The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 24th Special Session of the General Assembly, "World Summit for Social Development and beyond: Achieving social development for all in a globalizing world," conducted its second substantive session in New York from 3-14 April 2000. The PrepCom’s main task was to negotiate proposals for a draft political declaration and for a set of further actions and initiatives to implement the commitments made at the 1995 Social Summit in Copenhagen. Along with an overall review and appraisal document, agreed by the 38th session of the Commission on Social Development, the declaration and further actions and initiatives comprise a proposed outcome document (A/AC.253/L.5/Rev.2) to be presented for adoption by the Special Session in June in Geneva.

During the two-week PrepCom, three working groups were established to negotiate the draft political declaration and the document on further actions and initiatives under each of the 10 commitments of the Copenhagen Declaration. Delegates also discussed the draft provisional agenda and organizational matters and the list of speakers for the Special Session. Working Group I finished an initial reading of the further actions and initiatives for Commitments 1, 7, 8 and 9. Working Group II completed first and second readings of much of Commitments 2-6 and 10. Working Group III nearly succeeded in finishing negotiations on the draft political declaration, but talks broke down at the end over paragraphs on poverty, workers’ rights, governance, debt and international cooperation. About half of the text was agreed, although the most difficult issues, including trade access and monitoring the international financial system, remain to be dealt with during intersessional meetings before the Special Session.

In December 1992, the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted Resolution 47/92, which called for the convening of a world summit for social development and set in motion the process of organizing a meeting of Heads of State to tackle the critical problems of poverty, unemployment and social integration. A Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) was established, under the chairmanship of Amb. Juan Somavía (Chile), to negotiate the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and a Programme of Action (POA). The PrepCom met three times in February and October 1994, and January 1995.

The World Summit for Social Development convened in Copenhagen from 6-12 March 1995, bringing together over 118 world leaders. Despite difficult debates, Summit delegates managed to reach consensus on the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. The Copenhagen Declaration assessed the current social situation and reasons for convening the WSSD, listed principles and goals, and spelled out 10 commitments: to enhance the enabling environment for social development and to promote further initiatives for poverty eradication, full employment initiatives, social integration, equality and equity between women and men, universal and equitable access to quality education and health services, accelerated development in Africa and the LDCs, inclusion of social development goals in structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), increased resources for social development and international cooperation for social development.

The POA contained five chapters and outlined actions to be achieved in each area: an enabling environment for social development; eradication of poverty; the expansion of productive employment and the reduction of unemployment; social integration; and implementation and follow-up. It also called on the GA to hold a special session in the year 2000 for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the WSSD, and to consider further actions.

In 1997, the GA established a PrepCom to prepare for the five-year review and appraisal of the implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. The PrepCom, chaired by Christian Maquieira (Chile), held its organizational session in May 1998 and its first substantive session in May 1999. It initiated discussions on preliminary assessment of the implementation of the 10 commitments and on further initiatives, and adopted a decision on the role of the UN system, inviting all relevant organs and specialized agencies of the UN system and other concerned organizations to submit review reports and proposals for further action and initiatives. The PrepCom also decided on further procedures and preparations for the Special Session, including the convening of open-ended, intersessional informal consultations from 30 August - 3 September 1999 and 21-25 February 2000. The PrepCom set modalities for accreditation of NGOs at the Special Session, and recommended several items for adoption by the GA at its 55th session, including the title of the Special Session, "World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) and beyond: Achieving social development for all in a globalizing world."

At its May 1998 session, the PrepCom invited the 38th session of the Commission on Social Development (CSD-38), chaired by Zola Skweyiya (South Africa), to consider the "Overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development: Draft agreed conclusions" (E/CN.5/2000/ L.8). The overall review of the outcome of the WSSD was intended to be the Commission’s contribution to WSSD+5. It contains seven parts: an introduction on developments, challenges and priorities since the WSSD; poverty eradication; full employment; social integration; Africa and the LDCs; mobilization of resources for social development; and capacity building to implement social policies and programmes. The document states that the goals of development are to improve living conditions and empower people to participate fully in economic, political and social arenas. It concludes that while efforts have been made, progress has been uneven and further attention is required.

