Rolph's Journal: May 11, 2008

Commission on Sustainable Development

Sixteenth Session

12^th & 13^th Meetings (AM & PM)

UNITED NATIONS OFFICIALS SEEK MORE INVESTMENT AS COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSES HELPING SMALL ISLAND STATES OVERCOME VULNERABILITY

Delegations also Consider Thirteenth Session’s Decisions on Water, Sanitation

Senior United Nations officials and development experts called today for greater and more innovative investment in the rural economy and agriculture sectors of small island developing States (SIDS), as the Commission on Sustainable Development devoted two meetings to reigniting the global effort to help those most vulnerable of nations overcome current trade, economic, environmental and institutional hurdles.

The Commission’s commemoration of “SIDS Day” ran parallel to a day-long review of decisions on water and sanitation taken at its thirteenth session, where delegations noted that, while the world might meet the Millennium Development Goal on safe drinking water, it would miss the sanitation target if current trends held. Much more was required to ensure the scaling up of infrastructure, rehabilitation of deteriorated water supply systems, capacity-building, ensuring adequate financial support and strengthening the capacities of public utilities.

Nearly all the speakers in the “SIDS Day” event criticized the Commission for scheduling the two important meetings simultaneously. What appeared to be a simple scheduling conflict was perhaps a symbol of the challenges facing small island States, said the representative of the Marshall Islands, suggesting that the current set up did not facilitate interactive discussion. Many Member States often appeared to be talking past one another rather than engaging in productive dialogue with the experts on hand to help identify strategies in areas such as land management, tourism and rural development.

Grenada’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, stressed that the issue of water and sanitation was of paramount importance to the small island States. With climate change -- clearly at the root of the challenges facing the sustainable development of small islands -- likely to intensify the pressure on available freshwater resources, burying those challenges on the Commission’s agenda was essentially committing them to a “burial at sea”.

He went on to say: “We should not ignore the storm clouds gathering overhead,” adding that the clouds might in fact be both a warning and an opportunity to find a silver lining in the challenges facing the global community. Small island States shared responsibility for their situation and hoped that the wider international community would recognize its accompanying obligations. The Alliance of Small Island States was therefore tabling a draft decision emphasizing that, in the future, the Commission should devote one day to the exclusive review of the Mauritius Strategy for further Implementation of the 1994 Barbados Programme of Action.

Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, opening the meeting earlier by underscoring the Commission’s role as the monitoring body on implementation of the Mauritius Strategy and Barbados Plan of Action, the landmark blueprint for small island nations and the wider international community, to address the socio-economic and environmental issues inherent in sustainable development, and to take joint action in priority areas including biodiversity resources, climate change and sea-level rise, coastal and marine resources, and tourism resources.

He underscored that, owing to their small land areas, population and resource base, chronic lack of human and institutional capacity, and structural rigidities, small islands faced a weakening of their international competitiveness and a marginalization of their economies in international trade. Of equal concern was their vulnerability to environmental factors, given the ecological fragility of their environments. Of most concern, perhaps, was the threat posed by sea-level rise to their future land management and agriculture, including the threat of complete inundation facing some islands.

Ultimately the combined impact of those environmental and economic influences had lowered the agricultural productivity of small islands, he said, increasing the instability of their agricultural exports and forcing them to depend on food imports. Building their resilience would require multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder efforts, the participation of small island States themselves and the support of the wider international community –- from regional organizations to United Nations agencies to the global donor community.

In one of two panel discussions devoted to considering small island States and the thematic issues before the Commission’s current session -– agriculture, rural development, land, drought, desertification and Africa –- an expert voiced the fear that small island Governments and policymakers were becoming complacent from depending on the developed world to solve their problems. Rather, they should be looking within to find solutions while awaiting the “grand help” that had been promised for years but seemed not to be forthcoming.

“We must get innovative or we are not going to be able to deal with the issues,” she said, urging small island leaders to consider, among other things, incremental changes to landholding policies that would pave the way for changes on a broader scale. Perhaps Governments could consider promoting traditional and customary forms of ownership rather than yielding to the temptation to adopt popular, but not always appropriate, western methods. At the same time, grass-roots activists should organize and refine their methods so that Governments could not only recognize best practices and target finances accordingly, but also see the ways in which ordinary people approached sustainable development issues at the community and neighbourhood levels.

During the Commission’s parallel discussions, a World Bank expert cited good progress in improving water supply and sanitation facilities in both rural and urban areas worldwide. Yet, between now and 2015, an additional 1.1 billion people would require access to water and another 2.6 billion to sanitation. On top of that, the enormous urbanization of East Asia would call for improved governance and management of water sanitation services. Meanwhile, in South Asia, where six of the world’s 20 mega-cities were located, the problem lay in how to provide the urban poor with access to sanitation.

She said that, besides the growth of congested, unplanned settlements within cities, planners needed to consider the problem posed by peri-urban areas, where most consumers could afford to pay for water and sanitation services but were beyond the reach of existing utilities. A new paradigm was needed in building private-public partnerships; the World Bank had found that improved access to sanitation was being felt mostly among the middle-to-higher income segment of society, further underlining the need to view the water and sanitation issue as an integrated part of poverty alleviation schemes.

Commission Chairman Francis Nhema of Zimbabwe made opening remarks on sustainable development on small islands, and also opened the Commission’s parallel review of water and sanitation. Under-Secretary-General Sha and Cheick Sidi Diarra, High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, also spoke during the water and sanitation review.

The Officer in Charge of the Division for Sustainable Development in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs introduced the Secretary-General’s “integrated review of the thematic cluster of agriculture, rural development, land, drought, desertification and Africa in small island developing States”. The Chief of the Water, Natural Resources and SIDS in the Division for Sustainable Development introduced the Secretary-General’s “review of progress in implementing the decision of the thirteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development on water and sanitation”.

Speakers during the general debate on small island developing States were the representatives of Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union), Tonga (on behalf of Pacific Small Island Developing States), Australia, Iceland, Maldives, Cuba, Mauritius, India, Barbados, Bahamas, Dominican Republic and Papua New Guinea.

The Commission on Sustainable Development will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 13 May, to continue its review of water and sanitation.

Opening Remarks: “SIDS Day”

Commission Chairman FRANCIS NHEMA (Zimbabwe), opening the special day-long meeting devoted to the sustainable development of small island developing States, recalled that the General Assembly had mandated the monitoring of the 2005 Mauritius Strategy for the further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. The Commission was therefore set to address the continuing challenges faced by small islands in the areas of agriculture, land management, rural development, drought and desertification.

