EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: Chad Carpenter Peter Doran Kira Schmidt Lynn Wagner Steve Wise Managing Editor Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" A DAILY REPORT ON THE SECOND UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (HABITAT II) 17 June 1996 Vol. 11 No. 37 SUMMARY OF THE SECOND UN CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (HABITAT II) 3-14 JUNE 1996 The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) met in Istanbul, Turkey, from 3-14 June 1996. Participants negotiated the Istanbul Declaration and the Habitat Agenda, which addresses the goals of adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development. In addition to the negotiations, a number of parallel events provided opportunities for the Habitat partners and government delegations to explore the Conference themes. Statements regarding the state of human settlements were offered by approximately 180 speakers during Plenary and 120 speakers during the High-Level Segment, including a number of Heads of State or Government. One Committee held hearings regarding the role of partners in implementation. In addition, the UNCHS launched its Best Practices Initiative. Habitat II, as the culmination of a cycle of UN conferences, may best be remembered for the ground- breaking participation of local authorities, the private sector, parliamentarians, NGOs and other “partners” in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. Another significant accomplishment of the Conference was the reaffirmation of the commitment to the “full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing.” A debate on the future of the UN Centre for Human Settlements identified a continuing role for the Centre, and invited the General Assembly and ECOSOC to review and strengthen the mandate of the Commission on Human Settlements. The Conference was stymied by procedural delays and attempts to reopen contentious issues from previous UN conferences. Once the dust settled, however, participants emerged with a lengthy but substantive Agenda that provides an effective tool for creating sustainable human settlements for the 21st century. @HEADLINE 2.5 = A BRIEF HISTORY OF HABITAT II The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) was held in Istanbul, Turkey on the 20th anniversary of the first Habitat Conference in Vancouver, Canada. The Secretary- General of Habitat II was Wally N’Dow. The objectives for Habitat II were: (1) in the long term, to arrest the deterioration of global human settlement conditions and ultimately create the conditions for achieving improvements in the living environment of all people on a sustainable basis; and (2) to adopt a general statement of principles and commitments and formulate a related Global Plan of Action capable of guiding national and international efforts through the first two decades of the next century. ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION The organizational session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for Habitat II was held at UN Headquarters in New York from 3-5 March 1993. Delegates elected the Bureau and took several basic decisions regarding the organization and timing of the process. Martti Lujanen (Finland) was elected PrepCom Chair. PREPCOM I The first substantive session of the PrepCom was held in Geneva from 11-22 April 1994. Delegates agreed that the overriding objective of the Conference should be to increase world awareness of the problems and potentials of human settlements as important inputs to social progress and economic growth and to commit the world’s leaders to making cities, towns and villages healthy, safe, just and sustainable. The PrepCom also took decisions on the organization of the Conference and financing, as well as the following issues: @AGENDA ITEM = Regarding national objectives, delegates agreed that each participating country should design, adopt and implement a national plan of action that would address the issue of human settlements in both urban and rural areas and involve the full participation and support of the public and private sectors, NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs). Countries should also strengthen the capacity of institutions at all levels to monitor shelter conditions and urbanization processes using a minimum set of indicators. @AGENDA ITEM = Regarding international objectives, delegates agreed that the preparatory process should: present a “State of Human Settlements” report; produce a Statement of Principles and Commitments based on a new international consensus on policies and goals for shelter; produce a Global Plan of Action to mobilize international resources and create institutional arrangements to assist countries to implement and monitor the goals of sustainable human settlements and shelter for all and to protect the environment against unwarranted and undesirable impacts of urbanization; and make available the broadest range of information concerning shelter strategies, technologies, resources, experience, expertise and sources of support. @AGENDA ITEM = Regarding participation, delegates agreed that governments of participating States should establish national committees with broad participation from all levels of government, civic leaders, the academic and scientific community, grassroots leaders, NGOs and CBOs, and the private sector. These committees should formulate, adopt and implement a work programme that includes the production of a national report, discussion on priority issues, organization of local and country consultations and fora, and preparation and presentation of audio-visual documentaries of examples of best practices in human settlement development. @AGENDA ITEM = Regarding the draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the draft Global Plan of Action (GPA), delegates agreed that the former should reaffirm and be framed within the general goals of the UN, contain a reference to the Principles adopted by Habitat I as well as the Rio Declaration, and introduce the rationale for the new principles and commitments that will guide national and international action on human settlements for the next two decades. The GPA should be structured around the two main themes of the Conference: adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world. Multi-sectoral issues to be considered include: settlements management; poverty reduction; environmental management; and disaster mitigation, relief and reconstruction. Cross-sectoral issues include: women; the urban economy; social and economic dimensions of urbanization and shelter development; education and capacity building; and vulnerable social groups. PREPCOM II The second session of the PrepCom took place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 24 April - 5 May 1995. The Committee considered organizational matters for PrepCom III and the Conference itself; prepared the first part of the draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the Global Plan of Action; and prepared draft decisions for consideration by the 50th General Assembly. Working Group I, chaired by Pamela Mboya (Kenya), considered preparations for the Conference and the status of human settlements reports and major reviews. During the Working Group’s discussion of the rules of procedure, the issue of the participation of local authorities came under scrutiny. Working Group II, chaired by Amb. H.L. de Silva (Sri Lanka), began work on the Draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the draft GPA. The GPA contained the following sections: a preamble, principles, goals and commitments, and strategies for implementation. The PrepCom made some progress on the first three parts of the document, but delegates acknowledged that a significant amount of work remained. To facilitate negotiations, delegates decided to continue drafting during the intersessional period in an informal open-ended drafting group. INTERSESSIONAL DRAFTING GROUP The 17-member Informal Drafting Group (IDG), which included governmental, local government and NGO representatives, was charged with preparing the documentation for PrepCom III. The IDG first met in Nairobi from 17-21 July 1995 to draft the fourth part of the GPA, which deals with strategies for implementation. The IDG draft focused on the following issues: adequate shelter for all; sustainable human settlements in an urbanizing world; capacity building and institutional development; international cooperation and coordination; and tracking progress and impact evaluation. The draft was circulated to UN member States, NGO networks and others, and revised. The IDG met a second time in Paris from 9-14 October 1995. Delegates reviewed the revised draft and made progress on the text, but deferred a number of matters to PrepCom III, including the principle that deals with the family. The IDG did not submit a draft text on some points, including international financial assistance, housing rights and institutional follow-up. PREPCOM III The third session of the PrepCom met at UN Headquarters in New York from 5-16 February 1996. Organizational questions included participation of NGOs and the implementation of Rule 61 to facilitate input from local authorities, and financial resources. Negotiations began on the draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the GPA. Key debates included the “right to housing” and the role of the the UN Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) in Habitat II follow-up. Due to time constraints during the final Plenary, the PrepCom had no choice but to forward a heavily bracketed text to Istanbul. Working Group I discussed funding for Habitat II, the Best Practices Initiative, and parallel fora in Istanbul. Australia proposed that participants at Habitat II commit to action by 2000. Working Group II formed three subgroups to consider the draft Habitat Agenda. Subgroup A considered the Preamble, Goals and Principles, Commitments, International Cooperation and Implementation. It allocated problematic texts, including those on financial resources and the right to housing, to informal groups. Subgroups B and C considered the GPA Introduction, Adequate Shelter and Sustainable Human Settlements. Due to time constraints, the