NEWS                                                OUTREACH 1997
                           The Voice of the NGO Community at CSD*
                                     Countdown to Earth Summit II
LETTER

Vol. 1 No. 11
Thursday, 6 March 1997

                      CSDI SPECIAL EDITION

                 ANXIOUSLY AWAITING THE LAST DAY

AT A GLANCE

COMMENTARY

VISION

RIO GRINDS

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

NGO VIEWPOINT

ANNOUNCEMENTS

-=-=-=-=-

COMMENTARY

"Which tune in June, USA?"

Why does not the US play any more
good old-fashioned evergreen songs?

The US has come a long way since it marched out of Rio in 1992.
Then again, haven't we all? But maybe the US has taken the
longest strides -- at least up until this Intersessional started.
I mean, despite Reagan, the US went along with strong measures to
protect the ozone layer in 1987. I'd like to think that this was
because environmental sense overrode short-sighted market gains,
and not the fact that American firms had developed technology
that replaced CFCs.

And just think of how poorly the US performance under Bush was
rated by the world in Rio, who tried to substitute the green-
house effect with the White House effect. This was definitely no
show-stopper and only earned Bush the reputation as the most
isolated US President at an international conference after World
War II. A rather dubious solo performance.

But how elated we felt over the environmental commitment of the
Clinton Administration. This was more than corroborated by Al
Gore's insight shown in his books on environmental problems.

And how saddened we feel today at the close of this environmental
interlude -- which actually is the overture to a pastoral
symphony played out in tune in June.

The US performance during the Intersessional has played like a
sad piece of music. Ambassador Richardson's meeting with the NGOs
prior to the Intersessional was like listening to a fanfare, a
happy tune performed by a confident player, a virtuoso soloist.
But when he reappeared in the plenary on Monday, he was sadly
lacking harmony with the rest of the players. He almost fell
flat. All he delivered was a round of empty words, not even
slightly reminiscent of something that could connote a happy
song. This was after all, a too often played US melody. And
believe me, absolutely not an evergreen.

The next US movement was played out in concert with an attentive
international NGO audience present. "Yes, we have no position, we
have no position today. The other players have not made their
notes nor positions clear," the delegation rapped. The NGOs were
left with a feeling that the US really was missing a conductor.

The following day in the plenary, we watched another solo
performance by he US. But this almost sounded like "Anything you
can do, we can't do either." And when the Chair swung the baton
and said , "we'd rather hear what you could do with us, US," the
NGOs nodded in accordance and thought, slightly aghast, "Has the
US delegation not even read Al Gore's books?"

The curtain is about to fall for the Intersessional scene. What
will the next play be like? When will the US get its act together
and play in tune with the rest of us? Will it be "April in New
York" or just another cacophony in June?

Signed: "A somewhat saddened, but still hopeful listener."

-=-=-=-=-

VISION...

"Some people see things as they are and ask why? Others dream of
things that never were and ask why not?"

                                           Senator Robert Kennedy

"The fundamental political conflict in the opening decades of the
new century, we believe, will not be between nations or even
between trading blocs but between the forces of globalization and
the territorially-based forces of local survival seeking to
preserve and redefine community."

                                                    Global Dreams
                                 Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh

"The indicators a society chooses to report to itself about
itself are surprisingly powerful. They reflect collective values
and inform collective decisions.

A nation that keeps a watchful eye on its salmon runs or the
safety of its streets makes different choices than does a nation
that is only paying attention to its GNP.

The idea of citizens choosing their own indicators is something
new under the sun - something intensely democratic."

                                                  Donella Meadows

"Yeah, Yeah, Yeah"

                                                      The Beatles

-=-=-=-=-

RIO GRINDS...
overheard at the coffee bar

The worry of some in the coffee bar this week is will those of us
attending this CSD Intersessional be remembered in the words of
T.S. Eliot 'These were a decent people. Their only monument: the
asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls.'

