\nthat the use of forests as sinks might be expanded \"where it is\necologically viable, socially acceptable, and economically\nfeasible in the broadest sense.\" These are useful criteria\nthat should be applied in considering responses to a variety of\nenvironmental issues, including climate change. Yet nowhere in\nthe Agenda 21 options paper on atmosphere do we find any\nacknowledgement that other environmental, social, political, or\neconomic factors should be considered in choosing response\nstrategies. Similarly, document A/CONF.151/PC/50 on the\n\"Utilization of Economic Instruments\" summarizes some possible\napplications of market mechanisms to environmental issues. But\nthese concepts are not reflected in either of the papers on\n8/13/91\n- 4 -\natmospheric issues. Instead, these two papers before us\nadvocate extensive and potentially expensive regulation and\ncentralization of decision making.\nIn any case, any discussion of response options for\naddressing climate change must be comprehensive, including the\nsources and sinks of all greenhouse gases. Even if it were our\nrole in the Preparatory Committee, this failure to be\ncomprehensive makes this paper of limited valued in suggesting\nappropriate responses to climate change. The essential need to\ntake a comprehensive approach to climate change was reflected\nin the First Assessment Report of the IPCC, the Ministerial\nDeclaration of the Second World Climate Conference, and the\ncarefully crafted terms of reference for the two INC Working\nGroups. Both the Agenda 21 and the Sectoral Issues papers, on\nthe other hand, adopt a narrow approach that runs the risk of\nbeing unnecessarily costly and environmentally counter-\nproductive. The ongoing work of the IPCC also looks across all\ngreenhouse gases and sectors to identify possible options,\ntaking into account economic feasibility, development concerns,\nother environmental effects and cross-sectoral linkages. We\nrecommend that this Committee review the work of the IPCC and\nconsider its relevance to UNCED's broad environment and\ndevelopment mandate.\nRegarding the five specific programmatic areas suggested in\nthe Agenda 21 paper, the United States agrees that these areas\nare clearly relevant and important to a variety of\nenvironmental issues. However, the approach taken is\ninappropriate in our view. First, it is too interventionist,\nleading in the direction of command and control measures that\npossibly infringe on national sovereignty. Second, in taking\nthis rather inflexible approach, it is likely to be less\nefficient and effective. Third, and most important, it\ninfringes on the INC as the single negotiating forum for\nclimate, contrary to decision 2/8 and General Assembly\nResolution 45/212.\nThe United States has a number of specific comments on\nindividual paragraphs. However, it would be duplicative and\ninappropriate to develop Agenda 21 items based on these\npapers. It is our strong inclination to defer development of\nAgenda 21 options on the atmosphere to the next session of the\nPreparatory Committee. By then, we will hopefully have the\nbenefit of further elucidation of the important linkages among\nenvironmental and development issues, as well as a better sense\nof the results of the INC negotiations. We must wait to see\nwhat the INC will produce and not interfere in the single\nnegotiating process established by the General Assembly.\nWe are interested to hear the views of other delegations.\n8/13/91\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nFIRST STATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON INTEGRATED LAND RESOURCES\nGeneva, August 16, 1991 (a.m.)\nMr. Chairman, to deal objectively with the crisis of global land\ndegradation, we must first be able to clearly identify the actual\npressures which drive current practices. To this end, we view\nthe Secretariat reports on Protection and Management of Land\nResources as, on the whole, both insightful and comprehensive.\nTheir definition of land and its uses emphasizes the holistic and\nintegrated nature likely solutions.\nThe Secretariat documentation before us on parts A and B of Agenda\n21 appropriately seeks an integrated approach to the closely\ninterlinked causes of land deterioration. I shall focus my\nremarks this morning on the options for an integrated approach to\nplanning and mangement of land resources, and return later with\nour views on sustainable agriculture and rural development.\nPC/63's list of guiding principles for protection and management\nof land resources is very useful and should be made widely\navailable for land use planners. The problem, as suggested in the\npaper, is to, first, select appropriate actions, and, then, to\naccurately assess progress toward achieving these principles.\nToday, within each of our countries, a variety of institutions,\nministries, and departments have responsibilities regarding the\nvarious factors contributing to land degradation. As accurately\nrecognized in the Secretariat Report, it would be exceedingly\ndifficult and unproductive to create a new global body to attempt\nto integrate all land management topics. Rather, we should focus\non better coordination of existing bureaucracies and institutions.\nThe discussion of the integrative framework illustrates something\nof the dilemma faced when we move from general principles to\naction. Most coordinated actions in land use are directed by\ngovernments. Thus, units of action are most often political\nagencies. On the public lands of the Western United States, for\ninstance, the Bureau of Land Management has developed\ninterdisciplinary land use plans for multiple, or \"sustainable\"\ndevelopment, with legal involvement of local governments and\nstrong public participation. This agency is negotiating a\nprotocol to pilot test this process in a developing country.\n2\nAs suggested in PC 63 and Agenda 21 options, integration is the\nkey to successful land resources. Almost none of these resources\nserve a unique function nor exist independently of their\nsurroundings. Sustainability has become one of the watchwords in\nthe United States' own national efforts as well as in our\nfinancial cooperation with other countries. It is important,\nfirst, to understand fully the problems we face. Then, we must\nbring to bear the best known management practices we can find to\nturn the results of our research into the effective and decisive\nactions needed to preserve and regenerate our precious land\nresources.\nPC/61 and the proposed Agenda 21 Options for Parts A and B contain\na thoughtful discussion of data requirements, planning tools of\nvarious sorts, and the development of the skilled people needed to\ncarry out the multiple tasks outlined. But there is no assessment\nof the cost of creating and maintaining such services. Before\nfinal recommendations are made on these items, costs should be\nestimated and realistic implementation schedules developed.\nFinally, Mr. Chairman, we see Secretariat paper 42/addendum 2 as a\nsuperior review of the problems besetting our fragile\nenvironment. The list of tasks ahead is quite complete. Two\nelements are especially important -- the development of human\nresources and the recommendations for pilot projects to test our\nprescriptions before adopting universal programs.\nRegarding the first element, human resources development and\ncapacity building are indeed very important to the accomplishment\nof our objectives. The U.S. acknowledges that a massive effort,\nas suggested in the proposed Agenda 21 option for this subject,\nwould indeed by required to achieve all of the proposed planning\nand management objectives quickly. We suggest, however, that we\nare talking about a needed series of very complex changes in\nsocial and economic patterns of life, and that we would do better\nto focus at least our relatively short-term efforts on a more\nlimited target which is capable of achievement within the human\nand financial resources likely to be available to us.\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nSECOND STATEMENT BY U.S. DELEGATION ON INTEGRATED LAND RESOURCES\nGeneva, August 16, 1991 (p.m.)\nMr. Chairman, Secretariat Report 61 on Sustainable Agriculture\ncorrectly focuses on the April FAO/Netherlands Conference on\nAgriculture and the Environment. That meeting's outcome was the\nDen Bosch Declaration, which called for fundamental changes in the\nway we look at sustainable agriculture and rural development,\nfirst of which is the need for broad participation in the\npolitical process of defining and developing integrated farm\nmanagement systems.\nSuch popular participation, employing market processes, and\nadjusting for conflicts of interest among concerned individuals,\ngroups, and nations, is, in our view, essential to the ultimate\ngoal of protecting land resources. We will be interested in\nseeing how the consensus of that very useful Conference and the\nDen Bosch Declaration are incorporated both into Agenda 21 options\nand into FAO's programs, and what specific actions, both\nconceptually and administratively, FAO will take to achieve more\nintegration in its program.\nTurning to the proposed Agenda 21 options on sustainable\nagriculture and rural development, I would like first to address\nbriefly what we see as some important omissions.\nFirst, as several, but not many, delegations have earlier noted,\nthe suggested options say little about the key role in integrated\nland resource management of women, of indigenous people and other\nlocal rural populations, and of farmers in general. I realize\nthat inserting in our UNCED documents mere words about the\nimportance of these groups is not nearly enough. And the\ninsertion of such verbiage does not, per se, do much to solve the\nproblem. But at least verbal recognition of the importance of\nthese real actors in changing the land is a useful first step in a\nnecessary consciousness raising -- which will hopefully be\nsucceeded by specific actions designed to insure a voice to people\nwho are often unheard in the corridors of power, where decisions\nare made on appropriate land use management.\nSecond, a few other omissions. We believe there should be some\nmention in Agenda 21 of the impact of land-based contaminants on\nmarine pollution, a vital subject covered at some length in this\nWorking Group's discussions on ocean protection. We would also\nlike to see even greater focus in the Options on alternative\ncultivation systems, using traditional farming methods, as well as\nmore experimentation with lower inputs of agricultural chemicals\n2\nas a means to conserve the land resource base and to reduce toxics\nin the soil. Over recent decades, both developed and developing\ncountries understandably made substantial use of such chemicals,\nas fertilizers, as herbicides, and as pesticides. It's time now,\nwe believe, to do some serious rethinking on the subject, to see\nwhat we all have learned from our experience, and, particularly,\nin the case of pesticides and herbicides, to urgently look into\nalternative non-chemical techniques -- not, by any means, as an\nexclusive way of dealing with the real problems at hand, but\nrather, in a genuine and non-finger pointing effort, to come to an\neffective balance between our needs for food and our needs for\nstemming or hopefully reversing the degradation of our precious\nland resources.\nWe will submit to the Secretariat Monday, for consideration during\nthis Prepcom by the delegations assembled here, some specific\nwording changes. Let me now, however, highlight just a few of the\nmore important ones.\nWe think that, where intensification of farming systems is not\npossible, specific mention should be made of \"non-farm activities,\nsuch as light manufacturing, farm commodity processing,\nagribusiness, recreation and tourism.\nSecond, we have some difficulty with certain of the proposed\nactions on plant and animal genetic resources, which seem to\nanticipate and, in some cases, preempt the proposed Biological\nDiversity Convention. A number of those suggested actions should,\nin our view, be limited or at least deferred until the Convention\nnegotiations have progressed to a more definitive stage,\nLastly, regarding the objective of having functioning land-use\nsystems in place by the year 2000, that goal is unquestionably\ncorrect as a long-term objective, but even the highly\nindustrialized countries are unlikely to achieve full local action\nin eight years. While specific land resource allocation and\nmanagement targets may be useful for mobilizing public attention\nand support, it is crucial that they be realistic in terms of: (a)\nthe great difficulties in changing often long-standing economic\nand social policies and customs which play a great role in land-\nuse decisions; (b) the possible internal and external resources\nlikely to be available to assist in this effort; and (c) the\nlikely unfortunate and counterproductive consequences of\nestablishing and publicizing specific goals which prove to be very\nunrealistic. For these reasons, we would oppose setting any\nspecific target of this nature -- which would, in our view lack\ncredibility and raise questions as to UNCED's serious intent.\n3\nIn closing, I would not want the above remarks to be seen as an\noverall unhappiness with the comprehensive options list presented\nby the Secretariat on part C. To the contrary, where we have not\ncommented, we are indeed mostly quite pleased by the thrust of the\noptions, and commend the drafters both for their breadth and for\ntheir dreams.\nOverall, Mr. Chairman, the Agenda 21 goals for land resources\ndepict, indeed, a very ambitious program. We think that\nattempting to reach these goals by the year 2000 is not\nrealistic. This is particularly the case if there is to be\nsignificant participation in the land resources planning process\nby those citizens most affected by the results of such planning.\nThe U.S. stands ready to assist in developing country efforts to\nbroaden democratic processes -- and if I can come back, full\ncycle, to where I began these remarks, we believe that only\nthrough such fuller popular participation can we effectively\naddress the problems which today stand in the way of better\nmanagement of the world's land resources.\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nTHIRD SESSION\nSTATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON DESERTIFICATION\nGeneva, August 22, 1991\nMr. Chairman, we commend the candid and comprehensive analyses\nof the causes and consequences of desertification contained in\nPC/62. We agree that desertification is a most intractable and\noften irreversible process. Caused largely by humans,\ndesertification is closely related in its origins to the\nproblems of land degradation and deforestation discussed here\nlast week.\nIn fact, we think these problems are so closely linked that it\nmay not be practical over the long term to deal with\ndesertification as an isolated phenomenon. The term itself has\nalways been a clumsy one and might better, in our view, now be\nreplaced with the general concept of \"land degradation\" or\n\"degradation of the natural resource base.\"\nThis is particularly relevant given the recent information\nreported from remote sensing specialists that the Sahara has\nstopped its expansion and is now retreating -- in this case,\ndue to climate variation. Technicians in this field of\nexpertise and many of the delegates here know that the term\n\"desertification\" is meant to include land degradation in many\narid or semi-arid regions of the world, and not simply that\nlying in the path of a clearly defined \"desert.\" But we\nbelieve use of that term will continue to create confusion in\nthe minds of those very people at the grass roots level who are\nbeing asked to cope with the problem.\nWe agree with the candid summary, contained in the Secretariat\nreport, of the major shortcomings of the Plan of Action to\nCombat Desertification, or the PACD. We also concur with the\ncomment in PC/62 that, despite the efforts to carry out that\nplan, desertification remains unabated, and that, indeed, more\nland is now desertified than was the case in 1967 when the PACD\nwas adopted.