text on Capacity Building was not addressed. REPORT OF HABITAT II UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opened Habitat II and noted that the recent series of UN conferences has shaped an agenda for development and is crucial for the determination of the future of life on this planet. Innovative aspects of Habitat II include the range of partners that have been included in the process and the Best Practices Initiative. The Conference then elected Turkish President Süleyman Demirel as President of the Conference. He stated that the Habitat II Conference will generate innovative strategies that reinforce the importance of human development within the larger sustainable development agenda. Habitat II is an all- encompassing conference on humankind and, as the last of the UN conferences of this century, it must incorporate and supplement the successes of prior meetings to achieve a better quality of life for all in the 21st century. Delegates then adopted the rules of procedure (A/CONF.165/2) and the agenda and other organizational matters (A/CONF.165/1). Representatives from the following countries were elected as Vice-Presidents: Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Indonesia, Iran, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, El Salvador, Jamaica, Peru, France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, the US, the UK, Bulgaria, Romania and the Russian Federation. Emre Gönensay, Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, was elected Vice-President ex officio. Ricardo Gorosito (Uruguay) was elected Rapporteur- General. Shafqat Kakakhel (Pakistan) was elected to chair Committee I (Habitat Agenda) and Martti Lujanen (Finland) was elected to chair Committee II (role of partners). The Credentials Committee included: China, Luxembourg, Mali, the Marshall Islands, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, the US and Venezuela. Delegates then adopted the recommendations of the Pre-Conference Consultations regarding accreditation of international associations of local authorities (A/CONF.165/6 and Add.1) and NGOs (A/CONF.165/5 and Add. 1 and 2). Greece noted its reservations to the accreditation of the West Thrace Turks and Turkey noted its reservations to the non-accreditation of three Turkish Cypriot organizations. After expressing his gratitude to the city of Istanbul, its leaders and all involved in the preparatory process, Secretary-General of the Conference Wally N’Dow highlighted the importance of Habitat II in forging new pathways for the future of humanity. Partnerships between governments and local authorities and other non-State actors are essential for effective implementation of the Habitat Agenda. The hearings of Committee II would provide an unprecedented platform for these actors. The Best Practices Initiative provides a unique opportunity to share successful strategies that will help bring about the commitments needed to resolve human settlements problems. Delegates then began the general exchange of views, focusing on the state of human settlements, including strategies for their implementation. General statements continued in Plenary from 3-11 June. THE ISTANBUL DECLARATION AND THE HABITAT AGENDA Committee I, chaired by Shafqat Kakakhel (Pakistan), held its first meeting on 3 June 1996. The US reminded the Chair that agreement had been reached at PrepCom III to circulate a compendium of NGO suggestions in Istanbul. An information paper was released on 4 June with the additional (NGO) comments on the Habitat Agenda. Responding to a number of delegations’ requests for clarification regarding NGO participation, the Chair explained that NGOs would have an opportunity to make comments during the official meetings, subject to conditions, but would not be able to take the floor during informal sessions. NGOs and local authorities continued, as they had during the PrepComs, to be able to present their proposals during the meetings of the working groups. Committee I established two working groups. Working Group II, chaired by Glynn Khonje (Zambia), considered Sections E (International cooperation) and F (Implementation and follow-up) of the draft GPA. Working Group I, chaired by Kakakhel, considered the rest of the Habitat Agenda. An informal drafting group on the Istanbul Declaration was also established and chaired by Balkan Kazildeli (Turkey). A drafting group on the “right to housing,” chaired by Marcela Nicodemus (Brazil), met during the first week, and then continued to meet during the second week to address additional unresolved text from Working Group I. Many informal groups also convened to work on problematic issues. In addition to the Chairs of the working groups, Committee I elected the following delegates as Vice- Chairs: Laszlo Lacko (Hungary), Clarkson Umelo (Nigeria) and Ramon Santelises (Chile). The Rapporteur was Ayse Ogut (Turkey). For Working Group I, Pavel Suian (Romania) was elected Vice-Chair. For Working Group II, Manford Konukiewitz (Germany) was elected Vice-Chair. After taking care of procedural business, the Committee adjourned on Tuesday, 4 June to allow the working groups to meet. Although the working groups were supposed to complete their work by Tuesday, 11 June, prior to the High-Level Segment, this was not to be the case. Committee I attempted to reconvene on Thursday afternoon, 13 June, however, since a number of issues, including reproductive health and occupied territories, remained unresolved, the meeting was aborted and the working groups and drafting groups reconvened at 4:00 pm. After fourteen hours of informal consultations (6:00 am Friday), delegates believed they had reached a package deal regarding all references to reproductive health care, but at the last minute several delegates backed out because they preferred a stronger qualifying reference to the provision of reproductive health care services than paragraph 267 of the Beijing Platform for Action. After hours of further informal consultations, Committee I was finally able to reconvene to adopt its report at 9:30 pm Friday, 14 June. The Chair said was impossible to produce the Report as a formal document in all official languages, and he introduced informal papers containing negotiated paragraphs and corrections. The Rapporteur introduced the Report including one formal document (A/CONF.165/L.1). The Chair invited delegates intending to enter reservations to do so now, rather than at the closing plenary. The US indicated its intent to submit a written interpretive statement. The following countries entered reservations as follows: on the paragraph concerning the purpose of Habitat, which refers to “living in harmony with nature”: Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. On the paragraph on gender equality: Qatar, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a paragraph on reproductive health and sexual health: the Holy See, Argentina, Malta, Qatar, Guatemala, Lebanon, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Malta also reserved on the reference to the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). On a paragraph concerning the family: the Holy See, Lebanon, Argentina, Qatar, Guatemala, Iran, Yemen, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. On a paragraph on the right to inheritance: Iran. The Holy See indicated its intention to submit a statement of interpretation on the reference to the family. Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Algeria entered reservations on the bracketed references to protection of cities under foreign occupation. The Chair noted that many speakers had called for the deletion of those brackets. He said the group was beyond the drafting stage and delegates should be taking reservations. He noted that negotiations on some sections were not complete and urged delegations to continue so that the text could be adopted. The US stated her understanding that the text in brackets concerning illegitimate confiscation of land and foreign occupation would be deleted. She said if the brackets were removed and the text remained from these references and a bracketed reference to foreign occupation, the US would vote “no” on the Habitat Agenda. In light of the sensitive nature of the issue, such a “tragic” situation shows that the UN has not come as far as hoped. She said some delegations were using this forum to debate political issues when they should be focusing on human settlements development. The Chair adjourned the meeting for consultations. At 12:15 am, he announced that consultations had been successful and text would be ready for Plenary. @HEADLINE 2.5 = ISTANBUL DECLARATION ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS The Istanbul Declaration, which was proposed and negotiated entirely in Istanbul, draws on the issues addressed in the Habitat Agenda. During their opening Plenary statements, the G-77/ CHINA announced that it would table a draft text and the EU stated that it would consider a summary document. The G-77/CHINA’s text included references to rural areas, new and additional resources and the future role of UNCHS. An EU proposal was significantly shorter. TURKEY submitted a “compromise” text that provided a “precise” summary of the Habitat Agenda. Early debates in the open-ended Drafting Group centered on the purpose, structure and tenor of the text. Chair Kazildeli (Turkey) was asked to provide a shorter, more focused draft based on the original proposals, which included: a right to housing; rural settlements; production and consumption patterns; local government; and resources and implementation. The drafting group met until late Friday, 14 June, in part because it waited for the working groups to finalize text on related issues. Among the issues debated during the final days were: sustainable development and economic growth; the global economy; the promotion of gender equality [and equity]; the importance of [all][the family][families]; common but differentiated responsibilities; local action guided through local plans; and resources and implementation. The fifteen-paragraph Declaration reaffirms Governments’ “commitment to better standards of living in larger freedom for all humankind.” Governments must combat deteriorating conditions by, inter alia, addressing “unsustainable consumption and production patterns, particularly in industrialized countries.” The interdependence of rural and urban development is noted. The promotion of “gender equality in policies, programmes and projects” for shelter is pledged. The “commitment to the full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as provided for in international instruments” is reaffirmed. In view of different contributions to global environmental degradation, governments reaffirm the principle that countries have common but differentiated responsibilities. Local action should be guided “through local programmes based on Agenda 21, the Habitat Agenda, or any other equivalent programme.” The Declaration calls for mobilization of financial resources at the national and international levels, including new and additional resources from all sources, and reiterates previous commitments, especially those in Agenda 21 on funding and technology transfer. Finally, the Declaration states that implementation of the Habitat Agenda requires “the strengthening of the role and functions of the UN Centre for Human Settlements,” taking into account the need for “the Centre to focus on well-defined and thoroughly- developed objectives and strategic issues.” @HEADLINE 2.5 = THE HABITAT AGENDA The following is a summary of the Habitat Agenda, with emphasis on the issues that were resolved in Istanbul. I. PREAMBLE In the first chapter of the Habitat Agenda, governments recognize the imperative need to improve the quality of human settlements and identify the goals of Habitat II: adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world. In the opening discussions, the SUDAN, on behalf of the Arab Group, introduced text on spiritual and cultural values. The preamble also gave rise to early negotiation of the “right to housing” issue, with the US, supported by JAPAN, objecting to a proposal to remove brackets from a reference to “the right to adequate shelter.” The drafting group on the right to adequate housing eventually deleted this reference. On the needs of children and youth, delegates debated a reference to the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The G- 77/CHINA, the HOLY SEE, and the US agreed that it contained previously agreed UN language. NORWAY moved the reference to the end of the paragraph and introduced new language linking young people’s needs to their living environment. The EU and US replaced a reference to “sustained economic growth and sustainable development,” which appeared in a paragraph identifying problems confronting human settlements, with the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) formula recognizing the three elements of sustainable development: economic development, social development and environmental protection as interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development. Another bracketed reference called for “democracy and transparent, representative and accountable governance.” The final version of the text notes that “democracy, respect for human rights (CANADA), transparent, representative and accountable government and administration...as well as effective participation by civil society (US)” are indispensable. The G-77/CHINA suggested removing a reference to “gender discrimination” and replacing it with “discrimination against women,” but the US and CANADA strongly recommended retention of the original phrase. The final text notes that a large segment of the world’s population lacks shelter and sanitation. The international community, in convening the Conference, has decided that a concerted global approach could enhance progress. The most serious problems confronting cities and towns, including inadequate financial resources, lack of employment opportunities, spreading homelessness and expansion of squatter settlements, are noted. The challenge and opportunity for renewed developmental initiatives for rural settlements are also identified, as is the importance of urban-rural linkages. The needs of displaced persons, children and youth, indigenous people, women, persons with disabilities, and older persons are identified. Cooperation at all levels and institutions such as the Commission for Human Settlements and the UN Centre for Human Settlements are noted to be central to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. II. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES This chapter commits States participating in Habitat II to a political, economic, environmental, ethical and spiritual vision of human settlements based on the principles of equality, solidarity, partnership, human dignity, respect and cooperation. Commitments are undertaken at the national, local and international levels. During the final day of the Conference, a new paragraph was added to the beginning of this chapter as part of a package deal on references to reproductive health care. The new paragraph is a compromise between Cairo language, supported by the G-77/CHINA and the HOLY SEE, and Beijing language, supported by the EU and the US. It states that: the objectives of the Habitat Agenda are in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and international law; it is the duty of all States to promote and protect human rights; and implementation is the sovereign right and responsibility of each State, with full respect for various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions. Another issue resolved in the final hours of the Conference and contained in this chapter was the bracketed reference to the destructive nature of civil, ethnic and religious strife, nuclear armament, armed conflict, alien and colonial domination, foreign occupation, international economic imbalance, coercive economic measures, poverty and organized crime. The US opposed the text, but several members of the Arab Group supported it. The final compromise deleted references to nuclear armament, armed conflict, “international” economic imbalance and coercive economic measures, and added a call for the elimination of unilateral measures. Additional references to foreign occupation in Chapter III (Commitments) were also removed. A reference to “the right to inheritance,” in the context of equal access to resources, was removed from brackets after delegates were informed that it had been taken from the Beijing Platform for Action. Discussion on a reference to “various forms of the family” in the original draft included a statement by MALTA that reopening this issue could derail the entire Conference. The G-77/CHINA, with BRAZIL dissenting, wanted to delete the reference. The EU, NORWAY and BRAZIL said the language had been taken from the WSSD and other UN conferences. Delegates agreed to recognize that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. The US and CANADA introduced a new paragraph on education and health care, and CANADA proposed, on behalf of the NGOs, a principle emphasizing environmental health. The rest of this chapter addresses: commitment to human rights set out in international instruments, including the right to adequate housing; equitable settlements with access to facilities without discrimination; eradication of poverty; sustainable human settlements incorporating the Rio principles; quality of life, including economic, social, environmental and cultural factors; strengthening of the family; citizenship and identity; cooperation and dialogue; partnerships among countries and among domestic actors; solidarity with those belonging to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and primary health services consistent with the Report of International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). III. COMMITMENTS The chapter on commitments originally opened with a chapeau on implementation of the Habitat Agenda. The G-77/CHINA and the HOLY SEE supported language borrowed from the ICPD, which noted that implementation is the sovereign right of States, consistent with national laws and with respect for religious and cultural backgrounds and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights. The EU and the US preferred stronger language from Beijing and Copenhagen, referring to the duty of States to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. During informal consultations on the final day of the Conference, these issues were included in the package deal on references to reproductive health care and moved to the Preamble. In the remaining paragraphs on implementation, a commitment was made to enact plans of action at all levels, taking into account that humans are at the center of sustainable development concerns. Refugees, migrants and street children were added to the list of those requiring special attention. A. Adequate shelter for all: In this section, governments commit themselves to the objectives of, inter alia: legal security of tenure and equal access to land; access to safe drinking water and sanitation; environmentally sound construction methods and technologies; and protection from discrimination. Paragraphs in this section were negotiated at length based on a Chair’s draft that incorporated delegates’ proposals into the original Agenda. A separate drafting group produced agreement on a commitment to the “full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing” and the obligation of Governments to enable people to obtain shelter. The G-77/CHINA sought to qualify “we further commit to the following objectives” by adding “within the national legal authority,” but the EU objected and the language was deleted in the final text. The equal right to inheritance was debated extensively, with the US, the EU, NORWAY, AUSTRALIA and CANADA supporting its inclusion and QATAR and IRAN opposing it. In the final text, the following language from Beijing was inserted: “undertaking legislative and administrative reforms to give women full and equal access to economic resources, including the right to inheritance and to ownership of land and other property, credit, natural resources and appropriate technologies.” The HOLY SEE added a sub-paragraph on shelter and the family. The EU and CANADA preferred “families” and NORWAY preferred families “in their various forms.” The HOLY SEE’s version was formally adopted with a footnoted reference to the