Amb. Somav�a called for specific amendments to the Declaration, with the substantive details of each sub-paragraph to be worked out by the drafting group.
COMMITMENT 8 (utilization of resources): The EU proposed a new sub- paragraph (dd) on ensuring responsibility in budgetary matters. The G-77and China highlighted the need for new social indicators. In 8(e) (reduction in military expenditures), the Holy See referred to international agreements restricting arms that are excessively injurious and the need for transmission of information to the UN Arms Register. In 8(f) (new and additional financial resources), the EU, opposed by the G-77 and China, proposed weaker language on new and additional resources. Canada, supported by the US, proposed deletion of "new and additional." In 8(g) (flow of resources), the G-77 and China deleted the reference to "transition countries," since there was a separate paragraph on this. The Russian Federation pointed out that 8(g) was more encompassing than the paragraph on economies in transition. The EU also proposed language on the promotion of joint ventures in the social sector as an alternative for the deletion of 8(g). While there was general agreement on the EU proposal, the G-77 and China did not feel that it was an adequate substitute for 8(g). In 8(h) (0.7% of GNP as ODA), the G-77 and China, supported by Norway, proposed a target of the year 2000 and stronger language. Japan, supported by the EU, did not want a specific target. On the Japanese proposal to promote South-South cooperation, the G-77 and China added reference to international support for such cooperation. In 8(i) (debt-relief agreements), the EU, supported by the US, proposed language on favorable terms of debt forgiveness. The G-77 and China felt that "forgiveness" was paternalistic and preferred "cancellation" instead. The G-77 and China proposed reference to innovative measures to reduce bilateral debt and to develop durable solutions for servicing multilateral debt. Benin felt that the EU language was close to accepted UNGA-49 language and suggested a merger of the two. In 8(j) (Uruguay Round), the G-77 and China accepted Japan"s reference to "fully implementing the final Uruguay Round." This would ensure that all agreements reached at the Uruguay Round and their respective timeframes would be implemented. Benin pointed out that the results of the Round were not entirely satisfactory for African countries.
In 8(k) (trade liberalization), Canada, opposed by India, called for stronger language on monitoring of trade liberalization to improve working and living conditions. The original text was retained. In 8(l) (economies in transition), the G-77 and China added the qualifier "without prejudice to the needs of developing countries." Armenia and the Russian Federation did not agree. Armenia also suggested language on financial and technical assistance for economies in transition, which was not supported by the G-77 and China. In 8(m)(financing for the UN), there was agreement to strengthen the UN"s role in WSSD follow-up. Azerbaijan proposed a new 8(n) regarding the return and needs of refugees and displaced persons. The G-77 and China, and the EU, agreed with the concept, but reserved on its placement.
COMMITMENT 9 (strengthened framework): Reference to regional and subregional organizations was accepted in the chapeau. 9(a)(implementing the WSSD) was accepted, subject to minor changes. In 9(b)(regional commission meetings), Japan preferred triennial instead of biannual meetings. The US reserved on this sub-paragraph, pending discussion on Chapter V. In 9(c) (role of UN system in follow-up), references were made to the roles of: multilateral development banks (the EU); international organizations concerned with development and trade (Australia); and the ILO (Japan). In 9(d)(ECOSOC review of the WSSD), Japan suggested that the progress made by national governments and relevant UN functional commissions should also be evaluated. In 9(e) (second WSSD), the EU and Japan felt it was premature to plan a second WSSD until the first one was evaluated. The G-77 and China proposed a new commitment on education.
CHAPTER V: IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP
The Chair requested that delegates identify major problems and issues in Chapter V.
INTRODUCTION and A. NATIONAL STRATEGIES
The G-77 and China said that political will must be promoted at both the national and international levels. They called for international assistance, in addition to cooperation, and emphasized quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess social development. The EU, the US, Australia and Japan called for human rights language in the introduction. The US stressed the need for specific measures for follow-up and capacity-building.
B. INVOLVEMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY
The G-77 and China called for references to: poverty eradication; cooperation between governments and civil society; linkages between sustained economic growth and sustainable development; capacity-building; and evaluation of costs. The EU supported civil-society involvement. Australia called for voluntary codes of conduct for investment. The US noted the difficulties with such codes.
C. MOBILIZATION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The G-77 and China stressed the need for: substantial, new and additional funds; budgetary reorientation at national and international levels; reduction of arms and military expenditures; commitment to ODA targets; a special fund for social development; and debt reduction measures. They introduced a paragraph on the needs of SIDS. The EU called for: high priority to social development in the allocation of public funds; coordination between multilateral and bilateral funding policies; implementation of the recommendations of the Paris Club; and increased social responsibility within international financial institutions. Australia called for a study on innovative funding mechanisms. The Russian Federation highlighted the negative social consequences of military conversion. Norway called for the 20:20 concept to be studied. The US expressed concern about references to new and additional resources, but indicated its support for exploring new funding sources. Pakistan noted the non- viability of developing a mathematical formula such as the 20:20 initiative. Benin noted the full commitment of African countries to the 20:20 concept. Discussion continued until 9:00 pm.
[Return to start of article]