\nFurther, we do not believe that DESCON, the Desertification\nControl Consultative Group has been able to make a significant\ncontribution to anti-desertification efforts. Given the\nfailure of efforts in this sector to date (as outlined in the\nUN Report on last December's Seventh Regular Session of DESCON,\nRome), the key to achieving success in this area sèems to be\nintegration of anti-desertification efforts into national\n-2-\ndevelopment programs or national environmental action plans.\nThis will require that such efforts be viewed within the\ncontext of land degradation, land use, and overall national\ndevelopment efforts.\nIn many instances, governments will have to face squarely the\nneed for improvements in their national economic and land\nmanagement policies. We concur, accordingly, in the call of\nUNSO (the UN Sudano-Sahelian Office) for more governmental\nemphasis on economic and other incentives, consciousness\nraising, education, alternative or supplementary production\nsystems, and agricultural intensification. And, as mentioned\nin the Secretariat report, there is a need for greater\ncommunity participation in country plans to combat\ndesertification.\nWe believe that, in many of the affected countries,\norganizations already exist to channel concessionary resource\nflows, particularly through the multilateral development banks\nand donor organizations. As we said in PrepCom 2, the United\nStates welcomes, and supports financially, the efforts of the\nvarious UN agencies in combatting this form of land\ndegradation, and particularly want to commend the good work in\nthe Sahel of UNSO , and we encourage UNEP's continued\ncooperation with these efforts. The United States also\ncontributes substantially, through its bilateral economic\nassistance programs, to a variety of national and regional\nanti-desertification efforts, particularly in Africa.\nIn some cases, affected countries -- 22 in Africa to date --\nare developing National Environmental Action Plans with the\nhelp of the World Bank. In these cases the multilateral\ndevelopment banks can be of great help in coordinating a\nnational effort, and will go a long way in focussing the\nlimited resources available to help resolve problems in this\nsector.\nLastly, we would like to point out that, just as is the case in\ndeforestation, possible solutions lie not only in improved\nschemes of integrated land management, but also in the efforts\nof developing countries, assisted by donor countries, to deal\nwith poverty, unplanned urban development, and pressures to\nfarm marginal lands to feed their burgeoning populations.\nIn summary, the U.S. Government believes that UNEP should\ncontinue to assume the lead in creating the long-term\nperspective essential to the resolution of desertification\nproblems. We believe UNEP should acquire the staff necessary\nto aid the affected countries in developing national action\nplans to combat desertification, and that these plans be\nintegrated into national development plans. We welcome the\n-3-\npromised UNEP composite report on desertification. But we\nwonder if there is any way to speed up its final approval so\nthat UNCED participants can avail themselves of its findings\nprior to next spring's session of the UNEP Governing Council\nand subsequent transmission to the United Nations General\nAssembly.\nIf that cannot be done on a more timely basis, possibly the\nSecretariat could flesh out the rather generally worded\nprogrammatic framework for Agenda 21, using the report of UNSO\nand the annexes contained in PC/62. Many of the eventual\nspecific actions in Agenda 21 will most likely be related to\nthose needed for overall land resource management, such as more\nintegrated land-use planning and serious efforts to secure a\ngreater popular participation by indigenous people and other\nfarmers. Despite the similarity of likely solutions, however,\ndesertification is an important enough problem to devote\nspecial attention to the special land problems of arid and\nsemi-arid areas of many developing countries.\nMr. Chairman, desertification is often a result of the tensions\nthat often seem to exist between the needs for development and\nthe need to protect our environment. The challenge posed to\nUNCED by this problem -- as by so many others we face here and\nin Rio -- is how to develop a workable plan for sustainable\ndevelopment that goes beyond words and allows us to manage the\nworld's lands for the long-term benefit of both development and\nthe environment.\nUS OPENING REMARKS\nTopic: Conservation and Development of Forests\nPreparatory Committee for the United Nations\nConference on Environment and Development\nThird Session\nGeneva, August 14, 1991\nMr. Chairman:\nMy government has studied with great interest and\nin considerable depth the Secretariat documentation on\nforests prepared for this session of the PrepCom. Let me\nsay at the outset that the United States remains firmly\ncommitted to the negotiation of a free-standing global\nframework convention on forests. We believe such a\nconvention -- on all forests: tropical, temperate and\nboreal -- is urgently needed. Our preference would be to\nhave it concluded in time for UNCED, but we recognize that\nothers face various constraints in this regard and do not\nnecessarily share our views as to timing. Last month in\nLondon, we joined others of the Group of Seven in\nreiterating the commitment to a convention. As stated in\nthe London Summit Declaration: \"We aim to achieve by\nthe time of UNCED:\nagreement on principles for the\nmanagement, conservation and sustainable development of\nall types of forest, leading to a framework convention.\"\nWe believe that this set of principles must be in a form\nthat is acceptable to developing countries with tropical\nforests.\nWe recognize UNCED as the appropriate forum for\ndiscussion of principles for a global forest consensus, as\nwas agreed at the last Preparatory Committee meeting.\nOur discussions at that time showed there is considerable\ncommonality in the views expressed by many countries\nregarding the scope of a global consensus on forests and\nthe topics to be addressed in moving toward agreement on\nforest principles. On this basis, the U.S. has developed\na proposal, which we have asked the Secretariat to\ndistribute as an informal document in English, and which\nwill be be available as Conference Document\nA/CONF.151/PC/WGI/L.20. This document represents our\ncurrent thinking on those principles. We are aware that\nother countries and non-governmental organizations have\ndeveloped proposals as well, and several have shared them\nwith us. They further demonstrate that there are many\nareas of like thinking which can be the basis of reaching\nagreement on principles in time for UNCED.\n-2-\nUNCED Secretariat document A/CONF.151/PC/65,\n\"Guiding Principles for Consensus on Forests,\" offers many\nopportunities to make progress on a consensus text. While\nwe recognize that much work remains to be done, we would\nsupport the document's use as a starting point. We will\nmake further suggestions based on the principles paper\nreferred to above.\nDocument A/CONF.151/PC/42/Add.3, \"Options for\nAgenda 21,\" contains many excellent program elements. We\nwould like to see it take a more balanced, holistic\napproach. At present, the agenda is overly focused on\nclimate change and afforestation issues. We will be\nseeking certain modifications and additions to place\nincreased emphasis on the multiple aspects and benefits of\nforests, particularly as related to productivity,\nsustainable management, development, international trade,\nbiological diversity and ecological stability. We will\nalso be calling for greater attention to monitoring,\ninventory and research, education and training, technical\ncooperation, and the use of market mechanisms to achieve\nmultiple benefits. The latter should include reseach on\nthe economic valuation of natural resources and ecosystems\nservices. Air pollution should also be addressed, as well\nas rehabilitation and recovery of degraded forest land.\nFinally, Mr. Chairman, to return to our opening\ntheme, agreement on a well-balanced set of guiding\nprinciples within this forum will permit rapid progress\ntoward a framework convention, to be concluded as soon as\npossible. My delegation believes what this and the\nfollowing PrepCom meeting achieve in arriving at a\nconsensus on forests has the potential for being one of\nthe most significant outcomes of UNCED.\nUNITED\nNATIONS\nA\nGeneral Assembly\nDistr.\nLIMITED\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\n14 August 1991\nOriginal: ENGLISH\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE\nUNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON\nENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nThird session\nGeneva, 12 August - 4 September 1991\nWorking Group I\nAgenda item 3 (a)\nLAND RESOURCES: DEFORESTATION\nProposal on Forest Principles submitted by the United States of America\nAttached are a set of proposed principles and related actions that might\nform the basis for reaching consensus on the elements of a global convention\nor agreement on forests. Taken together, the principles and related actions\ncould serve to provide an international framework for nationally-based actions.\nThe \"general principles\" are meant to define the nature and structure of\na forest agreement, whereas the \"specific principles\" identify areas of forest\npolicy and management. Based on the principles, countries would be free to\ndevelop national strategies and take beneficial actions best suited to local\nconditions. The potential actions listed are illustrative of such\nimplementation actions that might be taken.\nGE.91-71851/6985a\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 2\nI. PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBAL FOREST CONVENTION/AGREEMENT\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES\n1. Global stewardship\nCountries have a responsibility to engage in cooperative stewardship to\nimprove global environmental quality for mutual benefit. They also have a\nsovereign right to manage their domestic natural resources pursuant to their\ndomestic policies. Global stewardship and sustainable development depend upon\nthe integration of healthy environmental quality and robust economic growth.\n2. Global participation\nImprovements in the management of forest resources will have global\nbenefits. All countries share an interest in promoting such benefits, and all\nshould share in efforts to achieve them.\n3. International cooperation\nCountries should be encouraged to realize their shared forestry goals\nthrough cooperative international arrangements. Such arrangements to improve\nforest resource management could include provision of education and training,\nresearch and monitoring, forest management planning expertise and financial\nand technical assistance.\n4. Comprehensive coverage\nAll types of forests - boreal, temperate and tropical - and all types of\nglobal forest benefits, including economic, environmental, social and cultural\n- should be addressed in an agreement. This includes attention to the\nsustainable use of forests for, inter alia, forest products, biodiversity,\ngreenhouse gas sequestration and indigenous peoples.\n5.\nFlexible, performance-based approach\nProgress on forestry should be measured by the results obtained, to allow\nmaximum scope for creative, diverse, innovative and cost-effective policies\nthat contribute to global forest benefits. Policies and practices should be\nflexible and able to respond to changing circumstances and new information.\nCountries should be able to pursue results through their own choices of\nspecific forest management practices, both to respect the autonomy of\nsovereign States and to enhance the cost-effectiveness and dynamism of\npolicies by allowing them to match local needs and opportunities.\n6. Use of market mechanisms\nTo enhance flexibility and effectiveness, the use of market forces and\nmechanisms to achieve forestry goals should be encouraged, both domestically\nand internationally.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 3\n7. Integration of policies\nPolicies should comport with forestry objectives in such areas as\neconomics and trade (including taxes, subsidies and tariffs), financial and\ntechnical assistance, and property rights and land tenure.\nSPECIFIC PRINCIPLES RELATING TO PARTICULAR FOREST CONCERNS\n8. Sustainable management\nPromote sustainable management and stewardship of forests to meet present\nand future human needs for economic and ecological services. Act\ncooperatively for sustainable development combining healthy environmental\nquality and robust economic growth. Reduce adverse effects on forests by\nimproving the efficiency of using land resources to meet human needs.\n9. Conservation of forest diversity\nEndeavour to conserve, maintain, restore and enhance the biological\ndiversity of forested ecosystems, including genetic, species, ecosystems and\nlandscape diversity.\n10. Reforestation and rehabilitation\nStrive to maintain and increase the total quantity and quality of forests\nto the extent economically and environmentally justified and appropriate.\n11. Climate change\nSeek to expand the use of forests as sinks and reservoirs for greenhouse\ngases, and endeavour to help forests adapt to potential climate change and\nchanging atmospheric composition.\n12. Air pollution\nSeek appropriate actions to address the adverse effects of air pollution\non forest growth and productivity wherever economically and environmentally\njustified.\n13. Indigenous peoples and established local communities\nRespect the needs of indigenous peoples who use forests as the basis for\ntheir livelihood, social organization or cultural identity. Recognize the\nneed of established local communities which depend upon forest resources to\nhave an economic stake in sustainable forest use. Raise local community\nawareness of the effects of their actions on forests and promote compatibility\nof their actions with attainment of forest management objectives.\n14. Fuelwood and energy\nFind means to meet the demands for fuel for cooking, heating and other\nenergy while avoiding deforestation and degradation of forests.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 4\n15. Economics and trade\nIntegrate sustainable forest use objectives and policies with economic\nand trade policies. Harness market forces to achieve national, regional and\ninternational forest management goals. Foster use of debt-for-nature swaps\nand other innovative means.\n16. Research and inventory\nExpand forestry research, inventory and monitoring of the biological,\nphysical, social, economic and other key variables that affect or are\ncomponents of forest resources, forest ecosystems and forest use to meet\nmultiple objectives.\n17. Education and training\nStrengthen institutional capabilities, improve education in the science,\ntechnology and economics of forests and forest management, and ensure full\npublic access to information and public input to the decision-making processes\nrelated to forest management.\n18. Financial and technical assistance\nUse financial and technical assistance resources fully and efficiently to\nhelp countries implement national, regional and international forestry\nprogrammes aimed at the conservation and sustainable use of forests. Ensure\nthat development assistance is consistent with sound forest use and\nstewardship.\nII. POTENTIAL ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PRINCIPLES OF A\nGLOBAL FOREST CONVENTION/AGREEMENT\nA.\nWhat kinds of actions would be appropriate for a framework\nconvention/agreement?\n1. A framework convention or agreement on global forests should establish\ngeneral obligations for the parties. The framework agreement could\nappropriately include:\n(a) Development of and means to provide the scientific, technological,\nand economic knowledge needed as the basis for continuing international\ndiscussion and cooperation;\n(b) General obligations for participants to support the principles of\nthe agreement in ways suitable to their circumstances;\n(c) Appropriate institutions to facilitate continuing scientific,\ntechnological and economic assessment, cooperative research, and general\nobligations;\n(d) Provision for any subsequent protocols for which the scientific and\nother assessments may show a need.