CSD-38 was unable to conclude its negotiations during its 8-17 February 2000 session, and extra sessions were held during 21-25 February and on 6, 9 and 17 March 2000. A primary sticking point was a reference to economic sanctions and unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter. The final text sets a precedent by concluding that sanctions and unilateral measures can impede social development. There was also disagreement over three paragraphs related to resource mobilization, with final text acknowledging that official development assistance (ODA) has continued to decline and only four countries now meet the WSSD’s agreed target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA. The review also notes that ODA has been found more effective when countries are committed to growth-oriented strategies combined with poverty eradication goals and strategies.

Much of the extra work of CSD-38 took place during a week originally scheduled for the PrepCom to meet intersessionally and to consider an integrated Chair’s working draft text of the further actions and initiatives document. During 21-25 February 2000, the PrepCom only met for one and a half days. It spent much of this time debating the length and style of the negotiation document. Structured around the 10 commitments contained within the Copenhagen Declaration, it is based in part on a set of 26 reports submitted to the Secretariat by organs and specialized agencies of the UN system and other concerned organizations and integrated in the "Compilation of the summaries and proposals for further action provided by the United Nations System" (A/AC.253/CRP.2).

PrepCom Chair Chrisian Maquieira opened the meeting on 3 April 2000 by introducing the provisional agenda (A/AC.253/12), which was then adopted. He outlined the PrepCom’s division of work on Parts I and III of the outcome document (A/AC.253/L.5/Rev.2), and noted: Working Group I would be chaired by himself and would discuss Commitments 1, 7-9 in Part III; Working Group II would be chaired by Amb. Koos Richelle (Netherlands) and discuss Commitments 2-6 and 10 in Part III; and Working Group III would be chaired by Amb. Bagher Asadi (Iran) and would discuss the draft political declaration. Chair Maquieira noted that three facilitators would assist the meeting: Ion Gorita (Romania), Aurelio Fernández (Spain) and Sonia Felicity Elliott (Guyana).

Zola Skweyiya, Chair of CSD-38, presented the overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the WSSD, Part II of the outcome document. In reviewing critical concerns and challenges to social development, he stated that negotiations should be informed by the need to build a people-centered, sustainable development process that would, inter alia, prevent fragmentation and address discrimination. He underscored the importance of gender mainstreaming and the plight of the LDCs, and called for concrete action from the world community.

John Langmore, Director for Social Policy and Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, briefed delegates regarding activities leading up to the Special Session. He introduced the draft political declaration and a compilation of reports prepared by agencies of the UN system upon the PrepCom’s request. He noted that the critical, authoritative and comprehensive thinking about socio-economic subjects in the reports are a basis for a well-informed debate, and added his hope that the June session could be remembered as a "special session on social justice."

Chair Maquieira urged delegates to remember that the UN is the voice of everybody, not just the powerful. He called on them to uphold a spirit of consensus-building, to act not only as country representatives but as people who in the future will be proud of their contributions towards ending poverty, unemployment and social inequities.

On Tuesday, 4 April 2000, delegates adopted two documents: Participation of non-governmental organizations (A/AC.253/26), which addresses accreditation of NGOs to the PrepCom, and Organizational arrangements for the 24th Special Session of the GA (A/ AC.253/L.15). In reference to preparation of documents for the Special Session, Syria stressed having relevant documents translated into the six UN languages. Chair Maquieira noted that on Wednesday, 17 May, at 3:00 pm there would a drawing of lots for the list of speakers at the Special Session.

On Friday, 7 April 2000, the Plenary met to review the status of the negotiations and to hear statements from NGOs. On Wednesday, 12 April 2000, the Plenary heard a report from Switzerland on the preparations for WSSD +5 and for a parallel forum for civil society, parliaments and the private sector. Then the Plenary heard additional statements from NGOs.

The draft political declaration was negotiated by Working Group III, which met only during the first week of the PrepCom under the chairmanship of Amb. Asadi. On Friday afternoon, 7 April 2000, delegates attempted to remove all brackets from the draft political declaration by reconciling their key concerns. These included: workers’ rights in paragraph 5 bis; a reference to the debt problems of middle-income countries in paragraph 6 bis; and a reference to reform of international financial institutions in paragraph 9. Several attempts at formulating a package deal on these paragraphs failed, and the text remains bracketed. The following is a summary of the declaration as it stands at the end of the PrepCom.

