Working Group II, began negotiating on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Due to the time constraints they reverted to proposing amendments. After lunch, the Chair commented on the unproductive nature of this process and appealed to the delegates to submit written comments by Tuesday. Benin proposed an ad hoc, 7-member working group to review this Prep Com"s work on January 27, to ensure proper translation for the Summit.
PARAGRAPH 1: (introduction) Switzerland suggested presenting the purpose of social development. China countered that the draft Declaration does this.
PARAGRAPH 2: (recommended actions) Iran, supported by Malaysia, questioned whether "favorable environment" refers to either national or international levels. The EU said that duties of all actors should be included. Switzerland suggested adding health to the list of basic needs. The US proposed incorporating environmental concerns into economic and social policies.
PARAGRAPH 3: (relationship to other conferences) The US called for reference to the concept of food security and nutrition. Kuwait, supported by Egypt, suggested that implementation should be compatible with national laws.
PARAGRAPH 4: (social development linkages) The Holy See proposed reference to the spiritual aspect of social development. The EU called for reference to the ICPD.
PARAGRAPH 5: (interdependence and cooperation) The G-77 called for a reference to the severe food crisis.
PARAGRAPH 6: (market forces and national policies) Norway stated that public policies are necessary to supplement market mechanisms and to protect social security. Canada added that public policies should correct environmentally destructive market failures.
PARAGRAPH 7: (social development) The EU called for a partnership between men and women including man"s full responsibility in family life.
PARAGRAPH 8: (aspects of an enabling environment) The EU and South Africa emphasized access to productive resources. The G-77 and China, supported by the Holy See, called for strengthening the role of the family. Canada noted the importance of a people-centered approach to development.
PARAGRAPH 9: (trade employment and incomes) The G-77 proposed a new sub- paragraph calling for an open, equitable, cooperative and mutually beneficial international economic environment. The US objected. Algeria said that the G-77 language was accepted in other fora, such as the ICPD. Switzerland, opposed by Benin, suggested that paragraph 9(a) (implementing policies) should also refer to sectoral policies. The EU proposed paragraph 9(a) bis, calling for favorable trade policies to facilitate job creation, for human resource development, and for democratic institutions and good governance. Switzerland introduced a paragraph 9(b) bis, encouraging private investments. The G-77 and China suggested that the text should focus on the poor and disadvantaged. The US suggested that 9(d) (international monetary coordination) be replaced with language on providing stability in financial markets. The G-77 added a new 9(g) on the sustainable development of small island developing States.
PARAGRAPH 10: (even distribution of global growth) The G-77 and China said that global economic growth should be equitably distributed. The EU preferred the original wording. The EU, supported by the US, Japan and Norway, preferred a call for debt reduction rather than elimination.
PARAGRAPH 10(b): (expanding and improving assistance) Canada called for reprioritizing development flows. The G-77 and China proposed a 10(b) bis, noting the unsustainable consumption patterns of the wealthy in all nations, especially the industrialized nations.
PARAGRAPH 11: (priority countries) The EU proposed an additional subparagraph regarding national policies. The G-77 and China preferred the original text. In 11(b) (external debt), the G-77 and China called for development-oriented solutions that are equitable, effective, and comprehensive. The EU and Japan had difficulty with references to debt cancellation. The G-77 and China added 11(c) bis, drawing attention to the negative effects of the Uruguay Round. The EU objected. In 11(d) (increased ODA), the EU favored a formulation increasing the impact of ODA. Norway suggested allocating a larger share to social development goals.
PARAGRAPH 12(a): (open market opportunities) The G-77 and China, backed by Ethiopia, said that measures to open market opportunities should be implemented, especially for the poor. Norway suggested a new 12(b) bis on adopting and implementing policies to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of growth. In 12(d) (access to technology) the Holy See stressed the importance of knowledge and access to it. The US proposed that access be promoted on mutually acceptable terms. The G-77 and China proposed a paragraph 12(d) bis encouraging transnational corporations to consider the social and cultural impacts of their activities. The EU suggested a new 12(f) bis to call for the safe interplay of small economies with larger ones.
PARAGRAPH 13: (fiscal systems) The US and Japan expressed reservations on the entire paragraph. The EU stressed the need for more neutral terms rather than value-loaded terms. In 13(d) (accumulation of wealth), the G-77 and China suggested refere [Return to start of article]