ENB:10:30 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

WORKING GROUP II

Amb. Richelle reported on the progress of the informal contact groups. Amb. Butler"s drafting group reached Paragraph 22 of the Declaration and removed 95% of brackets. Working Group II"s informal group removed 80-90% of the Chapter I brackets. The Holy See stressed the importance of transparency in this process. Richelle then cautioned that Chapter II"s structure could be jeopardized by the number of proposed amendments.

CHAPTER II, ACTIONS: A. THE FORMULATION OF INTEGRATED STRATEGIES

PARAGRAPH 23: (public efforts to [reduce/eradicate] poverty) New sub- paragraphs proposed by Canada (employment-intensive techniques) and Australia (defining poverty reduction objectives) were opposed by delegates felt that they belonged elsewhere in the text. PARAGRAPH 24: (integrate goals into planning) The G-77and China proposed integration of poverty eradication goals at both regional and national levels, but the EU objected. In 24(a) (analyze and adjust policies), the G-77 and China objected to the relevance of the Holy See"s reference to impacts on family stability, so it was bracketed. The US and Australia supported a Canadian proposal to analyze gender policy implications, but the G-77 and China proposed that it be placed elsewhere. In 24(b) (public investment policies), delegates accepted the Canadian proposal for policies compatible with long- term improvement of livelihood. In 24(c) (low-income and rural communities), the Canadian proposal regarding land reform was temporarily withdrawn. The Australian-proposed 24(c)(bis) (displaced populations) was also withdrawn in favor of later placement. In 24(d) (environmental protection), delegates accepted the G-77 and China"s reference to consensus agreements and conventions. In the US-proposed 24(d)(bis) (mitigate effects of natural disasters), the EU deleted the reference to vulnerable groups. The G-77 and China changed "incidence" to "impact" and added cyclones to the disaster examples. The G-77 and China objected to the Canadian alternative to 24(e) (mechanisms to coordinate efforts). The US withdrew its proposed 24(new f) (integrate concerns into strategies).

PARAGRAPH 25: Paragraph 25(b) (policies affecting people in poverty) was adopted ad referendum. In 25(b)(bis) (strengthening education at all levels), "basic education opportunities" was proposed by Switzerland. Lesotho said basic education usually implies basic skills for survival. The US pointed out that this paragraph could be moved to 25(d). The G-77 and China stated that empowerment of the poor means access to basic education. In 25(c) (participation in social policy-making), Canada, supported by the US and Australia, suggested "an emphasis on capacity building and community-based management and ensuring respect for the culture and rights of indigenous communities." The EU, supported by the G-77 and China, said this placed too much emphasis on sectors. Paragraph 25 (new d) (educating people about their rights) was placed between brackets. PARAGRAPH 26: (evaluate poverty programs) In 26(a) (developing poverty indicators), the EU, the US and the G-77 and China found "unemployment" to be preferable to "employment status." The Holy See proposed including "language groupings." The US, supported by Algeria, replaced "race" with "ethnicity." In 26(b) (monitoring achievements), the US proposed listing the sectors in which goals and targets are to be monitored, but the EU disagreed. In 26(c) (public awareness), delegates accepted the G-77 and China"s reference to NGOs. The G-77 and China proposed deleting the reference to focusing on progress or failure in meeting goals, but the US stressed the importance of information on progress.

PARAGRAPH 27: (fostering an enabling environment for poverty reduction) In 27(d) (societies disrupted by conflict), the Russian Federation, supported by Armenia, could not accept any formulation where countries with economies in transition were not given their own paragraph. Lithuania, the EU, the US, Romania, Ukraine, Australia, and Norway and the G-77 and China suggested a paragraph between (b) and (c): "Strengthening the capacities of countries with economies in transition to develop social protection systems and social policies for the reduction of poverty."

PART B: IMPROVED ACCESS TO PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PARAGRAPH 28: (productive opportunities for low-income communities) In Canada"s 28(a)(bis) (sustainable infrastructure investments), "community and regional" was changed to "local and community." The G-77 and China"s paragraphs 28(aa)(bis) (diversification in countries dependent on primary commodities) and 28(c)(bis) (commodity diversification) were bracketed pending combination by the G-77 and China. In 28(b) (promoting rural production), delegates accepted a US reference to promoting micro and small- enterprises. In 28(d) (strengthening organizations of small farmers), Peru"s reformulation of the Holy See"s amendment, supported by the US and the G-77 and China, reads: "including assistance in providing viable economic alternatives for groups, especially farmers, involved in the cultivation and processing of crops used for the illegal drug trade." In 28(new e) (rural development), Sudan added promotion of "comprehensive" rural development. PARAGRAPH 29: (opportunities for small farmers) In the chapeau, the US requested the addition of "sustainable" agriculture, and the EU requested that if "sustainable development" is not included in the chapeau, it should be included in each sub-paragraph. In 29(c) (protecting traditional rights to land), the US wanted to delete "traditional," while Benin pointed out that this position does not take into account the situation in Africa. The EU supported paragraph 29(new f) (promoting institutional investment).

[Return to start of article]