Report
The meeting was held at the M Hotel, Singapore from 7 to 11 January 2002. It was organized by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Small Island Developing States Unit (SIDS Unit) of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). A significant financial contribution was made by the Singapore Government and the United Nations Development Program Capacity 21, and by DESA and the Government of Norway, towards the successful convening of the meeting. Proceedings The opening ceremony was presided over by H.E. Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore. In his opening remarks Ambassador Koh spoke of the long history of sustainable development negotiations, and the difficult issues that had to be faced at the Rio Summit in 1992. The need to articulate the concerns of small island developing States (SIDS) was vital, and SDS could learn a lot from the experiences of other SIDS. The group of countries that made up AOSIS possess remarkable human and technical capacities that could be shared for common benefit. The report of the meeting should highlight the successes, the best practices and the way forward for sustainable development of SIDS. We should all be inspired to greater work as a result of the cooperation among SIDS. H.E. Ambassador Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Permanent Representative of Samoa to the United Nations and Chairman of AOSIS, spoke on behalf of the group in expressing appreciation to the Government of Singapore for hosting the meeting. The warm welcome received by delegations augured well for the success of the meeting, as did the eminent leadership of the Singapore delegation under Ambassador Koh. He noted the presence of so many experts and leading personalities from the communities of AOSIS, as well as the NGOs and regional organizations that were present. Much was at stake in the WSSD process, and AOSIS must grasp the opportunity to maximize the impact of its views on the upcoming negotiations. AOSIS should build on its greatest strength - the people of SIDS - and in this way seek to overcome the inherent difficulties that SIDS face. AOSIS needed also to focus on demonstrating to the international community the validity of the claim for SIDS as a special case for sustainable development. He also expressed deep appreciation to UNDP, UN/DESA and to the Government of Norway for the financial contribution and technical assistance rendered. H.E.The Honourable Lim Swee Say, Minister for the Environment of Singapore, welcomed all participants to Singapore and spoke of the importance of sustainable development for SDS. The difficulties faced by SDS were not insurmountable, even if the challenges of globalization often loomed large. The common background of SIDS and their representatives should allow for greater cooperation and sharing of experiences. Singapore had sought to further sustainable development in both spirit and in deed. With limited natural resources, policies required structuring in such a way as to realize economic growth while maintaining social goals and promoting environmental A/CONF.199/PC/Misc. 1 protection. Building on partnerships between the 3 P's - people sector, public sector and private sector, Singapore had been able to achieve great successes in developing the country, the population and the economy. Singapore was willing and able to share its experience with other SIDS and developing countries, and had been involved in technical cooperation programs for many years. During the meeting participants would be exposed to the SIDS Technical Cooperation Program (SIDSTec) which was launched by Singapore in 1999. The Minister concluded by stressing the need for AOSIS to grasp this opportunity for promoting a shared vision for sustainable development of SIDS. There followed a cultural presentation of great interest and inspiration. Session 1 The perspectives of the SIDS regions The session was chaired by Ambassador Koh. The agenda was adopted following a request to include provision for discussions on trade and sustainable development in the post-Doha scenario. Ms Gricel Acosta Acosta (Cuba) presented on the Caribbean perspectives, based on the outcome of the meeting held in Havana in June 2001. She stated that many of the SIDS in the Caribbean region had experienced technical and financial difficulties in preparing for that meeting, so that the countries were not all able to articulate their priorities. Only a few had finalized their national assessment reports. At the subsequent meeting at the Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) level, there had been some progress, which she would seek to include in her presentation. The Havana meeting reaffirmed Agenda 21 and the Barbados Program of Action for the sustainable development of small island States (BPOA), as well as the Declaration of the Forum of Environment Ministers of the GRULAC Region. The deterioration of the marine environment was of great concern to the region. Globalization was not giving the same benefits to all the countries, and the continued vulnerability of the region and lack of accepted criteria for determining vulnerability was highlighted. Reduction of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change were seen as important. The region was keen to see an integrated approach to management of the Caribbean Sea in the context of sustainable development. The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was stressed, as was the need for a renewed commitment for financial and technical resources. The region recognized and made a strong recommendation for the linkages of policies and measures for sustainable development. The region would also like to extend regional dialogue and strengthening of intra-regional cooperation. Recognition of the