We understand that there will be a new book coming out for the
CSD. 'Better than Sex - Confessions of a UN Groupie'

A tall rigid man with a bald spot masquerading as an NGO and
answering to the name of Al was seen being led from Conference
Room C where he had apparently been overheard making phone calls
to prominent funders on behalf of the DNC.

Czar Strong has been looking at innovative ways of privatizing UN
agencies: an offer from McDonalds to run FAO is understood to be
being taken seriously; contracting out the Climate Change
Secretariat to Shell is under serious consideration; an offer
from a south-east Asian logging company to run the CBD is
understood to have been made; a possible merger of WHO and Philip
Morris is on the cards.

-=-=-=-=-

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

            NGO Statement on Section III (condensed)

        Barbara Bramble - US National Wildlife Federation

NGOs are concerned. This discussion on the structure of the
document and not its substance. There has been a loss of the
sense of urgency that this whole process was designed to address,
back in 1989 when UNCED was initiated.

Do government delegates not understand that there is a confluence
of catastrophes going on in the world and we were sent here to do
our best to address them? The danger signs are everywhere:

-    There has been an alarming rise in breast cancer.
-    Scientists are seeing the disappearance of many frog species
     and the alarming appearance of deformed legs in other
     species.
-    The total number of poor people is rising not falling.
-    Water levels are beginning to rise, storms are threatening
     vulnerable populations, and there are big cracks in the
     Antarctic ice sheets.
-    Fish populations in many of the world's most productive
     fisheries have already crashed below harvestable levels.
-    Forest cover is still being lost at an increasing rate.
-    The Rate of Change is now accelerating beyond our capacity
     to react.

Einstein said "God does not play dice
with the world." But we are.

So the NGOs want you to now that this year's CSD and Earth Summit
II will have failed miserably if it does not specify the actions
required for every section in the paper, with a measurable target
and a timetable, and clear delineation of who is to be
responsible for action.

We do appreciate the work of the Secretariat and the Co-chairs
who have obviously labored to pull together the recommendations
that have been discussed here in the last week. But most of the
good ideas that are mentioned do not translate into action.

The NGO documents contain some recommendations to make results of
the CSD and Earth Summit II more action oriented. We want to see
a real program of work for each item that is mentioned, with
responsible parties identified. We also want to see targets and
timetables for them.

The Co-Chairs paper calls for 'the next concrete steps for
international action must be expeditious conclusion of convention
on Prior Informed Consent and Persistent Organic Pollutants.'
There are obviously no dates for the first actual reductions in
release of those chemicals, much less their elimination. As NGOs
we can count the latter as progress.

The next step surely must be a global harmonized system for the
classification and labeling of such chemicals, and the
development of a Framework Chemicals Convention into which the
POPs and PIC instruments, along with others can fit.

So each section in the document should lay out sign posts for
international or domestic actions and who should implement such
actions, and by when.

Paragraph 18: Integration of Economic and Environment Objectives

We are pleased to see that the paper does have an important
action item, with a target and a timetable, for the production of
national sustainable development plans, and an invitation to
pursue local Agenda 21. We agree wholeheartedly, but the date is
too far away. The five year review period is an important
pattern. There should be a strong 'beat' on the drum of
sustainability every five years. The deadline must be the year
2002.

Equally important is the process by which this work is
accomplished. Governments must ensure that all major groups are
actively involved at all levels of decision making in the
formulation and implementation of these strategies. This should
also include the indigenous peoples.

And the national sustainable development plans will not be
successful unless the process meets the rising international
norms for transparency, accountability and the public's right to
effective participation. These norms are now accepted and
implemented at most of the international financial institutions
such as the World Bank.

Paragraph 19: Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns

NGOs have recommended the use of the concept of 'environmental
space' (or the 'environmental footprint') which was articulated
and evaluated at HABITAT II and accepted there as a way for
nations, as well as local communities to proceed. This concept
involves calculating, then setting targets to reduce (taking into
account the equity approach to meet the needs and aspirations of
the poor) the ecological pressure caused by wasteful consumer
choices.

