![]() |
![]() |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
Nigeria representing the G 77 & China |
It is an honour
for me to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, on agenda
item 97(a), Environment and Sustainable Development: Implementation
of Agenda 21 and the Programme for the Further Implementation of
Agenda 21. I also wish to express our appreciation to the secretary-
General for the detailed report on this subject matter. The report
will be a valuable guide to this Committee in its efforts to ensure
effective preparations for the Rio + 10 . The outcome of
Earth's Summit in Rio in 1992 is a comprehensive document on
environment contained in Agenda 21 .That document stands as a
definitive blueprint for global action by governments, United
Nations system, and relevant stakeholders to collaborate in the
concerted efforts to halt and reverse the negative impact of human
behaviour on the physical environment, and to sustain and promote
environmentally sound and sustainable development in all countries.
It reflects a global consensus and political commitments at the
highest level. Eight years
after UNCED, the results of the implementation of Agenda 21 have
been quite mixed and unflattering. The findings of the five-year
review of UNCED at the nineteenth special session of the United
Nations General Assembly in 1997 revealed an increasing trend
towards elaboration of rules and binding legal agreements on
environmental matters as reflected in the conventions on: climate
change; biological diversity and desertification. The Declaration
has equally given rise to extensive mainstreaming of issues on
environment into policies and programmes of governments,
international organizations and relevant stakeholders. However, the
development dimension remains unrealised. It has been
widely acknowledged, that one of the major problems in the
implementation of Agenda 21 is the lack of financial resources to
support environmentally sound programmes and projects by existing
implementing institutions . There is also absence of new and
additional financial resources for developing environmentally sound
programmes and projects, particularly in developing countries. At
the centre of this problem is the failure of most developed
countries in honouring their commitments made in various UN
conferences and summits over the past decades. The Official
Development Assistance CODA) is in perilous state. The flow of
financial resources for development from developed to developing
countries has only increased marginally. This has been compounded by
the crushing external debt burden of developing countries, which
remains a major obstacle for the implementation of sustainable
development. The picture is even more disturbing in sub-Saharan
Africa and the least developed countries CLDCs, which could not meet
their debt obligations and thereby continue to accumulate payment
arrears. The result is the widening gap in the implementation of
Agenda 21 between the developed and the developing countries;
creating a vicious cycle that unleashes endless damage to the
environment. Likewise, the
new developments on the global level, such as globalisation and the
revolution in the field of information and communication technology
and biotechnology, have presented new challenges to the
implementation of Agenda 21. The impact of integration of the global
economy has marginalized developing countries, which lack the
capacity and resources to take advantage of the tremendous
opportunities offered by new technologies. The majority of
developing countries remain unable to create a favourable
environment to attract large inflow of external private capital as
well as significant export-led growth. Their share in world trade
has thereby continued to decline. This has brought about low level
of economic and social development, as well as inadequate
infrastructure. This is certainly a huge drawback in the
implementation of Agenda 21 in developing countries. It is in
recognition of this development that the Group of 77 believes that
the forthcoming review process should focus on how to ensure a more
effect implementation of Agenda 21; and other outcomes of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The review, we
also agreed, should be organized in 2002 at a Summit level and to
hold outside the United Nations Headquarters, in a developing
country as concluded during CSD-8. Our Group equally endorses the
decision of the CSD-8 to transform the meetings of the tenth session
of the Commission on Sustainable Development into an open-ended
preparatory committee to ensure full and effective participation of
all state members of the United Nations and state members of
specialized agencies. The preparatory
meetings and 2002 should indeed be transparent and provide effective
platform for inputs from governments, regional and international
organisations, financial institutions and relevant stakeholders. The
preparatory meetings should also undertake comprehensive review and
assessment of the implementation of Agenda 21 and the other outcomes
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on
the basis of results of national assessments, sub-regional and
regional meetings and collaborative inputs from relevant
international organizations. The Group of 77
emphasizes the need for early and effective preparations for the
ten-year review and assessments of progress achieved in the
implementation of Agenda 21. In view of the importance of inputs
from national, regional and international organisation levels,
including the UN system, there is now a need to defer decision on
substantive matters. We equally believe that relevant agencies and
bodies of the United Nations and international financial
institutions, including United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and Global Environment Facility (GEF), should be involved in such
preparatory process in collaboration with CSD. It is now clear
that there is a need for the establishment of a trust fund. We
therefore appeal to international community in particular donor
agencies to support the preparations for the 10-year review through
voluntary contributions to the trust fund. This is to encourage
participation of representatives from developing countries in the
regional and international preparatory process and the summit itself
in 2002. It is the firmly
held view of the Group that Agenda 21 should not be renegotiated at
the 2002 summit. The review should focus on identifying measures for
further implementation of Agenda 21, with particular emphasis on
sources of funding. Furthermore, the Group reiterates that Agenda 21
should constitute the framework within which other outcomes of the
conference are reviewed and from within which new challenges,
opportunities and emerging issues are addressed, in context of the
implementation of Agenda 21. We in the G77
welcome the Malmo Ministerial Declaration that came out of the first
Global Ministerial Environment Forum held in Sweden in May 2000. The
declaration identifies the root causes of environmental degradation
and major environmental challenges of the 21st century .It
emphasized the alarming discrepancy between commitments and actions
as well as goals and targets agreed upon by the international
community in relation to sustainable development. It thereby called
for collaboration of governments, private sector and civil society
in the pursuit of a new culture of accountability, through
application of polluter pays principle and development of cleaner
and more resource- efficient technologies for a life cycle economy
and efforts that will facilitate transfer of environmentally sound
technology. The Group also
appreciates the report of the Secretary- General on international
and institutional arrangements related to environment and
sustainable development, and emphasize the need for acceleration of
efforts to support the implementation of arrangements at national
level, as outlined in the report. We encourage United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to continue efforts in supporting the
process of enhancing substantive inter-Iinkages among international
organizations . For, the G77 the
central problem for the implementation of Agenda 21 remains the
issue of lack of financial resources. It is imperative that our
development partners must contribute in a substantial way to the
strategic improvement of the flow of financial resources, including
addressing the question of crushing external debt burden of
developing countries by taking a bold decision to cancel outright
such debts. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) as envisioned is
one of the major institutional arrangements for effective action on
environmental problems and execution of projects of all UNCED-related
conventions on environment and sustainable development, including
desertification. The effectiveness of GEF, as a financial mechanism
requires that the GEF's procedure and criteria for project selection
should be simplified, to enable development projects submitted by
developing countries to overcome the present complexities and
difficulties involved in that process. In this regard, the Group
supports the need to expand the base of GEF to move into the next
phase of work for implementation of Agenda 21, that is, to mobilize
new and additional resources for the conventions and global
environment. Such role on behalf of the conventions, should involve
identifying and coordinating additional financial resources from
bilateral and international organizations as well as the private
sector. We are therefore encouraged by the current efforts of GEF to
increase its activities in area of capacity building, transfer of
technology and adaptation . Back |