TRANSCRIPTION OF INTERVIEW WITH

DR. WALLY N'DOW AND

DR. NOEL BROWN

by Joan M. Veon

The Women's International media Group, Inc.

QUESTION on Public private partnerships - what it is and significance as we move towards and through agenda 21.

Dr. N'Dow:

In the field of human settlements, it is particularly crucial today that the solutions we seek and apply include the contribution of the private sector. Today, more than ever before in the past, this contribution is indispensable because governments are no longer in a position to provide the means, they are no longer able to claim that they alone hold the vision for the future of human society, and they are no longer able to continue the advocacy all on their own in support of improving living conditions of people. The private sector has more than just a role to provide resources--that's important but not all. Think of a working city, a town, a neighborhood in a big city, the townships. It is the private sector that provides the industries, the jobs and livelihood to the people and therefore an important component to human development. When jobs disappear, when the private sector isn't active, you immediately see a breakdown in social relationships. the social peace is broken because people don't have livelihoods, there is social exclusion and tension so that human settlement will not work.

That's one. The private sector does most of the research and development work whether it is in the field of energy, transportation, the environment, they build the roads and infrastructure. They build the housing as well in many parts of the world so how can you discuss the future of the cities of towns and mega-cities and say the private sector does not have a contribution to make....a contribution in ideas now, this time, not just a contribution in resources. So we have arrived that this point where in terms of seeking sustainable human features, the human settlements dimension--how we live, how we are going to live in this organized 21st century. We have got to a point where we cannot not partner with the private sector and as governments, as the civil society, as NGO's, but also as people active in international development such as the UN. That is what Istanbul tried to convey.

Q. Overview with regard to the first conference in 1972 and HII--what was laid out in the framework in 1972 and what did 1996 accomplish and what will be set up when we are through?

.A. One singular difference, 1976 sought to achieve more shelter provision for the poor. The rallying call was "Shelter for All" it was a one theme conference. It primarily provoked by the rejection of civil society everywhere of the galloping homelessness. The tremendous problems homelessness was beginning to pose to everyone all over the world. Istanbul, in addition, to still focusing on housing and human shelter, was not just a housing conference, it was importantly a debate abut the cities, the urban challenge, that was the main difference. In 1976, there were subjects that were taboo in the United Nations. One could not discuss subjects such as the role of the private sector because we were still in the grips of the Cold War with ideologies contending over what the capitalist, socialist, what was acceptable in the UN forum and what could not be discussed so private sector and land--who owns, it how it is managed--these were things that could not be discussed. In Istanbul we were able to go beyond those and the barriers came down and the debate included not only government but local authorities, mayors were there in a big way in Istanbul. This was not the case 20 years ago. Governments still felt at that time that UN Conferences only had to do with their vision, their ideas, their resources, and their political will so this is what has changed in the past 20 years.

JV: That is a very large change--a large philosophical shift in where we see the world going. The U.S. Government, has been, in my opinion, extremely supportive of the United Nations and the United Nations agenda. Do you think that they could do more or given at this point, do you think it is sufficient?

ND: We think they could do more in terms of material support for the UN and in certain spheres in the U.S., political support it could give. They are the most important player in the world and certainly the most important in the UN, its advocacy in support of this world body is indispensable, and its resources in support are also indispensable to the functioning of the world organization so we are of the opinion that more can be done on both fronts.

JV: With regard tot he Habitats and cities, Habitat I from my understanding was instrumental in setting up the initial framework and the zoning for communities which will bring us, through HII bring us into a biosphere community. Is that pretty correct thinking?

