Summary report, 22 August – 2 September 1994

2nd Session of the 1995 WSSD Preparatory Committee

Jump to Analysis

The second session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for theWorld Summit for Social Development (WSSD) met from 22 August - 2September 1994 at UN Headquarters in New York. This session was thesecond of three preparatory meetings for the Summit, which willtake place from 6-12 March 1995 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Summitwill bring together Heads of State or Government from around theworld to agree on a programme of action to: alleviate and reducepoverty; expand productive employment; and enhance socialintegration.

During the course of the two-week session, delegates focusedprimarily on the texts of the draft Declaration and Programme ofAction to be adopted in Copenhagen. The Secretariat's initial draftmet with much criticism for both its structure and content.Delegates spent most of the first week reviewing the Secretariat'stext. Their comments and drafting suggestions on the Programme ofAction were then incorporated into a new compilation text, whichwas distributed at the end of the first week. Although theSecretariat, the Bureau and the delegates had hoped that thePrepCom would be able to produce a draft negotiating text by theconclusion of this session, this was not to be the case. Instead,the result was an unmanageable 200-250 page document containing thecompilation text and all the amendments proposed by delegatesduring the second week. As a result, the Bureau was requested toconvene intersessional informal consultations in October tofacilitate the preparation of a new draft text to serve as thebasis for negotiations at the third and final PrepCom, which willbe held from 16-27 January 1995.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WSSD

In December 1992, the United Nations General Assembly adoptedResolution 47/92, "Convening of a world summit for socialdevelopment," and set the process in motion for organizing ameeting of Heads of State or Government to tackle the criticalproblems of poverty, unemployment and social integration.Resolution 47/92 set out eleven objectives for the Summit. Theseinclude: to express a shared world-wide commitment to put the needsof people at the center of development; to stimulate internationalcooperation; to formulate strategies on goals, policies andpriority actions; to create international awareness; to address theinteraction between the social function of the State, marketresponses to social demands and the imperatives of sustainabledevelopment; to identify common problems of socially marginalizedand disadvantaged groups; to promote programmes to ensure legalprotection, foster effective social welfare programmes, and enhanceeducation and training for different groups in all societies; toassist in ensuring a more effective delivery of social services;and to highlight the need to mobilize resources for socialdevelopment at the local, national, regional and internationallevels.

Resolution 47/92 also states that, taking into account theseobjectives, the core issues to be addressed by the Summit are: theenhancement of social integration, particularly of the moredisadvantaged and marginalized groups; alleviation and reduction ofpoverty; and expansion of productive employment.

RESOLUTION 47/92

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION

The Preparatory Committee for the WSSD held its organizationalsession in New York from 12-16 April 1993. Amb. Juan Somava(Chile) was elected Chair and representatives from the followingnine countries were elected to the Bureau as Vice-Chairs:Australia, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, TheNetherlands, Poland and Zimbabwe. Denmark, the host country, servesas an ex officio member of the Bureau and as a Vice-Chair.The PrepCom also adopted decisions on: intersessional meetings ofthe Bureau; modalities for the participation of NGOs; nationalpreparations for the WSSD; mobilization of resources for the WSSDTrust Fund; the UN Department of Public Information's (DPI) plansto launch a public information programme on the issues andobjectives of the Summit; the organization of work, including thetasks of the PrepCom, a timetable and level of representation;expert group meetings; the dates for the Summit and the PrepComsessions; and the provisional agenda for the first session of thePrepCom.

PREPCOM I

The first session of the PrepCom met in New York from 31 January -11 February 1994. The objective of PrepCom I was to define theexpected output and provide elements for inclusion in the documentsto be adopted at the Summit. The first week of the session wasdevoted to opening statements from Governments, NGOs, UN agenciesand other intergovernmental organizations. During the second week,the delegates drafted a series of decisions to help guide theSecretariat and the PrepCom in the preparation of the expectedoutcomes of the Summit.

By the conclusion of PrepCom I, delegates had agreed on theexistence, format and basic structure of a draft Declaration anddraft Programme of Action as well as the possible elements to beincluded in these documents. Delegates agreed that the draftDeclaration should contain three parts: a description of the worldsocial situation; principles, goals, policy orientations and commonchallenges to be addressed by all actors at the local, national,regional and international levels; and an expression of commitmenton issues relating to implementation and follow-up. The Declarationshould be concise and focused, and reaffirm internationalagreements, instruments, declarations and decisions adopted by theUN system that are relevant to the Summit. The Secretariat wasasked to prepare a draft negotiating text on the basis of thecontents of the 11 objectives and three core issues stated inparagraphs 5 and 6 of General Assembly Resolution 47/92.

PREPCOM II REPORT

PrepCom Chair Amb. Juan Somava (Chile) opened the first session ofthe PrepCom and introduced the agenda (A/CONF.166/ PC/14), whichwas subsequently adopted. He then outlined the organization of workfor the session, as contained in document A/CONF.166/PC/L.14/Rev.1.He explained that the Plenary would not engage in general debatebut, rather, would discuss the Secretariat document on achapter-by-chapter basis. The purpose of the discussion for thefirst three days was to give delegates the opportunity to determineareas of priority and compromise to be included in the next draftof the document, which would be the basis for negotiations duringthe second week. The Committee then accredited 233 NGOs to theprocess (A/CONF/166/PC/ 11/Add.1).

Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and SustainableDevelopment, Nitin Desai, informed delegates about intersessionalactivities, which included a number of workshops, receipt ofcontributions for the WSSD Trust Fund, and the establishment of asteering committee, chaired by Ismat Kittani, to coordinate theUN's preparatory work for the Summit.

Helle Degn, Minister for Development Cooperation in the WSSD hostcountry, Denmark, explained that preparations were well underway.She also confirmed that NGO Forum '95 would be held parallel toWSSD at a converted military base -- a practical peace dividend.

UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali set out the politicalbackground for the WSSD and its preparatory meetings. He heraldedit as an opportunity "to begin a new era of internationalcooperation for global human security." Given the multiplicity ofnew threats (such as environmental degradation, the spread ofdisease and transnational migrations) facing States today, the roleof the UN and the international system must be redefined. TheSummit, above all, must begin the process of rethinking nationaland international approaches to security. New development modelsmust be based on economies that serve people and must recognize therole of civic organizations in giving a voice to the people. Heconcluded by highlighting the UN System's unique capacity to assistStates in achieving sustainable human development

DRAFT PROGRAMME OF ACTION

During the initial discussion of the draft Programme of Action(A/CONF.166/PC/L.13), the Chair gave each speaker five minutes (tenminutes for regional group representatives) and used a blue lightto indicate when speakers had exceeded their time limit. Thisprocedure, in conjunction with three night sessions, enabled over250 delegates to comment on the Programme of Action.

Most delegates and NGOs criticized the draft for being too long andtoo descriptive and not action-oriented enough. In spite of theircalls for a more concise text, delegates identified numerous issuesand actions that they thought should be included in the next draft.

Interventions generally focused on the issues covered in thechapter under discussion, although there were several recurringthemes: the inter-relationship between economic and socialdevelopment; the need for transparent and democratic institutionsat all levels; and the role of universal access to education andhealth care.

I. AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT: Over 35 Government and 15 NGOand IGO delegates commented on the first draft chapter, whichidentified the need for favorable international economic andpolitical environments. Several delegates from developed nationsrequested that the section on a favorable international economicenvironment also refer to the national economic environment. Manyof the developing countries warned against excessive reliance onmarket forces to solve social problems. The issues of debt relief,development assistance and trade were of special concern. Delegatesand NGOs from the North and the South called for the eradication ofpoverty and an evaluation of the social costs of structuraladjustment programmes (SAPs). Additional matters of concernincluded: promotion of transparent and democratic Governments;increased employment opportunities; implementation of ECOSOC's fullpowers; empowerment of all groups, especially women; the specialneeds of African nations; and increased accountability of theBretton Woods institutions. Delegates also proposed that thereference to human security, which focused on democracy and humanrights in L.13, be broadened to include human welfare.

II. REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF WIDESPREAD POVERTY: Thesecond draft chapter called for access to productive opportunitiesand public services, and noted the need to reduce vulnerability andto enhance social protection. Forty-six Government and 14 NGO andIGO delegates intervened during the discussion. Many delegatespointed out that various types of poverty exist, and that the poorhave different perceptions of their condition. Delegates statedthat the draft text emphasized the needs of the rural poor andcalled for additional reference to the needs of the urban poor andother sectors of society. The roles of migration, crime, disabilityand war in creating or exacerbating poverty were discussed, and theneed to eradicate poverty was stressed. Ideas to combat povertyincluded: collaboration between Governments and NGOs to deliverservices to the poor; the participation of women and the poor indecision-making; universal access to education and health care;reduced military expenditures; technology transfer; an increasedrole of the private sector; a strategy and timetable to eradicatepoverty; the development of minimum basic needs indicators; andenvironmental protection.

III. PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND THE REDUCTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT:This chapter included several sections: rethinking policy;stimulating employment- intensive growth; creating employmentthrough enterprise; reviewing sectoral priorities; redefining thenature of work and employment; focusing on special needs; andenhancing the quality of employment.

Several general themes emerged during the 27 country statements andthe ten presentations made by NGOs and IGOs on this chapter. Manydelegates called for: the full integration of women into the labourforce; the recognition of women's unpaid work; protection ofchildren from exploitation; and combatting youth unemployment.There were also several proposals to: improve employment trainingand education; recognize the role of the informal sector;facilitate access to credit; and link employment with social andinvestment policies. Many developed countries called for theratification of international labour agreements and for theparticipation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) informulating and monitoring policy.

There were, nonetheless, areas of divergence -- in terms of bothform and substance. While industrialized countries emphasizedproductive employment, developing countries called for productivecapacities. The EU and other developed countries underscored jobcreation, improved training, the service sector, as well as theelimination of jobs that violate human rights. Eastern Europeandelegates emphasized the need to examine the social aspects ofindustrial conversion, and to address the special conditions ofeconomies in transition. Developing countries underscored economiccooperation as a means to prevent war and conflict. They alsoexpressed concern about the imposition of protectionistsocio-economic norms that erode their competitiveness, and calledfor the removal of barriers to employment generation and marketaccess. Developing countries promoted opportunities for capacitybuilding, including self-employment, micro-enterprises andcooperatives.

IV. SOCIAL INTEGRATION: This chapter included severalsections: revisiting social integration; protecting diversity basedon shared values; ending discrimination in all its forms; promotingequal opportunity; education as an integrating force; establishingthe principles of equal access to the institutions of the State;responding with special measures to special social needs; fairtreatment outside one's country of origin; bringing governmentcloser to the people; and creating space for civil society.

Several key issues emerged during the discussion in which 28Governments and ten IGOs and NGOs intervened. Most delegationshighlighted the goal of meeting the needs and recognizing thecapacities of the most vulnerable and marginalized members ofsociety. Those who account for a disproportionate amount of thepoor, the unemployed and the socially excluded include women,children, youth, indigenous people, the elderly, the disabled andthe displaced. Several delegations called for a specific paragraphto address each socially excluded group. Many emphasized the roleof the family and the media in teaching tolerance and respect fordiversity. Socio-economic development was largely heralded as themost effective preventive -- and curative -- approach to socialdisintegration and conflict. Delegates also noted the need todevelop national strategies for social progress.

V. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP: This last chapterwas comprised of: guiding principles for implementation;implementation and follow-up at the national level; internationalcooperation for social progress; the role of the UN and the UNsystem; and mobilizing resources for social development.

Thirty-four States and 12 NGOs and IGOs addressed this chapter.Many highlighted the WSSD as a unique opportunity to mobilizeinternational political will and financial resources. Delegatesproposed several institutional reforms to promote: greateraccountability of the Bretton Woods institutions; greatercooperation and coordination within the UN System, includingstrengthening ECOSOC; and greater coordination at national,regional and international levels in implementation efforts.Certain delegations, such as the EU and Japan, questioned thefeasibility of convening follow-up social summits every five years.

Some delegations called for a new "social development window" atthe World Bank. The IMF and many States agreed on the need toaddress the social dimensions of SAPS. Others called forratification and enforcement of existing international instrumentsrelated to social development -- with special emphasis on theCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights.

Developing countries called for additional financial resources andproposed several measures to generate additional funds for socialdevelopment. Several Eastern European countries promoted jointventures between Western and developing countries as well aseconomies in transition. Several delegates decried the effectiveexclusion of developing countries from international trade andproposed measures to facilitate market access. Others emphasizedinnovative debt-reduction schemes, such as debt-for-social-development swaps. Several proposals called for debt cancellationand a tax on international financial transactions. While manydelegations endorsed the 20:20 Compact, others questioned itsviability. Japan, for example, cautioned against setting anumerical value on aid at this stage of negotiations. India andPakistan questioned the Compact's ability to yield sufficientresources. Many others noted the conspicuous absence of thelong-standing target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA.

INITIAL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME OF ACTION

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

A Committee of the Whole, under the chairmanship of Amb. KoosRichelle (The Netherlands), was established during the second weekof the PrepCom to conduct a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion ofthe revised draft Programme of Action (CRP.2).

Although the revised draft did not reflect the 30% reduction inlength that the Secretariat had intended, the 195-paragraph textwas more concise than L.13. The Working Paper was drawn from theoriginal text, with modifications proposed during the first week'sdebate as well as specific written submissions by delegates.

The Committee of the Whole considered CRP.2 during eight workingsessions. The paragraph-by-paragraph discussion proceeded slowly.After the first five paragraphs, which required an entire workingsession, the Chair abandoned his attempts to reconcile commentsinto agreed text. Instead, a new process was adopted whereby alloral and written amendments would be appended to CRP.2. The finalresult was an approximately 250-page compilation that was notdistributed. Instead, the Secretariat will use the compilation asa guide in developing the next draft, which is expected at the endof September.

During the course of the week, delegates called for changing thestructure of the entire document. Indonesia suggested that eachparagraph should contain a call for action. The US further proposedthat each paragraph state the rationale for action, the objectivesfor action and the action required. The Chair noted that thisproposal would require reconstructing text in addition to combiningparagraphs. Nevertheless, the Chair indicated at the end of thePrepCom that the Secretariat's new draft will follow thisstructure.

The following section-by-section analysis of CRP.2 will highlightthe main contents, describe some of the revisions, and summarizekey proposed amendments.

INTRODUCTION: The first four paragraphs of CRP.2 introduce:the reasons for the World Summit; its relationship to other globalconferences; the relationship between the three core issues andsocial, economic, environmental and cultural concerns; and the needfor international cooperation.

The original draft (L.13) contained five significantly longerparagraphs, two of which were deleted: the needs of those with fewresources and current social problems.

