Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Vol. 05 No. 186 Wednesday, 30 April 2003 CSD-11 HIGHLIGHTS: TUESDAY, 29 APRIL 2003

On Tuesday morning, delegates heard statements by ministers and other high-level representatives on "Visions for the Future CSD." They also participated in two regional implementation forums focusing on the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) regions. In the afternoon, ministerial round table discussions considered "Protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development" and "Health and sustainable development."

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS: During this segment, ministers and other high-level government officials continued to present their views on the future modalities and work programme of the CSD. Many speakers affirmed that the CSD should focus on implementation of goals agreed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and Agenda 21. With regard to the extent of forward planning for the work programme, SENEGAL said the programme could look ahead three cycles (six years), while LUXEMBOURG favored setting it four to six cycles ahead. Several ministers supported a flexible work programme and agreed that the number of issues addressed in each cycle should be limited. The US and SWITZERLAND suggested addressing one single key theme during each cycle.

On the selection of issues for future sessions, many speakers agreed on water and energy as key topics meriting early consideration. SWITZERLAND and GABON highlighted health, and FINLAND identified sanitation, as further issues. SENEGAL said the CSD should pay particular attention to African issues. SAUDI ARABIA highlighted financial commitments, technology transfer, capacity building and education. GERMANY underscored the role of renewable energy in poverty reduction. PERU, speaking for the RIO GROUP, highlighted, inter alia, vulnerability to extreme weather events, mountain ecosystems, and trade.

On other organizational arrangements, the US said innovative means of capacity building, such as the "Partnerships Fair" and the "Learning Center," should be considered throughout the UN system. SWEDEN called for a gender perspective and supported the exchange of experiences through CSD task forces or sub-committees. Many countries highlighted the importance of regional implementation, with TAJIKISTAN supporting regional implementation forums and enhanced subregional cooperation. CHINA stressed the comparative advantage of existing institutions, such as the UN regional commissions. BELGIUM highlighted the use of national strategies for sustainable development.

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION FORUMS: Late Tuesday morning, two regional implementation forums were held concurrently, with participants discussing initial steps taken in the ECE and the ECLAC regions to implement the JPOI.

ECE: This session was chaired by UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Joke Waller-Hunter. Kaj Barlund, ECE Executive Director, outlined the Commission’s work on follow-up to the WSSD, including its intention to establish an open forum on sustainable development for discussions among all ECE partners, with a strong emphasis on civil society. Julio Garcia Burgues, EC, highlighted work undertaken in the EU on sustainable development strategies. Lynne Brennan van Dyke, UNEP Regional Office for North America, gave an overview of the office’s activities in support of countries in the region, including collaborative work with other organizations. Dafna Gorchava, UNDP, reported on progress in implementing the Capacity 2015 initiative, and on new initiatives to assist countries with economies in transition. Claude Fussler, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, urged partnership stakeholders to meet regularly to ensure that commitments are met. Marec Maciejovski, Baltic 21, presented his organization’s experience as an example of successful subregional collaboration in implementing sustainable development goals.

SWITZERLAND supported the idea of an ECE discussion forum, and called for a strong link between the global and regional processes. Emphasizing the importance of subregional work, SWEDEN shared the experience of the Nordic Council. The US, supported by CANADA, questioned whether grouping regional implementation forums around the regional economic commissions would be an effective way to achieve implementation of the WSSD goals in a CSD context. HUNGARY called for a critical self-assessment of the way the ECE region implements the WSSD’s outcomes.

ECLAC: This session was chaired by Albert Binger, Center for Environment and Development, University of the West Indies. In his opening remarks, Reynaldo Bajraj, ECLAC Executive Secretary, proposed that the region establish a Sessional Committee as a component of ECLAC’s biennial session to incorporate the WSSD’s outcomes into ECLAC’s work programme. Mike Gucovsky, UNDP, identified regional priorities outlined in the LAC Initiative on Sustainable Development adopted at the WSSD. Cristina Montenegro, UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, stressed the need to promote regional cooperation through the Initiative and to give practical and operational priority to the implementation of the WSSD’s outcomes. Bruno Stagno, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica, outlined the region’s institutional and operational experience, stating that it forms a sound basis for implementing sustainable development. John Forgach, A2-R Environmental Funds, highlighted the role of regional development banks and small- to medium-sized enterprises in sustainable development. Marina Da Silva, Brazil’s Environment Minister, underscored the importance of linking environmental goals with social and economic development.

