ENB:11:30 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]


CHAIR Kakakhel announced a new Vice-Chair, Miloslava Paskova (Slovak Republic). He invited drafting groups to convene for parallel consultations and stated that language agreed at PrepCom III will not be re-negotiated.


B. Adequate Shelter for all: MOROCCO proposed a new subparagraph 54(g)bis: “Address the problems related to spontaneous settlements through the implementation of preventive integrated housing programmes.” The EU bracketed the subparagraph.

Paragraph 55 (land tenure and access) was amended to read “while recognizing that different national laws (G-77/CHINA) and systems (US) of land tenure exist.” NGOs (Peace Caucus) recommended language regarding the removal of land mines. In 56(d) (land use taxation), the EU replaced “easily accessible and progressive taxation” with “fiscal” incentive mechanisms. The US added “accessible” use of land but deleted “equitable,” which was opposed by the EU, the G-77/CHINA and JORDAN.

In 57 (chapeau) (land use and markets), “equitable” (referring to land use) was deleted. In 57(c) (intervention of [stakeholders]), brackets on the entire subparagraph were removed but those around stakeholders remained. The HOLY SEE, supported by ROMANIA, added a reference to the public and private sectors.

In 58 (chapeau) (barriers to access to land), SYRIA and AUSTRALIA proposed deletion of the brackets around “equal and equitable” access, and the EU and US wanted to delete “equitable.” The brackets were removed and “equitable” remained. In 58(f) (women’s access to economic resources), IRAN, supported by the SUDAN and SYRIA, deleted “equal” from the right to inheritance.

In 60 (housing finance institutions), the US inserted “those belonging” to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. In 63 (facilitate access to housing), the G- 77/CHINA supported the CHAIR’s suggestion that brackets be removed from equity. In 66 (infrastructure and delivery systems), the EU, supported by the G-77/CHINA, proposed removing from brackets a reference to “equitable” provision. The US preferred “equal.”

In 68 (availability of skills and financing), delegates removed a reference to “external” impacts of the construction industry from brackets. In 69(o) (support NGOs and others), a reference to “equal” participation of women was removed from brackets. In 71(a) (non-renewable resources), the G-77/CHINA deleted “particularly fossil fuels” with the US’ concession. The section on vulnerable groups (72- 75) is being examined by a drafting group.

C. Sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world: The G- 77/CHINA asked the EU to accept introductory references to the most significant transformations of human settlements in 76 (rapid urbanization). In 77 (sustainability of global environment and human life), the EU suggested simplifying a bracketed reference to causes of environmental degradation and resource depletion. The US recognized that the paragraph raises sensitive issues and suggested a reference to failure to account for the social environmental and economic effects of development decisions. The G-77/CHINA proposed removing the brackets. GUATEMALA said some kind of restraint on wasteful consumption and production should be written into the document. The US could not accept an EU formulation.

Bracketed language regarding UNCED was deleted in 77bis (local authorities). The HOLY SEE removed the brackets around 77ter (participation). CANADA added “prevention” to mitigation of adverse environmental impacts in 79 (urban expansion). The G-77/CHINA, supported by NORWAY, replaced “trade” with “transboundary movement of” hazardous waste and deleted “by parties to those agreements.” The US conceded on the former proposal but not on the latter. Brackets were removed from the entire subparagraph of 80bis (partnerships). The EU proposed removing brackets around the precautionary approach text in 82 (balanced urban development) but the G-77/CHINA wanted to delete the bracketed text. 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 wanted to retain the reference to environmental and social impact assessment. In 82bis (water resource protection), NORWAY added “and other” to “land-based sources of pollution” and CANADA added “oceans and coastal areas.”

[Return to start of article]