Inclusion of this should strengthen the sub para 'd' of Para. 19
and transform this general good idea, i.e. the adoption of
targets for energy and materials efficiency, into a real action
plan. Then all that is needed is a deadline, which we would
recommended, as above, to be 2002.

-=-=-=-=-

Paragraph 20: Making Trade, Environment and Sustainable
Development mutually supporting

A specific point needs to be made with regard to the section on
Trade.
Throughout this section, while the potential impact of
environmental and social agreements on trade is assumed to be a
problem to be avoided, the equivalent impacts of trade agreements
on environmental and social goals are ignored. Let me give you
one example of how those points could be balanced more
appropriately in a revised text:

-   Further work is needed to ensure that the implementation of
    environmental measures does not result in disguised
    restrictions on trade, particularly those that have adverse
    effects on existing market access opportunities of
    developing countries, and equally, to ensure that
    globalization promoted by liberalized trade does not
    undermine the environmental and social goals of the Earth
    Summit and the other recent global conferences.

For the first action item, we recommended that the governments
should agree, here and in the Earth Summit II, to convene a
meeting of Trade and Environment Ministers, just before the next
ministerial meeting of the WTO.

In addition, we hope to see a clear understanding among the
delegations that environmental conventions are not within the
purview of the WTO, and thus cannot be bound by WTO-related
requirements. This should be clarified now in this document and
at Earth Summit II.

We feel the CSD has the competence, which WTO does not, to
examine the sustainable development impacts of Trade.

Therefore the CSD should operationalize its 1994 call for an
environmental review of the Uruguay Round, and also further the
work of the Expert Panel on Trade and Sustainable Development
(endorsed by the CSD in 1995), by establishing an
Intergovernmental Panel on Trade and Sustainable Development (or
a sub-commission of the CSD) to examine and make recommendations
on ways to reconcile trade with the environmental and social
development objectives of sustainable development. We urge
governments to commit this panel to the following purposes:

-   expand efforts to eliminate negative effects of trade on
    developing countries by reconciling WTO rule making and
    global trade practices with the post-Rio agenda;

-   implement the HABITAT II agenda which calls for governments
    to create "regulatory and legal framework...to promote
    socially and environmentally responsible corporate
    investment in partnership with local communities;" and

-   work for international codes of conduct for corporations;
    ISO 14000 and EMAS systems are useful, but cannot substitute
    for sound, binding regulations and performance based
    standards and codes of conduct.

Also we urge governments to speak out and act consistent with the
agreements of the CSD, when they have their WTO hat on, for
example in promoting openness and transparency in WTO procedures.

-=-=-=-=-

                      Statement on Finance
                        Rob Lake, UNED-UK

It goes without saying that financial issues are at the heart of
the success of Agenda 21. Given the overwhelming technical and
political importance of financial resources, we are somewhat
disappointed that the Co-Chairmen's paper does not indicate any
significant steps forward or highlight clearly enough some of the
fundamental principles which we believe are important. As in
other areas of the paper, targets, timetables and specific
actions are lacking.

On ODA, we urge all countries again to reaffirm their commitment
to reaching the 0.7% target, and to set a target of doing this by
the next review of Agenda 21 in the year 2002. It would be useful
to indicate that better targeting of ODA to meet environmental
and social objectives could help to restore public confidence in
the value of ODA in some developed countries.

On the balance between ODA and FDI, it is essential to stress
more clearly that these two mechanisms are not necessarily suited
to the same tasks. There will be certain sectors and activities
which present little or no attraction for the private sector, but
which are of central environmental and social importance. These
include biodiversity conservation, soil and watershed protection,
and development and diffusion of sustainable agriculture
technology, particularly for marginal and especially poor areas.