While small island States varied considerably in economic profile and levels of development, they faced a number of common challenges, he noted. While rich in marine and terrestrial diversity, they faced exposure to natural hazards, the degradation of their coastal habitats, and over-exploitation of forest and costal resources, all of which placed in jeopardy the survival of many endemic species and fragile habitats. Historically agriculture-based economies, small island States had more recently experienced a decline in traditional agriculture systems due to diminished productivity of the land, the reduced competitiveness of small island products in international markets and increased competition for land.

Many small island States had thus seen increased rural–urban migration of populations seeking employment opportunities in higher-growth industries such as tourism, he said. That had resulted in a range of demands for municipal services, including fresh water and sanitation, and housing, particularly in the coastal areas, which in turn had resulted in a great shift away from the development of rural areas, where many vulnerable social groups –- mainly women and children -– faced increasing challenges in meeting their income and nutrition needs. Hopefully today’s meeting would help identify ways to address in an integrated manner those and other challenges facing small island States in the areas of agriculture, land management and rural development.

He suggested that delegations consider, among other things, strategies to address more effective management of land, water and fishery resources; improve soil conservation and watershed management; and strengthen indigenous institutions so as to build resilient food systems and achieve sustainable food security. It was equally important to consider the links between the traditional and growth industries like agriculture and tourism, and to promote synergies using agro-tourism as an engine for rural development while helping to revitalize the rural economy. That would contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic well-being of vulnerable groups, particularly those living in rural areas. Today’s meeting would provide the Commission with an opportunity to reaffirm the international community’s collective support of efforts by small island States to address their unique challenges, through the strengthening of their technological and human capacities.

Statements

SHA ZUKANG, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, underscored the Commission’s role as the monitoring body on implementation of the Mauritius Strategy, noting that “SIDS Day” was an opportunity to review and assess progress in comprehensively advancing that platform for the sustainable development of small island developing States. A consideration of the thematic cluster of issues before the present session -– agriculture, rural development, land, drought, desertification and Africa -– ensured that small islands benefited from the international community’s expertise in those areas. At the same time, considering those issues in the context of the specific vulnerabilities of small islands sharpened the sense of their timeliness and urgency for those countries.

He underscored that, owing to their small land areas, population and resource base, chronic lack of human and institutional capacity, and structural rigidities, small islands faced a weakening of their international competitiveness and a marginalization of their economies in international trade. Of equal concern was their vulnerability to environmental factors, given the ecological fragility of their environments and their significant exposure to the damaging effects of climate change. Most concerning, perhaps, was the threat posed by sea-level rise to their future land management and agriculture, including the threat of complete inundation facing some islands.

The increased frequency and intensity of cyclones, hurricanes and other extreme natural events had also caused significant destruction of crops and infrastructure in recent years, he said. Such actual and potential impacts were all the more concerning given that trade in agricultural products was still the economic mainstay of most small islands and that declining terms of trade were making the situation even worse. The viability of traditional small island agricultural industries was being undermined and poverty and unemployment in their rural communities was deepening, thus forcing the diversification of agro-industry, often into the cultivation of crops for conversion into biofuels.

He said that ultimately the combined impact of those environmental and economic influences had lowered the agricultural productivity of small islands, increasing the instability of their agricultural exports and forcing them to depend on food imports. Building their resilience would require multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder efforts, the participation of small island developing States themselves and the support of the wider international community –- from regional organizations to United Nations agencies to the global donor community. Today was, therefore, an opportunity for a common assessment of the critical challenges and opportunities facing small islands in their sustainable development efforts.

CHEICK SIDI DIARRA, Under-Secretary-General, Special Adviser on Africa and High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, said small islands were among the most vulnerable groups of countries in the world as they faced frequent natural and environmental disasters due to their location and related economic, social and environmental disruptions. They suffered most from weather anomalies and climate change and their relatively small size entailed high and increasing land demand for competing uses. Agricultural production bore the brunt of that paucity, which exposed land to degradation and desertification, a fact that made the thematic issues under consideration by the Commission particularly relevant to small island States.

He said the majority of small islands were heavily dependent on agriculture and, to that end, the 2005 Mauritius Strategy highlighted the actions they should take, with the assistance of the wider international community, to overcome sustainable development challenges. They included the promotion of agricultural competitiveness through long-term development of effective agriculture systems, diversification, and value-added activities aimed at ensuring food security through research and development, among other ways. Three years on, however, much remained to be done and the international community still had a responsibility to ensure the implementation of those objectives and those of the Barbados Plan of Action.

The Mauritius Strategy also stressed the land degradation challenges that small island States faced, often as a result of inappropriate land use or poor land management, he said. With the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the financial mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) to address land degradation, small island States should be able to use its resources fully to develop and implement projects to tackle land degradation through sustainable land management.

Climate change and sea-level rise threatened to reduce further the already limited land surface, presenting significant risks to the sustainable development of small island States, he said, noting that adaptation remained a major priority for them, given their limited resources with which to fund an adequate response. Any international efforts to address global warming should give particular attention to the needs of small island States. At the same time, the results of the recent negotiations in Bali, leading to an agreement on the start up of an adaptation fund under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the granting of two seats to small island States in its 16-member Adaptation Board, were encouraging.

Noting that six of the small island developing States were located in Africa, he said three of them were also listed as least developed countries. At the end of 2007, Cape Verde had graduated from that list, sending an encouraging message that it was possible to move towards sustainable development and overcome insularity, relatively small size and related challenges, including the vulnerability of natural hazards. The Office of the High Representative would continue to enhance its effort to put small island issues high on the international agenda and to increase the visibility of their concerns. It would also strengthen partnerships with other United Nations entities and international and regional organizations towards effective implementation of the Mauritius Strategy and the Barbados Plan of Action.

KATHLEEN ABDALLAH, Officer in Charge, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, introduced the Secretary-General’s integrated review of the thematic cluster of agriculture, rural development, land, drought, desertification and Africa in small island developing States (document E/CN.17/2008/9), which provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the efforts of small island developing States to address those issues within the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the Mauritius Strategy and relevant decisions of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

She said that, in the area of sustainable land management, the reports showed that many small islands had limited land resources. The demand for the use of land was rising, as were economic development and population growth, agriculture and human settlements. Urbanization had been a dominant demographic trend in nearly all small islands, with implications for sustainable land management in urban and coastal areas and for rural and agricultural development. Unsustainable land use and growing pressures on limited terrestrial resources had also had environmental impacts, including erosion, diminished soil productivity, the siltation and pollution of watersheds, and deforestation. Storms and droughts had increased the vulnerability of small islands to landslides, floods and fires, while climate change and sea-level rise were reducing productive land area. To enhance their resilience to natural and man-made disasters, small island States needed integrated management of lands, coastal areas, freshwater resources, forests and biodiversity.