ND: THE IDEA OF community has come center stage in action and thinking and across the broad in our work at Habitat. Communities are the most important and primary agents of change in their own self-management. it us to be that a lot of this was top down--the conception of the process and application was determined from above. Today we are seeing a bottoms up approach in terms of philosophy and in terms of effort, vision. So the community is the single most important unit that we have to deal with. It does not only have to do with housing and home but in all areas of human development today, in all agencies of the UN today, this idea of community. It has another aspect. it has a non physical perhaps aspect. What is community in the end--it is a sense of belonging, a sense of spirit. Its a sense of being able to do things together for one's own self-improvement. It may even have a dimension of human solidarity to tackle the problems that affect all the problems in the community. If the community doesn't work the neighborhoods don't work. The communities have to deal with more than whether or not you have transport, bricks and mortar and houses. Community spirit goes beyond those physical and tangible things. They address what keeps the societies together. They try to avoid, and they must if they plan to work as a sustainable and surviving community they have to address what issues divide and disunite communities as well. So here you are moving beyond the physical to the area of human spirit and human solidarity and very important to the human family and this new Habitat of man, this new city which seems to be the future for all of us.

JV: The solidarity that we will see in the communities, I believe the UN in their effort to expand sustainable development calls that social capital.

ND: Yes, indeed you cannot envisage achieving much in terms of all these plans of action--whether national or global, when societies remain disunited, when the social contract fractures, when there is no sense of community and only a sense of people considering themselves inhabitants of a place as opposed to citizens and members of a community or group so that social capital or resources, has more impact in the way things are done by the community that we work with than perhaps the money. You can have all the money in the world, if there is discord and disunity and tearing apart, then certainly you will not succeed in the projects that you are helping to shape.

DR Brown:

Currently special rep. for the Group of 77 at the UN in NY. The number is a misnomer because it is 122 states plus China. The group is approximately 32 years and I attempting to create a special

mechanism for tri-continental cooperation among the states of Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is a varied group ranging from China to small island states. I believe that it has a powerful potential within the UN. In a body of 182 members, if you have a community of 132, that should be a group that must matter and certainly should accelerate reform and the revitalization of the UN. My specific role is

Dr. Brown:

concerned with problems which I call corporate and environmental affairs. I believe that the future of the UN with rest on effective partnering with the private sector--with business and industry. But I also believe that the environment and the environmental community must also rethink its mission and redefine its role as we enter the phase of globalization and as we are on the threshold of the 21st Century. You must forgive me if I seem excited but I think I am in a rather exciting place at the UN at this time.

JV: There is no doubt Dr. Brown that you are and you have already introduced this program with public- private partnerships , role of ppp..

NB: For much of our existence, the human story, this had been a very fragmented world. For the first time we are developing. an integrated economic system where it is almost a misnomer because it is a democratic system. Access is open to all but not everyone can buy in so there certainly are people who are marginalized by globalization and there are some who are threatened and many are challenged by it but there is no way we can turn it off. This is part of the energy of the future. We have become a global specie and our conduct is entering a new global phase. Whether or not those who are being left behind can be encouraged to be part of the system is part of the challenge that the UN is facing at this time.

As far as the partnerships are concerned, for a very long time business had been seen as an enemy of the environment. Business had been seen as something separate from society. The UN itself is an intergovernmental organization and government has the kind of primacy in the activities. Without business there is no jobs, no tax, you don't have the creative explosion of technology. so we need to realize that this is not the kind of entity that can be either sidelined, sidestepped or sideshowed. The UN is now coming around to encouraging, inviting and involving business more fully. The Earth Summit five years ago had a specific provision, Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 called upon business to become partners with the UN. In the reporting five years later, we have discovered that business and local communities have moved faster and more consistently to implement the provisions of Agenda 21 so I think the time is right and business is ready. Governments are now beginning to accept the fact that a new world is in the making. The industrial community is a very important component that must work in tandem with us.

JV: A new world is in the making. You are absolutely correct because that is what globalization is bringing about. A new world. The businesses have money that government does not have so they are a necessary component in public-private partnerships. If I understand correctly, public-private partnerships as a phrase was first used in Istanbul at Habitat II. Since then, partnerships, partnering with the local level, NGO's with governments and with business appears to be that this New World order is going to come about.