Indonesia, supported by Norway, Mauritius and the US, suggestedthat paragraphs 1 (reasons for WSSD) and 2 (other conferences)would be better placed in the Declaration. Norway called for anintroduction that outlined the content of the Programme of Action.Several delegates suggested referring to conferences not alreadymentioned in the text. In response to a proposal by the Chair,delegates agreed not to mention specific conferences but, rather,to refer to global conferences relevant to social development.

India, supported by the G-77 and Poland, stated that socialdevelopment concerns must be central to economic decision-making.Norway stated that economic growth should serve people. Canadaemphasized the concept of sustainable human development and the UScalled for "sustainable continuous development."

I. AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

A. A changing global situation: Based on the EU proposal,this section addresses the challenges of globalization, noting inparticular that technology has the potential to improve people'slives, although it can also increase inequities between and withinnations. Other issues include: the movement of people acrossborders; the problem of organized crime; and the resulting need forinternational cooperation. A reference to the lack of personalsecurity or acceptable standards of living as a cause of migrationwas deleted.

Delegates' paragraph-by-paragraph comments covered a range ofissues. The G-77 called for special reference to African countriesand LDCs in meeting the challenge of globalization. Morocco and theEU emphasized access to training in relation to technology. Canadacalled for increased recognition of human rights as a way to reducemigration. The EU, Morocco, Croatia and Switzerland called forrecognition of the right to leave and to return to one's country.On the paragraph on crime, Guatemala emphasized arms trafficking,while the G-77, the EU and the Holy See underscored the need toaddress terrorism.

B. Creation of a favourable international and national economicenvironment: This section notes that "sustained economic growthneeds supportive national policies and an enabling internationalclimate..." Trade policies, debt reduction, the costs of structuraladjustment, the special needs of African countries, the target of0.7% GNP for ODA, and domestic macro-economic policies are alladdressed. The call for national action is new in CRP.2, as is acall for international agencies to assist developing countries inadjusting their policies. References to the need to integrate thesocial dimension into the design of SAPs, and the special situationin Africa were also added.

In the discussion, the G-77 objected to the reference tointernational assistance to developing countries in reshaping theirpolicies. The EU said debt relief is important for the poorestcountries, while the G-77 called for retaining a variety ofsolutions to debt problems. Japan called for debt reduction, ratherthan cancellation. In the paragraph on structural adjustment,Poland called for macro-economic stability combined with mechanismsto aid the poor. Sudan and Norway commented on the need to mitigatethe adverse social implications of SAPs. In reference todevelopment assistance, the US and the EU proposed recognizing theprivate sector as the primary source of financial resources. TheEU, the G-77 and Canada agreed that social stability promotesprivate investment.

C. Creating a favourable political environment: The thirdsection of Chapter I identifies a Government role in socialdevelopment, while recognizing the need to respect human diversity.Equality between men and women, education and mass communicationcontribute to the creation of a favorable social situation.Protection of human rights and freedom of association are importantfactors. Peace and basic needs comprise the definition of humansecurity.

The revised text deleted several items contained in L.13. Theseincluded: gender-based analyses of all institutions, policies andpractices; a UN role in promoting international peace andpreventing potential conflicts; the establishment of internationalmechanisms to support the interests of the weakest nations; and theuse of social impact assessments. The original text's focus ondemocracy and human rights in relation to human security isbroadened to include issues of human welfare. The initial referenceto cooperatives and trade unions now refers to the need to assurethe right to freedom of association.

During the discussion of this section, the G-77 proposed areference to the adverse socio-economic effects of denyingself-determination. The EU called for empowering women to exercisetheir human rights, and the US similarly noted the disproportionateburden of poverty, unemployment and violence on women. In theparagraph on education and communication, the EU emphasized theimportance of a free press. India called for recognition ofstate-controlled media in education. In reference to thelimitations of market mechanisms to promote social goals, Mexicounderscored the need to balance unequal market forces. Swedencalled for democratic, accountable, transparent and participatoryinstitutions as pre-conditions to human security.

II. REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF WIDESPREAD POVERTY

A. Promoting a global approach: This section highlightsthe various expressions of poverty and the moral, political andeconomic responsibilities of Governments in the struggle againstpoverty. The key additions to the section include: a clearerdescription of the problem; a call for the eradication of extremeforms of poverty and the reduction of poverty by at least 50% by atarget date, which is to be specified by each country; informationon the effects of population and demographic factors on poverty; acall for promotion of economic growth in low income countries;recognition of the different forms and factors underlying poverty;and a call for enhancing the economic and cultural opportunitiesfor poor youth. Some of the key proposals included: mechanisms fornational-level monitoring (India); recognition of the feminizationof poverty and the special situation in Africa (G-77); fullparticipation of women and girls in decision-making, and referenceto violence against women (EU); equal access to economicopportunities and work at a "living wage" (Canada); and eliminationof female infanticide and selective abortion (Holy See).

B. Access to productive opportunities: This section refersto the range of responsibilities of Governments to improve accessto productive opportunities, such as: the strengthening of ruralcooperatives; agricultural training; low-cost housing; and women'saccess to productive resources. Some descriptive text was removed,but no major calls for action were added or deleted. Some of thekey proposals included: emphasis on the rural poor's need forsustainable livelihoods (Finland); development of effectivemarketing systems for small farmers (EU); and affordable ruralhousing (Canada).

C. Access to public services: This section describes therange of public services that should be improved and expanded forpeople living in poverty. These services include: universal accessto education; primary health care; safe water and sanitation;low-cost housing; and child care. The major changes included:removal of the call to implement commitments in the Programme ofAction adopted by the International Conference on Population andDevelopment; and removal of the reference to organized programmesand community facilities for poor youth. Key proposals called for:reference to the role of teachers (El Salvador); elimination,rather than reduction, of school fees (Uruguay); education for thedisabled (Sierra Leone); free legal assistance (G-77); reallocationof military spending (Canada); and reference to maternal mortality(EU).

D. Reducing vulnerability: The underlying thrust of thissection is that poverty prevention is essential to any anti-povertystrategy. It calls on Governments and the international communityto ensure food security, provide for famine and disastermanagement, and integrate anti-poverty programmes and resourcemeasures in accordance with Agenda 21. Certain descriptive passageswere deleted from the earlier version of this section, but majorcalls for action remain. Key proposals included: food as a humanright (G-77), special reference to Africa (Ethiopia); the effect ofwar on food security (Switzerland); special references to thedisabled (Belarus); the UN role in coordinating emergency responses(Austria); prevention of the sale of food aid (Burkina Faso); andan international volunteer corps to respond to emergencies(Argentina).

E. Enhancing social protection: This section identifies therange of social protection programmes that Governments shouldprovide. These include: programmes targeted to those in need;universal programmes to provide basic protection; and contributorysocial insurance programmes for those who can afford them. Severalreferences to social assistance programmes were deleted in thisversion of the text. New proposals included: references to socialinsurance (Sweden and Finland); reference to international drugtrafficking (EU, C“te d'Ivoire and the G-77); and the role of NGOsin social protection (Switzerland).

III. PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND THE REDUCTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT

A. Rethinking policy: This section recommends the developmentof a broader concept of employment and work. It recognizesunemployment problems in all nations, notes the urgency of theseproblems in light of growing populations, calls for expansion ofopportunities for work, and recommends that national economicpolicies strive to reduce unemployment. The key change was thedeletion of a paragraph referring to structural impediments to jobgrowth. Delegates called for reference to: under-employment indeveloping countries (EU); full employment (India); and sustainablelivelihoods with equitable remuneration (Canada). Delegates alsocalled for labour-intensive and environmentally- sound technology(India); savings and investment (El Salvador); and labour-marketinformation systems (Indonesia).