In the area of rural development and agriculture, she cited the report as saying that rural development remained integral to the sustainable development of small island States, many of which depended on agriculture for income, employment and food security. Despite its significance, the sector had been in decline across small island States for two decades, owing mainly to external shocks, limited access to sufficient physical infrastructure and technological and financial resources, and lack of access to international markets. Small island States were committed to enhancing their resilience to those challenges by promoting rural diversification and investing in agro-tourism, niche markets, value-added products and biofuels, while focusing on food security.

Among the future challenges identified in the report were limited capacity, inadequate legislative and regulatory frameworks, insufficient access to information and technology, and a lack of financial resources, she said. The report also noted the need for integrated land management policies to stem deforestation and degradation, strengthen land tenure and land titling systems, ensure greater equity in land distribution, improve food security, and promote the prosperity of rural economies. It was also necessary to promote intersectoral linkages between agriculture and strong growth sectors such as tourism and fisheries in order to enhance the participation of women and youth in the rural economy, provide training for capacity development, and encourage increased interaction and support by all stakeholders.

General Debate on Small Island Developing States

BYRON BLAKE (Antigua and Barbuda), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, expressed deep concern over the lagging implementation of both the Mauritius Strategy and the Barbados Plan of Action, stressing that small island developing States faced serious challenges in nearly all areas of sustainable development. Indeed, adaptation to climate change, improvements in waste management and land development, and in road and telecommunication infrastructure, all lay well beyond the reach of most small islands. They required outside financing, but those very challenges, coupled with their small size and limited productive capacities, made them unattractive to foreign investors.

That troubling fact made the need to reverse recent declines in official development assistance and to overcome the ongoing stalemate in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of trade negotiations even more urgent, he stressed. That urgency had increased further with the recent increases in global food and commodity prices. The Group of 77 called on all donors and development partners to live up to their financing commitments, especially those targeting the rehabilitation of infrastructure in vulnerable small islands, and to assist those States in their adaptation to climate change and land and rural development. The international community should act with the urgency the matter required, lest the Commission’s consideration of small island issues be tagged “SIDS Remembrance Day”.

ANGUS FRIDAY (Grenada), speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, underscored the regrettable overlap in today’s schedule, stressing that the issue of water and sanitation, which had been scheduled for consideration in a parallel meeting, was of paramount importance to the small island States. Clearly, climate change was at the root of the challenges facing sustainable development and small island States were in the frontline of its impact on the world. To bury those challenges on the Commission’s agenda was essentially to commit them to a “burial at sea”.

Emphasizing that the storm clouds gathering overhead should not be ignored, he said that, in fact, they should be seen as both a warning and an opportunity to find a silver lining in the challenges facing the international community. To that end, the currently dominant consumerist society should be replaced by a culture of citizenship that focused on the rights of everyone. Small island States shared responsibility for their situation and hoped that the international community would recognize their accompanying obligations. AOSIS, therefore, was tabling a draft decision that today should be devoted exclusively to the review of the Mauritius Strategy.

MARTA HRUSTEL MAJCEN (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the regional bloc was committed to the full and effective implementation of the Mauritius Strategy, and supported efforts by small island States to achieve and maintain food security through measures such as the Food Security Thematic Programme, which supported agricultural research, food security information, policy development and the strengthening of farmers’ organizations.

On climate change, she said both adaptation and mitigation measures should be integrated into national and international development planning. In addressing climate change with its partners, the European Union had mainstreamed the issue and other environmental matters into geographical support programmes. It had also launched the Global Climate Change Alliance, focusing on least developed countries and the most vulnerable small island States. Further, the European Union Action Plan on Climate Change and Development aimed to assist development partners in several strategic priority areas, including those of raising awareness, supporting adaptation and mitigation, and capacity development.

ILAISIPA ALIPATE (Tonga), speaking on behalf of Pacific Small Island Developing States, associated herself with the Alliance of Small Island States, saying today’s schedule rendered the presence of small island States less effective and reduced their opportunities to form new or strengthen existing multilateral and bilateral relations with development partners. Time should not be lost, given the current food crisis and the urgency of discussing cross-cutting issues such as climate change, and the Commission should avoid such scheduling problems in the future.

She said the Pacific small island States had advocated the strengthening of the SIDS Unit of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, not only to provide more effective and efficient assistance to Member States in the region, but also to act as the focal point for climate change in New York. The strengthening and diversification of agriculture would clearly contribute to reducing rural poverty, achieving the Millennium Development Goals and minimizing the food crisis in the Pacific. To that end, support from donor partners would be crucial for the region’s small island States.

Rural development was also a real challenge, given the dispersed nature of small islands and the limited resources available to address their socio-economic development priorities, she said. Several had adopted an integrated approach to rural development, encompassing all sectors of the economy. There was also a continuing need to promote greater access to social services, including water and sanitation, health care, education and training. Also needed was support for and strengthening of water and land-use management strategies at the national and regional levels. Financing for development, climate change initiatives and gender empowerment were also required for the furthering of sustainable development in the region.

JOANNA HEWITT (Australia) said her country had integrated both the Mauritius and Barbados frameworks into its overseas development assistance programmes, resulting in a more active and robust policy approach to the situation of small island States in the Pacific region. Indeed, Australia’s long and enduring commitment to partnership with those countries aimed to promote, among other things, political stability, sustainable economic development and regional cooperation. Australia had a clear interest in strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which were fundamental to regional stability and development. The country was particularly keen to help ensure that its Pacific neighbours remained on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

While there was no doubt that small island States faced myriad challenges in pursuing sustainable development, it was clear that climate change was perhaps the most pressing issue that they had to address, she said. Australia was no stranger to global warming and acknowledged its responsibility to help small island States adapt in the face of serious challenges posed by the phenomenon. For example, Pacific small islands would be a major focus of the Australian Government’s $150 million, three-year commitment towards climate change adaptation. Australia was also deeply involved in the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project and the Climate Change and Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones Project.

HARALD ASPELUND ( Iceland) said that, as an island, his country shared many of the concerns of small island States and, since the Mauritius meeting, it had contributed $4 million towards programmes aimed at supporting them. In 2008, Iceland would contribute $1.7 million and would take its cooperation even further with the so-called “island growth initiative”. That support extended to all areas of Iceland’s official development assistance efforts and was intended to target the sustainable use of natural resources, fisheries, ocean policy and the fight against climate change, among other areas.

AHMED KHALEEL (Maldives) noted that, 16 years after the United Nations Earth Summit had approved the landmark Agenda 21, the plight of small island States, especially those with low-lying coastal areas, remained as precarious as ever. “One might wonder whether the spirit of Rio has started to fade away,” he said, questioning whether those who had pledged to help were still committed to global welfare as opposed to narrow interests.