NB: That is partially correct. I think it would be a little exaggerated to say that public-private partnerships was first used at Istanbul. What happened at Istanbul is that public-private partnerships were realized. For years, we in the UN, paid lip-service to public-private partnership by the way we treated the private sector. They were guests of the system, they made a few pronouncements and went home. Now for the first time they are integrated into the system and we are talking about the city and enterprise. So I think the partnership component was given a level of reality. I think you have to give a lot of credit to Wally N'Dow, S-G of the Habitat II Conference. he took it seriously and he kept his word that business must become partners with the UN and his portfolio made that a reality because after all the city is usually the platform for industrial and economic operations. Most of our stockmarkets--do you of any stockmarket in the rural area? Most of the money flows flow through the urban

Dr. Brown:

environment and so the fact that he recognized and made provisions for this was unique. Also I have to give UNEP credit as well because in 1974 we created the first industry and environment office in paris and in 1984 we had the first conference of business and environment called the World Industry Conference on the Environment and Development-WICING>? in Versailles France. So we have been inching away. But it was only when Dr. N'Dow took charge of Habitat that this public- private partnerships was given a new reality within the UN and there is no turning back.

JV: Can you explain for me the evolution of where public-private partnerships will lead and the role that they will play as we continue?

NB: Yes, because I think quite seriously we are entering a phase which is a trade driven phase. Isn't it interesting that the only institution created after the Earth Summit was the World Trade Organization. So trade is becoming a major component. Everyone seems to be engaged now in the global trading system. So that is one reality that trade is part of the driving global energy. I think secondly as we look at the evolution, as far as the UN is concerned that the future revitalization and perhaps the success of the United Nations will depend on the success by which it brings in new power holders of the world. The UN has been obsessed with the officer-holders--that is the government, the diplomats and your excellencies. But real power is now being exercised by the people who manage the world's wealth--the wealth generators are the key holders of power, not of office and if the UN wants to talk sustainable development eradicate power---how are you going to eradicate power unless you are going to create jobs, unless you are going to bring more capital investment within the system? I, in my moments of lucidity or insanity, see the UN with a new chamber for the Industrial community. I would advise the S-G tomorrow to create a cooperative advisory council . He must have around him the top business leaders because when he is talking development, he has a few bureaucrats who know nothing but textbooks. The top business leaders must be available to the S-G and we need to create a second chamber for the UN. You listen to the pontificating which goes on and on but now the real powerholders must be partners in shaping the future if it is to sustainable, equitable and humane.

JV: Let us build on that because in Istanbul, for the first time, the mayors, governors who were there and local level who are now able to directly put their 2 cents into the preparation of the UN document through the rule change done by the General Assembly in December, of 1995.

NB: I Like your phrase evolution because I think it demonstrates that things are constantly changing. The UN can accept change at only a certain speed and so many thing are happening but I think that we are beginning to establish some priorities in your local communities. It seems ironic that the UN made provisions for governments, NGOs but never local governments and now for the first time, municipal leaders are beginning to have access, greater access to the UN system and to help shape decisions which will affect municipalities and communities. The cities are where people are--the first line of action are to the mayors and community leaders. I am very encouraged by the fact that the UN is acknowledging this and is making provision for this. I would like to see much more attention being paid to the local agendas because the local and global are a matter of interface. They are no longer contradictory and no longer that distant. My hope is that we will make provision for this.

JV: We have about a minute left in this segment. If I understand you correctly, we now have the local and the community plugged into the United Nations, we have government through the ambassadors of the various nations into the UN and now you are saying we need a chamber--a second chamber to facilitate corporate positions and power and their place in this new world and then of course, there is a call for a special people's chamber. Is that correct?

NB: Yes. I think remember that for a long time international relations was a conduct of government, now in the age of globalization, people are transacting across national boundaries. The UN is the main frame. We are in all these things. We have come to the place--we will interplace in an orderly and I think it is good platform on which all these actors will find their place and to gain access. I think this will make for a much more exciting United Nations.

JV: This is Joan Veon, I am in Rio, my guest is Dr. Noel Brown. you stayed tuned. This always will be your wake up call.

