NEWS                                                OUTREACH 1997

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

Vol. 1  No. 12
Friday, 7 March 1997                         CSDI SPECIAL EDITION


                    THE GRAND FINALE, FOR NOW
AT A GLANCE

COMMENTARY

VISION

RIO GRINDS

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

NGO VIEWPOINT

ANNOUNCEMENTS

NGO PROCESS SO FAR

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.

COMMENTARY

Is this the end... or just the beginning?

The process of international cooperation at the UN is impressive.
Dedicated men and women from all over the world manage to arrive
at "agreed texts" covering almost any issue at the close of
almost each and every conference. The different delegates at the
Intersessional are once again at work on a final document.

At a glance, the document sets out to describe the stark
realities of the world in a typical UN manner. Trends and
conditions in the world remain the subject of great concern.
Economic inequities increase, more people live in poverty, the
global environment continues to deteriorate and "significant
environmental problems remain deeply embedded in the socio-
economic fabric of nations in all regions."

But we are willing to do something about this deplorable
situation. By all means, much has been accomplished in a
surprisingly short period of time. Since Rio in 1992, we have
taken giant strides towards a progressively better future.
Positive development trends and positive achievements need to be
emphasized. Population growth is slowing down; there are
considerable health improvements among large groups of people in
the world; conventions to protect various parts of the
environment have been agreed on. But we have miles to go before
we can sleep.

Why have we reached such a deplorable state of affairs? The
participating nations in the Intersessional have so far agreed on
a working text which alludes to a number of problem areas.
Polluting and inefficient patterns of production and consumption,
particularly in the industrialized countries are identified in
Agenda 21 as the leading cause of environmental degradation
worldwide. Poverty must be eradicated. All agree to that. But
how? Many recommend the full integration of the poor into dynamic
market systems.

Under the seemingly placid and amicable surface of the
Intersessional there are problem areas that are analyzed from so
different vantage points that they may be irreconcilable.

One basic and very simple question needs to be asked concerning
future plans of action : Why have we reached the state of the
world we are in? Is this a polemical question and therefore
should not be asked? Is it a too political question and therefore
should not be asked? Or is it a question that everyone knows the
answer to, and therefore does not need to be asked.

Whatever the reasons for the world's present state of being, we
need to produce and to consume to survive. There are six central
questions to be asked in this connection:

- What are we going to produce?
- How are we going to produce this?
- For whom are we producing this?
- From what are we producing?
- Who will decide the production?
- What consequences for the environment will this production
  have?
- What answers are we going to give these questions?

Will the final document from the Intersessional help us to arrive
at satisfactory answers to these questions? Will CSD 5 in April
give us these answers?

For the first time in the history of mankind, we have the means,
knowledge, technology and resources available to give all people
a decent life. We just need to find a way to answer the difficult
questions of how to develop our future.

We live in exciting times and the challenge of future is
exciting. And as Derek Osborn said immediately after the closing
session on Thursday - 'I think we are about to have a good
document to work with. I am very optimistic about the future'.

Stay tuned to OUTREACH and stay with the process until the next
meeting of the CSD 5 in April.

-=-=-=-=-

VISION...

"Far better it is to dare mighty things to win glorious triumphs,
even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor
spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live
in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt

"The unlawful we can do immediately, the unconstitutional just
takes a little bit longer."

Henry Kissinger

"We commit ourselves to promoting the goal of full employment as
a basic priority of our economic and social policies , and to
enabling all men and women to attain secure and sustainable
livelihoods through freely chosen productive employment and
work."

Copenhagen Declaration, WSSD - 1995

"Did I shave my legs for this?"

Country singer Deena Carver

-=-=-=-=-

RIO GRINDS...
overheard at the coffee bar

LATEST PRIVATIZATION NEWS:
Following the rumors on Czar Strong's UN privatization in
yesterday's OUTREACH, we have just been informed of the latest
developments...

We understand that UNICEF is to be acquired by Toys 'R' Us, while
Kentucky Fried Chicken has successfully bid for the lucrative
CITES franchise. Rumors that the International Whaling Commission
is to be taken over by a consortium of Burger King and Wendy's
have proved to be lies as has the acquisition of IAEA by the
nuclear industry.

Early speculation that WTO was on the privatization list has
dissipated, after it was realized the organization is already
controlled by the private sector.