special situation of SIDS would be imperative. Equally important was the strengthening of capacity building through SIDS-SIDS cooperation, and AOSIS needed to consider how to raise the funds and resources to implement such cooperative programs with the assistance of the international community. Ms Karibaiti Teatabo (Kiribati) described the outcomes of the Pacific Sub-Regional Multi-stakeholder Preparatory meeting in September 2001, in Apia, Samoa that she had chaired. The outcomes had later been submitted to Asia and Pacific Regional Meeting in A/CONF.199/PC/Misc. 1 Cambodia in November 2001. She highlighted the main issues that emerged from the Apia meeting, linking them to the results from the Cambodia process. She said the region had also experienced technical and financial difficulties in producing national assessments for WSSD. Agreement had been reached at the Apia meeting to put forward certain priorities which would be developed and elaborated further in the course of the preparatory process. These initiatives were captured by the Asia Pacific meeting to a large extent, and focused on capacity building, poverty reduction, sustainable energy, biodiversity conservation and management, freshwater, oceans and coasts, and climate change. In addition, issues relating to financing for sustainable development efforts was seen as an important matter. Ms Myroula Hadjichristophorou (Cyprus) addressed the need to pursue environmental policy integration in all government policies. For Cyprus this had required proper readjustment of the organizational framework of government action, and incentives for regulatory measures. The role of government services was gradually being reinforced, and many strategies were in place in several sectors and to prevent pollution from various productions. A number of measures were being considered for district level action, such as local level monitoring. There had also been a need for aligning policies with the various EU directives, such as a comprehensive system for environmental impact assessments. Environmental auditing and quality control was accrediting a definition of quality of products also in terms of the environment. Access to information was guaranteed by new legislation, and a State of the Environment report would be published every two years. The results were expected to promote a more rational use of the land resources and space. Ms Sandrine Valere (Mauritius) stated that the African region had met at several sub regional sessions, one of which was held in Mauritius. The work had been integrated in an African joint position. Africa had identified poverty reduction as being of primary importance. Promotion of access for developing countries products was one way of assisting Africa, as had integrated approaches to enhancement of standards of living and the reduction of environmental risk. Africa had also identified the need to look at the health and social conditions of the countries, and the need to involve the younger generation, and hence need for education of all, especially for girls. Access to finance and technical cooperation remained high priorities to assure success. Mauritius saw an urgent need to promote the implementation of the BPOA. The issues relating to the extreme vulnerability of SDS must be addressed in the WSSD, and it was a fundamental concern that SIDS should seek a common position. Mr Ravi Sawhney (ESCAP) was requested by the Chairman to say a few words about the Asia Pacific regional process. Mr Sawhney said the common elements between the SDS regions were obvious and not unexpected. The reiteration of Pacific priorities at Phnom Penh was effective. The follow-up action for the regional platform required work on the seven initiatives agreed at Phnom Penh. Especially with respect to capacity building, it was clear there had been some failure in getting the national capacities strengthened sufficiently. This had regional dimensions. Poverty reduction also required attention for the achievement of sustainable development, as indeed the effective implementation of programmes relating to the oceans and its resources. Questions and comments were raised by Jamaica, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea, Grenada and Trinidad and Tobago. In the discussions, the protection of cultural and intellectual resources of SIDS was raised. It was agreed that this important issue required further work, as it had only been dealt with in brief at the Asia Pacific meeting and at the eminent persons meeting in Barbados. The common elements among SIDS needed to be stressed. They posed significant constraints to sustainable development and had to be more widely understood and acknowledged. The importance of sustaining AOSIS, building on the special case for SIDS, must not be lost in the international discussions. The potential of AOSIS for the unity of SDS was recognized. AOSIS must focus on efforts to overcome SIDS constraints and to work with the resources available. It is not necessary to be defensive when dealing with the rest of the world on these issues. Session 2 The perspectives of the SIDS regions (contd.): WSSD preparations Ambassador Slade chaired the session. He stated that this should be seen as a continuation of the morning's discussion on regional perspectives Mr Manuel B. Dengo (DESA) explained that the development of the UN Secretary General's report had followed the preparations undertaken in all regions for the WSSD. There had been a great deal of activities in the regions, in recognition of the fact that the Rio Summit had set a very broad agenda, and that implementation had proved difficult. It had been difficult to find the concrete measures that would allow any claim with certainty that there were actual sustainable development actions in place, in