======================================================

Day 2 with Noel Brown

JV: "Mover and shaker in the Agenda 21 and in moving the world towards a New World for the 21st Century. As President Clinton has said, they are going to create a "Bridge to the 21st Century and I think you know that the United Nations is that bridge to the 21st Century. What we are doing here is assessing where the UN has come from the Rio Earth Summit and we are at the Rio + 5 Conference. Yesterday as we were talking to Dr. Brown about the fact that the UN is the catalyst to all that is going on. our question today is , "What is the significance of this 5 year review of the Rio Agenda 21 Programme of Action.

NB: I was at the Earth Summit in 1992. At that time governments were at center stage. This was a summit of top political leaders. Five years later, the people are at center stage because this is a conference of civil society and organized by civil society and what strikes me is that people are ready. They have studied the issues and have started the very difficult process of implementation and the are

prepared to take responsibility for helping to shape their future. My hope is that this conference will not be just another report but create the key elements for an implementation strategy for a partnership between government and civil society. I have looked at some of the reports which have been prepared by the participants and I am really quite impressed. I think they are doing a service to the earth and the United Nations. I hope the report will be received in that way. One of the things that I would like to see done is for the UN to invite the members of Rio +5, civil society and the citizen sector to convene a major conference under the United Nations auspices which is run by the people to which governments are invited. In other words it is time for the governments to listen. The UN would be very wise to tap into this energy and resources and bring them to the table and provide them the auspices for a major united Nations Conference of the People and invite the governments to listen. The governments just may learn something.

JV: We are talking the empowerment of the people

Brown: We are using that empowerment.

JV: The voice of all people must be heard in order to keep the system as it should be. Dr. Brown when we are talking an Earth Charter, one of the things that we are talking here. How does the Earth Charter fit into this new world and how does it interface with the Constitutions of each member state?

DR: I think the Earth Charter is an excellent idea. I think after WWII, the world suddenly took stock of itself and it sensed the depth of the brutality to which we descended. Six million people died under genocide and it was an extraordinary thing. In the century, over 100 million people died. We created a charter of the UN and our vision was for a world at peace with itself that was just in its transaction and that certainly would be a war free world. We have succeeded. In 1997, in March, there are no international wars on the planet. That is an extraordinary development but it is only part of the equation. In the last 50 years, our relationship to the natural world has changed. No longer are we simply ecosystem creatures. We are now a force with nature and the principal source of earth change. This has moral implications. We are not the only life on earth. We are not even central to the earth. So we need a new covenant with the Earth. Boutros Boutros-Ghali called for that at the Earth Summit and I think it is a tribute to civil society, Stephen Rockefeller and Mrs. Mishe? that they are now taking charge of trying to create a new covenant between human beings and the natural world. My hope is that just as we have a Charter for the UN, we will have an earth charter with equal standing. Now, negotiating the Charter of the UN was not so difficult because the covenant followed the conflagration. We had a war and everyone was ready to do good deeds. We can't wait for the ecological conflagration to get the Earth Charter going. It is part of maturity. It is interesting that he people are taking initiatives on that.

I have great faith in the Earth Charter and have some mythological differences with the framers. I would not write a new Earth Charter. I would go through the last fifty years of conventions, pronouncements, commitments, declarations, and principles. Governments have already agreed to do certain things and I would distill these things and confront the governments with the things that they have agreed so that there is no need for new negotiations and new agreements. I would simply present this as a service to humanity that in our vision for the new world we have already assumed some obligations for the protection of life on earth. An equity would be built in and so with our reverence for all things that are on this planet.

JV: I understand what you are saying. To many Americans that would pose a philosophical shift from many Americans believe. They believe that man has dominance over the Earth and the Earth Charter basically says that the earth has dominance over man. Can you help me understand that dichotomy?

