Daily report for 16 January 1995

PLENARY

Amb. Somava (Chile) opened the Plenary with three items for adoptionunder Agenda Item 1: adoption of the agenda (A/CONF.166/PC/24);organization of work (A/CONF.166/PC/L.24); and observer status for IGOs(A/CONF.166/PC/L.23). The Chair announced that the Plenary would betransformed into Working Group I to discuss the draft Declaration andChapter V. Amb. Koos Richelle (Netherlands) will chair WG II, which willdiscuss chapters I to IV of the Programme of Action.

The Plenary turned to Agenda Item 2, accreditation of NGOs,A/CONF.166/PC/11/Add.2 and A/CONF.166/PC/11/Add.3. China disputedinclusion of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples' Organization (UNPO).The Chair asked the Secretariat to examine further documentation onthis organization, noting that the list was provisional. On Agenda Item 3,the status of preparation for the WSSD (A/CONF.166/PC/25), Nitin Desaihighlighted two October 1994 seminars in Beijing and Slovenia. The Chairadded that more than 90 Heads of State or Prime Ministers haveconfirmed their participation at the Summit. Over 2000 NGOs have beenaccredited.

WORKING GROUP I

The Chair opened the first session of Working Group I, calling ondelegates to identify areas of convergence and divergence. ThePhilippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, made a proposal to divideL.22 into two distinct parts: the Declaration and the draft Programme ofAction.

PARAGRAPH 1: (highest priority to social development)Switzerland, Australia and the US suggested references to thesignificance of social development and human well-being for all, andstressed that they are the highest priorities.

PARAGRAPH 2: (urgent need to address social problems) The HolySee said the language overstates what the international community isprepared to do. Japan called for stronger links between the threethemes. Australia, the EU and the US supported the existinglanguage.

PARAGRAPH 3: (need for effective response) This paragraph wasapproved with no amendments.

PARAGRAPH 4: (preconditions for peace and security) The EUadded "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" after"social justice".

PARAGRAPH 5: (interdependence of social and economicdevelopment) The US proposed the following language: "broad-based andsustained economic development and equitable social development arecentral to economic security and social progress". Australia, supportedby Brazil, India and the US, proposed the deletion of the last twosentences.

PARAGRAPH 6: (importance of social development) The EUproposed that economic policies be appreciated in terms of socialprogress, and stressed that gender equity be at the center of economicand social development. The US requested brackets around the first EUproposal.

PARAGRAPH 7: (government commitment to social development)India and Algeria added reference to the rights of the poor, theexcluded and the unemployed, to food, work, shelter, health, education,and information. The US called for brackets around this proposal.Canada"s reference to "exercise rights, utilize resources and shareresponsibilities" was accepted.

PARAGRAPH 8: (new era of international cooperation) The USadded, after "cold war", "to promote social development and socialjustice".

PARAGRAPH 9: (conviction that progress can be achieved) The HolySee suggested that world leaders should acknowledge their action andinaction in contributing to the current situation. The US noted that itwould be too much to ask heads of government to indict themselves.

PARAGRAPH 10: (commitment) Saudi Arabia suggested adding theword "implementation" in reference to the Declaration, which remainsbracketed.

PARAGRAPH 11: (on progress and poverty) The G-77 and Chinasuggested replacing "misery" with "poverty". The US proposed addingthe words "throughout the world in both developed and developingcountries" before "unprecedented progress". The paragraph remainsbracketed.

PARAGRAPH 12: (globalization) The G-77 and China proposed sometextual amendments including inserting the word "cultural" before theword "values". The paragraph remains bracketed.

PARAGRAPH 13: (progress in some areas) The G-77 and Chinasuggested deleting the word "sevenfold" with regard to themultiplication of the wealth of nations in 13(a). In 13(b) (increase in lifeexpectancy), the US suggested reference to family planning practices.The Holy See added reference to basic health care. The G-77 and Chinarequested brackets around these proposals. The Russian Federationcalled for a more global reference to average infant mortality. Delegatesagreed to the G-77 proposal to replace sub-paragraph (c) with:"Democratic pluralism, democratic institutions and fundamental civilliberties have expanded. De-colonization efforts have seen muchprogress, while the elimination of apartheid has been an historicachievement". The US added a new sub-paragraph to refer to thedecrease in absolute poverty in percentage terms. India questioned thejustification of the US reference, since the absolute numbers are whatmust be brought down.

PARAGRAPH 14: (growing distress) Japan suggested reference tothe adverse impact of expected population growth. In 14(a)(income gaps), the EU emphasized the growth experienced by somedeveloping countries, while noting the marginalization of LDCs. Sloveniacalled for a reference to the widening gap between developed anddeveloping countries. The EU accepted the proposal although the G-77would only accept it on the condition that their language regardingunequal structures was accepted. In 14(b) (problems oftransition), Armenia, Poland, and the Russian Federation sought to retainthe specific reference to countries with economies in transition. The textremains bracketed. In 14(c) (poverty), the G-77 and Chinaamendment highlighting the position of women was accepted. In14(d) (global unemployment), Norway proposed a reference topeople with disabilities who are forced into poverty and unemployment,which was included in a separate sub-paragraph. The EU and USsuggested references to the relationship between women and poverty. In14(e) (on vulnerability), the EU proposed reference toenvironmental damage and India suggested reference to overconsumption.The US wanted a reference to the disabled and elderly. Mexico called forinclusion of minorities and indigenous peoples.