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 5\nInventory and research\n2. An adequate base of scientific, technological and economic knowledge and\ndata about the world's forests is needed, both to support continuing\ninternational discussion and cooperation under an agreement and to provide the\nbasis for improved forest management. A cooperative international programme\ncould assess the current inventory and status of forest resources, future\ntrends, and the status of non-forest uses which put pressure on forest\nresources.\n3. Further research is needed in a number of areas, including the\nbiological, physical, social and economic components of forest resources and\necosystems. Examples of areas needing further research include the\nmeasurement of multiple benefits, gaining a better understanding of key or\nleverage variables which affect forests, improving strategies for sound\nmanagement, and better understanding of causes and alternatives to forest\nclearing.\nEducation and training\n4. Countries with forest resources need to have the scientific and technical\nhuman resource capabilities to manage their forests effectively. Countries\nwith expertise in forest management can help build these human and\ninstitutional capabilities. Because improved forest management can improve\nlocal economic performance at the same time that it delivers global forest\nbenefits, providing education and training can serve the interests of both\ngroups of countries.\nStrategies for improving forest management\n5. Countries could undertake, as a general obligation under an agreement, to\ndevelop and publish explicit national strategies for improving forest\nmanagement.\n6. Bilateral and multilateral assistance institutions could develop\nstrategies to help their assistance programmes give forestry objectives\nappropriate priority and emphasis.\n7. As a part of the development of such strategies, countries and assistance\ninstitutions should review policies and practices aimed at non-forest\nobjectives in order to coordinate and integrate them with forest objectives.\nB. Specific potential actions\n8. The following are specific potential actions which fall into the three\ncategories described above - inventory and research, education and training,\nand strategies for improving forest management. They are listed under the\nheadings for specific principles relating to particular forest concerns.\nSustainable management\n9. Undertake, as a general obligation, to develop and publish explicit\nnational strategies for improving forest management.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 6\n10. Undertake, as a general obligation, to review major national policies and\nactions for their impacts on forests.\nConservation of forest diversity\n11. Support a cooperative international effort to develop ways to measure and\nmonitor biological diversity, to do research in support of the conservation of\nforest diversity and to provide technical and financial assistance to these\nefforts. Biological diversity encompasses diversity of species, habitats, and\necosystems. Additional work is needed to improve understanding and\nmeasurement of these factors.\n12. Expand existing efforts to integrate biological diversity goals with\nmultilateral and bilateral development activities.\nClimate change\n13. Support an expanded international cooperative programme of research into:\n(a) The potential impacts of climate atmosphere change on forest\nproductivity, health and diversity;\n(b) Development, demonstration and enhancement of forest-based\ntechnologies that are economically sound while reducing further growth in net\nemissions of greenhouse gases;\n(c) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies and\npractices to increase and enhance natural sinks of greenhouse gases;\n(d) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies and\nmanagement practices that will aid forest managers to adapt to climate and\natmosphere change, while maintaining forest productivity, health and diversity;\n(e) Development, demonstration and enhancement of technologies that use\nthe potential of forests to provide an environmentally acceptable substitute\nfor non-renewable energy sources.\n14. Support an expansion of current international science, technical\nassistance, training, education, and fire management cooperation with a goal\nof reducing the destructive loss of forest resources to fire and a goal of\nreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from forest and savannah fires.\nAir pollution\n15. Initiate a cooperative effort with countries with temperate and boreal\nforests to understand the effects of air pollution on forest productivity,\nhealth and diversity; to assess the damage to such forests from air pollution;\nto determine likely causes; to establish monitoring systems; and to evaluate\nrestorative actions.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 7\nReforestation and rehabilitation\n16. Support through an appropriate international institution an inventory and\nassessment of deforested lands to help countries identify those lands that\nwould produce the highest economic and other benefits from afforestation.\nBoth lands recently deforested and lands deforested in the longer-term past\ncould be evaluated using satellite imagery and on-the-ground assessment.\n17. Take steps, domestically and through cooperative international\narrangements, to enhance the quantity and quality of boreal, temperate and\ntropical forests.\n18. Cooperatively assess the kinds of government policies and arrangements\nthat discourage or encourage conversions of forest lands - tax structures,\nforest and agricultural incentives, land tenure arrangements, leasing or\ncontracting procedures for harvest, and so forth.\n19. Cooperatively expand technical and managerial assistance to developing\ncountries to assist them in restoring degraded lands and their associated\nnatural processes. Aid in developing sustainable multiple-use management\nplans, developing appropriate policy, legislation and administrative\nmanagement plans.\n20. Encourage public/private initiatives such as the Central America and\nMexico Coniferous Resources Cooperative (CAMCORE). This international\nassociation of private companies, academic institutions and government\nagencies has the specific mission of preserving the genetic resources and\neconomic potential of relatively little-known tropical coniferous tree species.\nInventory and research\n21. Support a cooperative, international inventory programme:\n(a) To develop improved forest inventory and monitoring criteria and\ntechniques;\n(b) To carry out an inventory of the world's forests, on a continuing\nand regular basis, assessing their:\n(i) Sustainable capability to meet demands for forest products,\nservices and non-market values;\n(ii) Health;\n(iii) Biological diversity, including species, habitat and ecosystem\ndiversity;\n(iv) Deforestation rates and patterns;\n(v) Ecological changes;\n(vi) Other current and projected changes, including conversion to\nother uses;\n(vii) The effects and sustainability of forest management practices.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 8\n22. Initiate new international cooperative research programmes on tropical\nforests, agroforestry, sustainable development, forest diversity, forest\nhealth management, temperate forests, boreal forests, and reforestation of\ndeforested and degraded forest lands. Proposals could include:\n(a) Expanded emphasis on forest research in existing research centres of\nthe Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR);\n(b) Establishment of new regional forest research institutes under CGIAR\n(the United States could express interest in cooperating in the development of\na tropical forest research centre in Latin America in the Amazon basin);\n(c) Increased commitment to support tropical forest research in existing\ninstitutions such as the Institute of Tropical Forestry, Puerto Rico, the\nInstitute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Hawaii and the tropical woods programme\nat the Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI;\n(d) Identification and evaluation of key leverage variables: factors\nsuch as timber prices, food prices, taxes and subsidies, tariffs, property\nrights, air pollution and others that critically affect forest resource use;\n(e) Establishment of a boreal forest cooperative programme to expand and\ncoordinate research to assess resources, monitor productivity, health and\ndiversity of ecosystems and evaluate sustainable forest practices for boreal\nforests;\n(f) Advanced work in the valuation and comparison of multiple forest\nbenefits, such as commercial forest products, non-forest products such as\nagriculture, fuelwood, pharmaceuticals, biodiversity, indigenous peoples'\nhomelands and ecological services.\nEducation and training\n23. Support in close coordination and cooperation with the network of\nregional forest research institutes and other ongoing international\nprogrammes, the development of a programme of formal and technical training\ndesigned to assure that all countries with forest resources have the\ninstitutional capabilities and access to the most up-to-date scientific\nresources, information and capabilities needed:\n(a) To manage their forest resources in an economically and\nenvironmentally sound manner at the governmental level;\n(b) To provide their farmers, agroforesters, and other non-governmental\nresource users with the extension services, technical assistance and other\nknowledge needed for sound use of forest resources.\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.20\npage 9\nFinancial and technical assistance\n24. Review bilateral and multilateral assistance programmes with a view,\ninter alia:\n(a) To improve the long-term health and productivity of forest resources\nfor the production of employment, income, forest products, services,\nrecreation and habitat;\n(b) To developing and publishing explicit strategies which give\nappropriate priority to projects or aspects of projects which focus on the\nsustainable use of forest and land resources to meet human needs for food,\nfuel, shelter and economic development;\n(c) To ameliorate the adverse effects on the health and productivity of\nforest and land resources from other economic development projects.\n25. Provide an international institution to coordinate information on\ndebt-for-nature swaps by identifying swap opportunities and partners, drafting\nmodel agreements, brokering transactions and generally assisting countries and\nnon-governmental organizations in such arrangements.\n26. Look to the Global Environmental Fund of the World Bank as the source of\nfunding for environmental improvements in the world's forests.\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nSTATEMENT BY US DELEGATION ON\nCONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY\n(PrepCom III - Geneva - August 20, 1991)\nThe Secretariat is to be congratulated for its\ncomprehensive, thoughtful, and balanced documents on the\nconservation of biological diversity. The scope of the\nproposed actions is immense, and we must begin to set\npriorities which will allow us as individual nations, and as\nmembers of regional and international organizations, to make\nthe most effective use of available resources. Our suggestions\nfor additions to the \"Options for Agenda 21\" on this topic\nfocus primarily on the introduction of certain economic and\ndovelopmental concepts centering on the proper valuation of\necosystems and the elements of biological diversity, and how\nthey might relate to conservation issues. We would hope that\nin a second iteration of this options paper, there might be a\nmore complete elaboration of concerns relating to sustainable\ndevelopment and how the conservation of biological diversity\ncould best be integrated into developmental planning.\nWe are encouraged by -- and support -- the emphasis placed\non increasing and harmonizing research on species, habitats,\nand above all, ecosystems. The diversity of life constitutes a\nunique resource for current and future generations. However,\nwe are uncertain even of the magnitude of that resource. Many\nof the activities suggested in the options paper will enable us\nto increase our knowledge in that regard.\nThere is also a need for action now. We must identify\nspecific activities to be undertaken immediately. In general,\nthe US is opposed to setting targets and timetables for the\nscale and for the beginning or ending of these activities. In\nmany cases, dates and targets are not realistic, and in others,\nthey invite postponement of an immediate action. In some\ninstances, if an activity is desirable -- and achievable -- it\nshould be started as soon as possible and carried through to\ncompletion as soon as possible -- if indeed coming to some sort\nof closure is part of the activity's concept. In many cases,\nactivities should remain open-ended, and evolve. In many\ncases, the appropriate scale of the activity is uncertain;\nhence, cosential. a flexible approach to both scale and timing is\nAt the same time, this forum should not attempt to\nanticipate or preempt the Intergovernmental Negotiating\nCommittee (INC) on Biological Diversity. As we look at the\nproposed activities, we should bear in mind that some are more\nappropriately addressed in the formal negotiating process of\nthe INC.\n-2-\nResearch and education are two areas that appear among the\nmost fruitful for UNCED's consideration. We need to know what\nwe have, how best to conserve and use it wisely, and how to\nfully appreciate the costs and benefits of such conservation\nand wise use, as well as of the costs of failing to husband our\nbiological resources. It appears that destruction of\nbiodiversity is often the result of inadequate understanding of\nthe practical value to human society of its conservation.\nwe would like to draw the Working Group's attention to the\nfact that there already exists in the developing world at least\none model institution which has made great contributions to the\nsustainable use of, appreciation for, education about, and\nconservation of biodiversity. It is the Instituto Nacional de\nBiodiversidad (InBio), in Costa Rica. As an example of what it\nhas been able to accomplish on the research side, its committee\nidentifies gaps in the knowledge about the country's biota,\nboth from area and taxon standpoints, and fills these gaps by\ntraining parataxonomists. This procedure has been so efficient\nthat Costa Rica has been able to expand its national insect\ncollection in one year from 50,000 to 2 million prepared\nspecimens. The InBio is also addressing land management and\ndevelopment issues, and is pioneering some novel approaches in\nthe area of market-driven contracts with industry. As we begin\nto give shape to our proposed research and education\nactivities, we suggest that it would be instructive to study\nthe InBio model with a view toward understanding how it might\nbe adapted for use elsewhere, and profiting from lessons\nlearned by it.\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nUS STATEMENT ON UNGA DOCUMENT 151/PC/67\n\"ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY:\nBACKGROUND AND ISSUES\"\n(PrepCom III - Geneva - August 22, 1991)\nWe are in general agreement with the stated objectives of\nUNCED PrepCom to facilitate the safe development and\napplication of biotechnology techniques and products to\nproblems of human health and environment, especially for\ndeveloping countries. We rear the present approach by the\nUNCED Secretariat will not, however, advance these aims.\nThe report of the Secretary-General of the conference\nentitled \"Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology:\nBackground and Issues,\" or Document A/CONF.151/PC/67, is\nespecially problematic. It is entirely unacceptable to our\ngovernment as it stands, as it demonstrates a lack of\nfamiliarity with many aspects of biotechnology and the relevant\nit would have to undergo substantial revision, preferably by\nliterature. For the US Government to, in any Way, endorse it,\nexperts in the field. Without such rewriting, this document,\nthrough its inaccurate and disproportionate view of risks of\nthe new biotechnologies, as well as inflated expectations of\ntheir potential short-term benefits, is likely to lead to the\ncreation of serious obstacles to the development and transfer\nproducts. This is the antithesis of what the UNCED process is\nto the developing world of biotechnologies and biotechnology\nsupposed to be about.