NB: I would be careful with slogans. The issue of domination of anything is perhaps an immature way of defining things. I think here we are ---I would believe that harmony with nature is a much better relationship, not dominance but harmony. We are part of a flow of life where life supports life. What we have assumed is certain prerogatives that undermines the rest of life. By using resources with no concern for the future and eliminating species that may be part long survival. So we need to create better balance and better harmony and interestingly enough you'll find that native peoples, the first nations of the planet have no word like domination. I worked with the Inuit in the Arctic. They have lived here for 40,000 years and they have never eliminated a single specie. Very few civilizations can make that claim so I push for a Charter that would reestablish the harmonious relationship between human beings and the natural world and not a relationship of dominance or subservience. We shouldn't be subservient but wise enough to reestablish the harmony with the natural world.

JV: In speaking about the natural world, in my state of Maryland in the US, they have introduced legislation which will basically set up biospheres and so they are moving people through legislation--of what the state government will or will not do--they are moving people into the cities in that methodology. When we are talking biospheres, that's what we are really talking about when we talk about an Earth Charter, we are talking about preserving the natural resources for future generations, is it not?

NB: I think sometime the U.S. must take credit for the environmental initiatives it has taken. I remember the snail ....., I think that it was President Carter that stopped the construction of a dam to save a life. A couple of years ago, President Clinton re-introduced the grey wolf to the wild. There is a big fight in Yellowstone now because you are now making room for other life forms and at great cost to the American economy so I would think the Maryland initiatives on biosphere is an acknowledgment that we are not alone on this planet, there is a shared space. I would argue with you that a new ethic is being built in and the way we treat Earth is the way we treat each other. And by consuming and over consuming, destroying and despoiling shows a lack of regard for everything else but us and we are not alone. That is a message that we would like to convey.

JV: Sir, With regard to your duties at UNEP can you help me understand the flow of the environment and

where it has come as it has progressed. You mentioned that there have been a lot of treaties and conventions and its very true and it confuses me...you too? Help us understand where UNEP has come and where it is going.

NB: Joan, I wish you had not asked me that question since I was at Stockholm in 1972....I was a Little kid [about 20-25?], that was 20 years ago, but I was there. And that was for the first time the issue of the Earth environment was placed on the global agenda. And for the first time nations began to assume some consciousness about the -- moving beyond the little piece of real estate we call national territories to the Earth. And I don't think this could have happened before we walked on the moon, ventured into space and saw the Earth as a whole. And for the first time we have begun to take responsibility for the earth as a whole. This unique to the specie, to our generation. So we might batter each other but we may also not be too hard on ourselves. We have now addressed the issues of the commons. In the last 25 years we have addressed issues of atmospheric degradation: Acid rain, ozone depletion and global warming. We have now got conventional treaties on that. We have addressed the issues of the ocean. 7/10 of the Earth's surface is in some kind of legal framework. We have addressed issues of species. We are now taking responsibility for life on Earth through biodiversity. We are addressing the issues of hazardous waste. And now for the first time we have given humanity a planetary blueprint, namely Agenda 21. In a twenty year period we should take some credit, although we have only now started the long journey into sustainable future.

JV: And that really brings us to this conference. If you could help us explain some of the ideas at this point that are being discussed here to implement the ideas from Agenda 21.

NB: One of the things that we have discovered -- when we came out of Rio, we came with a budget, a price tag to implement Agenda 21, which incidentally has forty chapters and over 1500 activities. The price tag was over 600 billion dollars a year. Now, this world is not poor. But what we are now looking at is how to identify and establish priorities. And among the priorities that we are now looking at are this issues of equity, the issues of gender, the issues of protecting life forms, the Bio-Diversity Convention, and where the resources are to come from.

I looked recently at a series of reports on the role of foundation, U.S. foundations in implementing Agenda 21. Now, the foundations have invested each year about 11 billion dollars. Now, that's about six times the budget of the United Nations. Overall, the giving community in the United States, and by the way, the U.S. is a nation of givers, the giving community in the United States contribute about 125 billion dollars in giving. That's sixty times the budget of the United Nations. Just think, Joan, let's say what if we could mobilize the foundation and giving community to take on Agenda 21 or a new Earth mission, the kind of changes we could make. And that is an advocacy I'd like to see.

JV: This is Joan Veon. This has gone all too fast. Please join us tomorrow. This is your wake up call.