While the Maldives delegation could not speak for the wider international community, it could say that the spirit of Rio was “alive and well”. Enthusiasm for sustainable development was strong in the Maldives, where the enabling physical and social infrastructure, as well as the institutions and policies that would promote achievement of the objectives of Agenda 21, were slowly but surely taking shape. Indeed, the principles of Agenda 21 were now incorporated into the national development plan.

Recalling that the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami had exposed the extent of his country’s vulnerability to sea-level rise, he note that, with some 200 islands scattered across thousands of kilometres of sea, the Maldives had, among other responses, launched a “safer islands strategy”, under which communities living on smaller, less populated and potentially more vulnerable islands would be resettled on larger islands with better natural protection and enhanced coastal defences.

PEDRO L. PEDROSO (Cuba), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, said the enormous challenges facing small island States called into question their very ability to exist as nations. Such a dire situation should not be considered in the manner in which the Commission was proceeding today.

Migration, land tenure and the abandonment of arable lands, and low productivity of some lands were among the major challenges facing small island States. The limited availability of land, vulnerability to market vicissitudes, limited access to potable water and lack of funding to build capacity were particular obstacles to rural development. Overcoming those difficulties -– which were further compounded by climate change -- required relentless work on the part of small island States themselves as well as the Commission and the entire United Nations system.

ANIL KUMAR BACHOO, Minister for Environment and National Development Unit of Mauritius, expressed disappointment that the Commission’s “SIDS Day” deliberations had been significantly reduced this year. The small islands would be lucky if they had one minute devoted to consideration of their cause by 2010, the next time the matter would be on the Commission’s agenda. As host of the 2005 meeting on small island developing States, Mauritius remained concerned by the lagging implementation of the Mauritius Strategy, which had emerged as the outcome of that important event. Perhaps greater efforts were needed to enhance the synergies between the Mauritius Strategy and the Millennium Development Goals.

Noting that measures to adapt to climate change were costly, he said adaptation, capacity-building and training should take into consideration the scarce resources available for small island States and reiterated his country’s call for the establishment of a climate change adaptation fund specifically to assist small islands in that regard. A harmonized assistance procedure was desperately needed, especially in light of the cumbersome requirements of GEF. Moreover, the United Nations should consider the creation of a central body that would be charged with all matters relating to the environment, climate change and natural resource protection, and that would not marginalize any country or viewpoint.

NIRUPAM SEN ( India), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, said that, in the spirit of solidarity and south-south cooperation, his country had cooperated with small island States in sharing knowledge, experience and technology. India had placed special emphasis on increasing human resource and knowledge development, and focused its programmes on fisheries, medical aid and education, among other things. It had committed $70 million in support for small island States this year, in addition to $350 million in concessionary loans and credit lines. India called on the international community to support small island States by fulfilling the commitments they had already made to that particularly vulnerable category of countries.

CHRISTOPHER HACKETT ( Barbados) recalled that, 16 years ago, political leaders at the Earth Summit had identified the need to formulate an ambitious programme to address the special needs of small island developing States, some of the most vulnerable countries on the planet. That designation had been made even in the face of strong opposition from some of the biggest industrialized nations. Subsequently, the Commission and the Office of the High Representative had been established as the key forums through which the United Nations would address key small island development matters and monitor the implementation status of the Mauritius Strategy and Barbados Plan of Action.

He said that, given the lagging implementation of those landmark agreements, and the resistance of many to the work of the Commission and the Office of the High Representative, some delegations were wondering what the overall status of the small island States was when the institutions created to guide their sustainable development were not sufficiently resourced or engaged in small island issues. Furthermore, the relegation of small island issues to just one meeting, held in parallel with another important meeting, was another example of the resurgence of the early resistance to addressing the special needs of that category of countries.

PAULETTE A. BETHEL ( Bahamas), associating herself with the Group of 77 and China, voiced disappointment that no day had been devoted to small island developing States. In light of the current schedule, the Bahamas welcomed the tabling of the draft decision to devote a single day to that theme.

She said her country’s economy was essentially “monochromatic”, relying on the service sector. Land availability was quite limited and posed many challenges in feeding the current and future populations. However, the Government was undertaking a new land management strategy that would secure land tenure in the long term. Support for data gathering and analysing land use patterns would also provide the Government with the ability to manage land in the future. The Government was also instigating a tree-management system to stem soil erosion. But despite those efforts, the Bahamas remained under threat and the way forward involved identifying technology that would help the country meet the challenges it faced.

ENRIQUILLO A. DEL ROSARIO CEBELLOS ( Dominican Republic) said his country, like other members of the Alliance of Small Island States, faced the challenge of adapting quickly to climate change. The island of Hispanola, which was susceptible to frequent hurricanes, was more vulnerable now than ever before and its inhabitants urgently needed assistance, especially in terms of training and technology transfer.

Calling on the United Nations to lead the way in creating a regional and global strategy that would in turn lead to the sustainable development of small island States, he expressed the Dominican Republic’s concern about the organization of the Commission’s sixteenth session, which had significantly curtailed its consideration of small island issues this year.

CALEB CHRISTOPHER (Marshall Islands), describing what appeared to be a simple scheduling conflict as a symbol of the challenges facing small island States, suggested that the current schedule of the “SIDS Day” review did not facilitate interactive discussion, and that many Member States often appeared to be talking past one another rather than engaging with panellists in productive dialogue. The powerful “muscling” of some Member States over the Chair’s outcome document further diminished the voice of small island States in the Commission. However, the margins of the Commission were a valuable opportunity for discussion on the action oriented strategies that small island States could use to meet the current set of challenges facing them. Creative formats should be used in the future to amplify the voices of the small island States community. The Marshall Islands also wished to underline the challenge of identifying and setting national goals and implementation strategies during Commission sessions and the need for managerial reform to address the deficient manner in which the Commission addressed the needs of small island States.

ROBERT AISI ( Papua New Guinea) said that, while his country had been a recipient of substantial aid flows, there was nevertheless a need for assistance in key sustainable development sectors. The Government had moved to establish a long-term development strategy that would integrate the targets and objectives of the Millennium Development Goals. A related national aid policy was also being developed to monitor the effectiveness of targeted aid and follow up on the activities of traditional donor partners. Through that plan, Papua New Guinea hoped to improve aid delivery and the quality of aid in the near future.

Thematic Panel on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States

The Commission held a morning thematic panel discussion on sustainable land management, drought and desertification, chaired by Commission Vice-Chair Melanie Santizo-Sandoval ( Guatemala) and featuring experts Rolph Payet, Special Adviser to the President of the Seychelles, and Jacqueline da Costa, Chair of the Land Information Council of Jamaica.

Mr. PAYET, focusing on land degradation and desertification in small island States, said their tiny land areas, arable or otherwise, made them susceptible to high run-off during rainy weather and storms. At the same time, the land on many of them had been rendered infertile by overuse of chemical pesticides and harmful fertilizers. Even worse, harmful run-off contributed to the creation of “dead” areas in the immediate oceans and waterways around some islands.

