Daily report for 7 June 1996

Delegates to Habitat II continued to hear general statements in Plenary. The WorkingGroups negotiating the Habitat Agenda met, as did the two Drafting Groups. The DraftingGroup on the "right to housing" completed its work. Committee II held hearings involvingrepresentatives of the Labour Unions Forum and the UN system.

WORKING GROUP I

IV. GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION

C. Sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world: Consultationson the "vulnerable groups" section (72-75) made progress on the text, and furtherconsultation is being taken up by the drafting group that considered the "right to housing."

Paragraph 88(d) (school curricula) was amended as "development of schoolcurricula and education programmes aimed at developing understanding and cooperationamong members of diverse cultures." The HOLY SEE, supported by GUATEMALA andAUSTRALIA, added "parents" to stakeholders. MOROCCO added "community-basedcenters" to education programmes, but GUATEMALA opposed.

In 89(a)bis (workers’ rights), the G-77/CHINA proposed deleting "basic"rights but the US objected. The US added "prohibition of forced and child labor, thefreedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and the principle ofnon-discrimination." In 89(d) (access to credit), the US added "flexibleguarantees and collateral requirements." The US introduced three new subparagraphsregarding community-based cooperative banking and corporate reinvestment, flexiblemanufacturing networks, and support for community-based enterprises.

In 90(b) (gender-sensitive planning), CANADA replaced bracketed languagewith: "representative structures while ensuring women’s equal access and full and equalparticipation." In 90(c)bis (women as primary family caregivers),GUATEMALA, supported by the HOLY SEE, suggested adding "mothers" as experts intheir homes and communities. The EU and NEW ZEALAND said the proposal isrestrictive. The G-77/CHINA proposed a replacement paragraph on promoting changes inattitudes, structures, policies, laws and practices to eliminate discrimination and promotefull participation. CANADA inserted: women "shoulder the majority of unremuneratedwork" and language on their role in decision-making.

In 90(e)bis (poverty among rural women), the G-77/CHINA preferred areference to absolute poverty. In 90(f) (gender disaggregated data), "gender" wasremoved from brackets. In 90(f)bis (awareness of issues facing homelessand refugee women), CANADA added references to migrants and other displaced womenin need of international protection and internally displaced women. The G-77/CHINAadded "women living in poverty." The subparagraph remains bracketed. In 90bis(youth), the G-77/CHINA removed all brackets. CANADA added a new90bis(c)bis regarding promotion of employment programmes andvocational skills for youth.

In 90(c)ter (sexual exploitation), the G-77/CHINA removed a reference to"inside and outside national borders" in a CANADA-proposed subparagraph on theelimination of sexual and economic exploitation of young women and children. In90(d) (encourage youth appreciation), the HOLY SEE suggested adding areference to historical, natural, religious and cultural heritage. INDIA added "spiritual."Delegates also agreed to new language on increasing environmental awareness and ethicalchoices.

CANADA inserted a new 90ter(a)bis regarding access to publicfacilities, housing and services for persons with disabilities. INDIA introduced a90ter(b)bis on eliminating communication barriers faced by people withdisabilities. In 90ter(d)bis (data), SYRIA suggested replacing"generate" with "prepare and disseminate disaggregated data." In 90ter(e)(input into housing), the US suggested a reformulation on recognizing the expertiseof people with disabilities and their role in decision making.

In 90ter(f) (awareness of disabled persons’ health-care issues), the G-77/CHINA deleted "physical and sexual abuse and substance abuse." CANADA added anew 90ter(f)bis: "Provide persons with disabilities affordable andquality health care." In 90ter(i) (planning process), the G-77/CHINAdeleted "are often involved in the informal sector." INDIA introduced a new90ter(j): "promote sports, recreational and cultural activities for personswith disabilities."

CANADA proposed a new 90quart regarding indigenous peoples’concerns and participation. The G-77/CHINA requested consultations. INDIA added"eliminate" to "prevent and reduce" violence and crime in 91(chapeau). The USadded reference to action by governments at all appropriate levels. The US amended91(a)bis (basic education) with "provide human rights education in aneffort to mitigate the effects of crime and violence and strengthen civil society." INDIAsuggested "provide awareness and education." The text was deferred.

ROMANIA replaced "assist" with "promote" crime prevention in 91(a)ter(factors undermining community safety). The US added "addressing poverty, inequality,the absence of educational and vocational opportunities and lack of health care services"to the key components of the social development approach. GUATEMALA addedreference to family instability. The SUDAN added "absence of religious education." Thebrackets were retained at the EU’s request. The Working Group continued negotiationsduring an evening meeting.

WORKING GROUP II

E. International cooperation and coordination: The Chair presented a compilationtext for 150(f) (structural adjustments). The G-77/CHINA proposed thatinvestment programmes take account of "human settlement," rather than "local urban"development priorities. LOCAL AUTHORITIES, supported by the US and the EU,suggested inserting "local human settlement" development priorities. Delegates agreed to"local, urban and rural" priorities.

The LOCAL AUTHORITIES proposed a new subparagraph to follow 150(k)calling for the strengthening of their decentralized development assistanceprogrammes.