paragraph on the family in the Goals and Principles section, which states that “various forms of the family exist.” Shelter and services to disadvantaged groups generated extensive debate. The PHILIPPINES wanted to replace “legal migrants” with “migrant workers,” but the US objected. As a compromise, “internally displaced persons, documented migrants and migrant workers” was replaced by “displaced persons.” CANADA substituted “survivors of family violence” for “women and children leaving violent and abusive situations.” A sub-paragraph regarding legal protection from forced evictions was strengthened from its original formulation after negotiation in the drafting group. The original formulation called for “avoiding forced evictions and when unavoidable, striving for rehabilitation,” while the revised language calls for “protecting from and providing legal protection and redress for forced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights into consideration; when unavoidable, ensuring, as appropriate, that alternative suitable solutions are provided.” Following a G-77/CHINA proposal, a new paragraph was added regarding continued international support for refugees in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and international law. B. Sustainable human settlements: This section describes commitment to the objectives of sustainable human settlements, including: integrated urban planning; integrated water use planning; environmental infrastructure facilities; informal and private sector support; changes in unsustainable production and consumption patterns; energy efficient technology; and sustainable use of coastal areas. In a paragraph on transportation system improvement, new language on promoting measures to encourage the polluter to bear the cost of pollution was added. CANADA added sub-paragraphs on upgrading informal settlements and slums, urban pollution reduction, and energy-efficient technology and alternative/ renewable energy. The EU added a sub-paragraph on strengthening vitality of rural areas. The US added a sub-paragraph regarding basic education, primary health care and gender equality, and introduced two sub-paragraphs on the prevention of lead poisoning. In a paragraph on man-made disasters, CANADA inserted amendments regarding planning mechanisms and people-centered responses and the G-77/CHINA inserted amendments on prevention of major technological disasters. In a paragraph on reduction of adverse effects of structural adjustment, brackets were removed around the reference to gender-sensitive social impact assessments. CANADA amended a paragraph on indigenous land rights with “legal traditional rights.” In two G-77/CHINA-proposed paragraphs referring to areas under foreign occupation (combat illegal confiscation of land, and protect legal status and demographic composition), several ARAB GROUP countries called for the deletion of brackets around this text while the US insisted on deletion of the text. In the final hour, the text was deleted but several ARAB GROUP countries announced their reservations. C. Enablement: The commitment to enablement calls for transparent governance, decentralization, capacity building and training, promotion of institutional and legal frameworks for mobilizing financial resources, and equal access to information. The US added “gender-sensitive” to the sub-paragraph on institutional frameworks and capacity building. AUSTRALIA inserted a sub-paragraph on tenant participation in housing management. The EU inserted a sub-paragraph regarding education for all and added “enabling local leadership and promoting democratic rule” to a paragraph on transparency and accountability of governance. MOROCCO added a sub- paragraph on private sector development. CANADA introduced sub-paragraphs on partnership with youth, encouraging the establishment of non-governmental entities, and institutionalizing a participatory approach. CANADA also added a paragraph on gender equality, with sub-paragraphs on gender- disaggregated data to make unremunerated work of women visible, integration of a gender perspective in resource management and infrastructure development, and full and equal participation of women in planning and decision making. D. Financing shelter and human settlements: Objectives for financing shelter and human settlements include: fiscal and financial management; strengthening fiscal instruments conducive to environmentally sound practices; access to credit; performance-based mechanisms for resource allocation; and subsidies and credit mechanisms. Additional language was introduced regarding the potential of local institutions involved in micro- credit for housing the poor. In a paragraph on stimulating economies, “competitive and sustainable economic development” was replaced by “economic development, social development and environmental protection.” In the paragraph on enabling markets, the US added “promote socially and environmentally responsible corporate investment and reinvestment.” The EU and the US changed the language in a paragraph on access to credit from “increased equitable” access to “equal” access. In the paragraph on subsidies and credit mechanisms, the EU added “fostering the accessibility of the market for those who are less organized and informed or otherwise excluded from participation.” E. International cooperation: The commitment on international cooperation and partnerships affirms Governments’ contribution to and participation in cooperation programmes, institutional arrangements and technical and financial assistance programmes, promotion of exchange of appropriate technology and analysis, and dissemination of information. With regard to the objective on 0.7% of developed countries’ GNP for Official Development Assistance (ODA), the G-77/ CHINA replaced the “accepted” with the “agreed” target of 0.7%. In the objective on effective use of resources and economic instruments, the US added in a “non-discriminatory” manner. The US proposed deleting “equitable,” but the G-77/CHINA objected. F. Assessing progress: In the section on progress assessment, governments commit to observe and implement the Habitat Agenda and to monitor progress, and to recognize the need for an integrated approach, concerted action and coordinated implementation to achieve the objectives of the Agenda. The US, CANADA and AUSTRALIA inserted language regarding the importance of disaggregated indicators in monitoring and evaluating progress and added the well-being of children as an important indicator. Based on negotiations of Section F of the Global Plan of Action (GPA) (implementation and follow-up), delegates agreed to “assess, with a view to revitalizing the UNCHS, whose responsibilities, inter alia, include coordination and assisting States in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.” IV. GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION: STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION A. INTRODUCTION: This section outlines changes since the first Habitat Conference 20 years ago, including population growth, urbanization and globalization of the economy. Actions at the local level are recognized as increasingly important in addressing human settlements problems, and an enabling approach by governments is key to solving these problems. The strategy of the GPA is based on enablement, transparency and participation. The paragraph on globalization generated considerable debate. GUATEMALA proposed a reference to disintegration of the family and the EU added a reference to human rights violations, but neither was in the final text. References to “sustainable development, including sustained economic growth” were negotiated extensively. The G-77/CHINA proposed “sustained economic growth and sustainable development,” NORWAY proposed “sustainable economic growth in the context of sustainable development,” and the EU suggested “sustainable development.” Consensus was finally reached on “achievement of adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development.” B. ADEQUATE SHELTER FOR ALL: This section defines adequate shelter and recognizes the right to adequate housing as an important component of the right to an adequate standard of living. Actions concerning discrimination, legal security of tenure and equal access to land, forced evictions, housing policies and monitoring and evaluation of housing conditions are specified. Fundamental objectives are to integrate shelter policies with those that guide macroeconomic and social development and sound environmental management, and to enable markets to work efficiently. Recommended actions under shelter policies include: decentralization; integration with other policies; promotion of an enablement approach; and improvement of shelter delivery systems. Actions identified for shelter delivery systems include: enabling markets to work; facilitating community-based production of housing; ensuring access to land and legal security of tenure; mobilizing sources of finance; ensuring access to basic infrastructure and services; and improving planning, design, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation. Actions to address the special needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups include: establishing and enforcing laws to prevent discrimination; promoting affordable and accessible public transport; providing increased coverage of water supply and sanitation services; providing subsidies, social services and safety nets; and providing legal protection from forced evictions. The need to strengthen support for international protection of and assistance to refugees is also noted. Considerable debate occurred on the subject of the right to adequate housing, and a drafting group was formed to deal with this issue. The consensus language reaffirms the full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing and notes the responsibility of all governments, using an enabling approach, to protect and ensure the full and progressive realization of this right. The drafting group also agreed on language regarding forced eviction, which states that governments should provide “effective protection from forced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights into consideration.” In a paragraph regarding reforms to give women full and equal access to economic resources, a reference to credit, natural resources and appropriate technologies was added to conform with Beijing language. MOROCCO added a new sub-paragraph on mitigation of spontaneous settlements problems. The PEACE CAUCUS recommended language regarding the removal of land mines. In a paragraph regarding land use taxation, the US replaced “equitable” with “accessible” use of land. In paragraphs regarding barriers to access to land, brackets were removed from “equal and equitable” access, while “equal” inheritance was deleted in conformity with Beijing language. In the paragraph regarding provision of basic infrastructure, the EU and G-77/CHINA removed the brackets around “equitable” provision, but the US preferred “equal.” A compromise of “more equitable” was approved. In a paragraph on non-renewable resources, the G-77/CHINA deleted “particularly fossil fuels.” A drafting group conducted informal consultations on the section on vulnerable groups and agreed on several amendments. All references were changed to “vulnerable and disadvantaged groups,” and new language was inserted on access to resources, enforcement and effectiveness of legal protection, and disproportionately adverse environmental and health impacts. The new language also states that not all members of these groups are vulnerable and disadvantaged at all times, and circumstances rather than inherent characteristics cause vulnerability and disadvantage. C. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBANIZING WORLD: This section notes that urban areas will strongly influence the world of the 21st century. Governments, at appropriate levels, are called on to create partnerships with relevant interested parties to encourage the sustainable development and management of cities. The final text focuses on ten human settlements issues and suggests a number of actions for each. The ten issues are: sustainable land use; social development (eradication of poverty, creation of productive employment and social integration); population and sustainable human settlements development; environmentally sustainable, healthy and livable human settlements; sustainable energy use; sustainable transport and communication systems; conservation and rehabilitation of historical and cultural heritage; improving urban economies; balanced development of settlements in rural regions; and disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and post-disaster rehabilitation capabilities. In a paragraph regarding sustainable urban development, the G-77/CHINA, supported by NORWAY, replaced “trade” with “transboundary movement of” hazardous waste. The G-77/CHINA also proposed deleting “by parties to those agreements,” but the US objected. The brackets were removed from the paragraph calling for partnerships to encourage the sustainable development and management of cities of all sizes. The reference in that paragraph, and throughout the text, to [stakeholders] was changed to “interested parties” by the EU. A bracketed reference to the precautionary approach was supported by the EU and opposed by the G-77/CHINA. The CHAIR proposed text from Rio stating that the precautionary approach shall be widely applied according to States’ capabilities. The US and NORWAY agreed, but retained the additional reference to environmental and social impact assessment, which was not derived from Rio. The US added a number of references regarding lead poisoning prevention. CANADA added sub-paragraphs calling for preservation of aquatic ecosystems, strategies to reduce demand for limited water resources, and the participation of women in all decision-making related to water resource conservation, management and technological choice. The G-77/CHINA, supported by AUSTRALIA, replaced a reference to energy sources “based on fossil fuels” with “non-renewable” in a paragraph on sustainable energy use. In a chapeau regarding government action to promote sustainable energy use, IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA added “efficient” to “sustainable.” IRAN proposed text calling for special consideration for those countries whose economies are based on oil in a sub-paragraph regarding energy-pricing policies, but the US and EU objected. The US proposed deleting a paragraph on the need for resettlement of displaced populations as a consequence of nuclear weapons testing. The SOLOMON ISLANDS, the HOLY SEE, SYRIA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, IRAN and the PHILIPPINES objected. The text was retained. The US proposed additional sub- paragraphs on land mine detection and clearing, provision of mine clearance equipment for humanitarian purposes and an international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. A separate drafting group was created to discuss this issue, but the new text was not included. Reference to reproductive health care was the subject of extensive consultations, out of which a package deal emerged. One reference to reproductive health care was altered to call for “basic health care services.” One sub-paragraph calls for public information campaigns centered on the significance of population-related issues and responsible actions necessary, including health, family planning and consumption and production patterns. A final sub- paragraph calls for programmes to ensure universal access for women to affordable health care, “including those related to reproductive health care, which includes family planning and sexual health,” consistent with the ICPD. D. CAPACITY-BUILDING AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: This section notes that an enabling strategy, capacity-building and institutional development should aim at empowering all interested parties to enable them to play an effective role in shelter and human settlements planning and management. The final text identifies actions related to: decentralization and strengthening of local authorities; popular participation and civic engagement; human settlements management; metropolitan planning and management; domestic financial resources and economic instruments; and information and communications. Since this section was not discussed at PrepCom III, it arrived in Istanbul entirely in brackets. The Chair distributed a redraft, based on submitted amendments, which was discussed on Monday, 10 June. The EU initially offered to accept the text as drafted, but others preferred to negotiate changes. The US proposed a reference to “ensuring and protecting human rights.” CHINA objected, but the reference was included in the final text. The US, supported by the EU and IRAN, added calls for “gender-, age- and income- based” data collection to two sub-paragraphs on decentralization and strengthening of local authorities and their associations/ networks. In a sub-paragraph calling for the development of global and easily accessible information networks, the G-77/CHINA added a reference to technology transfer and supported the reference to action in cooperation with the UN Centre for Human Settlements. The US objected to the reference to the Centre. Delegates accepted an EU proposal calling for development and/or strengthening of networks, as appropriate, in cooperation with relevant UN bodies. BOLIVIA added “popular participation” to a sub- heading calling for “Participation, civic engagement and good governance.” IRAN proposed deleting “good governance,” but the US and the EU objected. The final text reads: Popular participation and civic engagement. CANADA added a new sub-paragraph calling for promotion of the full potential of youth as key partners. Several hours into consideration of the section, the Chair appealed to delegates to accept the EU proposal to adopt the remaining text as drafted, given the fact that little time was left to resolve all outstanding issues. The delegates agreed. E. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION: The introduction to this section states that international cooperation takes on added significance in light of economic globalization; notes recent declines in ODA; calls for innovative approaches for cooperation using new forms of partnership; and notes the impact of international migration on cities. Sub-sections include: an enabling international context; financial resources and economic instruments; technology transfer and information exchange; technical cooperation; and institutional cooperation. The debate on this section generally fell along developed and developing country lines. While often in agreement on the topics for inclusion, they debated language regarding the extent and effect of global problems at length. Regarding economic globalization and developing country deterioration, INDIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, supported language on problems with poverty, urbanization and economic stagnation. Many African countries said this language reflected their own situation. The EU said the paragraph focused only on negative aspects, and delegates added text noting the opportunities and challenges of globalization. Delegates disagreed strongly on language concerning the relationship of Habitat’s goals to problems of external debt and international trade. Delegates also debated equitable pricing mechanisms, effectiveness of public and private resources, and special financing needs. The issues of ODA and agreed targets were debated at length. The US and EU preferred retaining a reference to striving to fulfill the 0.7% GNP for ODA target and deleting a reference to the “agreed” target, while the G-77/CHINA proposed the reverse. AUSTRALIA deleted a reference in the same paragraph to 0.15% of GNP to the least developed countries (LDCs), but NORWAY insisted on the LDC target. Delegates also agreed to strive to fulfill the agreed target as soon possible and increase the share of funding for adequate shelter. Delegates agreed on a new paragraph that included reference to 0.15% of GNP for ODA for LDCs. On international migration, MEXICO proposed text noting that international migration can facilitate the transfer of skills but may give rise to racism and violence. The US and the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES deleted the reference to