During the subsequent discussion, ARGENTINA drew attention to a recent regional meeting on sustainable consumption and production. GUYANA stressed the need for monitoring progress, and suggested exploring how a peer review mechanism could function in the region. MEXICO identified interagency coordination and the development of sustainable development indicators as priority issues. CHILE said UN agencies are essential for achieving sustainable development in the region and, with others, supported the proposal for a Sessional Committee of ECLAC. COSTA RICA stressed the harmonization of sustainable development policies and actions at the regional level, and called for the development of financial instruments. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE called for greater efforts to involve them in ECLAC’s follow-up to the WSSD. Stating that the Secretariat’s proposal to organize regional implementation forums around the UN regional commissions was not focused on outcomes, the US suggested non-geographically based groupings. CANADA also stated that regional implementation should not be restricted to the UN regional commissions and expressed its wish to work with LAC countries, particularly in the areas of health and environment, and knowledge transfer.

INTERACTIVE MINISTERIAL ROUND TABLE: Protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development: In the discussion, speakers raised a variety of issues, including those relating to biodiversity and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), water, chemicals management, and education and public awareness.

CBD COP President Hans Hoogeveen (Netherlands) suggested that ministers address how the CBD and other conventions could contribute to the implementation process and proposed that CSD-11 provide a clear mechanism on how the conventions can report to it. KENYA underscored the need for financial support to implement national biodiversity plans and strategies in developing countries. NGOs said the CSD should assist governments in valuing natural resources. Linking biodiversity and poverty, NORWAY said biodiversity loss cannot be addressed in the CBD alone, and requires a broader approach. He said CSD should monitor implementation of the pledges made at the WSSD.

On water issues, FAO stressed the importance of linking water resources, sustainable agriculture and food security. Noting the transboundary nature of water and ecosystems, CROATIA proposed the development of regional strategies for sustainable development. SOUTH AFRICA drew attention to the 2005 target for establishing national plans on integrated water resource management and water efficiency, and said the UN and CSD should contribute to meeting this target.

On chemicals-related matters, VENEZUELA stressed that the indiscriminate use of pesticides and agro-chemicals has a major impact on human health and on the contamination of water resources. She urged the prioritization of work on POPs and the development of alternatives to using DDT.

Regarding education and awareness raising, YOUTH maintained that their involvement is critical to the implementation of JPOI, and stressed the importance of education in supporting such involvement. PORTUGAL called for policy coherence, emphasizing that effective natural resource protection should occur against a background of increased knowledge and information dissemination. TRADE UNIONS highlighted the benefits of education and awareness raising in the workplace, and noted the value of workplace assessments. On capacity building, LESOTHO and PAKISTAN stressed the importance of building the capacity of rural people to manage natural resources.

Health and sustainable development: KENYA stated that sustainable development cannot be achieved without addressing the causes of ill health, including pollution, overcrowding, and inadequate water supply and sanitation. CUBA noted that progress on the WSSD’s health commitment can only be achieved if there is political will and integrated efforts. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY said health commitments will need to be met in part by the marketplace, coupled with good governance, transparency and accountability. WOMEN stressed that gender issues are critical in addressing human health, and raised concerns regarding unequal access to health services. The IMF called for substantial increases in ODA for the health sector. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE stressed the issues of POPs and HIV/AIDS, and called on the CSD to ensure, inter alia, impact assessments as a prerequisite for mining operations and protection of traditional healing systems. The UNFCCC indicated that it would be considering implementation issues jointly with the CBD and the CCD following CSD-11.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Many delegates seemed pleased with Tuesday’s high-level discussions, noting a useful exchange of views during the morning’s regional sessions and the afternoon’s round table discussions. Some Major Groups were heard expressing satisfaction with their interactive exchanges with ministers, and a number of observers were already suggesting that holding the ministerial segment earlier than usual was proving to be a success.

While the mood in the formal meetings was generally positive, informal high-level talks were showing divergence on the choice of themes for upcoming CSD sessions. While many delegations agree that water and energy should be prioritized, there is a wide range of views on what issues should follow on from these. A non-paper circulated on Tuesday was seen by some as an attempt to address this matter; it suggested adopting two themes per work cycle, with the option of a third being set closer to the time, if required. According to some, trouble might also be brewing on regional issues. While there is clear support for a strong regional component to the CSD’s work, at least two developed countries strongly oppose holding regional implementation forums grouped around UN regional commissions, arguing that they would be unwieldy and ineffective. Some other delegates are also reportedly sympathetic to the idea of selectively using successful examples of subregional cooperation.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS: Delegates will continue to hear statements on "Visions for the Future CSD" from 10:00-11:30 am in Conference Room 4.