Paragraph 1, which was agreed, notes five years have passed since the Social Summit marked the first intergovernmental gathering to recognize the significance of social development and human well-being and to give these goals the highest priority. It further notes the Copenhagen Declaration and POA established a new consensus to place people at the center of social development and pledged to eradicate poverty, promote full and productive employment, and foster social integration to achieve stable, safe and just societies.

Delegates agreed on paragraph 2, which reaffirms the will and commitment of government representatives meeting at the Special Session to implement the Copenhagen Declaration and POA, including the strategies and agreed targets contained within them. It also notes that the Declaration and POA will remain the basic framework for social development.

Paragraph 3, which was agreed, notes increased recognition since the Social Summit of the need for an enabling environment and growing awareness of the positive impact of effective social polices on economic and social development. Noting broad and continued efforts to improve human well-being and eradicate poverty, it adds that further actions are needed and observes there is no single universal path to social development and that all have experiences, knowledge and information worth sharing.

Paragraph 4 notes globalization and technology offer unprecedented economic and social development opportunities, but present serious challenges within and among societies. It recognizes that for developing and some economies in transition (EIT) countries, considerable obstacles remain to further integration and full participation in the global economy, that marginalization will continue unless development benefits are distributed and that immediate action is necessary to overcome obstacles and realize opportunities. The text was agreed.

G-77/China and EU alternatives for paragraph 5 remain in brackets. The G-77/China proposal reiterates a determination and duty to eradicate poverty by: mobilizing new and additional resources at the international level; promoting full and productive employment with full respect for the basic rights of workers, including migrant workers; and fostering social integration, with full respect for non-discrimination, tolerance and diversity. The EU variation reiterates a determination and duty to eradicate poverty, promote full and productive employment, foster social integration, and create an enabling environment for social development. On elements essential for social and people-centered sustainable development, the G-77/China proposal identifies maintenance of peace and security, democracy, transparent and accountable governance, promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and gender equality. The EU proposal identifies peace and security, the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and accountability in the management of public affairs, participation of all citizens in decisions that affect their lives, promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and gender equality. It reaffirms attachment to the principles of good governance and rule of law. Both proposals emphasized more equitable distribution of wealth.

The EU added a paragraph 5 bis, which is also in brackets. It reaffirms the will to ratify and implement the major international conventions mentioned in the Copenhagen Declaration, including the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the fundamental conventions specified in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, and the ILO Convention on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. It also notes that participatory mechanisms, including tripartite forms of social dialogue among governments, workers and employers organizations, can contribute to social development.

Paragraph 6, which was agreed, calls for full and effective implementation of the Declaration and POA at all levels and reaffirms that, though national responsibility, social development requires collective international commitment and effort. It invites governments, the UN and relevant international organizations to strengthen and coordinate their support for sustainable development, particularly in Africa and the LDCs, and in some EIT countries. Recognizing integrated, coherent, and gender-sensitive social, economic and environmental policies are required to bridge goals and achievements, it calls for renewed political will and additional resources, and stresses striving to reach the agreed overall ODA target of 0.7% of GNP of developed countries.

A reformulated G-77/China-proposed paragraph 6 bis, on debt-servicing and relief, is bracketed. Delegates agreed to recognize that: excessive debt-servicing has severely constrained the capacity of many developing countries and EIT countries to promote social development; and efforts have been made by indebted developing countries to fulfill their debt-servicing commitment despite high social costs. Delegates could not agree whether concerted "national and international actions" or "actions by the international community" are needed for an effective solution to debt burdens. The EU, with the US, bracketed reformulated text on addressing the debt problems of middle-income developing countries with a view to resolving their potential long-term debt-sustainability problem. There was also disagreement over the level of financing for the implementation of the HIPC initiative. The US and Japan opposed full financing. The proposals remain bracketed.

Paragraph 7, which was agreed, states the fight against poverty requires active participation of civil society and those in poverty. It stresses that achieving Copenhagen objectives requires universal access to high quality education, health and other basic social services and equal opportunities for active participation and sharing development benefits. Recognizing governments’ primary responsibility in this regard, it also stresses strengthening partnerships among the public sector, the private sector and other relevant actors of civil society.