He went on to note that poor waste management infrastructure, the removal of trees for urban development and guano extraction –- which left areas of some islands riddled with large holes that were subsequently filled with contaminated water –- were among the other land degradation issues facing small islands. Furthermore, invasive species were wreaking havoc on indigenous animal life on many small islands. For example, rats were costing some small islands millions of dollars a year for infrastructure repairs. Invasive fish species also hurt economies and disrupted eco-tourism. There was a need for integrated approaches to address land management, natural resource conservation and biodiversity protection on small island developing States.

Ms. DA COSTA said small island Governments and policymakers were becoming complacent from depending on the developed world to solve their problems while they should be looking within to find solutions while waiting for the “grand help” that had been promised for years but did not seem to be forthcoming. Most importantly, small islands must start addressing land and land policy matters in a more integrated manner, taking into account the full range of relevant issues, especially unique regional, cultural and traditional concerns.

She said site-specific cultural and traditional practices regarding adaptation to and mitigation of desertification or climate change were often ignored as stakeholders and development partners tended to draft broad-stroke measures. While such measures were beneficial, taking advantage of traditional coping/adaptation methods might actually speed their full implementation. In that regard, there should be more focus on information, including the establishment of local/national spatial data infrastructure, which would be critical in identifying programme strategies. Small island Governments themselves had a role to play, especially in recognizing the importance of issues such as land tenure, land availability and affordability, and coming up with creative ways to address them.

In the ensuing discussion, ANTONIO PEDRO MONTEIRO LIMA (Cape Verde) voiced disappointment with the Commission’s decision not to devote an entire day to sustainable development in small island States, noting that even the time devoted had been significantly curtailed. Small island States deserved respect and heightened international attention, because they were, after all, “the sentinels of the world”. Combating the impact of global warming must be a collective undertaking, drawing on the respective technical know-how and experience of all partners, donors and recipient countries.

NICHOLETTE WILLIAMS ( Jamaica) also criticized the Commission’s decision not to devote an entire day solely to small island issues and called on the Bureau to assure delegations that the organization of work for “SIDS Day”, whereby those important issues were discussed in parallel with other important matters, would not become a recurring feature of the Commission’s work.

TANG XIAOYAN (China), highlighting the need for lasting solutions to the sustainable development challenges facing small island States, said they needed assistance not only in mobilizing requisite resources, but also in making use of modern technology and building capacity in order to create an environment favourable to sustainable development. China also emphasized the importance of trade and equitable access to markets for small island goods, and of helping them address the challenges posed by climate change, chiefly by applying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

AMRYAMPO ATTANI (Indonesia) said the challenges of limited resources, small market size, and inability to enter the international marketplace were exacerbated by the current spike in global food and commodity prices, as well as rampant rural unemployment and climate change, which placed the very survival of small islands at risk. Even more troubling was the dismantling of trade preferences for basic agricultural necessities and the reduction in official development assistance and investment in the agricultural sector. It was essential, therefore, to step up the design and implementation of effective strategies to address those and other challenges.

Review of Decisions Taken by Thirteenth Session on Water and Sanitation

FRANCIS NHEMA, Minister for Environment and Tourism of Zimbabwe, said that improving access to safe water and sanitation was closely linked to the goal of reducing world poverty. Although 1.2 billion people had gained access to improved sanitation between 1990 and 2004, an estimated 2.6 billion of the world’s poorest people, a large percentage of whom were children, still lacked access to sanitation at home and a further 800 million had no access to clean water. It was thought that the Millennium Goal on sanitation would not be met in sub-Saharan Africa until 2076.

He said the added challenges posed by population growth and climate change to the availability of water made it all the more difficult to close the gap in the provision of water and sanitation in rural areas. Great support was needed from the international community in order to translate political commitment into action. In particular, donor support was needed in countries that had expressed their commitment to scaling up best practices in the areas of water and sanitation. Improving the management of water resources required technical support for local authorities, assistance in developing integrated water resources, building efficient water provision systems, and strengthening water sector monitoring.

Under-Secretary-General SHA said that, in undertaking its first-ever review of its own decisions, the Commission was addressing a long-standing concern that it needed to be more proactive in ensuring implementation of its decisions. The decisions from the thirteenth session had identified water and sanitation goals as integral to achieving the Millennium Goals and highlighted that there was no “one-size-fits-all” strategy to pursue. Accordingly, the session had called on Governments and stakeholders to choose and implement those policy measures that were suitable to their specific conditions.

It was widely recognized that the achievement of water and sanitation goals would not only improve the management of water resources, but also have a great bearing on sustainable development, particularly poverty alleviation, he said. While the Millennium target on safe drinking water seemed achievable by 2015, the sanitation target did not. Many of the agreed upon actions for implementing the water and sanitation agenda still needed to be integrated into national policies, and only a handful of countries had developed integrated water plans by the 2015 target year. Additionally, many water utilities were not financially stable. Private sector investment in the water sector had actually declined and the coordination of donor programmes and projects was lacking. The upshot was that implementation of the decisions taken by the thirteenth session was still constrained. To resolve that situation, strong political resolve must be mustered.

Noting the amount of attention given last week to water management in the context of agricultural and rural development, he underscored that, while agriculture was the major user of water, irrigation efficiency was still quite low. Even small efficiency gains in agricultural water use could yield great results. In terms of the overall water and sanitation agenda, however, concerted and comprehensive efforts were required throughout the United Nations system. To keep the political momentum in favour of the water and sanitation agenda, 2003 had been named the Year of Freshwater and 2008 the Year of Sanitation. In addition, the period 2005-2015 had been named as the International Decade for Action of “Water for Life”.

While laudable, those efforts were not enough, he said. More work was needed to get the strategies right, raise investment in water infrastructure and improve water governance at all levels. Greater effort would be needed in four areas: scaling up good practices to build on the existing wealth of knowledge; mainstreaming issues like climate change, biofuels and the food crisis into water management plans; streamlining monitoring mechanisms so that implementation of the decisions of the thirteenth session could be measured; and increasing stakeholder coordination at the national level.

PASQUALE STEDUTO, Chair of UN-Water -- a body established to improve coherence on water issues among United Nations agencies -- said the multi-donor trust fund established by UN-Water in 2007 was a demonstration of the strengthened commitment of donors to the cause of water supply and sanitation. Though not an implementing body, UN-Water relied on individual member agencies to implement programmes on its behalf.

He said members and partners conducted their work through dedicated task forces, including one on improving country-level coordination in line with the United Nations Development Group’s “Delivering as One” initiative. Another task force would focus on defining key indicators to be used in the monitoring and reporting process within the United Nations, which could be used, in turn, by Governments to increase efficiency in data collection at the national level. The task force on sanitation would bring together various United Nations agencies that could play a role in increasing access to sanitation, and organize activities for the 2008 International Year of Sanitation.