a broader sense, rather than specific limited sectoral steps. Regional platforms had been developed. The stakeholders had also become involved in preparations. WSSD was at a critical juncture, as there were very important concerns that had not been addressed. There had not been sufficient focus on the social aspects. The statement in the Millennium Declaration on poverty and on safe drinking water could be viewed as distinct goals, but they also required supporting commitments and actions. The identification of concrete steps towards securing these goals was now required. The plight of the world's poor must be addressed, especially the constraints being placed on their natural resources by forces such as desertification, climate change, etc. There were four main areas where the WSSD needed to produce results. First, sustainable development must be made operational, through actions that will lead to sustainable development. A second area was the management of globalization, which had aspects of trade related impacts of multilateral agreements. A third area was the financial resources required for sustainable development. The fourth area was the management and sustainable conservation of natural resources, and seeking concrete examples of how to implement sustainable development goals. It was acknowledged that political will, practical steps and partnerships were necessary. Look at the situation in a "what, who and how" dimension, A/CONF.199/PC/Misc. 1 as stated in Secretary General's report. The Secretary General had tried to capture the essential issues from the preparations. What was needed now was the identification of the anchor points for the SIDS agenda, and to extract from the Secretary General's report the areas where SIDS can input their strong concerns. Ms Diane Quarless (Jamaica) stated that the WSSD PrepCOM Bureau, of which Jamaica was a member, had sought to raise awareness of the WSSD and to participate in the relevant preparatory meetings. The Bureau had sought to nurture a bottom up approach, and participation by all stakeholders. By starting at the local level the process had been enriched. But there were limitations of time and capacity, and there was now an urgent need for the national assessments to be completed. This would give greater certainty to the identification of what the constraints were, and the priorities. The role of UNEP, while important, had been seen as stressing a bias towards environment over sustainable development as a whole. The impression was that the process was lacking on the concept of sustainable development as a whole. The Bureau therefore saw the need to meet with the various agencies that act as task managers and getting views on their visions for success at WSSD. UNDP had also acknowledged that there was a need for greater commitment to demonstrating the willingness to assist. The range of health issues had ensured that WHO would become more active. WMO had also brought the climate change dimension forward, and ILO had drawn in the social and labour issues. The involvement of the NGOs and the major groups had been important. The Bureau was expecting a draft document assessing the impact of Rio - the lessons learned. There would also be a negotiated document establishing what the Bureau wanted to do to promote WSSD. There was also a series of targets for national governments and regional groupings – partnership agreements. The substance of such documents must be based on more than spontaneous initiatives, and contain agreements on the means of implementation. If this were to be adopted in WSSD there was certainly a need to have the concerns of SDS included. SIDS as a group also needed to look at the proposal for a High Representative for LDCs, land-locked countries and SIDS. While it was well known that Governments were having difficulty in establishing an integrated sustainable development policy, since the support was rather compartmentalized, there was need to look at how to monitor, implement and achieve sustainable development. Above all, for SDS, it must be demonstrated that they were engaged and were willir most important issues. Ms Donna Forde (Barbados), reporting on the preparations of the Group of 77 and China (G-77), stressed that she was not speaking on behalf of the G-77. She said that she had not attended all G.77 meetings, and could speak to some only of the group's preparations. The G-77 had made an initial statement on the process so far. There was indeed a lack of mention of the SIDS issues, but there was still the opportunity to get the points across. This required that the AOSIS group in New York actively took part in the G-77 discussions. The African group had been very active so far, and AOSIS needed to do the same. The mention in the G-77 text of the new initiatives for development in Africa shows this. The establishment of the High Representative office for LDCs had not curtailed the drive from LDCs to push their own concerns. AOSIS would therefore need a strategy and negotiating approach, as every year there were considerable attempts to roll A/CONF.199/PC/Misc. 1 back the gains made by SIDS. There was a lot at stake, and as a practical way forward the group should allocate coordinators for different topics and issues. Questions and comments were raised by Mauritius, Dominica, Grenada, Belize, Solomon Islands and Saint Lucia. In the discussions, the need for a division of labour between AOSIS delegations was supported. Since national administrations were structured sectorally, there was need to seek ways of overcoming this situation to bring together for example the trade and sustainable development agencies of government to discuss WSSD. It was also noted that the preparatory process had been lacking in getting information to the national level. A lot