Delegates agreed on a G-77/China-proposed paragraph 7 bis, on reaffirming the pledge to focus on and give priority to the fight against worldwide conditions that severely threaten the health, safety, peace, security and well-being of people. The paragraph highlights chronic hunger, malnutrition, illicit drug problems, organized crime, corruption, foreign occupation, armed conflicts, illicit arms trafficking, trafficking in persons, terrorism, intolerance and incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds, xenophobia, and endemic, communicable and chronic diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Agreed paragraph 8 reiterates resolve to reinforce solidarity with people in poverty and strengthen policies and programmes to create inclusive, cohesive societies for all, particularly the vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalized, and recognizes that their special needs require specific targeted measures to empower them to live more productive and fulfilling lives.

Delegations reformulated and agreed on a G-77/China-proposed paragraph 8 bis, recognizing that although Africa and the LDCs have striven to implement Copenhagen commitments, widespread poverty remains. Recognizing their internal and external constraints, it reiterates the will to support their efforts by allocating resources, including by fulfilling internationally agreed commitments, and by strengthening initiatives.

Paragraph 9 remains bracketed. Delegates agreed that enhanced international cooperation is essential to implement the Copenhagen Declaration, POA and the Special Session’s further actions and initiatives, and to address globalization challenges. They could not agree on EU language that such cooperation be among governments and other actors, including NGOs. The EU, the US and Japan opposed G-77/ China text stating reform of international financial institutions (IFIs) will foster implementation and ensure benefits of economic growth and global integration are shared equitably and that poverty is eradicated. Japan proposed, and the EU supported, recognizing the need for a strengthened and more stable international financial system responsive to development challenges. Also bracketed are alternatives from Norway and Mexico recognizing the need to continue work on a wide range of reforms to the international financial system.

Paragraph 10 was agreed. It notes determination to give momentum to collective efforts to improve the human condition and introduces further initiatives for the full implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. Highlighting responsibilities towards future generations, it also signals strong commitment to social development and invites all people and the international community to renew dedication to a shared vision for a more just and equitable world.

Part III of the outcome document (A/AC.253/L.5/Rev.2) on further actions and initiatives was negotiated by Working Groups I and II. Working Group I, chaired by PrepCom Chair Maquieira, discussed Commitments 1, 7, 8 and 9. Working Group II, chaired by Amb. Richelle, discussed Commitments 2-6 and 10.

Delegates agreed that the chapeau language for each commitment would follow the text of the Copenhagen Declaration. The following is a summary of Part III. Paragraph numbers follow the order and designation of the 14 April 2000 version of document A/AC.253/L.5/Rev.2.

COMMITMENT 1: ENABLING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: In paragraph 1 bis, on placing people at the center of development, the G-77/China amended a reference to full respect for human rights, by including the right to development. Turkey and the EU opposed the G-77/China’s proposal for text on respect for various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds. The reference remains bracketed, with agreement on remaining language on people’s right to peace and security and their ability to participate fully in political, economic and social life.

In paragraph 2, on renewed commitments to effective, democratic local and national governance, the G-77/China preferred reference to democracy and effective national and local institutions, and objected to an EU proposal for democratic, effective, transparent and accountable national and local institutions to take an active part in decision making about priorities, policies and strategies. The text remains bracketed.

In paragraph 3, on reaffirming the role of government in advancing social protection, delegates agreed to language on social and people-centered sustainable development consistent with the POA. The G-77/China opposed EU and US proposals to insert references to gender equality and to delete text on equality and equity and equitable access to public goods. The EU preferred reference to equal rather than equitable access. Proposals remain bracketed.

In paragraph 4, on reinforcing peace, security, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the EU, opposed by the US, proposed moving language on settling disputes by peaceful means to the draft political declaration. The G-77/China suggested deleting the paragraph, and it remains in brackets.

In paragraph 5, on implementing human rights, the G-77/China preferred use of Copenhagen language. With the Holy See, he proposed text on strengthening national institutions and encouraging the universal ratification and implementation of relevant instruments, including the Declaration on the Right to Development. The EU, with Japan and the US, objected and proposed language on promoting implementation and ratification of all human rights instruments and strengthening of institutions. Delegates tentatively agreed to use the Declaration’s language, and the paragraph remains bracketed.