B. Stimulating employment-intensive growth: The secondsection calls on countries to adjust their macro-economic policiesto stimulate growth and investment. The text also urges:cooperation in international trade; stable legal and regulatoryenvironments; use of labour-intensive technologies; and researchaimed at employment expansion. The key change was a call forremoval of structural impediments affecting international economicgrowth and employment creation. Important proposals included:India's call for trade liberalization to include safeguards fordeveloping countries; the EU's opposition to the reference tofacilitating technical adaptation for developing countries; theG-77's request for technology transfer on preferential terms; andEl Salvador's call for clean technology.

C. Creating employment through enterprises: This sectioncalls for: national regulatory policies that take intoconsideration the competitiveness of small enterprises;Governmental support for cooperatives; attention to the needs ofinformal-sector enterprises; and international cooperation tosupplement national policies. A call for international cooperationto supplement national policies in fostering and supportingenterprise-creation was added to this section. Key delegateconcerns were: the role of women in paid and unpaid activities(Canada); elimination of discrimination in granting credit to womenand minorities (EU); and the fact that informal-sector enterprisescan be construed as "black labour" (Austria).

D. Reviewing sectoral priorities: This section callsattention to: the needs of rural areas; environmentally-soundproduction methods; the potential of export expansion; theimportance of retraining and maintaining social protection whenindustrial plants close; and opportunities in the service sector.Several paragraphs were shortened, but the essence of this sectionremains the same as in L.13. Few delegates addressed this section,although the G-77 emphasized the need to remove protectionist tradebarriers.

E. Redefining the nature of work and employment: Thissection recommends the need to broaden the concept of work toinclude sustainable livelihoods; voluntary work-sharingarrangements; and examination of personal taxation and socialsecurity legislation, with the goal of allowing greater workflexibility. The two paragraphs in this section were shortened, butnot altered substantively. The major change was the removal of thefirst paragraph, which called for greater financial recognition ofwomen's multiple roles so as to improve their status. Swedenobjected to the underlying paternalistic tone of the paragraph.

F. Focusing on specific needs: The sixth section addressesspecific groups with special needs in relation to livelihoods(youth, the elderly, women, the long-term unemployed, migrantworkers and indigenous people). Among the recommended actions toredress the problem were: employment-related programmes; qualityeducation; job training; non-discriminatory regulations;occupational health policies; facilitation of the migrantreintegration process; maternity leave and child care; andstrengthening of public services. Key changes included the additionof paragraphs calling for: alleviation of youth unemployment;quality education; and occupational health provisions.

During the discussion, the EU and Japan proposed adding thedisabled to the list of other sectors that have special needs. TheG-77 added reference to the role of NGOs in providing youthemployment training. In reference to the multiple roles of women,proposals included reference to: equal responsibilities between menand women (Japan); the underlying forces that create the socialneeds of women (Sweden); and professional training for women(Mali). Colombia proposed a new paragraph on providing long-termwork, labour opportunities and special facilities for workers.

G. Enhancing the quality of employment: The last section inthis chapter calls for safeguarding the basic rights of workers.More specifically, the text called for: labour organizations andNGOs to seek protection for working children; protection of migrantworkers' rights; basic labour standards in the informal sector;education and training; and appropriate national policies. Canadarecommended protection of indigenous livelihoods and stressed therights of street children.

IV. SOCIAL INTEGRATION

A. Social integration, respect for diversity based on sharedvalues: The aim of social integration is described as theenabling of diverse groups to live in productive and cooperativeharmony, and the accommodation of differences within a context ofshared values and common interests. The key change in this sectionwas the paragraph calling for measures to reduce violence insociety. Major proposals included: increased attention to the needsof marginalized groups (Switzerland and Canada); emphasis onethical principals in the formulation of social policies(Slovenia); the role of spirituality and moral values (Iran);decreasing the need to resort to violence and physical force inconflict resolution (Norway); and social integration of indigenouscommunities (Peru).

B. Ending discrimination in all its forms and promoting equalityof opportunity: This section identifies a range of measures tocounter discrimination, including appropriate legislation,administrative codes and public ordinances. Specific reference ismade to measures to end both de jure and de factodiscriminatory practices against women. There were no major changesfrom L.13. Key proposals included reference to the disabled (Norwayand Zimbabwe) and to the importance of implementing economic,social and cultural rights (Canada).

C. Education as an integrating force: This sectionidentifies equal access to education as one of the primaryresponsibilities of Government, civil society and the internationalcommunity. It emphasizes the role of primary education in enhancingequality of opportunity and in mitigating existing socialinequalities. A new paragraph highlighting the importance of themass media in promoting harmonious co-existence among social groupswas added. Some of the other major proposals included: human rightseducation (India, Morocco, the Philippines, Slovenia and Canada);reference to children who are vulnerable to drug abuse and drugtrafficking (Pakistan); and educational incentives for girls,including tuition exemptions and scholarships (Bangladesh).

D. Equal access to the institutions of the State: Thissection highlights the need for an integrated society to be basedon the principle of equal treatment in matters of law, taxation andthe provision of public services, while recognizing the need forspecialized treatment. The main change to this section wasrecognition of the need for social policy to contribute tocommunity life and to integrate those who are not "economicallyactive." Other proposals included Antigua and Barbuda's referenceto reproductive health.

E. Responding with special measures to special social needs:This section emphasized the need to guarantee opportunities forthose who traditionally have been excluded from the community.References were made to: affirmative action programmes; equalopportunities for the disabled; public resources for older persons;and measures to include young people. This section was entirelyrevised and revitalized based largely on the contributions madeduring the first week's debate. Key comments included: proposalsfor new paragraphs on the re-integration of criminal offenders(Holy See), and drug abuse (Norway); concern that affirmativeaction programmes may lead to reverse discrimination (Japan); andincreased recognition of indigenous people (Canada and NewZealand).

F. A shared concern: fair treatment outside one's country oforigin: This section refers to attitudes towards migrants, andcalled for: Government measures to shape positive attitudes;special attention to the needs of migrant children; and protectionof refugees. This section was not substantially altered. Importantproposals included: emphasis on protecting migrants' human rights(Mexico); international assistance for refugee host nations (Guineaand Belize); and action to prevent the creation of immigrants andrefugees (Pakistan).

G. Bringing Government closer to the people: This sectioncalls for transparent, accountable and participatory publicinstitutions at all levels. Few delegates commented on the twoparagraphs in this section. Indonesia called for greater emphasison decentralization and community empowerment.

H. Creating space for civil society: This section notes thatNGOs, professional associations and cooperatives, among others, canfacilitate interaction between the individual, communities andGovernments. It recommends allowing the full participation of civilsociety. Few delegates commented on the three paragraphs in thissection, although the Holy See highlighted the role of cultural andreligious associations in facilitating interaction between theindividual, communities and Governments.

V. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP

This chapter was the only one that was not discussedsection-by-section. Many delegates had not anticipated theCommittee's speed and could not present detailed amendments on thischapter. Others felt that this chapter could not be adequatelydiscussed until agreement was reached on the goals and actions inother chapters. Some of the more significant additions to thischapter are references to: the social dimensions of structuraladjustment programmes; innovative financing mechanisms; and astrengthened role for the World Bank. Other notable additionsinclude reference to: the private sector; endogenous capacitybuilding; indicators; a strengthened role for the UN; coordinationbetween the UN System and the Bretton Woods institutions; and theparticipation of all actors in the field of social development.