racism. The PHILIPPINES proposed references to migrant workers and objected to specifying “documented” migrants. Delegates also heard proposals from local authorities and NGOs, and debated references to their role in human settlements development. They accepted language, with amendments, on local authority access to international financial markets, strengthening decentralized development assistance programmes and cooperation with associations and networks of local authorities. NGO-proposed language on ensuring compliance with national laws by the private sector, including transnational corporations, was also accepted. F. IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE HABITAT AGENDA: This section invites the General Assembly (GA) and ECOSOC to review and strengthen the mandate of the Commission on Human Settlements. A central role in monitoring implementation within the UN system is noted for the Commission. The primary role of the UN Centre for Human Settlements, located in Nairobi, Kenya, is to provide substantive servicing to the Commission. The Secretary-General is requested to ensure more effective functioning of the Centre by providing sufficient human and financial resources. Opening statements in Working Group II revealed fundamental differences between developing and developed countries on the future of the Centre, the role of Habitat II in addressing the Centre’s mandate and functions, and the effect of reviews by the GA and ECOSOC. The EU said there were many rumors regarding its position on follow-up. The Commission should give its advice on the mandates to ECOSOC, which will review the mandates of all of the functional commissions next year. He said it was impossible to examine the mandates at this Conference. The substance of the GPA must first be agreed upon, and implementation must then be considered by the Commission, ECOSOC and the GA. The US and CANADA noted that the GPA should be completed prior to determining who will implement it. INDIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, noted that the rumors have a “ring of authenticity” based on past experiences. After the Rio Conference, UNEP became less important and its resources declined. He expressed concern that a similar fate would befall the Centre. The Conference should reaffirm the central role of the Centre in implementation and its need for greater resources, and ensure that the Centre will remain in Africa. Regarding the ECOSOC review, the G-77/CHINA proposed deleting references to ECOSOC oversight on coordination of the GPA and review of implementation. The EU, supported by the US, AUSTRALIA and CANADA, proposed including a review of the mandate of the Commission by ECOSOC. The G- 77/CHINA said this request assumes that action should be taken regarding the Commission, but later proposed a review “with a view to strengthening” the Commission. The US proposed, “with a view to reorienting and, as necessary, strengthening,” but KENYA and ZAMBIA objected. The EU proposed a new paragraph on the Commission, which states that the Commission should promote, review, monitor and assess progress in implementation. The G-77/CHINA said the existing paragraph represents an understanding that the Commission must be strengthened. Regarding the Centre, the US said the Conference cannot decree and proposed that the Centre “should” rather than “shall” continue to service the Commission. The G-77/CHINA said this implied that the Centre would not continue in this capacity. The G-77/CHINA also disapproved of references to “within its present mandate” and said Habitat II will add responsibilities, and should expand the Centre’s mandate. The EU said the Conference cannot change the mandate. The US, supported by the EU and CANADA, proposed deleting a reference to the post of Executive Director for the Centre. The EU noted this was not the decision of the Conference. The G- 77/CHINA objected and bracketed the reference. A reference calling for the addition of the Center to the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) was also bracketed. The text also invites the Secretary-General to ensure the Centre’s more effective functioning. The reference to the Executive Director and the ACC remained bracketed until the final meeting of Committee I, where the G- 77/CHINA agreed to delete the references. HEARINGS ON THE ROLE OF PARTNERS During the two weeks of the Conference, Committee II conducted hearings regarding the role and contribution of local authorities, the private sector, parliamentarians, NGOs and other partners in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. The hearings involved representatives from the following groups: Local Authorities; the World Business Forum; the Foundations Forum; the Parliamentarians Forum; the Academies of Science and Engineering Forum; the Professionals and Researchers Forum; the Labour Unions Forum; the UN system; non-governmental and community-based organizations; Habitat Dialogues for the 21st Century; and the Forum on Human Solidarity. Committee II met on Thursday, 13 June to consider its report. The report, as contained in A/CONF.165/L.5 and Add. 1-9, contains the Chairperson’s summaries of each of the hearings held in Committee II during the course of the Conference. The Chair, Martti Lujanen (Finland), also presented a Preamble of the Chairperson’s Summary Report. The Preamble states that the Partners’ Committee was the most exciting feature of Habitat II. It notes that, although NGOs were accustomed to assembling at previous conferences, many other partners assembled for the first time at a UN conference. A significant outcome of the hearings was the determination of partners to contribute to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. In addition to the new relationship with the UN, the partners recognized the need to support each other. BEST PRACTICES A Best Practices Exhibition also paralleled the Conference, and showcased examples of human settlements development from around the world. The Best Practices Initiative is an interactive, computerized tool developed by the Together Foundation. Users can access information on over 500 case studies in the realization of Habitat’s objectives — shelter provision for all and sustainable human settlements development. On Tuesday, 4 June, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opened the Best Practices Awards ceremony, which honored 12 initiatives designed to provide positive solutions to the world’s most pressing human settlement problems. He highlighted their efforts to build partnerships between civil society and private enterprise and offered them as proof that sustainable human development is indeed possible. The awards were given to projects involving a wide range of practices, including technology, information, poverty alleviation and improved access to land. Awards were presented to the following 12 Best Practices: Project on Sites and Services for Family Groups with Low Income Living in the North of Gran, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Integration Council in the Favela’s Rehabilitation Process, Fortaleza, Brazil; Metro Toronto’s Changing Communities: Innovative Responses, Metro Toronto, Canada; Post-calamity Reconstruction of Anhui Province’s Rural Areas, China; Successful Institutionalization of Community- based Development in the Commune of Adjamé, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire; A Women’s Self-help Organization for Poverty Alleviation in India: The SEWA Bank, India; Shelter Upgrading, Agadir, Morocco; City Management in Tilburg, the Netherlands; Local Initiative Programme: Community Planning Process and City/Neighborhood Partnership, Lublin, Poland; Community Information Resource Centre (CIRC), Alexandra, South Africa; “Don’t Move, Improve,” Community-owned and -governed Urban Revitalization Project, South Bronx, New York City, US; and the pollution clean-up and environmental conservation efforts of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, US. HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT The High-Level Segment was opened on 12 June 1996 by the President of Turkey, Süleyman Demirel, who said it is essential to review existing policies on shelter and human settlements development. The question at hand is to show the international community’s political will. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said the international community must respond to the processes of urbanization and globalization sooner rather than later. Habitat II has emphasized alliance building, innovative ideas and involved the contributions of many specialized constituencies and stakeholders. Approximately 120 statements were offered during the two-and-one-half day High-Level Segment, which gave world leaders a platform from which to declare their commitment to improving the settlements in their countries. During the Segment, speakers addressed the major national and global issues of human settlements. They pledged their commitment to implement the Conference’s Global Plan of Action at the national and international levels in cooperation with all the partners who were integrated in the Habitat process — local authorities, non- governmental organizations, the private sector and youth. A number of speakers stressed the importance of national efforts in improving their human settlements. However, several others called for assistance for the developing States and countries in transition to realize economic growth and achieve sustainable human settlements. The importance of international cooperation in translating the Habitat Agenda, goals, principles and commitments into concrete results was also highlighted. The role of the international development and lending institutions, the United Nations system, bilateral donors and the developed countries in helping to attain those goals was stressed by several speakers. Others emphasized the positive aspects of the Conference and its preparatory process, expressing pride in what they had achieved. Particularly important was the agreement in reaffirming the right to housing as a human right, integrating the empowerment of women, and addressing the concerns of youth and indigenous people. Participation of the beneficiaries of housing settlements