In 150(l) (effectiveness of ODA), the G-77/CHINA deleted the reference to"existing" ODA, and added text noting that ODA is a small proportion of a country’sresources for human development but can play an important complementary and catalyticrole in promoting adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements. The USstated that text from the Agenda for Development should not be used.

In 150(m) (effectiveness of public and private resources), delegates called forincreased access to housing and services for "all people, particularly those" living inpoverty. In 150(n) (military expenditures), NORWAY, supported by the G-77/CHINA, proposed NGO language on land mines and reduced spending and trafficking.The US, supported by SWITZERLAND, suggested language on pursuing an internationalagreement to ban use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. The G-77/CHINA objected to an international agreement on land mines due to "lack of technicalknow-how." NORWAY requested time for consideration.

In 150(o) (utilizing national experts), the G-77/CHINA and the US proposedaccepting the existing text, which calls for preference for national or regional experts, aswell as for developing country experts. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposedincluding a reference to countries with economies in transition. The US said thelanguage, from the WSSD, refers to using local experts when available. The G-77/CHINAsaid the paragraph should not be further diluted. The RUSSIAN FEDERATIONrequested time for consultation.

In 150(q) (measures for reducing disaster vulnerability), the EU noted that themeasures should be for projects "including those" financed by the internationalcommunity. The US proposed calling for construction of buildings that are accessible topersons with disabilities. In 150(r) (economic policies to promote savings), theEU added "implement" to "develop" policies, but the G-77/CHINA objected. In150(s) (strengthen assistance for community-based development), the US calledfor "promoting responsible reinvestments in local communities." The G-77/CHINAproposed "socially responsible." In 150(w) (facilitating foreign private sectorinvestment), INDONESIA added a reference to private-public joint ventures andpartnerships. The G-77/CHINA deleted the example of "build, operate, transfer (BOT)."

In 150(x) (equitable pricing mechanisms), the EU said the paragraph should focuson implementation and proposed deleting a reference to assisting developing countries.The G-77/CHINA said the proposal shifts the purpose of the paragraph. Delegatesaccepted a US proposal that calls for implementing pricing mechanisms for adequateshelter infrastructure and services and assisting countries, in particular developingcountries, for that purpose. The G-77/CHINA accepted the change, but noted itsconcession.

In 150(aa) and (bb) (special financing needs and issues / vulnerablegroups), several delegations noted the overlap between these paragraphs and others in theHabitat Agenda. The US proposed awaiting Working Group I’s work on these issues.

The G-77/CHINA added a subparagraph that assigns high priority to the needs of Africancountries and least developed countries in implementing the objectives of Habitat II. TheUS proposed alternative WSSD text for 150(dd) (implementation in Small IslandDeveloping States). Subparagraph 150(ee) (provide assistance to land-lockedcountries) was agreed with a US amendment calling for "support" to neighbor transitdeveloping countries. Subparagraph 150(ff) (20/20 compact) was agreed and150(gg) (soft loans and grants) was deleted.

In 151 (transfer of technology), text regarding UNCHS and international propertyrights was left pending resolution of similar text. The Working Group continuednegotiations during an evening meeting.

IN THE DRAFTING GROUPS

The Drafting Group on the Istanbul Declaration received a composite draft that containeda number of alternative paragraphs from the drafts of the EU, the G-77/CHINA andTURKEY. Among the issues addressed in the alternative sections were: a right tohousing; rural settlements; production and consumption patterns; local government; andresources and institutional arrangements necessary for implementation. Chair Kazildeli(Turkey) was asked to prepare a new, shorter and more focused draft, to be discussedMonday.

The Drafting Group on the "right to housing" completed its work yesterday morning.Consensus was reached on all relevant paragraphs (2bis, 9,13, 24, 44 and 44bis) with the exception oflanguage regarding illegal forced evictions in 44bis(b). The "full andprogressive realization of the right to adequate housing" is reaffirmed. Text regarding theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and the responsibilities and obligations ofGovernments is also agreed.

IN THE CORRIDORS I

Reactions to the results of the "right to housing" Drafting Group ranged from satisfied tojubilant, particularly in light of past deadlocks. NGOs characterized the final language as a"major victory," while government representatives that had supported a housing rightwere pleased that the stronger position from PrepCom III, at least in part, prevailed here.Both groups expressed hope that the breakthrough on this issue will spur progress onrelated issues and the cooperative spirit of the negotiations will add much neededmomentum to the Conference. The Drafting Group, based on their resolution of this issue,has been already assigned other difficult provisions.

IN THE CORRIDORS II

Contingency plans are reported to allow the Working Groups to meet during the High-Level segment next week to allow completion of the negotiations. Delays have beenexacerbated by, among other factors, internal differences within major groups.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

WORKING GROUP I: The Working Group considering all of the Habitat Agenda exceptparts E (international cooperation) and F (follow-up) is expected to meet in ConferenceRoom 1 during the morning and afternoon.

WORKING GROUP II: The Working Group considering text regarding internationalcooperation and follow-up is expected to meet during the morning and afternoon inConference Room 3.