\nwe find three major shortcomings in the above-mentioned\ndocument. The first and fundamental one is that it fails to\nconvey a clear understanding of the continuum that exists\nbetween \"conventional\" biotechnology, i.e., plant breeding, and\n\"new\" biotechnology, i.e., use of recombinant DNA.\na failure to recognize that the term or concept of \"GMO,\" \" or\nUnfortunately, this deficiency leads directly and inevitably to\ngenetically manipulated organism, is not relevant when\ndiscussing the environmentally sound management of\nbiotechnology. Whether an organism has been manipulated or not\ndoes not bear on risk to the environment. What is important\nand relevant are the characteristics of the end-product and how\nfamiliar we are with them. To treat GMO's as inherently\nto dangerous solely because of the way they have been produced is\nburdensome to nations of the developing world.\nregulatory straight-jacket. This will be particularly\nput ourselves in an uncomfortable and wholly-unnecessary,\n-2-\nThe view of the US Government is that genetic manipulation\nof innumerable organisms by many techniques -- new and old --\nhas been carried out for decades, if not centuries. We are,\ntherefore, familiar with these organisms and their products\nthrough experience in research, development and commerce. As\nstated above, safety reviews and regulation should focus on the\ncharacteristics and risks of the biotechnology product, and not\non the process by which it is created (US National Research\nCouncil, 1988; National Council on Competitiveness Report,\n1991.) This conclusion is strongly supported by numerous\nscientific studies. The lack of clarity in regard to old\nversus new biotechnologies, to the terms \"transgenic\" and \"GMO\"\nand their significance, and to the safety aspects of\nbiotechnology products, is evident in paragraphs 19, 25, 32,\ndiscussion. 68, 70-74, and 129, inter alia, of the document under\nThe second major shortcoming derives from the first. The\nbasic misunderstandings of both science and safety\ncharacteristics discussed above have caused an inappropriate\nand overly intense focus on risk. It is unbalanced in that it\ndoes not give sufficient consideration to the vast experience\nof governments, industry and consumers with genetically-altered\norganisms used for many years, in both contained and\nuncontained environments, to produce all manner of essential\nproducts and services. This large body of experience with past\ndevelopments in medicine and agriculture provides a sound basis\nfor risk assessment and prediction. It also shows that\nbiotechnology products are likely to be, for the most part,\nsafer and more environmentally friendly than those they will\nsupplement or replace.\nThird, we are concerned that an undue burden is being\nplaced on the new biotechnologies to solve the world's health,\nfood and environmental problems by the year 2000. While it is\nreasonable to expect that biotechnology will make useful\ncontributions, it will take many years of research and\ndevelopment for this to occur, and even then it will not be the\nanswer to all our problems. We hold the progress of\ncommercialization of biotechnology products in the US and other\ncountries as an example: products have been far slower in\ncoming, and more modest in impact, than the popular press has\nled the public to expect. We need to be realistic about the\ntimeframes and expectations that can be placed on future\ndevelopments in biotechnology, and examine the progress that\ncan be made with our current knowledge, preventive measures --\nsuch as clean drinking water -- and existing medical\ntechnologies to improve health and alleviate hunger throughout\nthe world.\n-3-\nFinally, we would appreciate recognition of the\nfundamental fact that while technology cooperation among\ngovernments and with the private sector is a primary goal of\nUNCED, as well as the US, intellectual property rights have\nbeen key to advances in biotechnology. If there is to be\ncontinued participation by industry in research and\ndevelopment, intellectual property rights must be respected.\nIn an attempt to assist the Secretariat, US experts in the\nfield of biotechnology from the Department of Agriculture, the\nEnvironmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug\nAdministration, the National Institutes of Health, and other\nagencies submitted through the Department of State detailed\ncomments on an earlier version of the document under\ndiscussion. An expert from the Department of Agriculture also\nparticipated in the London workshop to help clarify the US\nview. We note that only a small number of our previous\ndetailed corrections and suggestions have been embodied in the\ncurrent version of the document. We are disappointed and\nfrustrated that the great majority were not accepted.\n70 and 71, which discuss methods for safety assurance for new\nIn this regard, we were particularly struck by paragraphs\nand inflexible approach described as \"step-by-step\" that is\nbiotechnology products. This draft material lays out a rigid\ncontrary to the findings of every authoritative study of these\nissues that has been done to date, even though a number of\nthose studies are cited in this draft. In particular, at the\nthe 1986 OECD findings on the need for and basis of a flexible\nLondon workshop, our representative described at some length\napproach that can take into account the past experience and\nbody of data directly relevant to these questions. In London,\nfacilitate adaptations in response based on the rapidly growing\nassurances were given by members of the UNCED Secretariat that\nthis information would be reflected in the re-draft. It is\nnot. This failure renders useless or misleading much, if not\nmost, of what follows paragraphs 70-71 on the topics of risk\nassessment and management.\nWe will list a few other details to demonstrate what we\nregard as the inadequacies of the background document. The\nfollowing comments are only representative, reflecting a few of\nour more serious reservations to the existing draft.\nThe material in paragraphs 19-20 is seriously out of\ndate. As of this writing, no less than 15 crops, transformed\nwith respect to over 40 distinct characters, have been tested\nin the US alone. To date, over 200 field tests have been\nconducted in the US alone. The worldwide total is\nsignificantly higher in both categories. None of these field\ntests has resulted in any negative safety consequences.\n-4-\nParagraph 23 scriously misstates the situation with\nrespect to the environmental implications of transgenic plants\nresistant to horbicides. Authoritative refutations of this\nview can be found in \"Herbicide-Resistant Crops\" (report of the\nCouncil for Agricultural Science and Technology, May 1991) and\nin \"Harvest of Hope\" (Natural Resources Defense Council, May\n1991), and throughout the primary literature.\nParagraph 24 pushes conclusions with respect to engineered\nresistances to viral diseases farther than the data justify.\nSome of the judgments in this paragraph are highly speculative,\nnot backed by data, and unsupportably optimistic.\nParagraph 28 vastly overstates the average yield gains\nthat can be expected from bovine somatotrophin. A May 1991\nreport from the US office of Technology Assessment estimates\naverage gain for an individual farm in the United States\n(incorporating high-quality food supplements and intensive\nmanagement techniques) at 12 percent, not 41 percent.\ninstitutional mechanisms that will allow the transfer or\nParagraph 54 states that \"the challenge is to develop\nacquisition of propriety biotechnology applications from\ndeveloped countries, particularly the private sector, to the\nbenefit of developing countries.\" In the US view, this\nstatement is inaccurate, as these mechanisms exist now in the\nform of licensing and other commercial arrangements.\nParagraphs 70ff, on general principles for safety in\nbiotechnology, present an excessively inflexible view that is\nat least five years out of date. The focus on GMO's is not\nhelpful, creating more problems than it resolves. This\nmaterial also ignores the key finding of all the major\nauthoritative examinations of this issue, that any regulatory\napproach must be flexible, so as to facilitate adaptations in\nresponse to increases in knowledge, experience, and\nunderstanding in this rapidly developing field. It also\nmisstates the case with respect to the possible categorization\nvirtually all the authoritative studies.\nof risk levels for transgenic products, again contradicting\nParagraph 110 overstates the need for contingency plans\nand mitigation procedures. Certainly, in selected cases, they\nare appropriate. For tomatoes or maize, particularly in North\nAmerica, experience to date demonstrates that for the most\npart, they are not. To state the need in such absolute, and\nunqualified, inflexible terms, is, in our opinion, supportive\nof our contention that this document will create precisely the\navoid. kinds of barriers to new technologies that UNCED wishes to\n-5-\ncomments the US does not agree with the substance of or the\nFurther, part to OECD report which is not yet completed they released. refer in\nParagraphs an 113 and 114 are inappropriate as\non monitoring.\nwork remaining for within which to complete the preparatory limited time\nIn view of these numerous defects, and the\nand ensuring productive that the \"Options for Agenda 21\" are as focussed be\nto UNCED, we strongly urge that future efforts committee devoted\ndocument, energy PC67. expended in efforts to repair this badly no further flawed\nbe as possible. we recommend that\nparticularly serious stimulating it to help address successful,\nIn the spirit in of making the Rio conference and\nadditional challenges facing developing countries, some of the\n21.\" suggestions (separately) for the Options We offer for Agenda some\nPROTECTION OF OCEANS, ALL KINDS OF SEAS INCLUDING\nENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS, COASTAL AREAS\nAND THE PROTECTION, RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT\nOF THEIR LIVING RESOURCES\nPreparatory Committee for the 1992\nUN Conference on Environment and Development\nAugust 12, 1991\nMr. Chairman,\nThe United States notes with appreciation the considerable effort\nthat went into the preparations of the documents for Working\nGroup II, related to oceans. These papers raise a number of\npoints of great interest to the United States and we thank the\nSecretariat for bringing them to our attention.\nThe United States believes that the UNCED forum provides a unique\nopportunity to further concrete objectives in the oceans arena\nand will continue to pursue substantive progress in promoting:\n-- elaboration of principles, as initial fulfillment of the\nprovision of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the\nSea, to deal with landbased sources of marine pollution;\n-- encouragement of cooperation in coastal zone management\ntechniques, including through the relevant international\norganizations with an emphasis upon developing local capacity and\nregional interaction;\n-- application of ecosystem, multi-species management of marine\nliving resources, in order to provide for conservation, including\nrational use, of fisheries populations;\n-- cooperation through the relevant international organizations\nin integrated monitoring of the marine environment; and\n-- improved coordination of regional and international coastal\nand marine programs.\nThe United States welcomes the background papers and believes\nthey can provide an important basis for action. The United\nStates believes that it is essential to articulate a clear set of\nobjectives for the oceans as a basis for action at the national,\nregional and international level. In this regard, the United\nStates would draw the Chairman's attention to the document\nintroduced by the United States at the last session\n(A/CONF/151/PC/WG.II/CRP7). We look forward to Working Group II\ndiscussions where we hope to contribute to the clarification of\nobjectives and activities anticipated in the oceans arena.\n- 2-\nTurning to the specifics of the Options for Agenda 21 paper (42\nAdd. 6), the United States supports many of the objectives and\naction items. However, we believe that Working Group II can\nimprove the options for Agenda 21 at this PrepCom by refocusing\nit to achieve consensus on the objectives of the overall paper as\nwell as identify appropriate objectives for the various ocean\nsectors.\nThe paper espouses taking an integrated approach to ocean and\ncoastal resource management. We wholeheartedly endorse this.\nHowever, the section of the paper which presents the sectoral\nobjectives and action items segregates all of the discussions.\nFor this reason, we think we should re-organize the paper to\nemphasize the need for integrated science, data collection, and\ncapacity building necessary to accomplish truly integrated\nmanagement of ocean and coastal resources. Mr. Chairman, we\nwould be happy to provide you with specific ideas of how we might\naccomplish this. We look forward to hearing from others and hope\nthat there will be enough time allotted to this important task.\nThank you, Mr. Chairman.\nUNITED\nNATIONS\nA\nGeneral Assembly\nDistr.\nLIMITED\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15\n13 August 1991\nOriginal: ENGLISH\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS\nCONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nThird Session\nGeneva, 12 August-4 September 1991\nWorking Group II\nAgenda item 2\nPROTECTION OF THE OCEANS AND ALL KINDS OF SEAS, INCLUDING\nENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS, AND COASTAL AREAS AND\nTHE PROTECTION, RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR\nLIVING RESOURCES\nPrinciples on the use and protection of the marine environment\nContribution submitted by the delegation of the\nUnited States of America to Working Group II at\nthe third session of the Preparatory Committee\nfor the United Nations Conference on Environment\nand Development\nOceans\nPrinciples on the Use and Protection of the Marine Environment\nThe marine environment - comprising all ocean and coastal waters,\nincluding inter-tidal zones and salt water marshes, as well as adjacent\ncoastal and riparian land areas, and extending, in the case of watercourses,\nup to the freshwater limit - forms an integrated whole whose health is\nessential to the protection of the environment of the planet and the sustained\nuse of its resources.