Significant deletions include reference to: the use of alternativedispute resolution procedures; the overall monitoring ofnational-level strategies; consultative mechanisms in developingcountries; the Youth Voluntary Service to the Community; and therelationship between financial resources for the achievement of theSummit's objectives and for overall development.

A. Guiding principles for implementation: This section callsfor increased international cooperation and support for socialdevelopment, and stresses the importance of the State in shaping anenabling environment. Indonesia underscored the notion ofpartnerships and the role of religious and informal leaders.

B. Implementation and follow-up at the national level: Thissection stresses the need for: endogenous capacity building;broader and more integrated strategies for human resourcedevelopment; and national strategies for social progress. Norwaycalled for national participation in setting priorities for action.China stressed grassroots-initiated local action plans. Finlandcalled for the use, internationalization and standardization ofquantitative and qualitative indicators of social development.

C. International cooperation for social progress: Thissection calls on Governments, NGOs, the academic community, tradeunions and others to cooperate for social and economic development.Regional and subregional approaches should be explored andGovernments should identify a certain number of appropriateindicators. Bilateral cooperation is also stressed. Few amendmentswere made to this section.

D. The role of the United Nations and the United Nationssystem: This is the longest section of the chapter and itgenerated the most comments. It focuses on the actions that the UNsystem must take to coordinate an effective follow-up strategy tothe WSSD. Austria called for reference to the ongoing process of UNreform and to policy dialogues on social development between the UNand the Bretton Woods institutions. Regarding follow-up, she notedthe need for: effective regional initiatives; targets andtimetables; clear policy recommendations by the Secretary-Generalfor monitoring; country strategies; and clear priorities andprocedures for the Commission on Social Development. The G-77stressed that UN agencies should not act outside their existingmandates. Other proposals included international monitoring oflending agencies (Pakistan) and improved coordination andcooperation among and within UN agencies (Indonesia). Canadaprovided detailed comments on the need for strong institutionalfollow-up.

Many proposals were made with regard to the focal point forfollow-up within the UN system. Possibilities included: astrengthened ECOSOC (Norway); the Commission for Social Development(Poland and Mexico); the establishment of specialized organizationsto promote and implement activities related to social development(Morocco); and the Secretary- General (Finland).

E. Mobilizing resources for social development: This sectionsuggests various means to provide assistance from the rich to thepoor countries for promoting social development. The G-77 stressedthe need for new and additional financial resources. Otherproposals included: ODA levels that are higher than 0.7% and untiedfunding for social development (Pakistan); support for the 20:20Compact (C“te d'Ivoire and Senegal); debt reduction, cancellationand conversion schemes (C“te d'Ivoire); establishment of a newdevelopment fund (Iran and Malaysia); and a stronger statement ondebt and mechanisms to assure adequate funds for social progress(Indonesia). Senegal and Benin stressed the special problems ofAfrica, while Bangladesh said that the needs of all the leastdeveloped countries should be addressed.

F. Organization participation and empowerment: This sectionnotes that organization and empowerment of the poor is essentialfor any successful poverty alleviation strategy. Indonesia calledfor reference to the right to development.

DRAFT DECLARATION

The draft Declaration, as presented in document A/CONF.166/PC/L.13, contained 43 paragraphs. It noted the current socialsituation and called for action on many fronts, including:development of strategies to eliminate extreme poverty; assuranceof the rights of workers; respect for diversity; and mobilizationof financial resources. Most of the 49 participants who spokeduring the discussion noted the need for a short, concise statementof political will. Other areas of consensus included the need fora definition of social development and the need for a link betweenthe Declaration and the Programme of Action.

A few delegates made recommendations on the structure of theDeclaration. Australia, for example, suggested a Declaration withthree parts: identification of the reasons for and importance ofthe Summit; new commitments and actions to be undertaken by actorsat all levels; and a statement of principles. Germany, on behalf ofthe EU, also proposed a three-pronged structure: the state ofsocial development; a strategy based on principles and consistingof concrete objectives; and incorporation of the main commitmentsfrom the Programme of Action. Tunisia recommended a two-part textthat would examine the social development situation and identifyobjectives.

While delegates agreed on the benefits of a shorter document, manyproceeded to list numerous priority issues to be included in theredraft. Among these issues were: protection and promotion of humanrights; provision of health services; equality of opportunities forall; abolition of trade barriers; immigration law reform;elimination of child labour; integration of the most vulnerable insociety; and support for the role of the family.

INITIAL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT DECLARATION

CHAIRMAN'S PAPER ON THE DRAFT DECLARATION

After the initial discussion in Plenary, the Chair convened a"Friends of the Chair" group to discuss elements to be included inthe draft Declaration. On Wednesday evening, 31 August 1994, theChair distributed a progress report, which was later formallyintroduced to the Plenary as document A/CONF.166/PC/L.18. Theprogress report reflects the results of the informal consultationsand was designed to facilitate the PrepCom's consideration of theelements, tone and style of the draft Declaration.

The draft contains four parts: Introduction; Current socialsituation and reasons for the Summit; Principles, common values andgoals; and Commitments. The principles, common values and goalsinclude:

placing people at the centre of development;

respecting the need for global human well-being and productive life;

incorporating the interdependence of economic and social, public and private spheres of activity;

promoting human dignity, social justice and solidarity at the national and international levels;

respecting and enforcing the right to development and other universally established human rights;

supporting progress and security of humankind as a guiding principle;

establishing good governance with integrity, respect, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability;

inviting all actors to express their personal commitment to enhancing the human condition;

encouraging the improvement of community participation and self-reliance; and

enabling and empowering all people to participate in the decisions affecting their lives and societies.

There are nine commitments: promotion of social progress andenhancement of the human condition; eradication of poverty in theshortest period possible; enabling all people to earn livelihoodsthrough freely chosen employment; promotion of social integration;achievement of full equality between men and women; promotion ofthe economic, social and human development of Africa and the leastdeveloped countries; "socially-oriented" structural adjustmentprogrammes; generation of sufficient resources; and improvement ofthe international economic environment and international financialassistance.

In general, delegates and NGOs praised the draft Declaration andagreed that it provides an excellent basis for furthernegotiations. Most of the NGOs felt that this draft infused newlife into the preparatory process.

A number of delegates made specific comments on how the Declarationcould be improved. Sweden called for references to strengtheningthe UN. Brazil urged greater emphasis on solutions for peace amongnations. Benin identified the special needs of Africa and calledfor stronger commitments.

Indonesia recommended several changes. In Part I, emphasis shouldbe on the balance between the three core issues. In Part II, theconcepts of human security and social development, and the roles ofreligious leaders and NGOs should be elaborated. In Part III, therelationship between UN agencies and Bretton Woods institutionsshould be clarified.

The United States and the Russian Federation called for recognitionof the special needs of all regions and all peoples. Slovenia andSwitzerland called for stronger references to human rights.Indonesia, the Sudan, Morocco and Guatemala underscored the need torecognize the family as the basic unit for social development.Guinea called for a paragraph on children's needs. Cuba called fora new paragraph whereby States would commit to end the use ofcoercive measures. Belarus noted the special needs of the disabledin finding employment. Pakistan suggested a greater focus on healthissues. Nepal wanted the Declaration to reflect the concerns ofland-locked countries.

The Chair closed the discussion by stating that delegates haverequested him to continue consultations on the draft Declaration.He called for written comments as soon as possible to facilitatepreparation of the next draft.

OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP

An open-ended working group was established under the chairmanshipof Amb. Zbigniew Maria Wlosowicz (Poland) to address Agenda Item 3,Status of the preparations for the WSSD (A/CONF.166/PC.15), andAgenda Item 5, Draft rules of procedure (A/CONF.166/PC/L.6). Duringthe course of four meetings and numerous informal consultations,the Working Group reached agreement on the draft rules ofprocedure, but postponed consideration of the organization of theSummit until the next session of the Prepcom.

RULES OF PROCEDURE: During the Working Group's discussion ofthe draft rules of procedure, Rule 6 (Elections) generated the mostdebate. In response to Denmark's request, the Secretariatdistributed the rules of procedure for UNCED and the InternationalConference on Population and Development (ICPD). Benin and Egyptwanted to ensure equitable geographic representation on the Bureau.Benin also raised the point that Denmark, as host country, shouldbe an ex officio member of the Bureau. Questions were alsoraised about the number of vice presidents. The Secretariat pointedout that the Bureau size and distribution of seats is a politicaldecision. The Chair suggested that the regional groups consult onthis issue.

In Section XI, "Other participants and observers," Algeria, onbehalf of the G-77 and China, proposed the addition of a newparagraph, based on the rules of procedure for UNCED and the ICPD,to allow associate members of regional commissions to participateas observers. Germany, on behalf of the EU, proposed amending Rule1 so that it would read: "The delegation of each State and theEuropean Community participating in the Summit..." -- as wasthe case for UNCED and the ICPD. Other relevant rules were alsoamended to reflect the participation of the European Community.

After consultations, the Chair reported a general consensus on thenumber and distribution of Bureau seats. Delegates preferred arelatively small Bureau of 27 Vice-Presidents, with the samegeographic representation as the ICPD: Africa (7); Asia (6);Western Europe and Others (6); Latin America and the Caribbean (5);and Eastern Europe (3). Egypt later proposed adding two more seatsfor Africa. The Chair asked the regional groups to consult on thisissue before PrepCom III. All other amendments to the rules ofprocedure were accepted by the Group. Consultations on the numberand distribution of seats on the Bureau will continue during theintersessional period.

PROPOSED ORGANIZATION FOR THE SUMMIT: During the first week,the Secretariat distributed a "Note on the proposed organizationfor the Summit." The key issues included; the format for thepre-Summit meetings (6-10 or 11 March), including a general debateand a main committee to negotiate outstanding issues; and thelength of the meeting of Heads of State or Government.

During the course of the week, two additional proposals for theSummit's schedule were produced by the Chair. Delegates generallyagreed that on 6-8 March there should be a Plenary exchange ofviews among Governments, NGOs and intergovernmental agencies. Theexact form (panels, hearings, etc.) remains to be determined by theSecretariat and the Bureau, but the goal is to provideopportunities for interaction. During this period, the MainCommittee will also meet to finalize negotiations on the Programmeof Action and the Declaration. Disagreement remains, however, onthe length of and participation in the meeting of Heads of State orGovernment. The Chair first proposed that on 9 March, a"Ministerial Meeting" would be addressed by delegations who are notrepresented by a Head of State or Government, as well as byexecutive representatives of UN agencies and programmes. Then on10-12 March, the Meeting of Heads of State or Government wouldconsist of: two sessions each day on Friday and Saturday, 10-11March (with the possibility of an evening session on Friday); anda closing session and adoption of the Summit documents on Sunday,12 March.

The UK, supported by Germany, Uruguay and Japan, proposed thathigh-level representatives present statements on 10-11 Marchalongside Heads of State or Government. Denmark proposed thefollowing: on 9-12 March 1995, States and executive heads oforganizations and programmes of the UN system will address theSummit in accordance with a list of speakers to be opened by theSecretariat on (date to be determined), and preferably in thefollowing order: 1) executive heads of organizations and programmesof the UN system; 2) special representatives of Heads of State orGovernment who will not personally attend the Summit; and 3) Headsof State or Government.

Since delegates were unable to reach agreement on whetherhigh-level special representatives of Heads of State or Governmentmay speak during the meeting of Heads of State, and on the lengthof this meeting (two or three days), they agreed to take a formaldecision on the Summit's schedule at PrepCom III.

CLOSING PLENARY

The Plenary met for its closing session on Friday morning, 2September 1994. The Plenary adopted four decisions on: the need forintersessional consultations; the provisional agenda for the thirdsession of the Preparatory Committee; a report on the status ofpreparations for the WSSD; and the report of the second session ofthe PrepCom.

INTERSESSIONAL CONSULTATIONS: On Thursday, 1 September 1994,delegates agreed on the need for some type of intersessionalactivity to facilitate preparation of a new draft Programme ofAction. After consultations with various delegates and regionalgroups, the Chair submitted a draft decision to the Committee. Thisfour-paragraph decision requests the Chair and the Bureau toorganize, during the week of 24 October 1994, intersessionalinformal consultations with the participation of all States, inconjunction with the 49th session of the General Assembly. TheSecretariat is requested to prepare an informal document, based onthe discussions during and documentation for PrepCom II, by 30September 1994, to serve as a starting point for the intersessionalconsultations. The Secretariat is also requested to prepare arevised draft Programme of Action, drawn from these consultations,by 30 November 1994. The Chair is requested to continue hisconsultations on the Declaration and to prepare a progress reportfor the intersessional meeting. On the basis of theseconsultations, the Chair will submit a new draft Declaration to beconsidered at PrepCom III.

In their comments, delegates stressed the importance of holdingopen-ended and transparent consultations to ensure theparticipation of all delegations. Some delegates, includingBangladesh, expressed concern about the financial constraints thatmay prohibit some States from attending. The Secretariat notedthat, since these consultations are within the framework of theGeneral Assembly, support for developing country delegates'participation is under the domain of the General Assembly. TheChair added that the Secretariat will try to ensure adaptation ofthe Second and Third Committees' schedules so that delegates mayparticipate in these consultations.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR PREPCOM III: The provisional agendafor the third session of the Preparatory Committee(A/CONF.166/PC/L.19) contains six items: adoption of the agenda andother organizational matters; accreditation of NGOs; status ofpreparations for the WSSD (trust fund and public informationprogrammes); draft outcome of the WSSD (draft Declaration and draftProgramme of Action); provisional agenda and organization of workfor the WSSD; and adoption of the report of the PreparatoryCommittee. Delegates adopted the provisional agenda, but the Chairnoted that some are concerned that the two weeks scheduled for thePrepCom (16-27 January 1995) may be insufficient. Facilities willbe available for three simultaneous meetings. The option of askingthe General Assembly to extend the PrepCom by one week was alsosuggested. No consensus emerged on this matter after initialconsultations. The Bureau will continue to consult on this issue.

STATUS OF PREPARATIONS FOR THE WSSD: Delegates adopted aprocedural document prepared by the Secretariat on the status ofpreparations for the WSSD (A/CONF.166/PC/L.20). The documentsummarizes the preparations for the Summit in four parts: the TrustFund; activities undertaken since the first session of the PrepCom;NGOs; and the public information programme.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT: The last item of the agenda was theadoption of the report of the Preparatory Committee(A/CONF.166/PC/L.16). The Chair then closed the second session ofthe Preparatory Committee, commenting that the future will go wellif the atmosphere continues as it did at this session of thePrepCom.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF PREPCOM II

Government delegates, NGOs and other observers left UN Headquarterson Friday, 2 September 1994, with mixed feelings. While they hadworked hard during the two weeks of the second session of thePreparatory Committee for the World Summit for Social Development,they did not succeed in producing a negotiated or even bracketedtext of the draft Programme of Action. The PrepCom's lack ofprogress in developing such a text is largely due to the fact thatthe first PrepCom did not achieve its goals.

