Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We had a very productive 3-hour session last Sunday. What emerged out of this meeting were five key points. They are:
need for improved coordination;
need for improved reporting approaches;
common methodologies;
fund raising; and
comments on Phase Ⅱ restructuring.
I will describe each of them in turn. But I do want to point out that, on the part of the Co-Chairs, there is a very real sense of accomplishment in the reflection of the past five years of association and work. I think this has come out on the table during the discussion over the last 2 days as well.
１. Turning to the five points, the first one is the matter of coordination among the Working Groups.
There was supposed to have been an inter-sessional meeting of the Working Group Co-Chairs last year, but this didn't take place because of lack of funds. In reality, there is another problem, and that is the time availability of the Co-Chairs -the question of how much time they have for this important element of coordination. One suggestion is to hold a full-day session just prior to the Council Meeting. Actually, there were several points of coordination that came out during our discussions yesterday and today. One is that there are some common themes, particularly the theme of economic analysis and the important themes of measures and in dicators that should perhaps be tied to the activities of all the Working Groups.
Secondly, there are some ways in which we could have some more virtual rules or procedures to improve coordination; for example, there is little communication between Working Groups using electronic mail or the possibility of Internet connections. There is also a need for more information to be shared via the newsletter. And also, along these same lines of thought, is the possibility of actually sharing members of Working Groups. so that one person might become a member of more than one Working Group.
However, there remains the fundamental question of whether there is any incentive for the Co-Chairs to actually cooperate closely. There were two very specific proposals put forward. One is to establish a pool of funds specifically allocated for shared work among the groups. And secondly, some Working Groups, particularly the Economics Analysis Group, might have a mandate that allows it to better serve the needs of the other Working Groups.
２. The second key point that emerged was the need for a common reporting approach.
Obviously there are great differences in the styles of individual research report writing. But it was suggested last year that there should be a common outline for the structure of the summaries that are provided to this meeting. To some extent, there has been some progress, but more progress is still desired on the part of the Secretatiat of the Council. There is interest on the Co-Chairs part to be given guidance on the matter.
３. It was also suggested that there might be a common methodology employed in the future in a way to make the Working Groups more effective and more efficient in their work.
There was a proposed five-step approach brought forward to start this discussion. The steps proposed would be:
a. assess situation ,define problems clealy and gather information;
b. establish a prognosis for future situations and scenarios;
c. define alternate policies approaches(of coure,this is something that the Council has been very concerned about);
d. recommend measures, specifically identifying sectors or regions affected;
e. incorporate results into regional and national five-year plans.
This approach was put forward, and there was considerable interest on the part of the Co-Chairs as to whether something like this might be adopted or not, There is clearly a need for further discussions on this issue, but I think it is and are a of interest on the part of the Co-Chairs.
４. The matter of enhanced funding was raised by a number of people
Not only should there be funding continuity for the work of the individual Working Groups, but also the funds should come in a timely fashion. This point was illustrated by the Biodiversity Working Group activities, which moved quite quickly once the European Union and Canadian funds were in hand. There was also another point made by some of the participants, particularly by some of the Council Members present, about how their approach and their output can be rated in comparison to other environment and development investment being made within China by other donors. This is a subject that was not discussed in detail, but is an important observation.
５. The fifth point was the way in which the Working Groups might enter PhaseⅡ .
Obviously this is the prerogative of the Council, but there were some thoughts and suggestions brought forward, and I would like to share these with you. The model established in the first phase was not in question the part of the Co-Chairs. They thought the model of the first phase was a successful model. There was also a strong indication on the part of the various Co-Chairs for continuing to have an association with the Council. On the other hand, it is also felt that at this particular point, it is a good time to be taking a very careful, and perhaps a very radical, look at how the Working Groups might be restructured.
Some of the points that were raised were:
Should the Working Groups operate over a three year rather than a five year time period?
Should there be fewer Working Groups?
Might there be one working group that helps to integrate work across a number of different areas?
There was considerable enthusiasm for work in the area of sustainable agriculture and for continuing work in sectors such as energy and industry. Interestingly, there was not as much discussion on issues such as transportation and sustainable cities, but I think this was a matter of time availability as much as anything. In the written report prepared by Julia Marton Lefèvre, it was recommended that transportation be incorporated into the activities of several Working Groups, rather than having the Council set up a separate group.
The areas of pollution control, cleaner production, and monitoring presented a valuable focal point for some of the discussion on Sunday. There was a feeling, I believe, that careful thought must be given as to what might usefully be done in PhaseⅡ.And there was of course much support for the improved integration of private sector initiatives.
The program of the Working Group of Economics might be divided into two broad catagories. The forest category could consist specifically of economic studies, such as the fiscal aspect of green taxation. The second category could consist of multi-disciplinary work including both case studies of selected environmental problems and the provision of the economic input into the activities of the other Working Groups. This latter aspect could be designed to avoid duplication of efforts, and to help achieve a consistent framework of the analysis among the various Working Groups.
The essential role of biodiversity was underscored by the discussion of how to address various ecological concerns as well as the matter of protecting species.
But how the activities of this Working Group ought to relate to other Working Groups remains largely unaddressed. There was discussion, for example, of taking an ecosystem approach in either agriculture or in relation to certain industrialized activities, but this is something that needs to be clarified. Finally, the role of trade in relation to other activities, such as cleaner production, sustainable agriculture, energy and biodiversity was not fully explored. But clearly some of the links have to be made, and that was apparent in the discussions on Sunday.
In conclusion, it was a very rich and worthwhile discussion that took place on Sunday. I was left with the task of preparing and bringing forward recommendations concerning how we might address some of the matters related to coordination.
And my recommendations are quite simple:
At this point, where we are perhaps making an important transition to a new set of Working Groups, with new Co-Chairs in some instances, there should be a one-time metting of all the Co-Chairs within the next four to six months, once the decision has been taken about Phase Ⅱ Working Group structure.
Secondly, this meeting should address the points raised in last Sunday's discussion, and other matters of coordination and improved cooperation.
And finally, I would recommend that there should indeed be a full-day preliminary meeting scheduled for the Working Group Co-Chairs, and any interested Council Members, at the 1997 Council Meeting. This might be done on a trial basis, but it was very clear from the discussions that we had last Sunday that three hours was not enough time to carry out all the important matters to conclusion. The continuing need for the Working Group Co-Chairs to be in communication with each other w as underscored by the meeting.
Thank you very much, Mr.Chair.