The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is holding its third preparatory session in New York from 25 March to 5 April for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which will be held on 26 August4 September in Johannesburg, South Africa. Delegates are spending the second week discussing the revised Chair's paper released on Saturday. Many participants expressed discontent with the 100-page Chair's text as being not sufficiently action-oriented. While trade- related discussions took place under a few areas, most deferred to ongoing work at the WTO and to the mandate agreed upon by WTO Members in Doha, Qatar in November 2001.

The two-week PrepComm session aims to produce the first draft of a 'review' document as well as elements of the CSD's future work programme. Delegates are focusing their activities around three working groups. Working Group I is addressing poverty eradication; changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production; and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development. Working Group II: sustainable development in a globalising world; health and sustainable development; sustainable development of Small Island Developing States; sustainable initiatives for Africa; and means of implementation. Working Group III: sustainable development governance at the international, regional and national levels.

Under talks on agricultural and rural development in the context of 'poverty eradication', the EU and Korea said subsidy issues should be considered under 'globalisation'. Japan, which has traditionally defended its various domestic support programs as well as the concept of multifunctionality in agriculture, pushed for the deletion of 'trade- distorting subsidy' references, arguing that this language went beyond the WTO's Doha mandate. Japan also called for deletion of a reference to market access for developing country products under this heading; the EU, Korea and the US suggested that it could be moved to the section on 'means of implementation'.

In discussions under the heading 'changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production', a number of countries requested that ecolabelling be made voluntary, but should not be used as a hidden barrier to trade. The G-77 / China, together with New Zealand, objected to a proposal from Switzerland and the EU to provide consumer information throughout the production chain. The US, supported by Korea, suggested text on using economic instruments and market incentives to internalise external costs, and Norway proposed keeping existing text on market access for developing countries. The US -- in line with its position at the WTO on trade-environment 'win-win' scenarios -- also proposed language on gradually reducing and eliminating environmentally-harmful and trade-distorting subsidies that inhibit sustainable production and consumption patterns. Norway suggested deleting "trade-distorting" in this context.

Under the 'health and sustainable development' heading, the US, the EU and Japan opposed a G-77 / China proposal for "flexible" implementation of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Industrialised countries favour strong intellectual property rights regimes in general, and in the pharmaceuticals sector in particular. Norway stressed the need to maintain a policy statement reflecting successful efforts aimed at promoting access to drugs and healthcare. Working Group II Co-Chair Richard Ballhorn proposed using language contained in the WTO's Doha Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health on this point (see http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/doha/relevantdoc.htm#TRIPs).

Chair Emil Salim (Indonesia) mentioned two types of outcomes expected from the Johannesburg Summit. Type I outcomes will include a concrete and realistic implementation plan, while Type II outcomes will consist of partnerships, which would not be negotiated in the PrepComm but would be agreed by partners involved. Some delegates expressed concern that they were not receiving sufficient guidance on how these partnerships would be achieved and what is expected of governments in support of such partnerships. Others also expressed concern about including all stakeholders in the partnerships. The Third World Network, for instance, claimed that in that case, those who have the money would drive the process, while the Women's Caucus refused to enter into partnerships with multinational companies and criticised the concept for being unclear and not containing any criteria.

For its part, Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) issued a statement on 25 March arguing that the new WTO agenda is seriously flawed on social and environmental grounds, and called on governments to launch an assessment of the social and environmental impacts of trade liberalisation. Friends of the Earth International also calls on the WSSD to establish the principle that Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) always take precedence over trade rules. The official website of PrepComm III is at: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/prepcom3.html. As BRIDGES Weekly went to press, the revised Chair's paper had not yet been made available online. Daily coverage of the event can be found at: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/2002/pc3/.

The Fourth Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepComm 4) will be a ministerial level meeting, and is scheduled to take place from 27 May7 June in Bali, Indonesia. It will draw upon the agreed text from PrepComm 3 to prepare a document that will aim to: (a) emphasise the need for a global partnership to achieve the objectives of sustainable development; (b) reconfirm the need for an integrated and strategically focused approach to the implementation of Agenda 21, and (c) address the main challenges and opportunities faced by the international community in this regard. The outcome of PrepComm 4 will be submitted for further consideration and adoption at the August-September Summit meeting.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin Daily Reports, PrepComm III. IISD; ICTSD Internal Files.