-=-=-=-=-

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

NGO Statement on Areas Requiring Urgent Action (Section III B)

intervention by the INDIGENOUS CAUCUS

Paragraph 22

Poverty: We are glad to see that poverty is recognized as one of
the first areas requiring urgent action. For us, this should be
seriously addressed because one of the major barriers to our
ability to effectively contribute to sustainable development is
the worsening situation of poverty not only among our peoples but
with the rest of society.

The economic growth that is taking place in some of the countries
where we live is not translated into growth for indigenous
peoples. This growth often means environmental devastation of our
lands where important minerals are found. The increasing debt
burden especially of southern governments has to be addressed in
a manner which will prevent a further expansion of extractive
activities in the lands of indigenous peoples.

Paragraph 23

Fresh Water: Freshwater is another of our key concerns. Our
groundwater aquifers are fast disappearing because of destructive
mining operations. These, including our rivers and lakes, are
also being poisoned by toxic pesticide residues and mine
tailings.

We are not sure that the treatment of water as an economic good
as stated in para. 23 (c) is a good thing for us. The push for
privatization of water is a great concern to us. We fear it will
undermine the indigenous water management systems which our
peoples have sustained for many centuries.

In many countries, the major headwaters are found in indigenous
peoples' territories. Allowing the privatization of water is
going to aggravate conflicts between different groups of people.

We recommend that the proposals for integrated water management
should take into consideration the existing indigenous water
management systems. There proposals should also address the
regulation of mining, commercial plantations, industrial
factories, etc. which often are responsible for the disappearance
of water sources or the destruction of the water quality.

Forests: With regards to forests, we would like to refer to the
recommendations which came out on the Intersessional Meeting of
Indigenous and other Forest-Dependent Peoples on the Management,
Conservation an Sustainable Development of All Types of forests
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.

Paragraph 25

Energy: Sites of energy projects like hydro-electric dams and
geothermal plants are often found in ancestral territories which
belong to indigenous peoples.  We support para 25 (a) which calls
on countries to include economic, environmental and social
aspects of energy programs and policies. The social and
environmental impact energy projects have on indigenous peoples
should be carefully studied before such projects can be pursued.
The participation of affected indigenous peoples in the conduct
of such studies should be ensured.

Uranium mining which is taking place in many indigenous peoples
lands should be stopped. The Beijing Declaration of Indigenous
Women made this call after a discussion of the impact of uranium
mining on the health of indigenous peoples and on the
environment. If uranium mining is stopped the creation of nuclear
power and nuclear military weapons will also be stopped.

We support proposals in the Co-Chairperson's text for Education,
Health, Toxic Chemicals and Waste, Land and Sustainable
Agriculture. All these are relevant to us.

Paragraphs 32 and 33

Human Settlements and Tourism: Sustainable Human Settlements and
Tourism are also concerns which we would like to contribute to.
More and more indigenous peoples are being driven to urban areas
because they are being displaced from their ancestral lands.  In
some communities, the cause of displacement is not only because
of land conversion programs, but also increasing militarization.
Many of the conflicts taking place in indigenous peoples lands
are conflicts over the control and management of the remaining
natural resources. The CSD should look into the
interrelationships of conflict over resources, militarization and
increasing urbanization and come up with proposals on how to
address them.

Tourism is the fastest growing sector in economic development.
This is another worry for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples
and their territories are increasingly being developed as tourist
attractions. The proposal for an International Programme of Work
in para. 33 should be elaborated not only within UNCTAD, World
Tourism Organization and UNEP, but also with the UN Working Group
on Indigenous Peoples. The views of indigenous peoples should be
an integral part in the development of these programs and
policies, whether on the national and international levels.

Paragraph 34

Biodiversity and Biotechnology: Finally a few comments on
biodiversity and biotechnology. We are happy to support a rapid
conclusion of a Biosafety Protocol. We also thank the Co-Chairs
for reaffirming the need to take positive action to recognize and
reward traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples
in paragraph 34.

Biopiracy of plant genetic resources, indigenous knowledge, and
even human genetic resources from our peoples are taking place.
We have raised our alarm over how the Human Genetic Diversity
Project collects genetic material from indigenous peoples. We
said that it is not remote that with these developments, the
cloning of peoples and the creation of super-races is not far
behind. Now, with the news of the successful cloning of Dolly,
the sheep, and of primates, there is reason to be alarmed.