in decision- making was seen as being crucial in the process of creating sustainable human settlements. Local authorities, non-governmental and community-based organizations, too, should be involved. The eradication of poverty and the development of the rural areas were also highlighted by several speakers. Copies of the statements delivered during the High- Level Segment are available on the United Nations World Wide Web site at <>. Summaries of the statements in the official UN press releases from the Conference can be found on the Internet at <>. CLOSING PLENARY At 1:00 am on 15 June, delegates moved from the final meeting of Committee I to the Plenary Hall with their watches stopped at midnight. Habitat II President Süleyman Demirel opened the meeting and called on the Rapporteur, Ricardo Gorosito, to introduce the report of the Conference (A/CONF.165/L.4 and Add.1). Delegates adopted the report and authorized the Rapporteur to finalize it for submission to the 51st General Assembly. Delegates then considered the report of Committee II (A/CONF.165/L.5 and Add. 1-11), as presented by the Chairperson, Martti Lujanen (Finland). He noted that the UN has traditionally relied on intergovernmental cooperation to solve the world’s problems. Habitat II was the first opportunity for partners to engage in a dialogue with governmental delegates, and delegates should be proud of the break with past UN procedures. COLOMBIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, asked how the Committee II report would be annexed to the Report of the Conference. He was told that it would be included in the report and the Plenary would take note of it. IRAN stated that the text was not negotiated and could not be part of the final report. He suggested that it be included in a second document, which would be referenced in the final report. Secretary-General WALLY N’DOW noted that the partners were invited by the GA to participate in the Committee, and that “we cannot build a new heaven and new earth” using status quo methods. He suggested that the Secretariat consult with members designated by Iran to find a new pathway for the report. Delegates took note of the report, which they noted is non-binding. The PHILIPPINES noted that points it had raised during Committee II regarding migrant workers and indigenous peoples were not reflected in the Chairperson’s summaries. Delegates then considered the adoption of the Istanbul Declaration and the Habitat Agenda. The Chair of the Istanbul Declaration Drafting Group, Balkan Kazildeli (Turkey) and the Chair of Committee I, Shafqat Kakakhel (Pakistan), presented the results of their groups. Delegates agreed to delete bracketed text in paragraphs 27(a) and 27(f) bis regarding activities in territories under foreign occupation. CUBA noted that the text to be adopted was consistent with previously adopted texts, and stated that all are aware of that unilateral measures can damage the economic and social development of a country. COSTA RICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, introduced resolution A/CONF.165/L.7, calling for the adoption of the Declaration and the Habitat Agenda, which was adopted by acclamation. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the Asian Group, noted the historical partnership between national and local governments, parliamentarians and others that occurred at Habitat II. COSTA RICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, introduced A/CONF.165/L.3, Expression of thanks to the people and Government of Turkey, which was adopted by acclamation. COLOMBIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, noted that hopes for the transfer of technology and know-how have not emerged strengthened from Habitat II, and that the future of the UN Centre for Human Settlements seems uncertain. He recognized that the Conference did achieve positive results, such as the reaffirmation of the right to housing for all and the need to relieve the distress of those who live in poverty. ITALY, on behalf of the EU, stated that partnerships were strengthened at Habitat II and international cooperation will increasingly lean on these forces. SOUTH AFRICA, on behalf of the African States, noted that the active participation of all development partners, especially women, have made Habitat II a success. Implementation of the Habitat Agenda in Africa will be more successful if the role of UNCHS is recognized. URUGUAY, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, noted that his Group is committed to the goals, principles and strategies adopted in Istanbul. He hoped that the same energy that has been put into the discussions and that has prompted delegates to work at this late hour would help translate principles into practice. The US, on behalf the Western European and Others Group, noted that delegates to Habitat II “refused to fail.” He thanked all partners in the negotiations and said he looked forward to returning home to begin the implementation process. The SUDAN, on behalf of the Arab States, stated that the deliberations show that mankind is capable of resolving its problems through dialogue. MOROCCO said that the Conference is historic for Arab countries, who have had close contact with their partners in Africa and the North. He stated he would like to see UNCHS strengthened, because implementation requires coordinators. ROMANIA, on behalf of the Central and Eastern European region, thanked all involved with Habitat II. Secretary-General Wally N’Dow noted that Habitat II has been a people’s conference in every way, and hoped that its example would bring about a more representative process in the way international business is conducted. He called for a shift from military budgets for the “old” international security into areas that compose a new definition of security. UNCHS looks forward to its role in implementing the Habitat Agenda and he thanked those who recommended strengthening the Centre. He expressed hope that when the Commission on Human Settlements meets next year the partners will be “part and parcel of the process,” as bona fide members. He also paid tribute to the women’s movement, and noted especially the extraordinary efforts of Bella Abzug, “a campaigner for humanity.” Habitat II President Süleyman Demirel noted that it is time to transform words into deeds. Coordination and monitoring of implementation will rest mainly on the UN system, particularly on the Centre for Human Settlements and the Commission on Human Settlements. The UN restructuring process should not adversely affect the functioning of these bodies. The consensus reached on “the right to adequate housing” was a noteworthy accomplishment of the Conference. He then declared the Second UN Conference on Human Settlements closed at 3:20 am. A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF HABITAT II The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements brought to a close a series of world conferences designed to define and launch a global agenda to meet the complex challenges created by a century of unparalleled change. The issue of shelter and sustainable human settlements is recognized as a problem of crisis proportions that affects all countries. The crisis appears in stark and dramatic statistics: in the year 2025 the Earth is expected to be home to almost 100 megacities with populations exceeding five million. The Habitat Agenda and Istanbul Declaration form the closing chapter of this agenda-setting phase — one inspired largely by the end of the Cold War and a political opportunity for the UN to become a key player in shifting the traditional security agenda of States toward people-centered sustainable development. It is anticipated that Habitat II and the special five-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 in 1997 will prepare the ground for a new era focused on implementation of the conference outcomes in a series of partnerships involving States and their new competitors for resources and influence in a rapidly globalizing world: cities, transnational corporations, NGOs, and members of an epistemic and scientific community who have become indispensable sources of the risk-laden knowledge that informs contemporary policy in almost every area. It was both appropriate and perhaps indicative of things to come that two of the major themes of Istanbul were “partnership” and local action. Given the importance of Local Agenda 21s in the dissemination and implementation of sustainable development concepts, Habitat II will complement and reinforce the UN system’s desire to create essential alliances at the community level. If some delegations demonstrated unease at the prospect of ceding sovereign control of the Habitat Agenda, there was no hesitation by the partners in asserting their expectation that things will never be the same again. NEGOTIATING THE HABITAT AGENDA While most of the technical aspects of the Habitat Agenda had been resolved by the end of PrepCom III, there was still much work to be done in Istanbul. Most participants had ready explanations for the slow pace of the negotiations. UN staff members tended to throw the ball back into the governments’ court, pointing to the fact that the UNCHS had been mandated to organize the Conference largely within existing resources and criticizing government delegations for leaving the appointment of Chairs until they arrived in Istanbul. Others pointed the finger at the UNCHS Secretariat and weaknesses in the organization and management of the Conference — a view confirmed to some extent when senior staff from the UN Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) were “parachuted in” to assist the Secretariat in Istanbul. Procedural errors certainly dogged the process. Among their documents delegations found a compilation of their proposals left over from PrepCom III. Since it was released as an official document, the Chair and Secretariat had to remain faithful to these proposals, which tied their hands when they attempted to draft compromise amendments. Some of the heat could also have been taken off the negotiations at an early stage by inserting clear reaffirmations of previous UN Conference commitments into the Preamble. Ultimately, however, negotiating strategies and sharply contrasting