\nGE.91-71824/1142H\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15\npage 2\nIn order to maintain and sustain the life-support and productive capacity\nof the marine environment, for both present and future generations, action is\nrequired at the national, regional, and global level. To this end, States,\nconsistent with international law and in particular the relevant rights and\nobligations set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,\nshall promote:\nGeneral\n1. Reduction as far as practicable of the risk that human activities will\ncause irreversible change in or long-term adverse effects upon the marine\nenvironment, including coastal and marine ecosystems;\n2. Preservation of the biological diversity and productivity of marine\nspecies and maintenance of the ecological relationships among populations of\nsuch species;\n3. Integration of protection of the marine environment into overall\nenvironmental and economic development policies;\n4. Development of national income accounting practices that reflect changes\nin value resulting from uses of the marine environment, including pollution,\nloss of marine resources and habitat destruction;\nManagement\n5. Development and implementation of integrated programmes for understanding\nand managing the coastal zone;\n6. Development and implementation of integrated programmes for understanding\nand managing marine ecosystems;\n7. Prior assessment of the potential significant adverse environmental\nimpacts of major governmental policies, programmes and projects upon the\nmarine environment;\n8. Acquisition and availability of information and data adequate for prior\nassessments of the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of and\ninformed judgements about major governmental policies, programmes and projects\naffecting the marine environment;\nMarine species\n9. Ensuring as far as practicable that human activities do not result in the\ndecrease of any population of marine specifies below a level at which its\nrecruitment is stable, specifically below a level close to that which ensures\nthe greatest net annual increment;\n10. Restoration to the levels set forth in principle 9 of populations of\nmarine species that have been depleted by harvesting;\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15\npage 3\n11. Protection and restoration of populations of endangered or threatened\nmarine mammals, sea turtles and other species that inhabit or depend upon the\nmarine environment;\n12. Provision of reliable and adequate data and information, including\nverifiable catch and effort statistics, on the commercial harvesting of\npopulations of marine species, including by-catch statistics in order to\nassess and predict the effects of such harvesting;\n13. Use of selective fishing gear and practices that avoid significant waste\nof catch of target populations of marine species or in the significant\nby-catch of non-target species, including marine mammals, sea-birds and\nturtles;\n14. Introduction of new fishing practices and fishing gear only if prior\nassessment demonstrates that such gear or practice will not result in\nsignificant waste of catch of target populations or in the significant\nby-catch of non-target species, including marine mammals, sea-birds and\nturtles;\n15. Ensuring that each population of marine species that is the target of\nfishing activities is harvested in areas and at the stage of its life cycle\nthat ensures maximum economic efficiency, consistent with these principles;\n16. Ensuring that high-seas fisheries are not directed toward straddling\nstocks of marine species fully utilized by fisheries on the same populations\nin adjacent coastal waters;\nProtected areas\n17. Designation of areas of the marine environment for special protection in\norder to protect rare or fragile ecosystems;\n18. Special measures to preserve the habitats of populations of marine\nspecies, including designation of marine and coastal protected areas, in\nparticular breeding, spawning and nursery areas, as well as areas of high\nbiodiversity;\n19. Designation of marine sites for the purpose of preserving or restoring\ntheir scientific, wilderness, recreational or aesthetic value, as well as for\nmonitoring changes in the marine environment and to preserve unique\nopportunities for scientific research;\nMarine pollution\n20. Economic incentives to limit industrial and agricultural practices that\nproduce, as emissions, by-products or residues, potential pollutants of the\nmarine environment;\n21. Adoption and implementation of measures necessary to prevent, reduce and\ncontrol pollution of the marine environment from all sources;\nA/CONF.151/PC/WG.II/L.15\npage 4\n22. Adoption and implementation, as a matter of priority, of measures to\nprevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from\nland-based sources;\n23. Special measures to eliminate or reduce to the minimum practicable the\ndischarge of pollutants that are bio-accumulative;\n24. Coordination and integration of measures to protect the marine\nenvironment in such fashion as to reinforce each other and achieve maximum\nbenefit in the protection of that environment;\n25. Coordination and integration of marine environmental protection measures\nwith other environmental protection measures in such fashion as to achieve\nmaximum benefit in the protection of the environment as a whole;\nMarine scientific research and monitoring\n26. Scientific research on and regular monitoring of the marine environment,\nin areas within, as well as beyond, the limits of national jurisdiction;\n27. Collection, as a matter of priority, of data and information necessary\nfor determining the need for, and assessing the effectiveness of, measures to\nprotect and preserve the marine environment and its resources;\n28. Coordination and integration of national and international programmes of\nscientific research on and monitoring of the marine environment to take\nmaximum advantage of opportunities to collect data and information necessary\nfor understanding the oceans and for action to protect the marine environment\nand its resources;\nData and information management\n29. The storage, archiving, analysis, and full and open sharing of data and\ninformation resulting from scientific research on and monitoring of the marine\nenvironment;\n30. Development of standard, intercalibrated procedures, methods and\nmeasuring techniques to ensure the comparability and compatibility of data and\ninformation resulting from scientific research on and monitoring of the marine\nenvironment;\nPublic participation\n31. Access for individuals, groups and organizations concerned with marine\nenvironmental issues to all relevant information and provision of\nopportunities for consultation and participation in planning and\ndecision-making concerning activities which may affect the marine environment;\n32. Regular exchange and public availability of information on actions to\nimplement these principles.\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1991\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nSTATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON FRESHWATER RESOURCES\n(PrepCom 3 - Geneva - August 14, 1991)\nMr. Chairman, we wish to compliment the Secretary-General\nand his staff for preparing a complete report which summarizes\nthe many complex issues related to protecting the freshwater\nresources of the globe. We share the view of many, that\nheightened competition for adequate supplies and accelerated\nstress on the quality of our surface water and ground water\nresources will continue to have significant effects on economic\nsecurity, human health, ecological vitality, and political\nstability.\nDemands for freshwater now exceed the reliable water supply\nin many regions of the world. The lack of supply often creates\nconflicts between competing water uses. Droughts experienced in\nparts of Africa, Europe and Asia reinforce the devastation\nassociated with water shortfalls. In addition, floods continue\nto occur worldwide creating a different freshwater problem. The\ntask to address freshwater quantity and quality issues is\nchallenging.\nThe United States supports in large measure the general focus\nand the specific recommendations proposed to this PrepCom under\nits \"Options for Agenda 21.\" While the draft outlines a wide\nspectrum of objectives, some of these goals should receive the\nbulk of attention with regards to concrete recommendations for\nimplementation:\n-- to achieve significant gains in the delivery of\nmicrobiologically-safe drinking water;\n-- to establish treatment facilities for sanitary wastes from\nrural and urban areas, and treatment facilities for all major\ncategories of industries;\n-- to foster through all bilateral and multilateral endeavors,\nthe adoption of waste minimization and water conservation\nmeasures;\n-- to evaluate the consequences of water development projects on\nthe physical, chemical, and biological character of freshwater\nresources, and to weigh such environmental issues on an equal\nbasis with considerations of the economic costs and benefits of\nsuch proposed projects;\n-- to recognize that the conservation and improvement of aquatic\nspecies, habitats, and ecosystems are goals which must be\nrecognized as vital to the long-term health, economic, and\npolitical stability of the world;\n-- to recognize further that low water flows and discharges of\npollutants not only affect our fisheries and wildlife, but also\nseriously jeopardize our estuaries;\n-- to improve prediction and forecasting of surface water surges\nto reduce flood damage;\n-- to recognize that, although there is disagreement over the\nmagnitude expected through global climate change, even small\nchanges could affect our water resources and predictiability of\nwater supplies; risk assessment and global climate change should\nbe considered when predicting freshwater supplies;\n-- to recognize that demands for freshwater now exceed reliable\nsupply, causing conflict over allocation of this resource.\nThe United States generally supports the incorporation of\nquantitative measures such as criteria and standards for gauging\nthe success of freshwater resource protection programs, a\nconcept embodied in the options analysis. The concept will only\nbe meaningful, however, if consensus is achieved on the\ndefinition of the objective measures.\nThe U.S. places great importance on the outcome of the\nInternational Conference on Water and the Environment scheduled\nto take place in Dublin, Ireland, January 1992. We believe that\nthe freshwater program activities for Agenda 21 should reflect\nthe outcome of this Conference. We urge the Secretariat to\nencourage the WMO Conference to closely follow the guidelines\nfor work set forth in the decisions of the UNCED. The U.S. will\nbe sending water experts to the Conference.\nU.N. CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nU.S. STATEMENT ON TOXICS ITEM\n(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 21, 1991)\nMr. Chairman,\nWe wish to commend the Secretary General and his staff\nfor preparing papers on toxic chemicals which discuss a\nwide range of issues and identify a number of important\nprograms involved in chemicals within and outside of the\nU.N. system. We believe that the challenge facing\norganizations concerned with the protection of human\nhealth and the environment is managing and reducing risks\nassociated with the manufacture, trade, use and disposal\nof toxic substances.\nThe U.S. supports and is committed to the following\napproaches:\n-- Greater harmonization of control standards and\nassessment methodologies to facilitate free trade, reduce\ncosts and the number of animals used in toxicological\ntesting, and provide more consistent information of\nchemicals risk. There should be a coordinated effort among\nUN agencies such as ILO, IPCS, FAO, UNEP and WHO. The\nIPCS should have a greater role in the interagency\nprocess.\n-- Risk reduction and pollution prevention as the central\ntenets of any chemicals control program. The U.S.\nstrongly favors a broad-based approach for reducing\nchemical risk which could involves both regulatory and\nnon-regulatory measures, including the use of more\nenvironmentally benign products and processes, emissions\ninventories, labelling, use restrictions, economic\nincentives, and bans. The U.S. does not support efforts to\nlist hazardous chemicals for eventual phase-out as safer\nsubstitutes are identified. This \"all or nothing approach\"\nignores risk reduction alternatives short of a ban which\nwould allow for continued use of a chemical under specific\nconditions where risk would be considered acceptable.\n-- Use of a pollution prevention decision-making hierarchy\nwhich consists of the following: (1) source reduction\n(including chemical substitution, technology changes and\nimproved management practices), (2) responsible recycling\nand reuse, (3) improved treatment technologies, and (4)\nimproved disposal technologies. This hierarchy of options\n-2-\nshould be considered within a life-cycle approach to\nchemicals management covering chemicals manufacture,\ntrade, use and disposal.\n-- Reductions in the over-dependence on the use of\nagricultural chemicals through alternative farming\npractices, integrated pest management, or other\nappropriate means. Sound pest management is a small but\nimportant component of sustainable agriculture.\n-- Endorse the principle of Community-Right-To-Know (CRTK)\nand member states to establish national programs which\nprovide public access to information about chemical\nstockpiles and emissions.\n-- Countries to implement UNEP's program on Awareness and\nPreparedness for Emergencies at the Local Level (APELL)\nand other programs consistent with the OECD's Guiding\nPrinciples for Accident Prevention, Preparedness and\nResponse. The U.S. also looks forward to the world-wide\nuse of the UNEP/OECD\nInternational Directory of Regional Response Centers and\nthe UNEP pilot study establishing a Center for Urgent\nEnvironmental Assistance.\n-- Support for Industry Initiatives like Responsible Care.\nSuch initiatives go beyond government regulation,\nrequiring members of chemicals trade associations to\nadhere to specific standards of environmentally sound\nchemicals management. The U.S. strongly supports these\nefforts and believes they can serve as an important\ncomplement to government regulatory programs.\n-- Strengthening IPCS: The International Program on\nChemical Safety (IPCS) is well positioned to play a major\nrole in efforts to harmonize international chemicals\nstandards and methods, as well as assist in the\ncoordination of international activities involving\nchemicalsIPCS has been highly effective in achieving its\nmission of evaluating chemical risks and providing\ntraining and material on chemical safety. The U.S. favors\nproposals for strengthening IPCS.\n-- Prioritizing Work on Chemicals: Better prioritization\nand coordination of international work will facilitate\nsound environmental management of toxic chemicals\nworld-wide, avoiding duplication of effort, identifying\ngaps, and targeting limited resources more efficiently.\nThe U.S. agrees that it is important to direct\ninternational work in chemicals assessment and management\ntoward those chemicals which pose the greatest risks to\nhuman health and the environment.\n-3-\n-- Strengthening the chemicals management regulatory\ninfrastructure. Coordination and strengthening of UN\ntraining and technical assistance programs which cover\nchemical evaluation, safety, emergency preparedness and\nresponse, risk management and reduction, environmental and\nhuman health monitoring, data management, pesticide\nregulation, other areas of chemicals control.\nAmong the principles listed in the Secretariat paper,\nthe US would suggest three additions: 1) recognition of\nthe role of and responsibilities of the various parties\n(governmental, nongovernmental and international) engaged\nin chemical trade and use to implement practical systems\nfor the exchange of information, technical assistance and\nregulatory cooperation; 2) Community Right-To-Know\napproach which allows the public access to information\nabout the risks to human health and the environment posed\nby chemicals; and 3) risk reduction as a central focus of\nchemicals management taking into account the entire life\ncycle of chemicals.\nThe US recommends the following proposals for\nconsideration in Agenda 21:\n-- Toxic Chemical Release Inventories - UNCED review\nemissions inventory programs as possible tool for reducing\nrisk associated with toxic chemicals and consider how\ninformation on setting up and maintaining these types of\nprograms can be better shared internationally, possibly\nthrough a clearinghouse mechanism or guidance\ndocumentation. The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)\nprogram in the U.S. requires manufacturing facilities\nusing significant quantities of toxic chemicals to report\nannually on the total emissions of these substances; this\ninformation is then made available to the public. Since\nTRI's enactment many of the largest manufacturers have\nmade or are committed to make significant reductions in\nemissions of hazardous chemicals. Although other factors\nmay have contributed to these reductions, the information\ngenerated and disclosed under TRI has helped companies to\nidentify and correct inefficient processes and motivated\nthem to voluntarily reduce emissions for reasons of public\naccountability and environmental responsibility. Like\nmany new programs TRI is not without its flaws, however,\nthe U.S. believes that similar emissions inventory\nprograms, adapted to particular country or regional needs,\ncould serve as an effective risk reduction tool within a\nbroader chemicals management structure. As with any\nprogram involving information collection, governments\nshould be careful to collect only essential information in\nthe most efficient manner feasible and without unduly\nburdening to respondents.