JV: Welcome back to Wake Up Call. This is our third day for Dr. Brown. He has been absolutely gracious. We are in Rio De Janeiro at the Rio + 5 Conference to assess where the United Nations and the world needs to move since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which began a new movement on planet Earth to protect all species. This is basically called Biodiversity. In addition, there was another concept introduced in 1992 called Sustainable Development which basically says that we have to be careful with regard to the resources that we use today so that we do not over consume and deplete the Earth's resources for future generations. Many of the countries of the world are moving towards sustainable development and biodiversity. That includes the United States with President Clinton's Commission on Sustainable Development.

Dr. Noel Brown was talking about the fact that in America and in this world we have an ability to give. That there is the money to implement Agenda 21 which does not come at a cheap price tag. So, with that Dr. Brown, we are talking about foundations. And I know that there have been many major foundations, the Ford, the Rockefeller, the Carnegie, the Pugh, the MacArthur, a few others, I apologize that I'm not mentioning them all, who have given very generously to implementing the United Nations and Agenda 21. So, let's begin there as we take a look at how to now implement, because after all, that is the purpose of Rio + 5.

NB: In tribute to the foundations, their work in giving and in supporting the ideas and principles of Agenda 21 did not begin at the Earth Summit in 1992. Many go back well before, decades before when they supported issues of science, biodiversity, the problems of clean water, energy and even community- based participation. So, I think the foundations are an untapped potential in the new partnership. I would hope that as the reports are read and the role of foundations become clearer that we will see an opportunity to involve them and gage them more fully in the work of the world. Because these are people who came from a philosophical premise of human well-being. Most are committed to enhancing the quality of life and the quality of peoples on this planet. And I think they have not been given the acknowledgment globally as they deserve and I would hope that this is done.

But there is another potential and that's the insurance industry. As we talk about climate change many things we find is that even with extreme weather conditions now the insurance industry pays. And they are critical to the future of sustainability. And I'd also like to see the insurance industry more heavily involved in the work. And, Joan one of the problems that we have at United Nations is that we like to think that government is a big check book, that they loan half the money. And so we rush always to government to finance things. I think we've got to be more innovative, we've got to be more creative in trying to tap the resources that are now available to the world for the business of the world. In which governments should now be seen as only one player.

Agenda 21, if you look at the provision very closely, you will find that there are issues and concerns that have built in constituencies. Chapter 6 of Agenda 21 deals with the issues of health. Why not involve the medical community to become allies with us in taking charge of the whole problems of environmental degradation and its implications for health? I did that with the physicians for social responsibilities. I challenged them to take that on and they responded by creating a volume called Critical Conditions and now the medical schools are going to look more closely at environmental medicine.

The same could be said for youth and children. I invited a group of young people to rewrite Agenda 21 in a language that young people could understand. And they came up with a brilliantly illustrated text called Rescue Mission. The kids did it. They are becoming partners and becoming involved.

I convened the first meeting of mayors and municipal leaders at United Nations in 1990 under the theme Acting Locally for Sustainable Future because I think the municipalities must become involved. And that gave rise to the International Council on Local Environmental Initiative, ICLEI, and I hope you talk to Jeb Brugman about what ICLEI is doing with his local Agenda 21 and its urban Co2 project. Now these are not burdens on the United Nations, these are resources being tapped. One area where I'd like to see more work done is on chapter 26, dealing with indigenous peoples. Because the agenda made room for indigenous people, but I think we have been very sluggish at that. So, I think if we begin to look creatively beyond government resources, I think we will come to the conclusion that I have come to, that where there is poverty in the world, this world is not poor. We are a remarkably productive specie with an economy, a global economy of 26 trillion dollars and growing. So, I think we need to rethink the way we finance things and to get value for our money, not just getting money.