UN-Water sought to build a comprehensive picture on water while highlighting the links between water, development and environmental challenges, he said. The body relied on several reporting mechanisms, including the World Health Organization-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme on Water and Sanitation, which provided reports on progress from around the world. Its “Global Annual Assessment on Sanitation and Drinking Water” was expected to be presented later in the year. Other programmes run by UN-Water included: the World Water Assessment Programme, hosted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which synthesizes data on different dimensions of the water issue; capacity development programmes hosted by the United Nations University; and a programme on advocacy and communication, hosted by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The goal was to move from global to country-level developments. Emerging issues, such as climate change and the food crisis, continued to challenge the work of UN-Water, and there was a need for more efficient use of existing resources. Constant support would be needed to speed up the implementation of agreed commitments on water supply and sanitation.

ASLAM CHAUDHRY, Chief of the Water, Natural Resources and SIDS (Small Island Developing States) Branch, the Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, introduced the Secretary-General’s review of progress in implementing the decision of the thirteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development on water and sanitation (document E/CN.17/2008/11).

According to the report, he said, many countries were adopting strategies to enhance better access to drinking water and resources in line with the recommendations of the Commission’s thirteenth session. Yet the effectiveness of those policies presented a mixed picture, with sub-Saharan Africa lagging far behind other regions. African countries would have to step up their efforts to improve access to safe drinking water and increase sanitation levels if they were to meet the related Millennium Development Goal. Moreover, the situation concerning access to basic sanitation was much worse that regarding access to safe drinking water.

The report further stated that regional partnerships had emerged to enhance the work of public water utilities, he said. The main thrust of public spending had been towards low cost sanitation facilities and community programmes. Seventy countries in Africa and Asia had launched gender-sensitive programmes as part of their public awareness campaigns, and there was a need to sustain such trends so as to foster greater awareness of and financial support for the water and sanitation sector. The report also acknowledged that many countries were undertaking water resource management programmes that accounted for both the demand and supply sides and increased water productivity in its many uses.

Nevertheless, the report said that the activities of national water utilities remained a concern, he said. Water and sanitation spending was typically less than 0.5 per cent of a country’s gross domestic product, despite widespread agreement that achieving the Millennium Goals was crucial. Many policy agreements had not yet received the necessary attention in national development plans and the lack of institutional and human resources as well as adequate infrastructure remained major challenges. Finally, meeting water and sanitation goals required that Governments, the private sector and civil society raise the priority attached to them in their development plans.

Panel Discussion on Water and Sanitation

Commission Vice-Chairman TRI THARYAT ( Indonesia) presided over a panel discussion on water and sanitation involving five panellists: Jaehyang So, Global Program Manager, Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank; Piers Cross, Water and Sanitation Programme, Africa; Antonio Miranada, United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Sanitation; Bert Diphoorn, UN-HABITAT; and Roberto Lenton, Senior Adviser, Earth Institute, Columbia University.

Ms. SO began by citing good progress in improving water supply and sanitation facilities in both rural and urban areas worldwide. Yet, between now and 2015, an additional 1.1 billion people would require access to water and another 2.6 billion to sanitation. On top of that, the enormous urbanization of East Asia called for improved governance and management of water sanitation services. In Europe and Central Asia, where access rates were high for both sectors, it was the quality of services rendered that needed attention. Meanwhile, in South Asia, where six of the world’s 20 mega-cities were located, the problem lay in how to provide the urban poor with access to sanitation. In Latin America and the Caribbean, support was needed to decentralize the delivery of water and sanitation.

Turning to Africa, she said it was possible to achieve sanitation goals by 2015, but access to water would remain problematic, whereas in the Middle East and North Africa, managing water and sanitation services would be the challenge. Some $110 billion would be needed for investment in and maintenance of water and sanitation assets, presenting a kind of financial gap. But the policy and institution gap -- finding enough expertise to design, plan and implement water and sanitation services -- was equally large. Besides the growth of congested, unplanned settlements within cities, planners needed to consider the problem posed by peri-urban areas, where most consumers could afford to pay for water and sanitation services but were beyond the reach of existing utilities. A new paradigm was needed in building private-public partnerships; the World Bank had found that improved access to sanitation was being felt mostly among the middle- to-higher income segments of society, further underlining the need to view the water and sanitation issue as an integrated part of poverty alleviation schemes.

Mr. CROSS, addressing the situation in Africa in particular, said water sector reform seemed to have worked there, and “mass behaviour change” programmes had had a good effect on sanitation issues. Notwithstanding the positive effects of such policies, fragile States continued to experience low levels of water and sanitation services, and the number of unserved had increased. One third of rural water systems needed repair and piped access in urban areas had decreased. One third of Africans still practiced open defecation. Less than 10 per cent of utilities had been able to recover their costs through tariffs, calling into question the sustainability of service provision.

He said he was encouraged by the establishment of an African Ministers Council on Water and by the general realignment of multilateral and bilateral policy on water and sanitation. However, Africa was “a continent of two paths” -- 13 countries were on track to achieve the 2015 targets, while the remaining countries either faced a reform “blockage” or lacked the tools to tackle the problem, as in the fragile States. For example, Uganda looked to exceed its Millennium targets; Senegal had improved its access tremendously through good coordination at the level of local government; and Rwanda had increased rural access by four times, under the management of private operators. That was in stark comparison to the situation in conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia as well as Angola and Zimbabwe, where the service sector seemed to have collapsed.

Arguing that successful reform relied heavily on changes in the governance, financing and planning and monitoring of water and sanitation supply, he said leadership and capacity-building were equally important. Building the platform for reform seemed to take roughly 10 years and was only now delivering results. The African Union would set up a task force to monitor implementation of the commitments made so far. A diversity of sanitation approaches were needed in Africa.

Mr. MIRANDA said there was no way to achieve the Millennium Goals without improving the performance of public utilities. In light of that, the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board had suggested that it was critically important to take advantage of and improve the functioning of water utilities. One way to do that was through the use of Water Operators Partnerships, which would work at the local, national and regional levels to establish and promote utility-to-utility partnerships that would enlist the good practices of a variety of stakeholders.

To that end, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs had undertaken a number of seminars to promote the Water Operators Partnerships initiative by bringing multiple stakeholders together, he said, adding that UN-HABITAT had just hired a manager to oversee that initiative worldwide. Work was also under way to promote such efforts in Latin America, Africa and Asia so as to bring public utilities together with the private sector and various social movements and thus improve their performance. The main goal was to promote mutual cooperation towards operational improvements and institutional reforms in ways that would promote sustainability.