It is often useful to analyze negotiations in terms of phases orstages. In each phase, the focus is different: identifying anddefining the problem; exchanging statements of initial positions;drafting; negotiating; and reaching consensus on the final, mostcontentious details. The root of the problems in the WSSD'spreparatory process lies in the fact that the issue definition hadnot been resolved at PrepCom I. More specifically, the Secretariat-sponsored expert group meetings on the three core issues --poverty, employment and social integration -- had not beencompleted. Delegates left PrepCom I unsure about the scope andmandate of the Social Summit.

Due to the lack of issue definition and the lack of clarity ofGovernment positions at PrepCom I, the Secretariat was not providedwith sufficient guidance in drafting the document. As a result, thefirst draft of the Programme of Action lacked a clear focus,concrete goals, timetables, specifics regarding financialresources, as well as modalities for popular participation in thesocial development process. A number of delegates commented thatthe first draft, in encompassing everything, at the end of the daycontained nothing. The nature of the draft, therefore,precluded any possibility for substantive negotiations at PrepComII. Delegates were thus forced to repeat the issue definitionphase, albeit with a guiding text. The 249 interventions during thefirst week precluded any possibility of developing a bracketedtext.

Nevertheless, some accomplishments were achieved at PrepCom II,especially with regard to the draft Declaration. The followinganalysis examines in greater detail some of the problems faced bythe PrepCom, the substantive gains of the two-week meeting, andchallenges for the future.

PROBLEM AREAS: The major problem of this session of thePrepCom was its lack of substantive progress due, in large part, tothe nature of the draft text. The process was further handicappedby the plodding paragraph-by-paragraph approach. The fact that manyGovernments insisted on this painstaking process, while othersappeared unprepared to address goals and commitments, led some toquestion some delegates' desire for real progress at this meeting.

Beyond the session's incremental approach and the weaknesses inthe actual text, delegates could not agree on the nature of theProgramme of Action. While many delegates called for morespecifics in fleshing out the five chapters, others argued againsta document that would micro-manage national and localpolicy-making. Although delegates pressed for a text that wasshort, concise and visionary, they proceeded to propose numerousamendments to be incorporated into the new document.

Draft Programme of Action: Some contended the Programme ofAction would have been far more effective if it had targeted two orthree crucial issues rather than vaguely addressing a broadspectrum of concerns in a non-committal fashion. Progress on anarrow range of topics such as debt, structural adjustmentprogrammes (SAPs) and trade practices, might have provided astronger foundation for future negotiations.

There was also concern about the discrepancy between the loftyrhetoric exhorted by many Governments and their own practice ofdevelopment assistance. Other delegations openly expressedopposition to some of the fundamental issues before the Summit. Forexample, Japan challenged references to debt cancellation, citingthe lack of evidence for its positive social impacts. Japan alsoobjected to quantitative goals and targets. China, Indonesia andcertain African countries objected to enshrining issues, such asgood governance and human rights, as substantive commitments in thetexts. They resented the "paternalistic implications" of imposingsuch "constraints" solely on the South. Singapore and several otherAsian countries also objected to any reference to ILO labourstandards.

Given the global dimensions of the problem, it was argued thatreferences to poverty in all countries must be stronglyarticulated. In fact, at one point, several Eastern Europeancountries threatened to abandon the process unless appropriatereferences were made to countries with economies in transition.Some also felt that the problems of poverty in the developed worldwere lost in the overall debate. NGOs were especially concernedthat neither the PrepCom discussions nor documentation addressedthe root causes of poverty.

Finally, the question of means of implementation generatedconsiderable controversy. While some countries, most notably Indiaand Pakistan, called for serious discussion on the means ofimplementation, others felt such debate was impossible at thisstage of the process in light of the lack of consensus onsubstantive matters. As Algeria noted, "We do not even know what wewould be implementing."

Draft Declaration: More progress was made in the developmentof a new draft Declaration than on the Programme of Action. Thiswas largely due to the fact that the Declaration was a product ofthe "Friends of the Chair" consultations following the initialdiscussion of Plenary. While this type of process often generatescriticism for its putative lack of transparency, it was clearlyeffective in generating an acceptable basis for furthernegotiations.

While the Chair's paper on elements to be included in theDeclaration was well-received, a number of criticisms wereexpressed. Several NGOs were concerned about the text's portrayalof people living in poverty largely as victims rather than aspotential active agents in identifying and implementing solutionsthat affect their livelihoods. Many women's groups felt that theDeclaration lacked an integral gender perspective within thecontext of human rights, despite several specific references togender issues. One UN official noted that it appeared as if genderwas tacked on as an afterthought, along with every other "specialgroup," especially since gender equity was omitted from theDeclaration's introduction.

While several praised the Declaration for its references to SAPs,many delegates and NGOs insisted that stronger language is neededon this particular issue. In fact, several noted that the actualreforms being carried out within the field of SAPs and the BrettonWoods institutions have not been adequately reflected in either theProgramme of Action or the Declaration. Many urged that the "SocialSummit rhetoric must catch up with the actual practice."

MAJOR GAINS: Notwithstanding the critiques described above,many Governments and NGOs felt that the Declaration represented animportant political breakthrough, one which would ensure that the"flat track" actually turns into a climb towards a real Summit.Indeed, some observers noted that the "Friends of theChair," who produced the first draft of the Declaration, seemedprepared to work in an honest spirit of collaboration to overcomethe major obstacles in their way. On substantive issues, there wasa tentative degree of openness on the part of delegates to considernew ways and means of redistributing resources between and withinnations. Two key options that generated interest were the 20:20Compact and the "Tobin" tax -- a tax on international transactions.The viability and feasibility of both of these proposals willrequire further consideration.

Delegates also appeared willing to consider the social impactsof issues such as the globalization of world markets, theliberalization of trade and SAPs. These issues have been avoided inother environment and development negotiating fora, such as therecently concluded desertification negotiations. By contrast,discussions on these issues in the Social Summit preparatoryprocess generated new ideas for tackling the resource stalemate.

Just as the International Conference on Population andDevelopment's preparatory process has provoked an important policyshift by moving the population issue out of the narrow demographicand into the larger development context, the WSSD process has ledto a fundamental broadening of the concept of human development.Traditionally referred to as comprising basic human needs such aseducation, primary health care, clean drinking water, sanitationand shelter, this process has forced a rethinking of the concept toinclude other important issues such as the empowerment of women,credit schemes for the poor, and the strengthening of civil societyto ensure full participation at all levels of decision-making.

NGO Influence: Another major gain at PrepCom II was theinstrumental role of the NGOs. NGOs brought about several important"sea-changes" in this process. While many of the issues before theSummit have been dealt with in other UN fora, the three core issueshave never been addressed before with such considerable emphasis onthe following matters: a broader definition of human development;the interrelationships between poverty, lack of productiveemployment and social disintegration; the root causes of poverty,such as the failure of markets and societal institutions andprocesses; and recognition that the means for implementation mustbe seriously "retooled." As one NGO expressed, "unless Chapters 1[enabling environment] and 5 [means of implementation] are infusedwith real political will, the `sandwich' in between cannot beeaten."