INTERACTIVE MINISTERIAL ROUND TABLE: Ministerial round table discussions will take place in Conference Room 1 from 11:30 am - 1:00 pm on "Means of implementation" and "Institutional framework for sustainable development."

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION FORUMS: Forums on the ECA and ESCWA regions will take place from 3:00 pm - 4:30 pm. The ESCAP forum will occur from 4:30-5:30 pm. Ministers and high-level officials will discuss initial steps taken in these regions to implement the JPOI. Check the Journal for venue details.

SUMMARY OF HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT: Chair Moosa will present a summary of discussions held during the high-level segment from 5:30-6:00 pm in Conference Room 4.

LEARNING CENTER: Two courses on "Improving Johannesburg implementation" and "Sustainable development in a dynamic world" will be held from 10:00 am - 12:00 pm and 3:00-6:00 pm respectively at the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org is written and edited by Prisna Nuengsigkapian prisna@iisd.org, Richard Sherman richard@iisd.org, Chris Spence chris@iisd.org and Andrey Vavilov, Ph.D. andrey@iisd.org. The Digital Editors are Leila Mead leila@iisd.org and Leslie Paas leslie@iisd.org. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. pam@iisd.org and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI kimo@iisd.org. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the US Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA, DFAIT and Environment Canada), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development - DFID and Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - DEFRA), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the Bulletin during 2003 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), and the Ministry for Environment of Iceland. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at kimo@iisd.org, +1-212-644-0217 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.

This page was uploaded on 04.30.2003

Tony Seskus <a href=www.nationalpost.com>Financial Post Tuesday, April 29, 2003

Canada faces mounting Kyoto costs and commitments unless Ottawa gets its "act together" before the next set of negotiations on the climate change accord, a policy think tank warned yesterday.

"The next round of commitments is going to be tougher," said Gilles Rheaume, vice-president of policy for the Conference Board of Canada. "If we're not prepared with a clear strategy, we could end up with a lot of problems."

The debate on Canada's decision in December to ratify the accord has faded since Ottawa made a number of concessions aiming to limit its impact during the implementation phase, which runs till 2012. But Mr. Rheaume said the federal government's short-term focus is leaving the country vulnerable to much tougher long-term commitments, which will be negotiated in 2005. He said Ottawa needs to start preparing a strategy for those negotiations now.

Many observers say Ottawa had a chance to develop a detailed strategy in the years that led up to the signing of the Accord last year.

Many felt that Ottawa signed Kyoto without a clear notion of how it would implement the complex deal and without a clear idea of how much it would cost.

"Let's not pull another Kyoto," Mr. Rheaume said at board conference in Calgary yesterday.

"If we're not prepared [for the negotiations], it's going to be tough because I can see by 2007-2008, we're going to have another agreement with stricter targets for a longer time period."

He said uncertainty around Canada's long-term Kyoto plans puts the future of major capital projects at risk.

"They have long lead times, they have long lives and if you don't know what will be Canada's longer-term strategy with respect to climate change, why would you want to put in a major investment that's going to last 25, 30, 50 years?" he said.

In fact, Petro-Canada is expected to address that issue today at its annual general meeting in Calgary when the company should provide some clarity on a $5.2-billion oilsands strategy, which has been clouded by Kyoto.

The company said in December it would be looking for longer-term certainty on Kyoto by the spring before deciding whether to spend $200-million for detailed engineering and other work on its Meadow Creek oilsands project and a refinery conversion.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is still seeking further Kyoto certainty. Of note, it wants Ottawa to pledge not to increase Canada's climate change "burden" until other oil-rich countries, like Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela, sign the deal, said Pierre Alvarez, CAPP's president.

Canada's current Kyoto commitment calls for the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Prior to ratifying the agreement, critics warned the deal could cost industry billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs and forever put Canada at a disadvantage to the United States, which won't sign Kyoto.

Ottawa tried to mitigate those concerns with promises to spread the burden across the country and sectors.

In the case of the oil and gas industry -- one of Kyoto's fiercest opponents -- the federal government decided to cap related costs during the implementation stage.

Ottawa has, however, offered few assurances beyond 2012.

Many energy companies believe those costs are unlikely to rise significantly after that time, but Mr. Rheaume said there are no guarantees about what Canada's commitments will look like in the long term.