\n-4-\n-- Risk Communication Guidelines - UNCED adoption of\nguiding principles for risk communication. Simply making\nchemical risk data available is not sufficient to ensure\nthat the public will accurately perceive this\ninformation. Sound principles for communication risk\ninclude: (1) accepting and including the public as a\nlegitimate partner in decisions concerning risk, (2)\ncarefully planning communications to the public, (3)\nproviding the public the opportunity to make comments, (4)\ncoordinating and cooperating with non-governmental\nentities such as physicians or local officials, (5)\nproviding media guidance.\n-- Code of Conduct for Industrial Chemicals - Encourage\nUNEP to invite industry to develop an internationally\nagreed upon Code of Principles for the Management and\nTrade in Chemicals which would provide a flexible\nframework for developing countries to establish their own\nchemicals control programs. The proposed Code for\nindustrial chemicals would parallel the voluntary FAO Code\non the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in International\nTrade and cover testing, handling, labelling, packaging,\ntrade, and information exchange.\n-- Intergovernmental Mechanism for Chemical Risk\nAssessment and Management - Increased coordination may be\nencouraged through the establishment of a unit to oversee\nand coordinate activities of U.N. agencies and other\nnational and international organizations involved in\nchemicals assessment and management.\nRecommendations the US will not support include:\n-- A legally binding instrument. Given that countries\nhave yet to gain experience from participating in a\nfunctioning PIC procedure, the U.S. believes that efforts\nto \"strengthen\" PIC through a legally binding instrument\nare premature.\n-- Establishment of an international mechanism to regulate\nand prohibit, as appropriate, trade in products\n(chemicals, wastes, processes, technologies) which are\nbanned or severely restricted in their country of origin.\nThis proposal appears to duplicate work in other fora\n(e.g. UNEP/FAO PIC procedure).\n-- New international regulatory procedures or requirements\nfor certain chemical products such as food additives,\ncolor additives, and drugs. All of these products are\nalready closely and adequately controlled by other\nmechanisms.\n-5-\n- Restriction of trade in domestically prohibited\nproducts. The US believes that restrictions on exports of\nsuch products may be appropriate in limited circumstances\nand only when there is domestic legislation prohibiting\nthe import of the products.\nIn summary, the U.S. is committed to pursuing global\nsolutions to global problems. The cumulative impact of\nmore sound environmental management of chemicals in\ninternational trade and within U..N. member states will be\na planet less at risk to the hazards of toxic chemicals.\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nSTATEMENT BY THE US DELEGATION ON HAZARDOUS WASTE\n(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 19, 1991)\nMadame Chairperson,\nIn the view of the US delegation, the most important item\nbefore UNCED in the area of hazardous waste management is the\nexpedited implementation of the Basel Convention to Control\nTransboundary Movements of Wastes, and we believe the bulk of\nresources in the waste area should be devoted to this end.\nAfter the Convention is implemented, it can served as the\ncentral mechanism for additional waste work, such as on\nrecycling, waste minimization and training programs in\nhazardous waste management.\nThe United States Congress is now considering legislative\nproposals to allow domestic implementation of the Basel\nConvention, including a proposal developed by the President to\nban all exports of hazardous waste except where there is a\nbilateral agreement with the receiving country.\nWe support the overall UNCED objective of a \"cradle to\ngrave\" framework for hazardous waste management, in both\ndeveloped and developing nations. The U.S. has long supported\nsuch a concept for hazardous waste management and in 1980, it\nenacted the most stringent hazardous waste management standards\nin the world.\nThe U.S. also supports the UNCED objective of waste\nprevention and minimization as an important element in any\nwaste management regime. However, the U.S. opposes the\nestablishment of specific quantitative targets, both because we\nlack the authority to act on such targets, and because the\ncurrent state of measurements in this area is inadequate to\nascertain absolute measures of progress.\nThe activities suggested as possibilities in Agenda 21 for\nachieving significant waste reduction are generally viable\nones. However, we do not believe that investigations of the\neconomic impacts associated with waste generation and\nmanagement is a high priority for Agenda 21. While its\ninclusion is, of course, appropriate to a full work program, it\nis relatively difficult to measure across nations, given the\nsignificant difference in waste management standards and\neconomic benefits associated with waste generation in terms of\ngoods in commerce.\nEach of the activities associated with the goal of\nenhancing national institution capacities in hazardous waste\nmanagement are reasonable mechanisms to achieve that end.\nHowever, the U.S. cautions against a commitment to extensive\nnew efforts given the prevailing resource constraints. In our\nview, support should not be given to a revolving fund as\nreferred to in number 31 of Agenda 21 at this time.\n5\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nU.S. POSITION ON \"ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF SOLID\nWASTES AND SEWAGE-RELATED ISSUES: BACKGROUND\"\n(Prepcom III - Geneva - August 20, 1991)\nMunicipal solid waste (MSW) management is an issue of\ngrowing concern in the United States principally because we are\nexperiencing a regional imbalance between the quantity of MSW\ngenerated and the capacity to dispose of it. The Environmental\nProtection Agency (EPA) is working within our nation's existing\nstatutory framework to help alleviate the problems posed by\nthis imbalance of MSW generated by government, industry,\nbusiness, and our citizenry.\nWithin the United States, the management of MSW is the\nprimary responsibility of state and local governments. The\nfederal role is one of facilitation. EPA establishes the\nframework within which states and localities carry out their\nresponsibilities regarding MSW management. EPA also assists in\nthe exchange of relevant information among the various state\nand local governments. The agency stresses the use of the\nconcept of integrated waste management, a holistic approach\ninvolving the use of some or all of the four waste management\noptions: source reduction, recycling, incineration with energy\nrecovery and safe disposal. The appropriate combination of\nthese options can be molded into an integrated waste management\nsystem where each component complements the others to manage\nthe waste safely and efficiently.\nThe US Government supports the three-tiered hierarchy\nadvocated in the report. First is source reduction to reduce\nthe volume and toxicity of MSW. Next is recycling to divert\nmaterials from landfills and incinerators, conserve energy, and\nslow the depletion of nonrenewable natural resources. Last is\nsafe disposal, including landfilling and incineration. We also\nemphasize that planning is essential to ensure that waste\nmanagement systems are appropriately integrated and effective\nand that requisite infrastructures are provided. We believe\nthat the document places appropriate emphasis on the importance\nof the planning process.\nEPA believes that it can reduce reliance on the disposal\noption through source reduction techniques such as the\nelimination of unnecessary packaging and increased emphasis on\nreusable products. We are also optimistic about the future of\nrecycling. In the United States, our rate of recycling\nincreased as much between 1986 and 1988 as it did between 1960\nand 1986. In the last few years, we have seen a substantial\nincrease in the number of recycling programs established by our\nlocal governments. Over 2700 communities now provide curbside\ncollection of recyclables, an increase of well over 250 percent\nover a two year period. Over the same timeframe, we have seen\na doubling in the number of composting programs.\nThe US is continuing to work with state and local\ngovernments to encourage waste minimization in our businesses\nand our households, to help establish markets for recycled\nproducts, to identify ways to improve the economics of\ncollecting and recycling recoverable materials, to promote yard\nwaste composting, and to ensure the safe disposal of those\nmaterials that cannot be eliminated through source reduction or\nrecycled.\nSimilar to recycling programs of many governments, we would\ninvite the United Nations to develop an internal recycling\nprogram for paper, sluminum etc.\nIn conclusion, the U.S. approach to MSW management is\nconsistent with the principles articulated in the report and\nare pleased with the emphasis placed on waste minimization as a\nmeans of reducing reliance on solid waste disposal options. We\nbelieve that the document, as a background paper, provides a\nuseful framework for discussion.\nSTATEMENT OF U.S. POSITION\nUNCED PREPCOM III\nSTATEMENT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES (A/CONF.151/PC/78)\nMr. Chairman,\nThere has been much talk, although little formal discussion\namong governments, of an \"Earth Charter.\" The Secretary\nGeneral has spoken of it quite a bit. We have also seen quite\na lot of hard work by various non-governmental organizations\nfocusing on this issue, much of it covering very different\nground.\nYet, calling for an \"Earth Charter,\" as some have,\npresupposes a consensus about the need for a certain type of\ndocument and agreement on the purposes it might serve. That\nconsensus does not exist. The United States has not reached a\ndecision on whether there should be an \"Earth Charter.\" Let us\nfirst examine our needs and purposes, then decide how to\nexpress them. I would like to take this opportunity to review\nfor you the United States' views on this matter.\nFirst, a note of caution. We have already considered in\nthis group a long list of existing international legal\ninstruments on the environment, many of which create very\n8/20/91\n- 2 -\nimportant legal obligations and require specified actions. The\nnumber of international political statements on the environment\nis also large and growing as are lists of competing\nenvironmental principles, as is evident in the extensive note\nprepared by the Secretariat. Yet there is always a temptation\nto defer the hard questions of adherence to existing\ninstruments in favor of expending energy drafting still more\nhigh-sounding principles. The temptation is of course much\ngreater before a conference as universal and important as\nUNCED. But the need to do something about the lack of effect\ngiven existing instruments and statements of principles is also\nmore acute at UNCED.\nWe are anxious to hear others' views on both the concept of\nsuch a document and its content. Let me assure you that the\nUnited States is ready and eager to discuss the issues and\nideas that might be embodied in this or some other document\ncontaining non-binding principles. In fact, we have specific\nsuggestions about what principles UNCED should endorse.\nUNCED Principles Should Build on the Stockholm Declaration\nThe principles of the Stockholm Declaration are now twenty\nyears old, and many of them have become widely accepted by\n- 3 -\nstates. Some, such as Principle 21, which so elegantly\ndescribes the essential relationship between a state's\nsovereignty over its natural resources and its obligation to\nprevent environmental harm to foreign states, must not be\ndisturbed. We should not try to replace the Stockholm\nprinciples. Rather, we should build on its foundations and our\ntwenty years of experience. We should look forward, to our\nhopes for a sustainable future.\nUNCED Principles Should Reflect Basic Principles of Democracy\nEssential to Sustainable Development\nThe right of individuals and groups to participate in the\ngovernment of their country at a local and national level is a\nfundamental tenet of democracy, enshrined in the Universal\nDeclaration of Human Rights. Equally fundamental are the basic\nindividual and group freedoms that are the birthright of all\nhuman beings: the right to free expression of ideas, to\nassemble peacefully, to seek and disseminate information, to\nparticipate in public debates.\nNo new statement of environmental principles would be\nadequate without a recognition of these rights because\nsustainable development can only be accomplished through the\ndemocratization of environment and development policy-making.\nAccordingly, UNCED should proclaim basic principles related to\n- 4 -\nthe participation of the public in government decision-making\nabout the environment and development. UNCED should also set\nforth guidelines for governments on the sharing of information\nwith the public and other governments about the environment and\ndevelopment. It should also include essential points related\nto public participation in environmental impact assessments,\nwhich should be conducted by all states prior to undertaking\nmajor domestic actions with potential significant effects on\nthe environment.\nUNCED Principles Should Reflect the Central Role that Market\nMechanisms Play to Achieve Sustainable Development\nThe importance of free markets and market mechanisms to\neconomic development and environmental protection has become\nmore and more apparent with the decline of the centrally\nplanned economies and revelations about the environmental\ndamage they wrought. Around the world, governments are seeking\nto develop market-based solutions to development and\nenvironmental problems.\nAn UNCED statement should reflect the importance of market\nprinciples by affirming the principle that a polluter must pay\nthe costs to the environment of his pollution, stating the\ngeneral need for markets to reflect full economic accounting of\nenvironmental costs and benefits, and the use of a variety of\n- 5 -\neconomic instruments, such as emission charges, tradeable\npermits, and reductions of subsidies, to harness market forces\nin the service of environment and development goals. These\ninstruments are more environmentally effective and more\neconomical than central \"comand-and-control\" technology-based\napproaches, and therefore are critical to the integration of\nenvironment and development.\nUNCED Should Define a New Relationship with the Biosphere\nIn our conversations over the last few months we have heard\nmany times of the need for the countries of the world to\nredefine their relationship to the Earth and its ecosystems.\nWe are becoming more and more aware of the interdependence of\nall the world's life systems. It would be appropriate for us,\nrepresenting the countries of the world, to make a statement\nrecognizing fully our interdependence.\nFinally, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the\nSecretariat for the very useful background information the\nSecretariat has provided for our consideration of this agenda\nitem. We governments now have the information we need to carry\non our work. Whatever approach we decide to take, let us not\nengage in simply repeating the language of the past, much of\nwhich represents less than a consensus view. Our job as\ngovernments is to move the debate forward.\nENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES\nThe Following are principles reflected in the Statement of the\nUnited States of America to Working Group III of August 20, 1991.\nThey are presented to the Chairman of the Working Group at his\nrequest for use by the Secretariat in compiling a non-paper. This\nnon-paper will be a compilation of principles submitted by\ninterested delegations, for presentation. to the Working Group to\nconsider in informal sessions.\nI. UNCED SHOULD DEFINE A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BIOSPHERE\n-- We, the people of the world, understand that the Earth is a\nunique, whole and interdependent system. We are conscious that\nmany of our past perceptions and relationships are no longer\nadequate, and that we must teach ourselves and our children that\nwhatever we humans do to the world in which we live, we do to\nourselves.