Challenges still remained, he stressed, noting the need to mobilize civil society networks and overcome geopolitical boundaries. A completely new approach towards financing was also needed. Banks usually financed studies focused on conventional practices, but money to promote mutual cooperation through national, regional and global networks was required. The current challenge was to create an environment of information exchange, and to obtain good results; exchanges should be done in a systematic way and on a mass scale.

Mr. LENTON took up the question of a monitoring framework for the water sector, highlighting the success of current systems in monitoring water supply and sanitation services. They had an established conceptual framework that provided an agreed definition of “sustainable water access” and defined targets and monitoring mechanisms. Unfortunately, the water sector as a whole was much farther away from having similarly robust monitoring methods largely because any discussion of the water supply sector was a means towards the end of poverty reduction and sustainable development. That provided significant challenges, including the fact that the role of water in achieving goals was entirely dependent on specific circumstances. For example, eliminating hunger in one country might include increasing irrigation while in others it might imply using rainforest resources.

In terms of a conceptual framework, he noted that the Commission had advocated a water management system that would attempt to balance the goals of social equality with environmental sustainability. Virtually every United Nations agency had some stake in water and UN-Water had made significant progress towards a monitoring framework. There was a need for the “road mapping” initiative from UN-Water and the Global Water Partnership that emphasized individual national water road maps. It was now possible to get closer to a coherent water sector monitoring framework, which could be developed by the end of the present decade.

Mr. DIPHOORN said urban areas would strongly influence the world in the twenty-first century because of the rapidity and irreversibility of the urbanization process. By 2030, in fact, the number of urban dwellers was expected to have increased by 1.8 billion. Thus, the water and sanitation agenda must account for the urbanization pattern and, to do that, urban and rural areas must be clearly defined, which required a realistic understanding of the interaction between urbanization and poverty. Specifically, it was necessary to understand that poor people living predominantly in slums would make up a large part of future urban growth, particularly in Africa.

Improving water operations in light of urbanization would include raising the accessibility, affordability and sufficiency of water, he said. The challenges of meeting the Millennium Goals in such an environment included differentiating physical, social and financing models for large and small urban areas. In addition, pre-investment capacity-building was needed to strengthen utilities through more effective business plans and conservation strategies. Also, the Water Operators Partnerships process should be supported so that water utilities could pool their collective experiences. Grant and loan funding packages should be considered so as to increase funding and new approaches to monitoring should be devised.

In the ensuing dialogue, representatives of Member States and international organizations expressed hope that international cooperation would be channelled towards water management reform around the world under the rubric of “integrated water resources management” principles.

Given water’s many uses, including maintaining good hygiene, farming and human sustenance, participants said they recognized the futility of a one-size-fits-all approach to water management reform. As one participant noted, the art of water resources management lay in knowing how to select, adjust and apply the right mix of tools to a given situation. A good working relationship between researchers and decision makers across several disciplines could only strengthen water management reform.

A representative of the Stockholm International Water Institute, reporting on the outcomes of World Water Week -– the Swedish capital’s annual gathering of leading proponents of improved water management –- said good water management required two complementary strategies: the first comprised the “hard path” of erecting the necessary infrastructure for storing, conveying and enhancing the treatment of water; and the second consisted of the “soft path”, involving the human dimension of water management, such as governance and awareness raising.

Delegations from several countries shared their experiences on both counts, from the development of new irrigation techniques to campaigns on cleanliness in schools. To encourage more developments along those lines, a representative of the scientific and technological community echoed other speakers in stressing the importance of promoting technology transfer between nations. A few speakers suggested that the United Nations formulate road maps for achieving universal access to water and sanitation, which might include mobilizing financial resources and ensuring the availability of advanced technology in that area.

The representative of Australia volunteered to help make the CSD Matrix -- a best practices compendium created by the Commission -- more user-friendly.

One speaker noted that water now had a voice in the United Nations system through UN-Water, adding, however, that proper monitoring of water management reform initiatives was missing, a sentiment echoed by many others. Indeed, one speaker from Africa said that, although a number of programmes were being implemented in his country to improve access to water and sanitation services, their success was hampered by a poor skills base and limited institutional capacity to ensure good management of water resources. Other speakers noted that lack of financial resources was a problem in poorer countries.

Recalling a comment made by a panellist earlier, the representative of one industrialized nation voiced the opinion that well-functioning utilities provided the best hope for improved delivery of water and sanitation services, but noted that, in many countries, public utilities failed to recover costs and had no money to make essential repairs. In those cases, local governments seemed to have failed to provide for good corporate governance and cost reflective pricing. Managers seemed to lack the autonomy to make decisions, undermining financial viability and leading to poor service delivery. Corruption had only made the situation worse. Another speaker stressed the need for laws to guarantee access to water and sanitation as a human right, rather than simply a tradable commodity.

On a practical level, the representative of workers and trade unions said he was struck by the call for more capacity-building, and asked how that call would be implemented if workers and their union were not viewed as partners. Indeed, trade unions were prepared to take the necessary “risks” to implement the reforms being talked about.

Thematic Discussion on Agriculture and Rural Development

Commission Chairperson FRANCIS NHEMA ( Zimbabwe) presided over the discussion, which featured panellists Ena Harvey, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture; Peter Holmgren, Food and Agriculture Organization; and Rex Horoi, Executive Director, Foundations of the People of the South Pacific.

Ms. HARVEY led off the interactive discussion by highlighting the benefits of agro-tourism and noting that, as one of the fastest growing economic sectors globally, tourism offered myriad opportunities for rural communities. In fact, it was the only sector where the export market came to the rural community, and with the rise of “agri-tainment”, tourists were sometimes called farming’s new diversification crop.

Tourism offered direct revenue transactions for communities that had traditionally been isolated from global markets, she said. Owing to the place of food and beverages as the second largest area of expenditure in tourism after accommodation, the sector allowed local farmers to link with hotels and restaurants as well as international customers. The concept of culinary tourism also provided opportunities for the export of indigenous food, while health and wellness tourism had made destinations like the Caribbean particularly attractive.

Eco-tourism further allowed indigenous peoples to link environmental protection with income generation, she said. Tourism also had the power to revitalize rural agriculture in small island States by encouraging crop diversification. For example, organic farming was on the rise in places where culinary arts and eco-tourism were growing. Dying communities were also recasting their moribund plantations and farms as vacation destinations. Indeed, tourism’s many benefits included agricultural land protection, land revitalization, stabilization of local economies and a diversified local business base.