He said that's why Canada needs a strategy to ensure it negotiates an agreement it can handle.

Canada should even consider negotiating as a block with either North America or the Americas, just as European countries successfully did.

tseskus@nationalpost.com

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

Vol. 05 No. 185 Tuesday, 29 April 2003 CSD-11 HIGHLIGHTS: MONDAY, 28 APRIL 2003

The 11th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-11) began on Monday at UN headquarters in New York. During the opening plenary, delegates heard introductory statements and adopted the agenda and organization of work. CSD-11 then began its high-level segment, starting with ministerial statements on the future modalities and work programme of the CSD. In the afternoon, a ministerial round table took place, with participation of leaders from Major Groups, on the issues of poverty eradication and changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production.

OPENING OF THE SESSION

CSD-11 Chair Mohammed Valli Moosa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, opened the session on Monday morning, informing delegates that their task was to decide on modalities and a future work programme for the CSD. Drawing attention to pledges made during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), he said problems such as global warming, hunger and disease must be tackled with the "same vigor recently displayed by some on the military front." In this regard, he underscored the multilateral approach as "the only real solution" for achieving sustainable development.

Nitin Desai, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, said participants must consider how to support concrete implementation of commitments made at the WSSD. Noting the presence at CSD-11 of many ministers and other high-level representatives of governments and civil society, he indicated that this meeting offers an ideal opportunity to establish a clear path for implementing previously agreed goals and targets on sustainable development.

UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer said a key issue for UNEP was how to coordinate its work with that of other UN bodies, and drew attention to decisions taken at the UNEP Governing Council session in February 2003 to integrate WSSD outcomes in UNEP’s programme of work. Reflecting on CSD-11’s agenda, he said discussions on priority issues for the proposed two-year programme of work would be crucial.

Following the opening speeches, delegates adopted the agenda and approved the organization of work for the session (E/CN.17/ 2003/1).

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS: Following the opening of the session, participants heard statements by ministers and other high-level government officials on the future modalities and work programme of the CSD. GREECE, on behalf of the EU, called for the structure of the two-year work cycle proposed in the Secretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/2003/2) to be simplified. She urged a flexible work programme that would allow emerging issues to be addressed, and noted the EU’s preference for the third option presented in the Secretary-General’s report. This option proposes that CSD-11 selects one or two broad areas for each of the next four or five two-year cycles, while another area for the next cycle could be determined at future sessions. A number of delegations also favored this option, stating that it provides both predictability and flexibility. MOROCCO, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, emphasized that the work programme should focus on implementation of the WSSD’s outcomes, and that the two-year cycle should be structured in a simple, effective and efficient manner, and avoid the proliferation of meetings. He said the first year should review progress in implementation of commitments to identify implementation constraints and obstacles. AUSTRIA stressed the need for the Bureau to ensure continuity in the multi-year cycle of work, and proposed several options to support this objective, including: electing Bureau members for the whole two-year cycle; rotating members; or enlarging the Bureau to 10 members.

On selection of issues for consideration by the Commission, many delegates cautioned against overloading the future work programme with too many themes. AUSTRALIA and CANADA suggested focusing on one theme over a two-year cycle. Many delegates supported selecting themes that lack a clear institutional home within the UN system. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said the Commission might also consider themes not yet addressed in recent sessions. CROATIA, ITALY, and the EU supported water and energy as priorities for the future work programme. The NETHERLANDS also suggested focusing on Africa, while NORWAYsupported sustainable consumption and production as another important theme. PORTUGAL proposed prioritizing water and sanitation, and oceans. MAURITIUS, on behalf of AOSIS, stressed that the special focus accorded to SIDS in Agenda 21, the Barbados Programme of Action, and the WSSD must be reflected in the future work programme. INDIA suggested that the 22 sectors addressed in Agenda 21 be clustered into five two-year cycles, and, with INDONESIA, said the final cycle should review overall implementation.

Regarding the CSD’s future organizational arrangements, the CZECH REPUBLIC supported stronger involvement of UN regional commissions. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION stated that the regional review process should be uniform and have common criteria to ensure compatible and consistent outcomes. LITHUANIA said the work programme should prioritize subregional cooperation. The NETHERLANDS and FRANCE stressed the importance of national responsibility in achieving sustainable development. Several delegates also underscored the importance of continued high-level engagement and supported enhancing input from the scientific and educational communities to the CSD.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA and the UK underscored the CSD’s role in monitoring partnerships and the implementation of the WSSD’s outcomes. NORWAY emphasized the importance of using existing reporting procedures, and CROATIA stressed the need for a unified reporting mechanism. The G-77/CHINA urged the CSD to define parameters that would guide and govern partnerships. AUSTRALIA stressed the importance of private sector investment, cautioned against politicizing CSD negotiations, and highlighted the CSD’s role in knowledge-sharing. ITALY supported public-private partnerships and stressed the role of the business community in sustainable development.

