Environmental questions

The United Nations

By lan Williams

THERE was good news and bad news for the Pacific’s environmentally disad vantaged islands. Firstly two major conventions arising from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 were ratified by enough nations to become riding in international law. The Bio-Diversity Convention in January and the Climate Change Con ventions as of March 21 after it received its 50th ratification from Portugal just four days before Christmas.

However, the Global Environment Facility, one of the major instruments by which these and similar conventions could be implemented by the Pacific nations is in serious trouble. The GEE was supposed to be pledged by the wealthier countries of the world that they took environmental threats seriously, especially Global Warming. Instead the French seemed to have torpedoed the meeting in the Columbia seaport of Cartagena which was supposed to con solidate the results of the past three years pilot project.

Despite five previous meetings, the Cartagena gathering broke up with what Third World diplomats called “serious setbacks.” It was supposed to consolidate previous discussions on two major items.

The first was a multi-billion dollar replenishment of the facility. This was generally agreed, even though some donor countries had political problems.

For example, Canada had a new govern ment, and so its diplomats were reluctant make commitments without instructions.

The US delegation was much more constructive than it had been in the past perhaps reflecting the environmental profile of Vice President A 1 Gore. It quietly agreed a package of $143 million, even though it did not want to advertise the fact back home in case of con gressional opposition. That was $2O million less than the formula said they should pay but “the Japanese agreed to pick up the slack,” a diplomat told PIM, “and we all know how opposed Congress is to any foreign aid, so we were quite pleased with the American effort.”

The breakdown came in the second half of the agenda, which discussed the question of the control of the organis ation and spending. The Earth Summit in Rio last year agreed on a shared decision making process between the North and the South but the damage came in the details. Despite a rearguard action by the “Group of 77” developing countries, the GEF’s Assembly in which each country has an equal vote, was reduced to a biennial talking shop, and power is to be concentrated in a governing council which will have effec

tive control over where the money is spent.

The affluent industrial countries of the OECD secured a two stage voting process in the council. Binding decisions would need to secure a majority both of the member states on the council, and a second ballot in which members’ votes are weighted according to their financial contribution. In addition, the OECD countries wanted the chief executive of the facility to be the chairman of the council.

The G 77 thought that that this would put far too much power in the hands of the secretariat, which they suspected would be naturally beholden to the donors, the hand that feeds. By Cartagena two alternative plans re mained on the table both involving significant compromises by the G 77. The first gave the council 31 seats, 16 of which would be from the G 77, 13 from the OECD and two from the ex-socialist countries, now called “Economies in Transition.” The council would need a 60 per cent majority in both members and contribution-loaded finance, and would have a co-chairman, elected from the council who would take the chair when discussing the secretariat.

The second proposal had no co-chair, a 2/3 majority requirement and 33 seats, 18 G 77, 13 OECD, and 2 EIT. When the G 77 offered a compromise on the first proposal which would enhance the power of the co-chairman, the French

threw down the gauntlet. Any changes,

their delegation declared and France would be unable to meet the contri bution it had agreed. The reduction it threatened was small but the Germans joined in, since their delegation was seemingly under instructions to back whatever France wanted.

Italy agreed and the G 77 became very angry. Under the agreed formula, any reduction by one country could be used by others to reduce their commitment and the $3 billion originally committed had already sunk towards 51.5 billion. “The concept of global partnership had to be properly understood if GEF negotiations are to firoceed farther” said Ambassador Razali smail of Malaysia, frostily.

In a strange way, however, there has been some progress. Under the old admin istration, the United States played a thoroughly negative role, and led a charge of the OECD against what it saw as the presumptuous South. This time some Third World diplomats praised the constructive American role and expressed hopes that at the reconvened meeting earlier this year, the US would pull its allies into line. The US had offered to host this meeting, which would be presided over by Vice-President A 1 Gore who has made much of his interest in the environment.

One senior UN official in fact suggested that the breakdown may not necessarily be a Northern plot against the south suggest ing that, “I would not be surprised if even the French did not anticipate this event. It could be rivalry between different depart ments in Paris”.

Once the council is established, in whatever form, the Pacific can expect some

improvement. Until now, a major sticking

point for the Small Island States has been that GEF funding on, for example global warming, was intended for projects that dealt with the causes, rather than the effects. The Pacific, being the victim, rather than the cause, did not qualify for much

funding.

However, the council will have the power to alter the terms of the initial three year pilot programme, “We expect that a lot GEF resources will be devoted to climate change, so there is a good chance that some substantial amounts be directed to its effects in the small islands and coastal regions” said one UN insider.

However back at the UN, the Pacific nations once again went the wrong way to make the friends and allies they need to win votes in international councils. Earlier in the General Assembly session several made an implacable enemy of Beijing by support ing a bid to give Taiwan its own UN seat.

In December, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomons, Fiji, FSM and the Marshalls may have made some serious enemies among the Arab and Islamic nations who make up a significant part of the G 77. The occasion was a vote reaffirming the status of Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem and refusing to recognise its annexation, which was passed by 141 votes to one.

Vanuatu Mystery

There is still no sign of the proposed replacement for former Vanuatu Ambassa dor Robert Van Lierop who was also chairman of AOSIS. “I’m embarrassed to say that I really don’t know what’s

happening.” Van Lierop told PIM, just

after returning from his part in Cartagena, where other diplomats reports he did his usual sterling works for the small islands states.

However, he will be stepping down from AOSIS “I feel that although I was elected in a personal capacity, I should not stay on,” he told PIM, “At the moment consultations are going on among AOSIS member, But I have told the group that I should be replaced.” According to Ameri can sources, the US itself had considered approaching Maxim Carlto’s government to keep Van Lierop on, because of his role with AOSIS in the Climate change dis cussions but he had demurred.

Once mistrusted by the old administra tion because of his advocacy of Vanuatu’s international policies, the Clinton adminis tration now recognises his good work in

pulling together the often inexperienced

and “under-diplomated” islands to articu late their needs from the international conventions. □