Moreover, clear statements are necessary on the need for ODA's
capacity to meet real needs to be improved, for example by
providing small-scale finance over long periods and through
flexible delivery mechanisms that maximize community
participation, such as national environmental funds.

The GEF negotiations starting on 12 March will have reached their
planned mid-point by the time of Earth Summit II in June. We all
know that the budgetary situation in many developed countries is
difficult. But surely announcing commitment to a replenishment of
the world's environment fund that is not just 'adequate' but
represents an increase in resources would be an ideal way for
developed country leaders to demonstrate their commitment to
global environment at Earth Summit II. We would like to see the
output from this Intersessional reflecting this commitment.

The possibility of widening the GEF's mandate, for example to
include desertification, has been discussed. Clearly funds are
needed to tackle both desertification and other environmental
problems. But we would urge caution. Widening the GEF's scope
without guaranteeing very substantial extra resources could
simply leave the GEF doing more things less well. This would not
be a desirable outcome.

We agree that further work is needed on FDI. This should focus on
how to maximize the contribution to sustainable development of
foreign private flows to developing countries. It should also
examine the design of an appropriate policy environment for
attracting FDI, the strengthening of host countries' social and
environmental policy and regulations, and their enforcement
capacity, as well as the creation of certainty and stability
concerning the regulatory environment. Attention should be given
in international investment regimes, such as the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment being negotiated within the OECD, to
designing mechanisms for screening all FDI to ensure that it
contributes to sustainable development. Following the model
propounded by NAFTA, states should not change or relax
environmental regulation to attract foreign investment. Voluntary
industry codes should not substitute for or undermine regulatory
regimes.

Domestic resource mobilization is obviously essential. It is
therefore disappointing that the language of the Co-Chairmen's
paper on this issue is weak. All governments should be urged to
pursue better policies of the kind referred to in paragraph 42 of
the paper.

The paper's references to the elimination of environmentally
damaging subsidies are welcome. But it should be made clear that
this embraces all damaging subsidies - including for example,
those for fisheries and forestry.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Co-Chairmen's paper
leaves unanswered the crucial question of how many of the issues
it raises - and which I have referred to here - are to be taken
forward and international consensus and implementation pursued.
We would therefore repeat our proposal that an intergovernmental
process should be established under the aegis of the CSD, such as
a Panel or Sub-Commission, aimed at reaching global consensus on
a range of financial issues and formulating concrete
recommendations for action at the international and national
level. These include innovative financial mechanisms, the balance
between and respective roles of ODA and FDI, the co-ordination of
subsidy reductions, and the creation of a policy environment and
international mechanisms that maximize the contribution of FDI to
sustainable development.

Such a body might operate through a series of focused sessions
concentrating on specific issues of relevance to countries at
different stages of development, and therefore having different
needs along the spectrum from ODA to FDI. Experience could be
exchanged, understanding of appropriate solutions developed and
dialogue encouraged. Special sessions could be held on areas
requiring international coordination, such as the introduction of
international environmental or other taxes.

In the meantime, we would again urge the EU to move forward to
innovative international finance by introducing excise duty on
aviation fuel and channeling some of the revenue to the
implementation of Agenda 21 in developing countries. Urgent
further investigation is also needed of the practicalities of a
charge on international currency transactions.

This meeting, the CSD and the Earth Summit II must produce a
convincing outcome on finance. All countries, developed and
developing , have responsibilities to shoulder. We hope they will
all rise to the challenge.

-=-=-=-=-

NGO VIEWPOINT

                  US struggles to build bridge
                         to the 5th CSD

After a meeting on Tuesday night with the US delegation, several
NGOs approached "OUTREACH" with the following report.

Five days after their highly-productive meeting with delegations
from the E.U., international NGOs met Tuesday evening for the
first time with the delegation from the United States. NGOs
entered with hopes that the positive momentum would carry on.
Very quickly, however, it became clear that the US and NGO
perceptions of reality were separated by an alarming gulf.