positions of governments were decisive. In a now familiar pattern at UN conferences, delegations treated the first days of negotiations like a PrepCom — refusing pleas from the Chairs to accelerate their deliberations. Timing, of course, is part of the negotiating process. For example, negotiation strategies on the future of the UN Commission for Human Settlements and UNCHS slowed the pace of the negotiations on all related issues. The G-77/China stated that they were prepared to discuss this issue at PrepCom II, but talks did not take place. At PrepCom III, delegates did not reach the relevant section of the text until the final days, and the G-77/China and EU’s positions were so far apart that negotiations on a single text proved nearly impossible. Once a compromise was reached in Istanbul, it had a spill- over effect on other issues, but it was not until the final days of the Conference. DEFINING ISSUES RIGHT TO HOUSING: The “right to adequate housing” emerged as one of the most contentious issues at PrepCom III. The relatively quick and easy resolution of this issue, brokered by a member of the Canadian delegation, momentarily lifted spirits — and provided commentators with their much-needed focus issue for the Conference. The consensus that emerged was a compromise between those delegations that preferred to incorporate the right to housing within the broader right to an adequate standard of living and those who wanted to explicitly specify the right to housing as a distinct and independent right. While generally depicted as a compromise, the resulting agreement has been claimed as a significant victory by housing rights advocates. The “right to adequate housing” is reaffirmed in each section of the document, but is qualified by references to the right as one element of the right to an adequate standard of living and to its “progressive realization.” Governments are not held responsible for providing housing to all citizens, as some delegations feared, but the agreement obliges them to enable people to obtain shelter and strengthens their responsibility in the shelter sector by laying out specific policies to be undertaken. What is innovative about the agreement is language affirming protection from discrimination in the housing sector, legal security of tenure and equal access to land. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE: The issue of reproductive health care was not as easily resolved. Delegations grappled with the issue until the final hours of Habitat II. Some delegations sought to reinforce the importance of women’s access to reproductive health care services, as affirmed in Cairo and strengthened in Beijing. Those seeking to retain the reference in the Habitat Agenda claim that women’s reproductive health is inextricably linked to the health of human settlements. Other delegations, who argued that reproductive health care does not belong in a conference addressing human settlements problems, preferred language from Cairo, which has a weaker human rights framework than the language from Beijing and stipulates that implementation is to be consistent with national laws, development priorities and various religious and cultural particularities. Beijing language includes a similar stipulation regarding implementation but also states that regardless of these differences, it is the duty of States to promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The final version of the Habitat Agenda retains these stronger references to human rights and the duty and responsibility of States to protect them, and is viewed as a victory by reproductive health care advocates. INSTITUTIONAL FOLLOW-UP: In discussions on the fate of the Commission on Human Settlements and UNCHS the G-77/ China sought strong reassurances that the Centre would not suffer a fate similar to UNEP, which has waned in clout and cash since Rio. Throughout the negotiations, they pointed to the Centre’s critical role in achieving Habitat II’s goals and argued for a broader mandate and more resources. Developed countries were reluctant to include any language on further commitments. They steadfastly insisted that the mandates of both the Commission and the Centre would not be altered here and peppered the text with qualified commitments. The US and the EU refused to include a reference to the Centre’s Executive Director post, noting that the Conference should not delve into such detail. Some observers attribute this position to the Centre’s past problems of unclear leadership and funding problems. Others note that the positions taken on the Centre merely reflect much larger problems over the widening rift in resources between developed and developing countries and the erosion of faith in traditional development assistance. INNOVATIONS IN THE HABITAT AGENDA: The Habitat Agenda contains a number of policy innovations. These include references to the elimination of sexual exploitation of young women and children; gender-disaggregated data collection; lead poisoning prevention; measures to take account of the social and environmental impact of policies; a strong commitment to economic empowerment of women, including references to the right to inheritance and flexible collateral conditions for credit; and the affirmation of the right to an adequate standard of living for all people and their families. Environmentalists were pleased with the language on environmental justice and environmental health and a reaffirmation of the Beijing call for control and regulation of multinational corporations and an appeal to the private sector to invest in communities. INTERNATIONAL FACILITATING GROUP AND NGO PARTICIPATION The International Facilitating Group (IFG) brought together approximately 40 major groups, regional groups and caucuses to organize the NGO Forum and facilitate input into the Conference. The IFG was effective and worked well with the Secretariat and Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. A little bit of NGO history was made — and a remarkable precedent established — when a compilation of NGO amendments to the draft Habitat Agenda was circulated to delegations in Istanbul as an official conference document. The organizers believe they stretched the limits of participation beyond any previous UN conference. CONCLUSION Habitat II will fold neatly into the global policy agenda articulated and launched during the cycle of UN conferences dealing with children, the environment, human rights, population and development, social development and women. For example, the Habitat Agenda takes up and integrates environmental (UNCED) and population issues (ICPD) in the specific context of urbanization. In Under- Secretary-General Nitin Desai’s words: “The Habitat Agenda forces us to address issues on an integrated and local basis, something which is a logical development of many ideas which surfaced earlier." The Agenda, accompanied by a commitment to local implementation, gives a timely momentum to the anticipated new phase in the UN’s engagement with its emerging global constituencies (local authorities, women’s movements, community-based organizations, business and trade unions) as the international community grapples to respond to the ambivalent twins of globalization and trade liberalization. Habitat II represents the latest stage in the UN’s project to re-define the traditional security agenda in the knowledge that the emerging insecurities posed by environmental, social and economic problems coincide with the causes of unsustainability. THINGS TO LOOK FOR AFTER HABITAT II ECOSOC: The Economic and Social Council will meet in New York from 24 June - 26 July 1996. UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The United Nations General Assembly will consider the report from Habitat II at its fifty-first session, which begins in New York in September 1996. The Second Committee has jurisdiction over human settlements and will likely consider the report of the Conference in late October or November. CSD-5 AND THE 1997 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will devote its intersessional working group meeting, scheduled for 24 February - 7 March 1997, to preparations for the UNGA Special Session for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of Agenda 21. The fifth session of the Commission is scheduled for 7-25 April 1997 in New York. The Special Session is expected to convene from 9-13 June 1997. For more information contact: Andrey Vasiliev, Division for Sustainable Development, tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963- 4260; e-mail: vasilyev@un.org. THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS: The Commission on Human Settlements will hold it next session in April/May 1997. For more information contact the UNCHS, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254-2-621234/62 4265, Fax: +254-2-62 4265, e- mail: habitat@unep.no. This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is written and edited by Chad Carpenter , Peter Doran , Kira Schmidt , Lynn Wagner and Steve Wise . The Managing Editor is Langston James Goree VI “Kimo” . French translation by Mongi Gadhoum. The sustaining donors of the Bulletin are IISD, the Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. General support for the Bulletin during 1996 is provided by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Swedish Ministry of Environment, the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and the Ministry of the Environment of Iceland. Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Ford Foundation and by ACCT/IEPF with assistance of the French Ministry of Cooperation for the French version. The authors can be contacted by electronic mail and during Habitat II at +90 (212) 248- 0872. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Ave. East, Sixth Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are automatically sent to e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the gopher at and in hypertext through the Linkages WWW-server at on the Internet. For further information on ways to access, support or contact the Earth Negotiations Bulletin send e-mail to . The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks and the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to .