The Drafting Group convened during the morning session. The Chair, Amb. Richard Butler of Australia, said that the drafting group would consider two documents: (1) Draft decision L.8, which outlines the decisions taken on Agenda Item 4 (analysis of the core issues); and (2) an annex containing a report of the Secretariat's summary of the two-week session. Butler stressed that the Secretariat's summary document was intended to provide background information for discussion. The Chair proceeded to introduce L.8.
Paragraph 1 refers to the two outcomes that the second session is expected to consider. They are the draft declaration and the draft programme of action. Paragraph 2 requests the Secretary-General to prepare the drafts within the guidelines of the GA resolution 47/92 and the debates of ECOSOC in 1993. Paragraph 3 outlines the issues and concerns that should guide the work of the Secretary-General. Paragraph 4 outlines the elements of the draft declaration. Paragraph 5 outlines the elements of the draft programme of action. Paragraphs 6 and 7 deal with the source materials for further work.
Greece, on behalf of the EU, pointed out that Paragraph 7 of the draft decision L.8 calls on the Secretary-General to take into account the Secretariat's summary report (as contained in the draft decision, which gives it official status). Yet, some of the suggestions made by delegations had not been included in that report. Finland concurred with Greece and suggested that delegates be given time to review the annex (containing the Secretariat's summary) for further discussion at the second session. Greece also pointed out that the order of presentation of the core issues differed from that of the GA resolution, and proposed that the draft decision should contain a provision stating that the order of presentation does not preclude the priority of the issues.
Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that the most appropriate approach is to prepare a concise draft decision that is procedural in nature with an annex that has equal status with the decision document itself. He said that the annex should contain the common elements that could guide the Secretary-General in future work. He said that the G-77 could provide such a draft decision and annex and then outlined the possible contents of the draft decision. He also proposed a deadline of 1 June 1994 for the completion of the Secretariat document to be negotiated in the next session. There was some debate regarding the two types of proposed annexes. Egypt, China, Canada and Costa Rica supported Algeria's proposal for a new draft decision and annex, and Finland, Turkey, Austria and Sweden supported Greece's proposal. The Chair then clarified that Algeria's proposal was to replace the Secretariat's document A/CONF.166/PC/L.8 with a new draft decision document and annex. The Secretariat's annex that had been distributed could then be considered as a resource paper and made available to delegates. Algeria concurred and proposed that perhaps the Secretariat's annex could be made a non-paper containing the outcome of the first PrepCom but with a different status from the draft decision and annex that the G-77 was proposing. A provisional agreement was reached that the Secretariat's annex would be considered as resource material. Following some discussion on the proposed new draft decision and annex, the group agreed to adjourn until 3:00 pm to allow the G-77 to provide a written draft of their proposals for discussion.
At 3:00 pm the Drafting Group was re-convened to allow the G-77 and China to circulate their draft decision, which sets out suggested amendments to L.8. The G-77 draft decision is a shorter version of Document L.8. It contains all the elements of L.8 except paragraph 3, which refers to the elements that should guide the Secretary-General's work. The Drafting Group was adjourned to allow the G-77 time to complete the annex to their draft decision.
One hour later (before the Drafting Group actually re-convened), the EU and Canadian proposals were circulated to delegates. The Canadian proposal is entitled "An Alternative Approach that is more flexible and process oriented." The proposal suggests that the declaration include a description of the different roles the different partners would be expected to play and the principles and approaches that would characterize action at various levels. The declaration would commit partners to a five-step approach:
The European Union's proposal is entitled "Elements to be Included in Draft Declaration of the WSSD." It is divided into three parts and contains a preamble which recalls other international agreements, a section on principles and objectives, and a section on general issues relating to implementation.
By 7:15 pm, the Drafting Group reconvened to circulate the G-77's Annex to their draft decision document. The Annex sets out a proposed outline for both the Final Declaration and the Plan of Action. The outline for the Final Declaration is structured in three parts: Diagnosis of a World Social Situation and Reasons for Convening the Summit; Goals, Objectives and Targets -- Elements for a World Social Development Strategy; and Issues Relating to Implementation and the Follow-up. The second part of the annex sets out the outline for the Plan of Action. There are six elements: Enabling Environment; Eradication of Poverty; Expansion of Productive Employment; Social Integration; The UN System and the International Financial and Trade Institutions; and the Role of NGOs.
The Chair, Amb. Butler, announced that the G-77 document had generated generally favorable response and that it could possibly be used as the basis for a consensus text, although further review and discussions were clearly needed. The Chair also reminded delegates of the other documents before them, including the European Union's proposal setting out elements for the Draft Declaration and Canada's proposal setting out an alternative approach. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, explained that the draft decision was meant to provide the Secretariat with guidance for their work during the intersessional period. He also said that while the draft will be further refined, it was hoped that consensus could be reached at this stage to demonstrate to the public and to national capitals the extent of progress that has been made. Greece, on behalf of the EU, affirmed that the G-77 draft represented a step in the right direction. He requested that discussion on the document be deferred until Friday morning to allow delegations sufficient time for review. The Drafting Group agreed to defer discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
[Return to start of article]