In this light, we think it is not enough to call for a Biosafety
Protocol but also a protocol on Bioethics. President Clinton's
creation of a Bioethics Committee and his ban on providing
support to cloning is a first step which could be replicated on
the international level and on the national level. Indigenous
peoples, time and again, in many different forums and conferences
have called for a stop to the Human Genetic Diversity Project,
and a moratorium on the collection of genetic resources in our
lands. The immediate formulation and negotiation for a protocol
on Bioethics should be proposed by the CSD and the UNGASS.

The CSD should be in the lead in raising not only environmental
and development concerns but also moral questions related to the
destruction of the environment, human lives, and the distortion
of human values.

While there is a demand for the transfer of biotechnology,
governments calling for this should be aware of the
environmental, social, moral, and health impacts of
biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering. Indigenous
peoples are very wary of the developments taking place in
Biotechnology and in the formulation of policies on this it is
our hope that our views and concerns are considered and
solicited.

-=-=-=-=-

NGO VIEWPOINT...

                The Cloning of Dolly and the CSD
                    by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
         Cordillera Women's Education & Resource Center

During CSD 2 the Indigenous Peoples blew the whistle on the Human
Genome Diversity Project which aimed to collect genetic material
of indigenous peoples from more than 700 communities. Our concern
was around several points such as; how these genetic materials
will be gathered, will these be patented by the collectors, will
these be cloned and reproduced in commercial quantities, etc.
Thereafter, indigenous peoples in several conferences and fora
protested against this project and called for a stop to it, a
moratorium on the collection of genetic resources in indigenous
peoples lands, and a stop to the patenting of life forms.

The way life is being manipulated, commodified, and desecrated is
once again witnessed by the cloning of Dolly, the sheep, and the
primates. Most of the news analysis on this issue say that the
cloning of primates is only one step behind the cloning of human
beings. The United States government is very concerned about this
development and President Clinton, himself, immediately created a
Bioethics Committee and banned the giving of support to cloning
projects.

However, everybody knows that enterprising individuals and
corporations who see profit in this will not be easily stopped.
The US government should review its laws which allow for the
patenting of life-forms because this is how everything started.

Within the past five years we have seen the tremendous advances
in biotechnology in manipulating genetic materials, whether
plant, animal, or human. In spite of the protests launched
against the deliberate release of genetically-modified organisms
and plants, these releases are still being done. The negotiation
of a Biosafety Protocol within the Convention on Biological
Diversity is still going on, so up to now there is no appropriate
international legal instrument which can be used to stop these
releases.

The Review of Agenda 21 should take stock of the extent of the
GMO releases and the commercial production and sale of transgenic
products and see the social, health and environmental impacts of
these. Biotechnology needs to be included as one of the areas
which need urgent action. Because of the ethical and moral
implications of biotechnology, the Biosafety Protocol should
include bioethical issues, or there should be a separate protocol
on Bioethics.

The cloning of Dolly is a very relevant development which CSD
should address. The world will never be the same again after this
development but the CSD, or the UN in general, can play a role in
helping slow down the wide scale desecration of life.

-=-=-=-=-

                 Close Encounters of the EU Kind
                         by Malini Mehra
               Friends of the Earth International

The European Union hosted an informal 1 1/2 hour dialogue session
with all interested NGOs for the second time during the
intersessionals on March 6th. All 15 EU member state delegates
were represented with the exception of Denmark. Arrayed on the
other side of the table were NGO delegates from UNED-UK, Birdlife
International, IUCN, Friends of the Earth International, WWF,
German Forum on Environment & Development, the NGO Energy Caucus
and others.

The discussion started with an exchange of views of the CSD
Intersessional. While the feeling in NGO ranks was one of
"underwhelment" at the lack of focus, targets and timetables in
the draft document produced by the CSD Intersessional Working
Group co-chairs, the EU president, Mr. J.G.S.T.M. van Hellenburg
Hubar, of the Netherlands spoke optimistically of it. He noted
that ownership of the document by the Co-chairs is believed to
facilitate agreement on the document which will now be taken back
to national capitals for discussion, and preparation for
negotiation, during the ten days of the CSD V in April. The EU
expressed concerns, however, about the lack of geographically
balanced participation in the CSD Intersessional and in
particular the involvement of southern countries.