\n-- In light of our understanding of the planet as a functioning\nwhole, in which all of its ecosystems are interrelated, we fully\nrecognize our mutual interdependence. We must live in balance with\nnature to ensure the continuity and quality of life for future\ngenerations.\nII. UNCED PRINCIPLES SHOULD REFLECT BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY\nESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT\n-- Sustainable development requires the democratization of\nenvironment and development decision-making. To this end, wider\nparticipation of individuals, groups and organizations at all\nlevels, local, national, regional and international, will be\nessential.\n-- In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,\nindividuals, groups and organizations concerned with the\nenvironment and development have the right to participate in the\ngovernment of their country at a local and national level. This\nright includes the rights to express ideas freely, to assemble\npeacefully, to seek and disseminate information, and to participate\nin public debate.\n-- To further these ends, the following rights should also be\nrespected by all states and incorporated in national laws and\nregulations.\n(a) Community Access to Information\n-\nIndividuals, groups and organizations should have\naccess to information relevant to the environment on\nproducts and activities which have or are likely to have\na significant impact on the environment, and on\nenvironmental protection measures.\n- Communities should have access to information about\nhazardous materials and the potentially serious impacts\nof industrial accidents in their area, including\ninformation on contingency planning, and should be\ninformed immediately when such accidents occur.\n- National authorities should make available at regular\nintervals reports on the state of the environment.\n(b) Consideration of the Public's View\n-\nThe views of the public should be taken into account\nin government decision-making processes related to the\nenvironment and development.\n- Competent authorities should facilitate and\nencourage public participation, inter-alia, by providing\nwide notification to the public of relevant policies,\nplans and activities, by making information widely\navailable, and by receiving public views, including\nthrough the convening of open public fora.\n(c) Environmental Impact Assessment\n-\nFor any proposed activity or any proposed major\nchange to an activity which is likely to have a\nsignificant impact on the national environment and which\nis subject to a decision of a competent authority, an\nenvironmental impact assessment should be undertaken.\n-\nAs part of an environmental impact assessment, the\npublic should be provided, for examination and comment,\ninformation about any proposed activity; about reasonable\nalternatives, where appropriate, including the\nalternative of no action; about the environment likely to\nbe affected; about the likely environmental impacts of\nthe proposed activity and its alternatives; about\nappropriate measure for mitigating adverse environmental\nimpacts; and about uncertainties and gaps in knowledge.\n- Individuals, groups and organizations should have\nthe opportunity to transmit comments on proposed\nactivities to the competent authority before the final\ndecision is taken.\n-\nA final decision should take into account the\nresults of the environmental impact assessment as well as\nthe comments received from the public and should be\npublished promptly.\n-\nStates should provide an opportunity to the public\nin areas outside their territory to participate in\nrelevant environmental impact assessment procedures\nregarding activities which are likely to have a\nsignificant adverse transboundary impact on their local\nenvironment and should see to it that the opportunity\nprovided to the public of the affected country is\nequivalent to that provided to their own public.\n(d) Enforcement\n-\nIn matters related to the environment, states should\nprovide access to administrative and judicial procedures\nfor contesting decisions of competent authorities and\nprivate persons and entities that may be unlawful or may\ninfringe on rights under the law. Such procedures should\nalso provide appropriate remedies.\n-\nIn matters related to the environment, governments\nshould extend access to administrative and judicial\nprocedures to all groups and organizations with a\nrecognized legal interest. States should also extend\naccess in such matters to individuals, groups and\norganizations with a recognized legal interest who are\noutside their jurisdiction on an equivalent basis to\nthose who are inside their jurisdiction.\nIII. UNCED PRINCIPLES SHOULD REFLECT THE CENTRAL ROLE THAT MARKET\nMECHANISMS PLAY TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT\n-- Open and free markets at the national, regional and\ninternational levels are fundamental to the achievement of\nsustainable development. Market forces and mechanisms, and other\neconomic instruments, including emission charges, tradeable\npermits, and reductions of subsidies, need to be harnessed to\nachieve sustainable development goals at each of these levels. To\nthis end, environment and development objectives and policies\nshould be integrated with economic and trade policies.\n-- Polluters should bear the costs of pollution they cause,\nincluding the expenses and carrying out the necessary pollution\nprevention and control measures introduced by public authorities to\nprotect the environment.\n-- Markets should reflect full economic accounting of\nenvironmental costs and benefits.\nU.S. STATEMENT OF POSITION\nSURVEY OF EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS,\nAND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION\n(A/CONF.151/PC/77)\nMr. Chairman,\nOne of the principal tasks of this Working Group is to\nprepare an annotated list of existing international agreements\nand instruments in the environmental field, with detailed\ncommentary. Another is to examine possible areas for the\nfurther development of international environmental law, with\nappropriate consideration of integration with development\nissues and the needs and concerns of developing countries.\nThe Secretariat has made a significant contribution to\nour work in its note on this topic. It has provided us with a\ndetailed list of criteria and other considerations to take into\naccount in evaluating the effectiveness and operation of these\ninternational agreements and instruments. It has also\nsuggested general areas for examination before recommendations\nare made as to the further development of international law.\nThe report of the Siena Forum will also be a useful source of\nbackground material for our work.\n8/19/91\n2\nBecause, however, the Secretariat's note was received\nwith relatively little time before the beginning of this\nPreparatory Committee, we have not been able to examine the\nagreements listed in the text and evaluate them under the\ncriteria listed. We believe this work is critical, and should\nbe carried out in capitals, or by an ad hoc group of government\nexperts following this session of the Prepcom. We therefore\npropose that governments undertake this task between this\nmeeting and the next.\nAt the next Prepcom, governments may meet to compare\ntheir work, or the work of an ad hoc group, and begin the\npreparation of the annotated list called for in the terms of\nreference for Working Group III. This work, which will require\nclose and careful deliberation by experts, should be initiated\nand carried out by interested governments. We do not believe\nthat general criteria can be refined to such a point that\nevaluations can be made on a purely factual and objective basis\nwithout direct participation of governments.\nWe also have some suggestions for adding to the lists\nof agreements included in the Secretariat's note. The list it\nhas provided of existing agreements is quite comprehensive, but\nwe have a few specific additional suggestions, which we can\npropose at the appropriate time. Moreover, we believe it would\n3\nbe helpful for the Secretariat to provide in the report of this\nsession of the Prepcom, if possible, a catalogue of significant\nagreements covering shared natural resources in addition to\nthose included in the note on transboundary watercourses.\nBecause of their number, of course, this list could only be a\nrepresentative sample. This addition to the list is important,\nhowever, because such agreements play an important role in the\ncreation of international law, and are potentially useful\nmodels for situations in other regions.\nThe report of this meeting could also usefully include\na list of ongoing negotiations of instruments and agreements in\nthe field of the environment, as well as ongoing work in\ninternational bodies (such as UNEP, OECD, etc.), to create\nnon-binding standards. A catalogue of ongoing negotiations\nwill help considerably our task of identifying areas in which\nfurther development is necessary.\nIn addition, the potential usefulness of regional and\nbilateral agreements as models for other countries and regions\nis another area that should be considered by governments in\nevaluating the need for the further development of\ninternational law.\n4\nFinally, we need guidance from the other working groups\nas to which topics, issues or regions are currently in need of\nnew agreements or instruments. A few come easily to mind. The\nUnited States notes that there is a great need for a framework\nconvention on the conservation and sustainable use of forests.\nThe problem of land-based sources of marine pollution is now\nunder active consideration for further work. There are\nregional and international marine living resources in need of\nadditional legal protection.\nMr. Chairman, a comprehensive look at existing\ninternational environmental law is a big task, but a fruitful\none. It is necessary before we can evaluate where additional\ncodification is necessary.\nU.S. STATEMENT OF POSITION\nON HEXAGONALE COUNTRIES' PROPOSALS ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION\n(A/CONF.151/PC/L.29 & A/CONF.151/PC/WG.III/L.1)\nThe peaceful settlement of disputes is a fundamental\npurpose of the UN Charter, and should be pursued by all\nstates. The United States is strongly in favor of the\ndevelopment of international dispute settlement mechanisms, and\nwe have studied the proposal of the Hexagonale countries\ncarefully.\nThe U.S. view is that dispute resolution mechanisms\nshould be incorporated into international agreements, and\nshould be designed by the parties to the agreement to be\nresponsive to the specific types of disputes that may arise\nunder that agreement. The United States is not, however, in\nfavor of the development of a single institution or mechanism\nfor the settlement of all international disputes related to the\nenvironment.\nThe Hexagonale proposal on the \"Settlement of\nInternational Disputes Concerning the Environment\" seems to\nshare this basic approach. The proposal describes various\nelements for consideration in the creation of dispute\nresolution mechanisms and calls for them to be incorporated in\nbi- or multi-lateral treaties. To the extent the proposal is\ngeneral in nature, the United States can accept in principle\nthe practical value of setting forth a compendium of dispute\nsettlement procedures to which governments may refer when\nnegotiating international agreements regarding the protection\nof the environment, and can support efforts by the Prepcom to\ndraft such a reference document.\nThe Hexagonale proposal on the \"Prevention of\nInternational Disputes Concerning the Environment\" takes a\ndifferent approach. It proposes that a convention be drafted\nunder the auspices of UNEP to create a standing mechanism that\ncould be invoked at any time by a state party where that\nstate's \"territory is likely to be impaired by transboundary\nenvironmental effects of activities or omissions on the\nterritory of other States.\" The procedure would involve the\nappointment of an inquiry commission that would be empowered to\ngather facts, including through on-site inspections, and issue\na report to be deposited with UNEP.\n8/23/91\n-2 - -\nIn the U.S. view, this procedure would not be necessary\nwhere there was no dispute between states. It is only when\nstates are unable to reach agreement through discussions and\nthe exchange of information that the resort to international\nmechanisms is necessary. We have difficulty imagining a\nsituation where this procedure would be invoked where a state\nconcerned with potential adverse environmental effects in its\nterritory were satisfied with consultations undertaken with its\nneighbor.\nThe United States could support elements of this\nproposal as additional procedures to be set out under the\nHexagonale proposal for settlement of international disputes.\nHowever, various aspects of the proposal raise significant\nquestions needing further clarification, and would require\ncareful consideration to be acceptable.\nPREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 1992\nUN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\nSTATEMENT BY THE U.S. DELEGATION ON INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES\nGeneva, August 22, 1991\nWorking Group III, Agenda Item 5, Document 80\nIntroduction\nMr. Chairman, the United States believes that the time\nis overdue for drawing up plans for organizational\narrangements to improve the UN's role in environmental and\ndevelopmental matters. Discussions over the past few months\nin several separate forums, non-official as well as\nofficial, have disclosed wide agreement about the general\ndimensions of the institutional issues before us. In\naddition, a number of countries, the U.S. among them, have\nput forth some specific suggestions for achieving the\ndesired institutional improvements. We also have before us,\nof course, the helpful outlines of issues and possibilities\nprovided by the Secretariat in Document 80 for this session,\nand Document 36 for the last session.\nRequirements\nThese extensive preliminary efforts lead to the\nconclusion that institutional improvements should consist of\nsix principal elements:\n- the initiation and operation of an intergovernmental\nprocess to guide the application or implementation of\nsustainable development in the UN system;\n- the establishment of an effective interagency\ncoordinating mechanism for all elements of the UN system\ninvolved with environment and/or development;\n- the involvement in the coordinating effort of\norganizations associated with the UN system, especially\ninternational financial mechanisms or institutions such\nas the World Bank and other multilateral development\nbanks;\n- the inclusion of relevant non-governmental, private\nvoluntary, scientific, and private-sector (especially\nbusiness and industrial) organizations and interests in\nthe process;\n2\n- the enhancement of existing agencies or organizations in\nthe UN system, through strengthening and/or reform, as\nappropriate;\n- the promotion of environment/development activities and\nprograms with a regional or national focus.\nThese elements can and should be addressed in conformity\nwith two broad guidelines:\n- optimal use of existing institutions and organizational\nassets, and\n- reliance on budgetary support derived from current or\nplanned UN\nfinancial resources.\nBuilding on the suggestions we put forth earlier (see\ndocument A/CONF.151/PC/WG III/L.4), and taking into account\ncomments made in response to those suggestions, the United\nStates now proposes to accomplish these purposes in the\nfollowing ways. Successful application of these proposals,\nof course, would be based on the expectation that\nGovernments act in a manner consistent with them in all the\norganizations and forums in which they participate --\nespecially in ensuring that the various UN specialized\nagencies and programs conform to system-wide coordination\nrecommendations and decisions.