The US, supported by Canada and the G-77/China, objected to Norway’s proposal for 5 bis, on the role of the international community in alleviating debt burdens and strengthening efforts to realize economic, social and cultural rights. She said such text went beyond the HIPC initiative, and delegates agreed to bracket the new paragraph.

In paragraph 6, on coherence between social and economic policies, the G-77/China and Turkey disagreed with a US proposal to omit references to trade and investment. Delegates debated whether the text should integrate elements, and refer to people-centered, sustained economic growth, sustainable development and environmental protection. The discussion continued over sub-paragraph 6(a), on promoting integrated and simultaneous consideration of economic, social and environmental objectives in the process of policy formulation, and 6(b), on ensuring that multilateral system assistance fosters an integrated approach to environmental and social policies. The G-77/China emphasized that social and economic issues were pertinent to the enabling environment, whereas the US expressed concern that the negotiations were moving away from the POA’s integrated approach. The Chair bracketed paragraphs 6, 6(a) and 6(b) and the EU proposed moving the latter two to the draft political declaration. Delegates agreed to language in 6(c), on instituting ex ante assessment and continuous monitoring of the social impact of macro-economic and economic reform policies at international and national levels. The EU proposed moving it to Commitment 8. Delegates debated 6(d), on definitions of productivity and efficiency and government development of national measures of the effectiveness of employment of labor. New Zealand, supported by the EU and Canada, proposed adding a reference linking recognition of the social and economic costs of poverty and unemployment to developing comprehensive guidelines. This proposal remains bracketed.

In paragraph 7, on ECOSOC and the establishment of an expert working group to develop guidelines on principles and good practices in social policy and for Social Summit implementation, the US preferred references to social integration in addition to poverty eradication and full employment. The G-77/China proposed further references to equity and social inclusion. Proposals for elements of the guidelines to be developed by ECOSOC remain bracketed.

Delegates agreed on paragraph 8, on strengthening the capacities of developing and EIT countries to address obstacles hindering their participation in an increasingly globalized economy. Agreement was reached on 8(a), on stimulating and strengthening industrialization in developing countries. In 8(b), on facilitating capacities through technology transfer, the US and Canada preferred reference to appropriate technology transfer and supported an EU amendment to ensure the soundness and transparency of developing country economies. The G-77/China opposed reference to transparency and domestic economic environments, suggesting text on financial and other resources, including appropriate technology transfer. The US, the EU and Canada opposed the latter formulation, insisting on reference to development assistance. Proposals were bracketed.

In 8(c), delegates debated language on access to international markets and trade barriers. The EU recommended deleting the text but accepted a US proposal on increasing market access for developing countries and negotiating the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers. Chair Maquieira proposed merging text on other protectionist measures (G-77/China); negotiated elimination or reduction of barriers (Norway); and barriers unjustifiably hindering trade of developing countries and EITs (Japan). The EU opposed the reference to unjustifiably hindering trade, and the paragraph remains bracketed.

Delegates amended 8(d), on accelerating the WTO accession process for developing countries and EITs, by inserting Japan’s text on existing multilateral trading rules. In 8(e), delegates agreed to a merged formulation on providing both capacity building and technical assistance for enhancing the ability of developing and EIT countries to trade and participate effectively in international economic and trade fora, including the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

Paragraph 9, on refraining from unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and that create obstacles to trade relations among States and impede the realization of social and economic development, was referred for facilitation to Luis Carranza. In 9(a), on improving measures to address the excessive volatility of short-term capital flows, the G-77/China proposed reference to transparency in international capital flows in IFIs and international bank operations. Japan, the EU and the US opposed, and the G-77/China supported, Canada’s language on advocating a temporary debt standstill and providing countries with latitude to negotiate with creditors in an orderly fashion. Proposals remain bracketed.

In paragraph 10, on reducing negative economic and social impacts of international financial turbulence on social development, no consensus was reached. Delegates heard a number of proposals for 10(b), on monitoring financial speculation. The G-77/China with the Republic of Korea amended a US proposal to insert language on developing and enforcing regulatory frameworks for monitoring financial operations. The EU called for improving transparency of financial flows and, with the US, opposed a Holy See suggestion to refer only to reducing negative impacts. Mexico proposed reference to IFIs. The text remains bracketed.