Mr. HOLMGREN recalled that the 2005 Rome Declaration on sustainable food security in small island States reaffirmed the principle that food security and sustainable development should receive special attention. While its implementation had mobilized resources, the integration of food security policies within national and regional development plans still posed challenges. In light of that, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had proposed a conceptual framework incorporating 12 action areas under four pillars: integrated policy development, covering policy analysis, coherence and bio-security; food availability, covering agro-enterprise development, value-added commodity chains, organized and fair agriculture and agricultural tourism; food access and utilization, covering land tenure security, traditional food systems and sustainable livelihoods, and nutrition security; and sustainable food supply, covering responsible fisheries, sustainable forest management and adaptation to climate change.

Pointing to the Regional Programme for Food Security in the Caribbean and Pacific as a good example of programmes for scaling up food security, he said activities targeting food availability could further increase competitiveness by fostering crop diversification and developing markets for domestic produce. Yet, these activities needed incentives and regulatory frameworks to encourage investment from the private sector. Activities to strengthen sustainability through improving land, water and biodiversity management, responsible fisheries, forest management and adaptation to climate change were also vital for the conceptual framework to succeed.

Mr. HOROI took up rural livelihoods and community development in the Pacific Islands, saying the focus on small island States had not been as effective as it could have been in the 16 years since the Earth Summit. From 1992 to 2005, the United Nations small island States agenda had simply gone in a circle, while the sustainable employment sector had become quite limited in the Pacific region. Rural livelihoods could best be served through a genuine recommitment to a bottom-up approach that would empower people in an inclusive and participatory manner.

Beyond policy dialogues, engagement and action would be of key importance to the small island developing States action strategy, he said. Good community plans should force locals to focus on what they could do before asking for outside assistance. Community capacity-building should not focus on training as it had traditionally done, but target how to leverage community decision-making structures. Nevertheless, partnerships had to be established on the national level because local communities could not escape poverty on their own. The inability of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to put a framework in place to work with non-governmental organizations should also be re-examined. The test of good policy was that it be rooted in people’s priorities. Rural development in the small island States must be rooted in the reality of local communities and result in action.

General Statements

COLLIN BECK ( Solomon Islands), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, said climate change was a reality being lived on a daily basis in his country. Unfortunately, the fate of most Pacific small island States did not receive much attention from the world’s media. Still, rural island communities faced particular challenges in opening up to globalization. The rising cost of food required higher investments in rice production to prevent increases in food importation.

Because of the imperative need for action on the ground to move beyond policy, the Solomon Islands were moving towards generating higher levels of renewable energy production, he said. But its forestry sector needed assistance in implementing sustainable development strategies. Carbon credit opportunities should be extended to Pacific small island States.

ELFRIDE MORE (Austria) noted that the Secretary-General’s report clearly identified the challenges small island States faced in securing sustainable development, including the impact of climate change, lagging investment and low productivity sectors. Austria was keen to share with small islands its experiences in eco- and agro-tourism, as a way to help spur sustainable development.

Mr. SOPRANO ( Italy) said his Government was committed to the sustainable development of small island States and had enhanced its bilateral interaction with them in the wake of the commitments made by all nations in both Johannesburg and Mauritius. Climate change and its consequences required concerted international action to tackle effectively one of the greatest threats humankind had ever faced. The impact of climate change would be particularly hard on small islands, which was ironic since they were not among the major drivers of globalization.

Ms. SVENDSEN (Norway), urging support for the Mauritius Strategy so as to reduce the vulnerability of small island States, said the “Many Strong Voices” project instigated by her country and other concerned States and organizations was one example of the support that could be offered. Norway would continue to support United Nations agencies engaged with small island States as well as multilateral and bilateral programmes. A cross-sectoral approach was needed to address climate change and the particular dangers it posed to small island States.

Mr. WYSS ( Switzerland) said his country had first realized the particular challenges facing small island States when preparing for the Rio Summit. Their isolated economies and their vulnerability to climate change gave the international community a particular responsibility to help them meet those challenges. Rural development provided a particular focus for aiding the economies of island States. The potential for eco-tourism, which was aligned with their particular benefits and vulnerability, must also be more fully leveraged.

SUSAN WARE-HARRIS, Executive Director, International Affairs Council, Office of International Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States Department of Commerce, said the Barbados and Mauritius strategies remained a valuable road map for tackling the issues facing small island States. It was helpful to hear about particular approaches that worked and about gaps that needed to be filled. The United States was committed to addressing the issues, embracing a full spectrum of efforts for responding to crisis situations, improving forecasts, practices and awareness, and conducting basic monitoring to improve understanding of the challenges facing those communities.

Ms. HENDERSON ( New Zealand) said the challenges facing small island States were both mainstream and unique to those islands. Agriculture, tourism, invasive species and climate change posed specific challenges for those countries. New Zealand called for the strengthening of the work of the United Nations with respect to small islands States and would continue to give priority to engaging with them on development issues.

A representative of the children and youth major group said developed countries had an ethical responsibility to protect those countries that had had little to do with climate change and its resultant ecological deterioration. The responsibility of the industrialized world for global warming was clear, as was their responsibility to help developing countries do something about it. Another youth delegate said there was a troubling disconnect between words and deeds regarding the commitments made towards sustainable development for small islands. It was time for immediate and full implementation of relevant international action plans on sustainable development for small island States, as well as those aimed at tackling climate change.

Mr. ELISAIA ( Samoa), noting that previous speakers had lamented the “sad demise” of SIDS Day this year, said small islands deserved a full day set aside for the exclusive review of the Mauritius Strategy. Such a review was necessary because some in the international community lived in what appeared to be a permanent state of denial about the plight of small islands, the fate of which, in many cases, was not in their own hands. Small islands and the United Nations institutions dedicated to their development needed to reposition themselves to take better advantage of more effective and strengthened partnerships. Indeed, small islands needed a “face” to keep their issues at the forefront of the global agenda.

Mr. FOLLAIN ( France), aligning himself with the European Union, said the international community must agree by the end of 2009 on an international framework to curb greenhouse gas emissions that would respect the concept of common but differentiated responsibility. Because many of France’s overseas territories faced the same challenges as small island States, the country was eager to share their knowledge. Small island States were ahead of the international community in facing the impact of climate change and attention should be paid to them not only as a matter of equity, but also of effectiveness and realism. The solutions they created today would soon be relevant to other countries as sea levels rose and climate change deepened.

Mr. ZVACHULA ( Federated States of Micronesia) stressed that the session’s outcome document must reflect the lessons learned about scheduling “SIDS Day”. Already, climate change was having an impact on Micronesia and the diversity of its islands meant the challenges were multifaceted. The first practical step in the area of rural development was making safe drinking water available to Micronesia’s outer islands. In addition, it had created, with neighbouring island States, the “Micronesia Challenge” to preserve its lands, waters and unique habitat.

A representative of business and industry said farmers in small island States needed sufficient technology to ensure rural development. Current integrated crop management balanced economic, environmental and development agendas. Technology would create methods to protect the animals and fauna found in many small island States.