\nSummary of Proposals\nThe institutional adjustments we now suggest consist of\nfour main measures:\n- a possible combination of existing ECOSOC committees\ninto a single intergovernmental committee to deal in a\ncomprehensive way with the more political aspects of\nenvironment and development or sustainable development;\n- an annual joint (or combined) UNDP-UNEP session on\nenvironment and development or sustainable development\nas part of the UNDP Council's agenda;\n- a high level, effective coordinating mechanism for UN\nand related agencies and programs, co-chaired by the\nUNDP Administrator and the UNEP Executive Director;\n- regionally and nationally focused efforts built around\nor based on the existing UNDP Roundtable/World Bank\nConsultative Group of donors and UN agencies.\n3\nIntergovernmental Deliberations\nA two-fold intergovernmental process could be\nestablished to address environment and development or\nsustainable development concerns from the political and\ntechnical perspectives. Politically, a great deal of\nongoing intergovernmental effort may be required to ensure\nthe effective implementation of UNCED's outcomes, as\nembodied in Agenda 21 or otherwise. Comprehensive and\ncoherent attention to the complete configuration of UNCED\nrecommendations will be indispensable to the success of this\nendeavor. Much can be achieved in this regard through\nreports to and debates by the General Assembly, in\naccordance with an appropriate (perhaps biannual or\nquadrennial) schedule, as suggested by Resolution 44/228's\ndescription of the General Assembly as the appropriate\npolitical forum for discussion of international\nenvironmental policy. Indeed, in many aspects of ocean\npolicy, a wide range of subjects is already regularly\nconsidered under the General Assembly item on the Law of the\nSea -- a valuable process the principal features of which\nshould be suitably preserved.\nHowever, a forum for a more focused discussion may also\nbe needed. In any case, a number of existing\nintergovernmental committees addressing closely related\nmatters could be incorporated into the process of monitoring\nand reviewing the implementation of UNCED's results. In\nkeeping with the guidelines mentioned earlier, no new\nintergovernmental bodies or processes should be set up,\nexcept by combining -- or transferring resources from --\nexisting bodies or processes judged to be of lower priority\nor lesser effectiveness.\nIn keeping with this approach, three existing UN\ncommittees seem to recommend themselves for close\nexamination. The Committee on New and Renewable Sources of\nEnergy, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the\nCommittee on Science and Technology for Development might\nusefully be combined into a more comprehensive committee to\ndeal with environment and development or sustainable\ndevelopment. Such an entity could serve as the forum for\nfollowing and promoting the implementation of Agenda 21 and\nother outcomes of UNCED -- especially those pertaining to\nGovernments. It could also provide the means for\nnon-governmental groups (NGO's, PVO's, scientific, business,\nlabor, etc.) to participate in the implementation of UNCED's\nresults, perhaps along the lines worked out for NGO\nparticipation in the UNCED Preparatory Committee.\n4\nA separate but closely related intergovernmental process\nto address the more technical aspects of\nenvironment/development or sustainable development concerns\ncan be readily implemented through the use of the existing\ngoverning bodies of the UN Environment Program and the UN\nDevelopment Program. The annual UNDP Council meeting could\ninclude an environmental or sustainable development subset\nof its agenda, with the additional participation of UNEP\nGoverning Council members who are not also members of the\nUNDP Council. This tightly focused joint (or combined)\nsession of the two program councils could take appropriate\naction on sustainable development matters or\nenvironment/development issues for the UN system, subject to\nfinal review and approval by the relevant higher level\norgans of the UN.\nPrecisely what those organs are should be addressed as\npart of the larger UN reform process now in progress. We\nshould not wait for conclusion of that process before we\ninitiate organizational enhancements to the UN's environment\nand development interests and activities. We should try now\nto develop self-contained proposals capable of effective\napplication to, or incorporation into, a number of possible\nlarger reform schemes.\nInteragency Coordination\nAn interagency coordinating mechanism to handle\nenvironment and development, or sustainable development,\nquestions could be formed under the co-chairmanship, or\nother appropriate joint management arrangement, of the UNDP\nAdministrator and the UNEP Executive Director. The\ncoordinating mechanism would be modeled in part on the\nsuccessful aspects of the earlier board set up to coordinate\nenvironmental activities, which was later merged with the\nAdministrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), with\nappropriate additions to or deletions from that board's\noriginal functions. An additional model could be found in\nthe current work of the Consultative Committee on\nSubstantive Questions (Operational Activities), a\nsubordinate body of the ACC, which handles the UN's\ninvolvement in development efforts.\n5\nThe coordinating mechanism would most usefully be based\nin New York -- the UN's policy-making center -- and be made\nup of senior representatives from every UN entity with\nsubstantial environmentally or developmentally related\nactivities. Perhaps the most important function of the\ncoordinating mechanism would be to provide continuous\nliaison between UNEP and UNDP, as well as coordinating the\nmajor environmental and developmental efforts of other UN\nbodies. A principal goal would be to ensure the preparation\nand consideration of environmental impact assessments for\nall UN-related projects and development activities. Support\nfor the coordinating mechanism could be provided by\nredirecting the resources now devoted to the Designated\nOfficials on Environmental Matters (DOEM) and the Committee\nof International Development Institutions on the Environment\n(CIDIE), and by secondments of staff from each of the major\nagencies represented in the coordinating process.\nHigher level monitoring or, if necessary, oversight, of\nthe coordinating mechanism could be carried out by the\nAdministrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), which is\nchaired by the Secretary General and currently tasked with\ncoordination of environmental and developmental activities\nin the UN system. Subsequently, if experience so warrants,\nthe coordinating process could be placed under the\nsupervision of a designated (e.g. DIESA) or reassigned (e.g.\nDIEC) senior Secretariat official, who reports or would\nreport directly to the Secretary General.\nThe coordinating mechanism would in the first instance\nensure that UNDP's activities were in proper consonance with\nthe requirements for sustainable development, and that UNEP\nwas effectively supporting the effort. At the same time,\nthe coordinating process would examine the environmentally\nand developmentally significant activities and plans of each\nUN agency, and recommend adjustments where appropriate. To\nensure the effective operation of the coordinating\nmechanism, continued active attention by Governments would\nbe essential. As members of each of the executive or\ngoverning bodies of the participating organizations, it\nwould be incumbent upon Governments to see to it that those\norganizations cooperate and lend their full support to the\nprocess -- and, where necessary, modify their own programs\nand activities to conform to the guidance and direction\nwhich the process would provide.\n6\nCoordination with Financial Institutions\nRepresentation and participation in the coordinating\nprocess on the part of associated organizations and\ninstitutions, especially the international financial\ninstitutions, is of critical importance. It is necessary to\nexplore ways to involve the World Bank in the overall\ncoordinating process, and in particular, to consider whether\nand how to link the Global Environment Facility to the\ncoordinating mechanism. The GEF already includes UNDP and\nUNEP in a tripartite arrangement with the World Bank, so\nthat a linkage to a mechanism co-chaired by the heads of\nUNEP and UNDP might be accomplished in a straightforward\nmanner. However, the actual implementation of the linkage\nmight best await completion of the GEF's pilot phase.\nIn any case, the World Bank must be a full and active\nparticipant in any effective process for coordinating\ninternational environment and development activities.\nSimilarly, efforts should be made to bring in the private\nfinancial sector in some appropriate way, as well.\nIndications of some possibilities in this regard have\nrecently emerged in the CIDIE context, for example, and\nthese should be examined for their prospects and potential.\nNon-Governmental Participation\nEqually important to the success of the overall scheme\nfor institutional enhancements and improvements is the\ninclusion of the non-governmental, scientific and private\nsectors in the process in appropriate ways. This could be\nachieved by inviting and permitting representatives of these\norganizations to contribute to the deliberations of the\ncomprehensive committee on environment and development, as\nsuggested above, and perhaps the annual joint UNDP-UNEP\nsession on environment and development as well.\nIt may also be possible eventually to include them in\nsome fashion in the UN interagency coordinating mechanism's\nprocess. Currently, UNEP invites rather broad NGO\nobservation/participation in its Governing Council\nproceedings, and the International Council of Scientific\nUnions (ICSU) has active working relationships with UNESCO\nand WMO, while business and industrial groups have had and\nare now reactivating ties to UNIDO. These circumstances and\narrangements, and others like them, should be further\nexplored for possible use in helping to bring about\ninvolvement by these groups in the overall process.\n8\nConclusion\nOnce this overall intergovernmental and interagency\nprocess is fully operational, experience gained from it\ncould provide the basis for considering further\norganizational and institutional arrangements to improve\ninternational environmental and developmental efforts.\nHowever, the planning and preparation needed to get the\nprocess underway, as well as the gradually increasing\nmomentum of related but disparate activities now in\nprogress, argue for timely decisions soon about the\ndirections to be taken. We can ill afford protracted delay\nwithout risking the loss of opportunities which now present\nthemselves.\n7\nAgency Improvements\nThe enhancement of all existing agencies, organizations\nand programs of the UN system is a constant process which\nrequires better attention in order to be successful. In the\narea (s) of environment and development, UNDP has an\ninstitutional improvement process already underway, and UNEP\nis embarking upon one. Efforts are needed to ensure that\nUNCED's outcomes are taken into account in these UNEP and\nUNDP processes, through attention on the part of the\nGovernments which are members of the respective governing\nbodies, and through effective operation of the interagency\ncoordinating mechanism. As the coordinating process\ndevelops, it will also be necessary to ensure that other\nparticipating agencies make appropriate modifications to\ntheir programs and activities.\nRegional and National Levels\nEnvironmental and developmental activities with a\nregional and national focus are increasingly at the center\nof programmatic concerns in UNEP and UNDP. Regional seas\nand regional lake/river basin programs are underway in UNEP,\nfor example, and UNDP has begun to implement plans for a\nSustainable Development Network. In addition, the already\nestablished UNDP Roundtable/World Bank Consultative Group\nprovides a process which includes donors and UN agencies in\nefforts to coordinate development assistance to particular\nregional and national recipients.\nThese ongoing efforts can be further developed and\nexploited to achieve greater concentration of environmental\nand developmental undertakings at the regional and national\nlevels -- especially in regard to the improvement of\ninstitutional capacities at these levels. UNDP field\noffices, UNEP regional offices, other regional and field\noffices of the UN system, and the UN regional economic\ncommissions should also combine their skills and resources\nin support of sustainable development activities at regional\nand national levels. Either separately or in connection\nwith this approach, UN staff -- especially at the field\nlevel -- should receive appropriate in-service training to\nensure their maximum effectiveness in contributing to the\neffort. Some concrete, albeit informal, proposals along\nthese lines have already been developed which merit\nappropriate formal consideration in time for decisions by\nGovernments prior to UNCED, and/or approval by UNCED itself.\n1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT\nAND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)\nI.\nBackground\nThe 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and\nDevelopment (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of\nthe landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.\n-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of\nprinciples that continue to guide our approach to\nenvironmental protection today.\n-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm\nConference and played a pivotal role in its success.\n-\nMany, especially NGOs, look to us to play the\nsame role in UNCED.\nUNCED has a broad mandate to set the international\nenvironmental agenda into the next century and to develop\nmeans for integrating environmental objectives and economic\ndevelopment\n--\nIt is to address the full range of specific\nenvironmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues\n(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,\ntechnology transfer and financial assistance.\nIt will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.\n-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)\nsessions.\n-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice\nStrong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory\nCommittee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).\nThe PrepCom has three working groups:\nWorking Group I:\n-\natmosphere (climate change, depletion of the\nozone layer, transboundary air pollution)\n-\nland resources (deforestation, desertification,\ndrought)\n-\nbiological diversity\n-\nbiotechnology\n--\nWorking Group II:\n-\noceans, seas and coastal areas, including their\nliving resources\n-\nfresh water resources\n-\nwastes and toxic chemicals.\n--\nWorking Group III:\n-\nlegal and institutional issues\n1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT\nAND DEVELOPMENT (UNCED)\nI. Background\nThe 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and\nDevelopment (UNCED) will mark the twentieth anniversary of\nthe landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.\n-- The Stockholm Conference issued a declaration of\nprinciples that continue to guide our approach to\nenvironmental protection today.\n-- The U.S. was a primary sponsor of the Stockholm\nConference and played a pivotal role in its success.\n-\nMany, especially NGOs, look to us to play the\nsame role in UNCED.\nUNCED has a broad mandate to set the international\nenvironmental agenda into the next century and to develop\nmeans for integrating environmental objectives and economic\ndevelopment\n-- It is to address the full range of specific\nenvironmental issues, as well as cross-cutting issues\n(e.g. access to information, legal mechanisms,\ntechnology transfer and financial assistance.\nIt will be held in June, 1992 in Rio de Janiero.\n-- There will be four Preparatory Committee (PrepCom)\nsessions.\n-- The Secretary General of the Conference is Maurice\nStrong (Canada) and the chairman of the Preparatory\nCommittee is Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore).\nThe PrepCom has three working groups:\n-Working Group I:\n-\natmosphere (climate change, depletion of the\nozone layer, transboundary air pollution)\n-\nland resources (deforestation, desertification,\ndrought)\n-\nbiological diversity\n-\nbiotechnology\n--\nWorking Group II:\n-\noceans, seas and coastal areas, including their\nliving resources\n-\nfresh water resources\n-\nwastes and toxic chemicals.\n--\nWorking Group III:\n-\nlegal and institutional issues"
}