Delegates reached no consensus on EU-proposed 10(b) bis, on regional level intergovernmental coordination mechanisms between social, economic and financial policies to promote areas of economic stability. In 10(b) ter, delegates reached no consensus on a proposal from the Holy See, with Japan, to enhance national and international capacities to improve transparency of financial flows. Delegates agreed with minor amendments to 10(c), on providing technical assistance to strengthen developing and EIT countries’ domestic capital markets and related national regulation. Due to redundancy, delegates agreed to delete an EU-proposed 10(c) bis, on protective measures for basic social services. In 10(d), on strengthening economic policy institutions, no consensus was reached on G-77/China text on capital and finance. Text in 10(e), on encouraging IFIs and other mechanisms to be vigilant and assist developing and EIT countries in forestalling and mitigating financial crises, was agreed upon.

Delegates debated the PrepCom’s authority to include paragraph 11, on recommending that the 2001 High-Level International Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development consider mobilizing national and international resources for social development and implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. Japan and the US declared the paragraph unnecessary, while Chair Maquieira explained that the Special Session would make the recommendations. Delegates agreed to the paragraph.

In paragraph 12, there was no consensus on IFI assistance to countries to forestall and mitigate financial crises.

Delegates debated alternatives for paragraph 13, on ensuring social development in relation to governance. The US proposed agreed principles of good governance, transparency and accountability to IFIs. The EU preferred emphasizing transparency and accountability of developing country participation in international economic fora. Japan, the EU and the US opposed G-77/China language on ensuring developing country participation and the transparency and accountability of IFI decision-making through their democratization. Delegates agreed to bracket the Chair’s merged text on: ensuring participation of developing and EIT countries in international economic fora; applying the principles of good governance; and transparency and accountability to IFIs.

In paragraph 14, on measures to generate resources for social development, the G-77/China proposed language on enhancing development cooperation to augment the production potential of developing countries and the capacity of their private sectors to compete in the global marketplace. With Mali, the G-77/China opposed an EU and US proposal on targeting rather than enhancing development cooperation. Delegates agreed to the G-77/China formulation.

In paragraph 15, the EU supported a US proposal on recognizing that debt solutions can contribute to strengthening the global economy and to developing country efforts to achieve economic growth and sustainable development. The EU called for deletion of references to economic growth and the global economy. Norway proposed language on mobilizing finance for HIPC debt relief to benefit poverty alleviation. The EU, with Canada and the US, supported the idea that debt relief be linked to sound policies and demonstrated commitment to reform and poverty alleviation. Proposals remain bracketed, pending agreed language in the draft political declaration.

In paragraph 16, on encouraging corporate social responsibility, the G-77/China questioned who determines this process. Chair Maquieira explained that each State does, and the idea is not to give privileges to the private sector, but to "seduce" the private sector to participate in social development. The text remains bracketed. In 16(a), the US, with Canada, preferred reference to providing a predictable rather than a just and stable policy framework. Supported by the US and Canada, the EU proposed merging 16(b), on enhancing partnerships with business, trade unions and groups in civil society to support Social Summit goals, with 16(c), on supporting the development of guidelines that promote social responsibility of the private sector. No action was taken on this proposal.

In paragraph 17, on ILO-coordinated and a system-wide promotion of the private sector’s social responsibility and on recommending to ECOSOC that CSD prioritize this issue for 2002-2006, no agreement was reached. Delegates agreed to the text, but not on the placement of paragraph 18, on taking further measures to remove obstacles to people’s realization of their right to self-determination, particularly those living under colonial and foreign occupation.

After several sessions of facilitation by Sonia Felicity Elliott, delegates agreed to language in paragraph 19, on enhancing international cooperation and coordination of humanitarian assistance to countries affected by natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies and post-conflict situations to support recovery and long-term development. In 19 bis delegates did not reach agreement on whether to "create and improve" or just to "improve" conditions for the voluntary repatriation of refugees in safety and dignity to their countries of origin. Mexico’s proposal for 19 ter, on the importance of international solidarity and burden sharing in reinforcing the international protection of refugees, remains in brackets.