It seemed as if the US was trying to displace their lack of a
clearly defined priorities onto other nations. Instead they
indicated that they had done more than most nations in the area
of environmental connection: the air quality had gotten cleaner;
the Great Lakes were no longer burning; there had been
significant successes in land-fills, toxic chemicals, and
transfer of technology. The NGOs felt that the US neglected to
mention, however, that those accomplishments were gained through
the use of precisely the kinds of targets and timetables and
enforced regulations that his government has since been furiously
resisting in international negotiations.

The US made a strong commitment under Agenda 21, to make this a
better planet to live on but the NGOs were not given any specific
commitments as to how the US would accomplish this.

One leading NGO mentioned the suspicion often expressed by US as
well as non-US NGOs, that US arguments for reform and
restructuring were merely smokescreens to hide a wholesale
slashing of agencies and programs. 'Why are Americans always
talking about the need for reforms that require a reduction in
funds, but never supporting those programs once they are properly
restructured,' an NGO inquired.

The NGOs were determined to try to help out the somewhat
beleaguered and non-comprehending US delegation by asking 'Can
you at least try to include the phrase 'within regulatory
contexts,' when you talk about the virtues of the private
sector?'

The real driving force in the 21st century will be the private
sector, was again stated the US, in what has become a recurring
theme not just at the CSD, but in all US foreign policy
proclamations.

Any hope by NGOs that the meeting had produced an immediate
effect on US sensitivity were squashed the next day, however.
When the US was called to address the Intersessional discussions
on the Co-Chair's Paper, the US would "not accept 0.7 percent
ODA; could not accept targets and timetables for CO2 emissions;
and indeed would not address program targets of any kind."

It was only the intervention of the Chair that lifted the
delegates' fast descending sense of despair by gently, but
firmly, responding to the US that the Chair would not accept any
more statements that spoke of 'not accepting,' but would
appreciate from now on only statements of what countries would
accept and suggest to make the Paper and the Special Session a
success.

-=-=-=-=-

ANNOUNCEMENTS

                   PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABILITY:
              LOCAL INITIATIVES FOR CITIES & TOWNS

From 1-5 June 1997, an international conference will be held in
New Castle, Australia to examine and encourage environmental
awareness in local communities. The outcome of the conference
will be presented to UNGASS in June. For more information,
contact the Conference Managers, Capital Conferences Party Ltd.
in Australia at: tel.: 612 9252 3388; fax: 612 9241 5282; email:
capcon@ozemail.com.au

The Sixth International Conference of The World Information
Transfer will be held at United Nations Headquarters on 17 -18
April 1997. Running parallel to CSD V, this conference, which is
being co-sponsored by the Government of Chile, will focus on
"Environmental Degradation: Its Effect on Children's Heath."
Further information can be obtained by contacting the following: 
tel: (212) 686-1996; fax: (212) 686-2172
email: wit@igc.apc.org

-=-=-=-=-

The opinions, commentaries and articles printed in OUTREACH are
the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations,
unless otherwise expressed.

They are not the official opinions of the NGO/CSD Steering
Committee or of WFUNA.

-=-=-=-=-

The Steering Committee has a web page.
http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/csd-97
There is also a general list server for those interested it is
csdgen@undp.org  To be added to he list, just send a message to
 with the one line message:
subscribe csdgen

The complete NGO statement referred to under "UPDATE" will be
posted on the web site in a couple of days.

-=-=-=-=-

OUTREACH '97
CSD NGO Steering Committee

World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)

Editors
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
Sharon McHale
David Fingrut

Contributing Journalist on this issue: Michael Strauss

OUTREACH 1997
Please send material /enquiries to
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
Fax (+1 212) 963-0447
Tel (+1 212) 963-5610
E-mail: wfuna@undp.org