JV: Well, there's no doubt, we are a very wealthy world. We are truly blessed with the resources, with the water, with everything. All you do is even look here in Rio as we look out over the ocean it is absolutely exquisite, incredible to understand what has been placed here. Dr. Brown, when we are talking about UNEP, where do you see them moving in the future? You guided them for 20 years and they came from step one. Could you give us sort of a milestone step of where they've come and where they need to go in order to implement Agenda 21. And if it's not too much in the remaining five minutes, if you can then explain to us what we will look like when we're there.

NB: UNEP is, I think, unique among the agencies and programs of the United Nations because we were perhaps the first true global framework to bring together governments and peoples to address the issues of the Earth. We did something else, we mobilized the scientific community. We had the most authoritative scientific statements, I think ever, on the state of the environment. so, the world knew where to look to get a sense, to get a reading on the Earth's vital signs. We provided that service to the world. We also created a consential framework for action. And as a result of that we're able now to identify which issues are ready for global action. And, one of the things that we did we were very instrumental in bringing the semi-enclosed seas together. We were the first to create a plan of action to save the Mediterranean, when the world said it couldn't be done. Because you had all the major crisis points in the Mediterranean, the Greeks and the Turks over Cypress. The Arabs and the Israelis. And yet we brought them together in a plan that is working. In the Caribbean the Cubans and the Americans may have a problem, but they're working within the Caribbean environment program.

So, I believe that what UNEP has done it has created a framework for addressing critical global environmental issues, and identifying these issues. But where do we go from here? I think what we are telling the world is that sound policy demands sound science. But, you must first get the science right. One of UNEP's great strengths is to be able to harness the world's scientific energy and to be able to present for the policy makers a clear reading on the scientific issues that undergird the principle environmental threats. And I think that's a road that UNEP can continue to play. We have been called a catalyst and I think Agenda 21 needs to be catalyzed. We need to look at the science of each issue and present them to the various operational implementing bodies. We are not an implementing body. But we certainly can provide the agenda for implementation and I see that as UNEP's principle role in the future as Agenda 21 becomes now into the phase of implementation.

JV: What we have in Agenda 21 is a new plan for Earth and for its people. In speaking with Maurice Strong, he said that how he looks at planet Earth is that planet Earth is a corporation and we must now take a look at all the resources, the human development, the natural resources, manufactured capital and social capital and we must understand that value in order to be in a position to know if earth incorporated is in a positive or a negative position. Can you comment on that?

NB: Well, I'd rather offer my own metaphor, and my metaphor is that Earth is indeed a space ship. but there are no passengers, only crew. We're all crew members of space ship Earth. Two things that we lack -- we lack a planetary guidance system. And I think that Agenda 21 is the closest thing that we have to apply to a guidance system. And we lack an early warning system. The problem is with warnings, however you've got to heed the warnings. And that's where Maurice comes in because without a new value system, without a new system of evaluation the world's resources will be undervalued. We treat the atmosphere as a cesspool. We dump stuff in there. All the water bodies are contaminated. Pollution has become universal. I think we need a new code of life for living on Earth. And Agenda 21 provided us now with the elements to which that code can be made more manifest. And my hope is that as we move away from Rio + 5 a lot more serious thinking about how each of us may begin to articulate that new code of living for the business of living on Earth.

JV: My last question. As part of the Group of 77 they have appeared to be a forgotten body within the United Nations system when you take a look at the G-7 and the G-10. Is their voice being heard in all areas?

NB: Increasingly. .....77 at the United Nations is now being heard. I think they're moving away from the old cold war pattern where their vote was the principle instrument of expression at United Nations. And they're now beginning to identify critical issues that would help to increase cohesion and leadership among the 77. In January of this year they convened a conference on trade investment and finance, because as you know they are the emerging markets of the 21st century and they're beginning to sense their power in the world. And I think they are going to begin to assert that power at the United Nations. so I'm very encouraged by the kind of leadership that we're beginning to witness as well as the new agenda that the 77 is forming. The G-7 is known not only within the UN but within the world. The G 77 was only known in the United Nations. But, I think they are now entering the world and entering it with a very powerful and realistic agenda. So their future looks very promising.

JV: Dr. Noel Brown you've been most gracious, you have been most patient. Thank you so much for joining us.