INTERACTIVE MINISTERIAL ROUND TABLE: On Monday afternoon, delegates began the interactive ministerial round table segment of the meeting. Chair Moosa introduced the segment, noting that it was intended to allow ministers and leaders of Major Groups to engage in a dialogue on key issues relating to implementation of the WSSD’s outcomes. He indicated that the issues to be discussed on Monday afternoon were those covered by the first two substantive chapters of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, namely poverty eradication and changing unsustainable patterns of sustainable consumption and production.

Poverty eradication: In the dialogue on poverty eradication, many participants highlighted theUN Millennium Declaration goals of halving, by 2015, the proportion of the world’s people earning less than one dollar a day, the proportion who suffer from hunger, and those without access to safe drinking water. Nitin Desai explained that meeting the poverty goal requires raising 100,000 people out of poverty every day from now until 2015. Stressing the need for a broad range of policies covering issues such as trade and natural resource management, he highlighted the CSD’s role in supporting policy coherence across these areas.

Many speakers discussed the linkages between poverty and water, with several delegates calling for increased donor aid and investment in the water sector. MALI noted that, while the UN Millennium Declaration goal on safe drinking water is important, a broader approach focused on protecting water resources is crucial. A spokesman for the Third World Water Forum noted ministerial agreement at the Forum to "redouble collective efforts" to meet the internationally-agreed water-related goals. SWITZERLAND said water should be one of the first topics discussed under the CSD’s future work programme, and NORWAY suggested developing a global programme of action on water. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE insisted on attaining water targets in a culturally-sensitive way, while SOUTH AFRICA and TRADE UNIONS expressed concerns about water privatization. AUSTRALIA linked access to water resources with good governance and suggested the use of a catchment approach in sharing water resources.

On the question of agricultural subsidies, FARMERS highlighted distortions within the private sector and the dominance of food sales by a small number of retail chains. SWEDEN referred to the EU’s difficulties in achieving ongoing reforms, and suggested considering agriculture early on in the CSD process.

On gender issues, GREECE and BRAZIL stressed the need to improve the status of women in sustainable development.

Changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production: In the dialogue on changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, MOROCCO highlighted its plans to host an international expert meeting in June 2003 on a 10-year framework of programmes for sustainable production and consumption. SWEDEN noted that this issue has been on the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and stressed the need for implementation. VENEZUELA said that developed countries have a high degree of responsibility in changing their patterns of consumption and production, and stressed the importance of an ethical approach for achieving sustainable development. CANADA said patterns of consumption and production are universal, and are not a North-South issue. He stressed the need for full life-cycle product design, greater consumer information, and addressing the consumption attitudes of the affluent. JAPAN urged the international community to consider establishing a common recycling target, and to engage in international research on this matter. INDONESIA underscored the need for investment in cleaner production. YOUTH noted the lack of their involvement and called for an increased focus on education for sustainable consumption and production.

KENYA stressed the need to address patterns of consumption and production in poverty reduction strategies, while NGOs suggested that these patterns be addressed in national sustainable development strategies, and INDONESIA proposed they be included in business plans. Highlighting the involvement of all Major Groups, SWEDEN underscored the role of women and the business community. FINLAND suggested that sustainable consumption and production should be considered in the first cycle of the CSD work programme.

Several speakers noted the importance of energy, with the NETHERLANDS stating that it should be considered in the work programme. BRAZIL highlighted its proposal for a global initiative for 10% renewable energy by 2010. NORWAY stressed the need for renewable energy targets and environmental considerations in the use of hydroelectricity. PAKISTAN underscored the need to increase the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

IRELAND stressed the need for adequate resources and financing, and called on developed countries to meet their ODA commitments. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and the SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY addressed the recovery and application of traditional knowledge and practices. SENEGAL and UNEP emphasized the importance of technology transfer. SWITZERLAND and TRADE UNIONS called for the ratification and implementation of the POPs and PIC Conventions.