NGOs increased their effectiveness by working together in a numberof caucuses, including the Women's Caucus, the Development Caucus,the South Asia Caucus, the Human Rights Caucus, the Health Caucus,the Youth Caucus, the Rights of the Child Caucus and Canadian NGOs.These caucuses met daily, analyzed text, tabled concreterecommendations and served to increase NGO influence on the processby operating as organized coalitions. The Development Caucus, forexample, raised awareness around three specific issues: the socialimpacts of SAPs; the burden that debt repayment presents to theachievement of sustainable human development; and the need toredirect a greater proportion of development assistance to humandevelopment needs, as well as reallocating military expenditurestowards social development.

The Women's Caucus worked to ensure sufficient references to womenin both the draft Declaration and the Programme of Action.The commitment to gender equity in the Declarationreflects the breadth of concerns that the Women's Caucus hadarticulated throughout this process. This commitment refers to: theelimination of obstacles to gender equality; the establishment ofmeasurable goals to reduce gender differentials; the importance ofratifying the Convention on the Elimination of Discriminationagainst Women; policy changes to ensure the full participation ofwomen; and gender balance in decision-making.

The Women's Caucus helped identify important concepts such ashuman security, livelihoods and the expanded notion of work.The draft Declaration refers to human security as a guidingprinciple that guarantees basic human needs, personal dignity,safety, and peace within and among nations. The draft Programme ofAction emphasizes the importance of a broader concept of work --one that enhances the possibilities for a greater number of peopleto "participate meaningfully in all aspects of work life, includinginformal activities of sustainable livelihood." This expandednotion of work is especially critical since it calls for greaterrecognition of women's multiple roles, both paid and unpaid.

CHALLENGES FOR THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD AND PREPCOM III: Ifthere was any agreement among delegates, it concerned the need fora radically overhauled draft Programme of Action in time forPrepCom III. While Governments disagreed on many of its specificelements, they acknowledged the need for a more focused, balancedtext to serve as the basis for future negotiations. In the processof transforming the 250-page appended draft Programme of Actioninto a more manageable text, the challenge will be to protect itscore. Some delegates stressed that the intersessional informalconsultations must advance substantive discussions, since they wereabsent at PrepCom II. As well, there is a fear that PrepCom IIIwill result in a stalemate if Governments are unwilling to dealseriously with implementation issues.

The concepts of sustainable human development and human securitywill no doubt generate intense debate during the intersessionalperiod. Some delegations want to abandon the terms altogether,fearing the scope of issues that could ultimately be subsumedwithin them. Given the emphasis on peoples' participation withinthe concept of sustainable human development, resistance seems tobe coming from those Governments with less than fully democraticpolitical regimes. Some delegates, however, have noted that notonly is the concept of human security enshrined in otherinternational instruments, it reflects the evolution in thinkingand practice in the social development field.

Notwithstanding the need for intersessional work, NGOs areconcerned about the issues of openness, transparency and fullparticipation at the October meeting. NGOs fear that the mostcontentious issues -- right to migrate, debt reduction, structuraladjustment, official development assistance, social security,broadening the understanding of work to include informalactivities, and the role of the family -- will be relegated toclosed working groups where NGOs could be excluded.

As previous UN negotiations have demonstrated, the debate willbecome increasingly focused. NGOs will need to sharpen theirlobbying positions while broadening their base of support. Manyshould seek to participate in the formulation of country positionsand national reports.

GOALS FOR THE SOCIAL SUMMIT: As PrepCom II demonstrated, thereis a tremendous need for Governments to awaken to the need for realand imminent change in the social development field. Theinternational community must move from the traditional concept ofhuman development to a broader notion that encompasses issues suchas the empowerment of civil society, access to credit, improvementin the overall status of women and human security. The World Summitfor Social Development must provide the symbolic fillip needed toincite substantive change at the national and grassroots levels.Unlike other conferences with clear mandates such as climatechange, desertification or population, the Social Summit stillseems to be suffering from "agenda confusion." If the Summit is tobe successful in bringing about change, delegates, NGOs and othercitizens must send unequivocal messages to Copenhagen, not tomention Heads of State and Government.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

INTERSESSIONAL INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: The Chair andthe Bureau have been requested to organize intersessional informalconsultations during the week of 24 October 1994, with theparticipation of all States, in conjunction with the 49th sessionof the General Assembly. These consultations on the draft Programmeof Action will focus on an informal document, based on thediscussions and comments submitted during PrepCom II, to beprepared by the Secretariat by 30 September 1994. Consultations onthe draft Declaration will be based on a new progress report to besubmitted by the Chair after further consultations. The Octoberconsultations will last up to one week and will be organized sothat all delegations can participate and NGOs can observe.

PREPCOM III: The third and final session of the PreparatoryCommittee will meet from 16-27 January 1995 at UN Headquarters inNew York. Delegates will have to reach agreement on the Programmeof Action, the Declaration and the programme of work for the Summititself. The basis for negotiations is expected to be a reviseddraft Programme of Action and Declaration prepared by theSecretariat on the basis of the intersessional informalconsultations. This document should be available by 30 November1994.

NGO ACCREDITATION: The deadline for NGO accreditation toPrepCom III is 30 November 1994. The Secretariat has established atrust fund to support the participation of NGOs from the leastdeveloped countries. For more information, contact NGO Unit/DPCSD,United Nations - Room DC2-1372, New York, NY 10017, USA. Fax:+1-212-963-3892.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE NGO FORUM: The Danish NGO community hasestablished a secretariat to facilitate NGO participation and toorganize the parallel NGO Forum. The Forum is scheduled for thefirst two weeks of March and will take place at the Holmen NavalBase. The deadline for NGO registration is 1 December 1994. Forfurther information, contact NGO Forum '95, Njalsgade 13C, DK-2300,Copenhagen S, Denmark, Tel: +45-3296-1995; Fax: +45-3296-8919.

UNDP ON-LINE: The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) is sponsoring an electronic "List," called "Soc-summit," tostimulate and broaden global discussion of the Social Summitthemes. The List discusses: recommendations for policies and actionprogrammes; actions that could be taken by the UN; and ideas aboutthe role of international cooperation. The List also providesinformation about formal channels for influencing the Summitoutcomes and other Summit concerns.

If you have access to the Internet (Bitnet, Compuserve, Prodigy,Fidonet, Econet, etc.), you can subscribe to the Soc-summit List.Send e-mail to the LISTSERV host: <<<M>MAJORDOMO@CONFER. EDC.ORG>>or <<LISTSERV@CONFER.EDC.ORG>>. Do not enter a subject. In the bodyof the message, type the text: SUBSCRIBE SOC-SUMMIT. For furtherinformation, contact Janice Brodman <<janiceb@edc.org>>.

SOCIAL SUMMIT HOMEPAGE: The International Institute forSustainable Development (IISD), publishers of the EarthNegotiations Bulletin, has created a "point of presence" on theInternet for the WSSD, called the "Social Summit Homepage," whichis accessible through Mosaic or similar World Wide Web (WWW)software. The Social Summit Homepage contains a searchable index tothe issues of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, links to theofficial documents, full-text versions of Government, NGO and UNstatements from the PrepCom, background documents, photos ofparticipants and (soon) audio and video clips. If you have Mosaicinstalled on your computer, point your WWW browser at<<http://enb.iisd.org/wssd.html>>. If you have access tothe Internet and do not have Mosaic software, telnet to<<info.cern..ch>>, where you can download the software andconfigure your system.

Participants

National governments: UK; US
Negotiating blocs: African Union; European Union; Group of 77 and China; Least Developed Countries
Non-state coalitions: NGOs; Youth