of issues had been discussed in other organizations. To avoid continuing a fragmented approach, it was necessary to seek informative means of disseminating the outputs of ertain issues tended to get swept away in discussions with bigger groups, so AOSIS should use all the avenues available. Financing for development was raised at a ministerial conference to assist developing countries assimilate in the world trade system. Agencies should help SDS with the liberalization process. While using the different opportunities available, it was especially necessary to participate fully at the UN. Johannesburg must include the views of the groups such as AOSIS, while AOSIS must show the political will, give the practical examples and seek new partnerships. The results for the AOSIS countries must be made more meaningful. It was acknowledged that the difficulties that SIDS faced in the negotiations were real physical problems. Mr Gerald Miles (South Pacific Regional Environment Program - SPREP) noted that the Millennium Declaration was important to the WSSD because it referred to development goals as well as to the needs of SIDS. There were also the sub-regional platforms to be considered, as well as the reports from the preparatory meetings. There were the specific issue meetings like oceans, freshwater, etc. The possibility for a Johannesburg Plan of Action had been spoken about, and many of the issues from the Secretary General's report had been mentioned in the SIDS regions. But there was not a big SDS footprint in the Secretary General's report. There was some coverage of tourism, disasters and climate, but no translation of the implementation of BPOA in the document. Few specific initiatives were suggested and none for SDS specifically. There was a lack of the time-bound targets for SIDS. In this regard a clear reference to the 2004 BPOA review would be needed. The four specific issues of oceans and coastal management, vulnerability, climate change and adaptation, capacity building and development had to receive a greater degree of SIDS specific consideration. These issues were not seen in the Secretary General's report as specifically addressing SIDS concerns, and required a significant amount of work if we are going to get these points included in the same way that globalization was included. Ms Anya Thomas (Caribbean Community - CARICOM) stated that the historical progress was well known, as were the issues posed by globalization, and there was a need for new management procedures integrating sustainable development. Coastal priorities, work on tourism and on renewable energy were clearly cutting across the SIDS regions as priorities. It was known that SIDS had common themes to be pursued, such as climate A/CONF.199/PC/Misc.1 change, natural disasters, coastal and marine resources, and knowledge and technology for sustainable development. At the end of the day the sustainable development of a country depended on political will and support. This could be facilitated by a better international environment to support SDS own enabling environment at the national level. An enabling financial environment was also important. The International Conference on Financing for Development would be an important opportunity for such work to commence. Mr Raj Mohabeer (Indian Ocean Commission - IOC) noted that SDS would need very concrete proposals for the process to succeed, so as to focus from now to maximizing benefits from the WSSD summit. A collective statement of what was the most important aspect to sustainable development of SIDS could be one such proposal. He suggested that a group of SIDS experts consult at the national level and validate the inputs from the regions, and then organize a meeting prior to WSSD with a final declaration with ould also be a need to include the input from the technical and expert levels. Questions and comments were raised by Papua New Guinea, Dominica, Jamaica, Barbados and Tuvalu, and by ECLAC. The discussions focused on the need for coherence and unifying positions among SDS. It was noted that there was a clear indication that sustainable development policies were losing ground. The tendency remained to extract short term gains, with social and long term economic costs being the result, yet experts had difficulties in getting this message across. Materials for countries would be developed and disseminated, so that Government leaders would have the information and were better able to understand the process as well as the examples of what could be done as best practices. Sustainable development was clearly on the radar screens of the officials and ministers in SDS regions. In the fisheries sector there was great interest, for example, as shown by the oil spill prevention, the coral reef monitoring, and the efforts to monitor the fisheries fleets. An informed public was the most practical way of ensuring that there was political will. There was a major effort t information to schools on the issues contained in the BPOA. There was also a need to assist Government leaders with the necessary information, and more must be done to bring in stakeholders and get their ideas to the forefront. Session 3 People - capacity building for sustainable development in SIDS The session was chaired by H.E.Ambassador Peter D. Donigi, Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations. The Chairman reminded the participants that the session was devoted to capacity building, a priority issue for all developing countries. He encouraged the participants to seek out aspects unique to and of special importance to SIDS. Mr Frank Wickham (SPREP) reported on needs assessments at the systemic, institutional and individual levels, and the experiences from the Pacific.
Document continues. Download the PDF to read the full version