IN THE CORRIDORS

On a well-attended opening day, delegates started grappling with the question of the exact role the "new" CSD should play. The first ministerial round table, which in the words of one delegate was managed with an "iron fist" by the Chair, generally received a positive response. Though some felt the discussion was somewhat jumbled, they also acknowledged that it was remarkably free of rhetoric and point-scoring, and had generated a variety of useful ideas.

Speculating on the controversial subjects likely to crop up over the next two weeks, participants singled out several items, including the number of themes to be addressed at future sessions, the prospect of proliferating meetings in each work cycle, the question of how far ahead to set the work programme, the issue of regional implementation forums, and new and additional financial resources and technology transfer. Some observers also expressed disappointment at the small number of non-environment ministers attending this session, and were questioning how this could be resolved.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

INFORMAL MINISTERIAL MEETING: An informal meeting, where ministers will exchange views with the Chair, is taking place in Conference Room 6 from 8:30-10:00 am.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS: Delegates will continue to hear statements by ministers and other high-level representatives on "Visions for the Future CSD" from 10:00-11:30 am in Conference Room 4.

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION FORUMS: Ministers and high-level officials will convene from 11:30 am - 1:00 pm to discuss initial steps taken in the ECE and ECLAC regions to implement the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Forums will take place in Conference Rooms 1 and 4. Please check the Journal for venues.

MINISTERIAL ROUND TABLE: Ministerial round table discussions will take place in Conference Room 1 from 3:00-6:00 pm on "Protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development" and on "Health and sustainable development."

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org is written and edited by Prisna Nuengsigkapian prisna@iisd.org, Richard Sherman richard@iisd.org, Chris Spence chris@iisd.org and Andrey Vavilov, Ph.D. andrey@iisd.org. The Digital Editors are Leila Mead leila@iisd.org and Leslie Paas leslie@iisd.org. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. pam@iisd.org and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI kimo@iisd.org. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the US Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA, DFAIT and Environment Canada), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development - DFID and Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - DEFRA), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the Bulletin during 2003 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), and the Ministry for Environment of Iceland. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at kimo@iisd.org, +1-212-644-0217 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.

This page was uploaded on 04.29.2003

AFP-SPACE DAILY WIRE

BOGOTA (AFP) Apr 26, 2003 Colombia is on guard against debris that could rain down on it from the Italian research satellite BeppoSAX, which is to enter the Earth's equatorial zone next week, officials here said Saturday.

"Faced with the possibility that fragments from the satellite may fall on southern Colombia, we will have to take some preventive measures, like an eventual suspension of aerial operations," civil aviation chief Juan Carlos Velez told reporters.

Velez also urged residents in Cali, Florencia, Mocoa, Neiva, Pasto, Popayan, Villavicencio and Leticia not to touch any debris from the satellite, noting that it could be toxic.

He said Italian experts would specify Monday where the debris -- expected to fall between April 29 and May 3 -- would land, noting that there was a 1 in 14 chance it would fall on Colombia.

The 1,400-kilo (870-pound) satellite, which should break into about 40 pieces upon re-entering Earth's orbit -- could also drop in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Cameroon or Singapore, Velez said.

BeppoSAX was launched in 1996.

<a href=www.nzherald.co.nz>Reuters, 25.04.2003 3.24 pm

The Brazilian Space Agency said today an Italian satellite that was deactivated last year may crash in the Amazon jungle in the coming days.

The agency said Brazilian authorities had been contacted by the Italian Space Agency, which estimated the satellite, the BeppoSAX, was most likely to re-enter orbit on May 1 but could crash to Earth any time between next Tuesday and May 4.

The Brazilian Space Agency said in a statement it was too soon to conclude exactly where the satellite would land, but Brazilian and Italian authorities formed a group to monitor its trajectory over the coming days.

It could also crash to Earth in any of Brazil's Amazon neighbors, such as Venezuela, Colombia or Peru.

The agency said it was also too early to say how much damage the 1400kg satellite could cause when it crashed, but it was likely to break up into 42 fragments when it entered orbit, according to the Italian Space Agency.

"This re-entry maneuver was expected," said a spokesman for Alenia Aeronautica, a unit of Italy's state defence group Finmeccanica, which built the satellite. He said Italy was responsible for advising countries where it might fall.

If it crashes in Brazil, it will likely be in one of seven states in the Amazon -- the world's largest tropical rain forest, home to up to 30 per cent of the planet's animal and plant life and covering an area larger than Western Europe.

The satellite was launched in 1996 to monitor space radiation. It is owned by the state-run Italian Space Agency.