PARAGRAPH 15: (developing countries) The Chair recommendedthat 14(b) be specific to countries in transition and thatparagraph 15 include a broader reference to countries undergoing socio-economic changes.

PARAGRAPH 16: (social distress) The US added "violence,particularly against women and children" to the list of sources of socialdistress. The G-77 and China added: chronic hunger and malnutrition,illicit arms trafficking and xenophobia.

PARAGRAPH 17: (offenses to human dignity) India said thatpeople cannot be subordinate to markets.

PARAGRAPH 18: (people-centered framework) The G-77 and China,supported by Mexico, suggested replacing "framework" with "approach".The Chair recommended that the amendments be accepted ad referendum.

WORKING GROUP II

Working Group II, began negotiating on a paragraph-by-paragraphbasis. Due to the time constraints they reverted to proposingamendments. After lunch, the Chair commented on the unproductivenature of this process and appealed to the delegates to submit writtencomments by Tuesday. Benin proposed an ad hoc, 7-member workinggroup to review this Prep Com"s work on January 27, to ensure propertranslation for the Summit.

PARAGRAPH 1: (introduction) Switzerland suggested presentingthe purpose of social development. China countered that the draftDeclaration does this.

PARAGRAPH 2: (recommended actions) Iran, supported byMalaysia, questioned whether "favorable environment" refers to eithernational or international levels. The EU said that duties of all actorsshould be included. Switzerland suggested adding health to the list ofbasic needs. The US proposed incorporating environmental concerns intoeconomic and social policies.

PARAGRAPH 3: (relationship to other conferences) The US calledfor reference to the concept of food security and nutrition. Kuwait,supported by Egypt, suggested that implementation should be compatiblewith national laws.

PARAGRAPH 4: (social development linkages) The Holy Seeproposed reference to the spiritual aspect of social development. The EUcalled for reference to the ICPD.

PARAGRAPH 5: (interdependence and cooperation) The G-77 calledfor a reference to the severe food crisis.

PARAGRAPH 6: (market forces and national policies) Norway statedthat public policies are necessary to supplement market mechanisms andto protect social security. Canada added that public policies shouldcorrect environmentally destructive market failures.

PARAGRAPH 7: (social development) The EU called for apartnership between men and women including man"s full responsibilityin family life.

PARAGRAPH 8: (aspects of an enabling environment) The EU andSouth Africa emphasized access to productive resources. The G-77 andChina, supported by the Holy See, called for strengthening the role ofthe family. Canada noted the importance of a people-centered approachto development.

PARAGRAPH 9: (trade employment and incomes) The G-77 proposeda new sub- paragraph calling for an open, equitable, cooperative andmutually beneficial international economic environment. The US objected.Algeria said that the G-77 language was accepted in other fora, such asthe ICPD. Switzerland, opposed by Benin, suggested that paragraph9(a) (implementing policies) should also refer to sectoral policies.The EU proposed paragraph 9(a) bis, calling for favorable trade policiesto facilitate job creation, for human resource development, and fordemocratic institutions and good governance. Switzerland introduced aparagraph 9(b) bis, encouraging private investments. The G-77 andChina suggested that the text should focus on the poor anddisadvantaged. The US suggested that 9(d) (internationalmonetary coordination) be replaced with language on providing stabilityin financial markets. The G-77 added a new 9(g) on thesustainable development of small island developing States.

PARAGRAPH 10: (even distribution of global growth) The G-77 andChina said that global economic growth should be equitably distributed.The EU preferred the original wording. The EU, supported by the US,Japan and Norway, preferred a call for debt reduction rather thanelimination.

PARAGRAPH 10(b): (expanding and improving assistance) Canadacalled for reprioritizing development flows. The G-77 and Chinaproposed a 10(b) bis, noting the unsustainable consumptionpatterns of the wealthy in all nations, especially the industrializednations.

PARAGRAPH 11: (priority countries) The EU proposed anadditional subparagraph regarding national policies. The G-77 and Chinapreferred the original text. In 11(b) (external debt), the G-77and China called for development-oriented solutions that are equitable,effective, and comprehensive. The EU and Japan had difficulty withreferences to debt cancellation. The G-77 and China added 11(c) bis,drawing attention to the negative effects of the Uruguay Round. The EUobjected. In 11(d) (increased ODA), the EU favored a formulationincreasing the impact of ODA. Norway suggested allocating a largershare to social development goals.

PARAGRAPH 12(a): (open market opportunities) The G-77 andChina, backed by Ethiopia, said that measures to open marketopportunities should be implemented, especially for the poor. Norwaysuggested a new 12(b) bis on adopting and implementing policiesto ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of growth. In12(d) (access to technology) the Holy See stressed theimportance of knowledge and access to it. The US proposed that accessbe promoted on mutually acceptable terms. The G-77 and China proposeda paragraph 12(d) bis encouraging transnational corporations to considerthe social and cultural impacts of their activities. The EU suggested anew 12(f) bis to call for the safe interplay of small economies withlarger ones.