ENB:10:27 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

WORKING GROUP I

Part I-B: PRINCIPLES AND GOALS

PARAGRAPH 19: (commitment and priorities) The G-77 and China proposed adding "economic" to the list. Slovenia proposed an additional sentence noting past mistakes in social development policies. Interested delegations were asked to prepare text. Kuwait"s proposed addition of "religious" was opposed by India, who emphasized a more people- centered approach. Pakistan proposed reference to freedom of cultural and religious values, considered to be a crucial aspect of social development. Japan"s addition of "justice" after "social progress" was accepted. The EU added "human rights" after "human dignity" and "full participation of all," which were accepted. PARAGRAPH 20: (framework for action) In 20 (a) (people centered), the EU preferred the original text. The text remains bracketed. Costa Rica wanted a reference to sustainable development, whereas Iran preferred the broader concept of development. The Chair noted that the sustainable dimension is covered in the next sub-paragraph. In 20 (b) (equity among generations), India proposed replacing "respecting intergenerational equity" with "ensuring intragenerational equity." As a compromise, the Chair suggested "ensuring equity among generations." The US proposed "achieving a sustainable balance between human population and the earth"s resources." Brazil, supported by Algeria and India, opposed this formulation because of its emphasis on demographic factors. The Chair noted that the integrated logic underlying the paragraph was being undermined by the excessive number of proposed amendments. He noted that text will be produced on population and on consumption. Norway insisted on references to sustainable development. In 20 (c) (national responsibility for social development), the G-77 and China replaced "national" with the broader term "collective," which was bracketed by the US. In 20 (d) (integrating economic and social policies), the EU added "cultural policies." In 20 (e) (sound economic policies), the US preferred "sustainable" instead of "sound" and bracketed "economic policies are a necessary foundation to social development" and proposed "growth is essential to social development." The G-77 objected to this proposal, noting the over-emphasis on growth. Sub-paragraph 20 (f) (promotion of democracy) was approved with minor changes. In 20 (g) (equitable income distribution), the G-77 and China added "just access" and "equitable" instead of "just" distribution. The US opposed "just distribution of income" and suggested "policies that increase income-earning opportunities for the poor." Pakistan and others opposed the proposal. The EU deleted "equity" before "equality." Norway called for the participation of disadvantaged groups. In 20 (h) (family as the basic unit), the EU added "rights, responsibilities and capacities of family members." The US bracketed reference to the entitlement of families to comprehensive protection. Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran called for deletion of "in its various forms." The EU and the US opposed their proposal, noting that this was consensus language from the Cairo text, which the Chair urged delegates to read. In 20 (i) (human rights), the G-77 added the rights of children and of self- determination for people under occupation. The latter was bracketed by the EU. Algeria objected to the EU proposal to delete "equity," noting that it was central to the goal of social cohesion. India"s reference to adolescents was bracketed. Delegates agreed to the US proposal regarding promotion of universal respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. In 20 (j) (meeting basic human needs), no agreement was reached regarding the G-77 proposal to delete "communities." The EU proposed a new paragraph after (h) on the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples. New Zealand expressed disappointment with the lack of references to indigenous peoples and supported the EU proposal. In 20 (k) (good governance) the G-77 and China replaced "good governance", with "transparency". The EU supported the inclusion of "transparency" in addition to "good governance." Discussion ensued on the elements of "good governance." Australia, supported by Pakistan, proposed a list of the elements, including openness, and accountability. Brackets remain on "good governance." The Holy See noted that there was a different right to participation in public and private institutions and suggested soft brackets for this. In 20 (l) (empowerment), the G-77 and China proposed "asserts the universality of social development and outlines a new strengthened approach for social development based on international cooperation and partnership with new impetus," which was accepted. India added a reference to empowering women. The EU added references to the betterment of the disabled and the linkage between social development goals and new information technologies. Mauritius added a reference to the elderly. The Chair pointed out that the group needed to acknowledge the new information technology era. India proposed adding to the EU proposal "and render transfer of new technologies easy." The EU preferred the broader term "use" rather than "transfer" of information technologies. The Chair proposed "access and use" as a compromise. The US proposed a reference to improve the participation of women in all spheres of life and India suggested that women"s participation should be as complete equals. PARAGRAPH 21: (responsibility for goals) The G-77 and China suggested substituting "Governments" with "States" and a reference to multilateral institutions. The EU proposed adding "all regional and local authorities." The US, supported by Japan, suggested deleting "Governments," inserting "at the national level" after the word "goals." The US also added references to the work of NGOs and to increasing the income levels of the poor. Algeria could not support the US proposal. India said that the reference to multilateral financial institutions was important. The US proposal to "encourage sustainable growth to raise the incomes of the poor" was also bracketed.

PART C " COMMITMENTS:

PARAGRAPH 22: (global drive for social development) The G-77 and China replaced "vision" with "pursuit of social development." The EU replaced "vision" with "concept," and added "solidarity" after "social justice." Delegates also agreed to add "territorial integrity" after "national sovereignty." After "diversity" in the fourth line, the US added "and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights." This stimulated a protracted debate regarding the use of human rights language from either the Vienna or Cairo texts. The EU and the G-77 and China preferred the Vienna formulation. The EU proposed "based on the promotion and protection of all human rights."

Commitment 1: (enabling environment) The G-77 and China included "social" in the enumeration and Costa Rica recommended adding "cultural." Both words were added. The EU suggested deleting "at all levels" and included a reference to sustainable development. The Chair pointed out that this paragraph refers to the environment conducive to social development. In 1 (a) (legal framework), the EU proposed strengthening the reference to fundamental human rights in both principles and commitments. The Iranian proposal to create an enabling economic environment to promote access by all to income resources and social services remains bracketed. The G-77 and China proposed adding "in accordance with our national laws and procedures" after "legal framework," and "all" before "human rights," and deleting "fundamental freedoms." Costa Rica was opposed to the deletion of "fundamental freedoms." The US suggested inserting "good governance" after "de facto discrimination." The EU added "promotion of partnerships" with civil society organizations. The EU proposal was incorporated but notice was taken of possible repetition. Brackets remain on the references to national laws, good governance, and the Japanese proposal to include "the elimination of major sources of social distress."

The Chair noted that some progress had been made on a consensus text. He had asked Vice-chair, Amb. Richard Butler (Australia), to undertake consultations on the outstanding issues. The Chair emphasized that this work would be transmitted to the Working Group.

[Return to start of article]