In paragraph 20, on encouraging the UN system to address corruption, and in paragraph 21, on the desirability of an international instrument against corruption by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention against Organized Crime, the US, Japan, Norway and Canada supported a merged EU proposal. Chair Maquieira referred questions of clarification to the Secretariat and the text remains pending. The Russian Federation, with Mexico, Norway, New Zealand and the G-77/China, agreed to combine 21 bis, on giving indigenous people greater responsibility for their own affairs, and 21 ter, on encouraging the ongoing work of a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Delegates agreed to move the combined text to Commitment 4.

After the EU proposed its deletion, paragraph 22, on giving proper consideration to the social and humanitarian impacts of sanctions with a view to minimizing their effects, remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 23, on supporting EIT countries to establish regulatory and legal environments for progressive and efficient tax systems to fund social development.

COMMITMENT 2: POVERTY ERADICATION: In paragraph 24, delegates agreed to place poverty eradication at the center of economic and social development and build consensus with all relevant actors at all levels on policies and strategies to halve extreme poverty by 2015, with a view towards eradicating poverty.

In paragraph 26, delegates agreed to develop and implement sustainable pro-poor growth strategies that promote the potential and ability of those in poverty to improve their lives.

In paragraph 27, delegates agreed to urge countries to incorporate goals and targets for combating poverty into their national strategies for socio-economic development and to adjust them to country contexts.

Paragraph 27 bis refers to integrating policies at the macro level, including economic and fiscal policies; the meso level, in particular capacity- and institution-building; and the micro level, giving priority to investments in education and health, social protection and basic social services. The G-77/China could not accept reference to "meso-level," and it remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed on sub-paragraphs 27 bis (a)-(h), on various national policies to combat poverty. In 27 bis (i), on the informal sector, delegates agreed on improving acknowledgement of this sector so as to evaluate its share in the national economy, improving its productivity through increased training and capital access and facilitating its integration into the formal economy. On enhancing social protection through improving working conditions via respect for fundamental principles and rights at work, the G-77/China preferred safeguarding and promoting respect for basic workers’ rights. The text was bracketed, as was text proposed by Canada, and opposed by the G-77/China, on promoting the balance of work and family responsibilities.

Delegates also agreed on sub-paragraphs 27 bis (j)-(n), on such issues as micro-credit, sustainable rural development, building institutional capacity and gender equality. Alternative EU and G-77/China proposals for 27 bis (o), on poverty assessment, are bracketed. The EU text advocates promoting participatory poverty assessments and social impact assessments, and the G-77/China text supports promoting poverty assessments. Delegates agreed on sub-paragraphs 27 bis (p)-(s) on targeting needs of and empowering vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. EU and Holy See alternatives for 27 bis (u), on using health policies for poverty eradication modeled on WHO’s strategy on poverty and health, remain bracketed. The EU proposal includes taking into account provision of universal access to primary and reproductive health care services, including family planning and sexual health. The Holy See proposal calls for developing sustainable pro-poor health systems that focus on reducing major diseases affecting the poor, achieving greater equity in health financing, and promoting responsible health stewardship. Delegates agreed on 27 bis (v), on encouraging decentralization of basic social services delivery to respond more efficiently to needs.

Delegates agreed on 27 ter, on ways to share best practices on establishing or improving social protection systems. Delegates bracketed 27 ter (a), on exploring resource-supported and resource-reallocating measures for covering vulnerable, unprotected and uninsured people. US text, specifying inclusion of support of the ILO and other relevant international organizations in designing and extending social protection systems, is bracketed. Delegates also bracketed 27 ter (b), on developing new mechanisms to ensure sustainability of social protection systems, especially in the context of aging populations. In agreed 27 ter (c), on devising and strengthening modalities for covering the needs of people engaged in flexible forms of employment, delegates noted an EU proposal to move it to Commitment 3.

In 27 quat, a bracketed G-77/China proposal calls for improving national capacity to address hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity at the household level in cooperation with the World Food Programme and other concerned agencies.

In paragraph 33, delegates agreed to encourage international support to EIT countries to assist them in: combining universal coverage of social services with targeted assistance to the most vulnerable groups to ease transition; implementing policies to involve those marginalized by the transition; and maintaining adequate social programmes.