While noting commendable efforts made by many, NGOs lamented the
general lack of "oomph" in the intersessionals and the lack of
preparedness on the part of many governmental delegations. They
stressed the urgent need to reinvigorate the CSD discussions if
governments are to succeed in effectively addressing the grave
ecological and social crises. EU delegates expressed confidence
that the Earth Summit would reaffirm the Rio commitments and
welcomed NGO leadership in many areas. Indeed, the EU president
quipped that the EU's papers looked like the CSD NGO statement
leading to raised eyebrows on both sides of the table. Asked
whether this common ground extended to NGO recommendations on the
need for a well-enforced, regulatory framework for the private
sector and a formalisation of relations between the CSD and the
WTO, the response was less affirmative.

Substantive issues covered during the discussion included finance
(on which significant progress is hoped), trade and the
environment, action on the chemicals agenda, oceans, transport,
the role of the private sector, the Climate Convention, and
forays into the pros and cons of the Forest Convention, EU
delegates agreed with NGO proposals for visible and popular
messages to raise awareness (perhaps on a country basis) on the
Earth Summit II but would not divulge their plans. Asked what the
Earth Summit II's central message should be, the EU president
quoted Nitin Desai that 'sustainability should be brought from
the margins to the core of development policy.'

On Climate Change, one of the priority areas of the CSD, NGOs
regretted that no specific targets were mentioned in the co-
chairmen's draft document. The German delegate responded that
while the Earth Summit II could add political impetus to the
Climate Change negotiations it was not the place of the CSD or
the General Assembly to prejudge / replace the COP3 negotiations.

One of the most practical outcomes of the meeting was the EU
President's endorsement of a proposal by the Energy caucus' to
green the UN to it can live up to its sustainability ideals. An
idea that has been lobbied without success for several years,
this has now being taken up by the Dutch who have even offered to
send over one of their energy experts to the UN to help in
conducting an energy audit.

The discussion was perceived to be useful by both sides and it is
hoped that other governments will respond with a similar
willingness to engage with NGOs. NGOs have benefitted from both
general and issue-focused dialogues with the AOSIS and other
countries at the CSD Intersessionals and look forward to
constructive dialogues with other countries and regions - in
particular the G-77 - at the CSD V to move the Earth Summit II
agenda forward.

-=-=-=-=-

ANNOUNCEMENTS...

NGO CONSULTATION ON INCREASING ACCESS TO THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
     AND ITS MAIN COMMITTEES AND ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE UN

WHEN:  Wednesday, 30 April 1997
       10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: UN Headquarters
       (room to be announced)

Representatives of NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC and
those Associated with DPI are invited to participate in a day of
discussion on specific issues that are likely to be raised at
meetings of the Sub-Group on NGOs of the Open-Ended High-Level
Working Group on the Strengthening of the United Nations System,
which is examining ways to increase NGO participation in the work
of the UN General Assembly, its Main Committees and the UN System
as a whole. All UN Missions are also invited to send
Representatives.

This Consultation is being organized under the auspices of the
NGO Committee Chairs of the Conference of NGOs in Consultative
Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council
(CONGO). For further information, call the CONGO office in NY at
(212) 986-8557.

-=-=-=-=-

                   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

-=-=-=-=-

                   ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:
                 ITS EFFECT ON CHILDREN'S HEATH

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 NGO PROCESS SO FAR...

1996:
April       NGOs at the CSD produce a synthesis position paper
            for Earth Summit II.

June        This is mailed out to NGO focal points for them to
            use in their deliberations.

July        The CSD\NGO Web Site is set up with a copy of the
            document posted.

October     NGOs attend the General Assembly preparations for
            Earth Summit II.

November    NGO Caucuses are asked to prepare position papers
            for the CSD Intersessional

1997:
January     NGO position paper produced

February    NGO position paper synthesized into two new papers:
            a draft of the key NGO proposals and a more in depth
            set of calls for implementation process and the
            rationale

20 February, NGO paper posted on the web

22-24 February, NGOs attending the CSD I discuss and agree
position papers

The process from now...

2nd week of March:
mailing to all CSD accredited NGOs with a copy of the two NGO
papers

2 April 1997:
deadline for comments for additions to NGO papers/new papers
produced

3 April 1997:
New papers posted on the web

6/7 April 1997:
NGOs negotiate new papers prior to the opening to the CSD 5