|
<br />oon584
<br />
<br />1:01111 0..;1I11111/;/(;/1l/,,1., . SCp1ClllbC'(11)91
<br />
<br />u.s. Rejects Targets in Forest Negotiations
<br />
<br />, The u.s. delegation requested
<br />the deletion of .targets and time
<br />frames" from a provision on na-
<br />tional plans for forest management
<br />, and, conservation in negotiations,
<br />, ona draft statement of principles
<br />on forests.
<br />At an earlier negotiating ses-
<br />sion, the draft provision had been
<br />, accepted by all pSrticipating states.
<br />The provisions relating to nationQJ
<br />plans are a key to future interna-
<br />tional cooperation to save forests in
<br />,developing countries.
<br />The draft text makes clear that
<br />each state would have total discre-
<br />tion in setting targets and time
<br />frames as part of its national plan.
<br />However, a U.S. official"participat-
<br />ing in the negotiations told Earth
<br />Summit Update that the United
<br />States did not want to agree to ,
<br />commitments that are not' spelled
<br />out in detail. The official added
<br />that in any event" the delegation
<br />had no authority to accept targets
<br />or timetables.
<br />, ,Most of the provis,ions of the
<br />draft document are still in brack-
<br />ets, me~g that the provision has
<br />met official opposition from at least
<br />one participating state. Among the
<br />, ',paragraphs now in contention are:
<br />those calling for: .
<br />. Governments to assure a
<br />"timely and accurate flow of infor-
<br />mation on forests and, forest
<br />ecosystems. .
<br />. Support for implementation of
<br />national policies and programs with
<br />
<br />international financial and techni,
<br />cal assistance.
<br />. Protection, of "representative
<br />and unique exaniples of native for-
<br />ests.-
<br />Despite the fact that much of
<br />the draft, document is still in' dis-
<br />pute, the U.S. official told Earth
<br />Summit Update that the United
<br />States is content with the text over'- '
<br />all. He said that at the outset ofthe
<br />negotiations, ,the U.S. delegation
<br />, was not sure that any draft would
<br />be produced at PrepCoffi 3 because
<br />of procedural wrangling over how
<br />,to assemble, the negotiating text.
<br />.. Developing countries have threat-
<br />ened to scuttle the forest principles
<br />'document as well as other products
<br />of the ,conference if there is not
<br />adequate progress on the issue of
<br />financial resources (see p. 1).
<br />The forest principles being ne~'
<br />'gotiated would' not be legally
<br />binding. Negotiations on the text of
<br />the forest principles will resume at
<br />PrepCom 4 to be held in New York
<br />City next March. '
<br />While the United States had
<br />hoped prior to PrepCom 2 in May to
<br />have an 'international legal instru-
<br />ment on forests ready for signing at
<br />, the Earth Summit in June 1992, it
<br />is now agreed that such an agree-
<br />'ment will not happen.
<br />However, a well-informed U.S.
<br />deJegation member told Earth
<br />Summit tJpdate that the United
<br />States believed that s legally bind-
<br />ing convention on forests might be
<br />
<br />Finish Work Before Rio, Brazil Warns
<br />
<br />Brazilian officials, in an effort '
<br />to pressure delegates to reach agree-'
<br />, ment at the next PrepCom in March,
<br />have made it ciear th"at,all negotia-
<br />tions on the documents to be adopted '
<br />or signed at the" Earth Summit.
<br />must be completed before delega- "
<br />tiorui arrive in Rio. They informed
<br />, delegates atPrepCom 3 ~hat there
<br />will be no conference facilities to
<br />carry out further negotiations on
<br />
<br />final texts in Rio.
<br />Brazilian Deputy Foreign Min-
<br />ister Marcos Azembuja, addressing
<br />the PrepCoin, plenary session,
<br />warned delegates, .UnJess we put
<br />the package together before Rio, it
<br />will fail." He said the practice in
<br />international conferences of wait-
<br />ing until the last minute to make ,
<br />concessions would be "self-defeat-
<br />ing,-
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />negotiated by the end of 1992. In
<br />spite of cwTent U.S. opposition to
<br />, targets and time frames for forest
<br />conservation and management in
<br />" the draft statement of principles for
<br />forests, the delegation member said'
<br />that a subsequent international le-
<br />gal convention might include ,this
<br />kind of provision. '
<br />
<br />U.S. Blocks Move to Bar '
<br />NGOs from PrepCom
<br />Meetings
<br />
<br />The United States fended
<br />off a Japanese and Swedish
<br />effort to prevent non-govern-
<br />ment!,l organizations (NGOs)
<br />from attending any meetings
<br />where negotiations will take
<br />place at PrepCom 4 in New
<br />York next March.
<br />The, Japanese-Swedish
<br />action was apparently at the
<br />behest of developing country
<br />delegations who wished to
<br />avoid the scrutiny of NGOs
<br />during the negotiating ses-
<br />sions. At PrepCom'3, NGOs
<br />were allowed to attend these
<br />meetings at the discretion of
<br />the chairman orthe meeting.
<br />Swedish delegation head
<br />Bo Kjellen, who is also chair-
<br />man of Working Group I,
<br />argued that the proposal was
<br />in' line with the original
<br />PrepCom 1 decision on NGOs,
<br />which had been approved by
<br />the U.N. General Assembly.
<br />'Curtis Bohlen, head of the
<br />U.S. delegation, recalled tliat
<br />the actual text of that deci-
<br />sion only barred NGOs from
<br />making statements in meet-
<br />ings other than plenary
<br />sessions. Ambassador Tommy
<br />Koh of Singapore, chainnan
<br />of the Preparatory Commit'
<br />tee, then' suggested that no'
<br />'new decision be, issued, thus
<br />retaining, the original U.N.
<br />, ruling.' '
<br />
|