COMMITMENT 3: EMPLOYMENT: In paragraph 34, delegates agreed on reassessing, as appropriate, macro-economic policies to generate employment and reduce poverty, while striving for and maintaining low inflation rates. Delegates also agreed on paragraph 35, on creating an enabling environment for social dialogue by ensuring effective representation and participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

In paragraph 36, on expanding opportunities for productive employment and work, with particular focus on small- and medium-sized enterprises, the EU specified work and entrepreneurship. India preferred addressing entrepreneurship separately. The US suggested, and delegates accepted "including self-employment." The paragraph, which the G-77/China bracketed, agrees to expand opportunities for productive employment, including self-employment, with particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. It enumerates measures to achieve this, including by investing in human resource development and, in brackets, entrepreneurship.

In paragraph 37, delegates agreed to support the ILO's comprehensive programme of decent work. Delegates also agreed on 37 bis, on recognizing the need to elaborate a coherent and coordinated international strategy on employment to increase opportunity for sustainable livelihoods and access to employment, and, in this connection, to support a World Employment Forum by the ILO in 2001. In 37 ter, delegates agreed to invite the ILO to facilitate a coordinated exchange of best practices in the field of employment policies.

After discussions on numerous proposals for paragraph 38, on the ILO’s role in the quality of work and employment, delegates entered into informal discussions facilitated by Aurelio Fernández. No agreement was reached on 38(a) on calls for ratifying and fully implementing ILO conventions concerning basic workers’ rights. Delegates agreed on 38(b), on strongly considering ratification and full implementation of ILO conventions on the employment rights of minors, women, youth, persons with disabilities, migrants and indigenous people. Delegates bracketed 38(b) bis on respecting, promoting and realizing the principles contained in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up. In 38(c), delegates agreed on supporting and participating in the global campaign for the immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labor, including by promoting universal ratification and implementation of the ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention. In 38(d), delegates accepted EU text promoting safe and healthy settings at work in order to improve working conditions and reduce the impact on individuals and health care systems of occupational accidents and diseases.

Paragraph 39 remains bracketed. It calls on Governments, international organizations and civil society to undertake a multilateral initiative to better understand the social dimensions of globalization. In 39 bis, proposed by Norway, delegates agreed to ensure effective and comprehensive action to eliminate harmful child labor. Delegates bracketed 39 ter, which calls upon the ILO and other UN organizations, to cooperate with host countries to promote and realize fundamental principles and rights at work.

In paragraph 40, delegates agreed on encouraging the private sector to respect and promote basic workers’ rights as defined in relevant ILO Conventions and in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. However, brackets remain in text encouraging the private sector’s monitoring of such observance in cooperation with governments.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 41 on the rights of migrant workers. The EU introduced a new paragraph 42, which remains bracketed. It supports considering the need for a major event on the informal sector in the year 2002, to be organized by the ILO, in order to develop job opportunities and decent work in this sector and facilitate its integration into the formal economy. In 42 bis, delegates agreed to invite the ILO to help Member States, upon request, extend support measures to informal sector workers, including legal rights, social protection and access to credit. Delegates also agreed on paragraph 44, supporting, wherever appropriate, adoption and/or strengthening of legislation or other mechanisms for determining minimum wages.

In paragraph 45, delegates agreed on undertaking appropriate measures, in cooperation with relevant actors, to address specific employment issues of different groups. Delegates agreed on references to youth, aging workers, persons with disabilities, single parents, long-term unemployed and women in particular. The US, the EU and Canada disagreed with the Holy See, Mexico and the G-77/China's proposed reference to migrants. The EU preferred using documented migrant workers. The references remain bracketed. The EU added a new 45 bis, which recommends taking into account different contexts in the development of these measures. The text remains bracketed.

Paragraph 47, on promoting gender equality and eliminating gender discrimination in the labor market, remains bracketed.

Paragraph 49 remains bracketed. It provides for improving methods for collection and analysis of basic employment data, disaggregated by, inter alia, gender, race and age, as appropriate in the country context, and assessing the feasibility of developing and improving mechanisms to measure unremunerated work.

COMMITMENT 4: SOCIAL INTEGRATION: Delegates agreed on paragraph 51, which strengthens mechanisms for participation of all people and promotes cooperation and dialogue among all levels of government and civil society as contributions to social integration. Delegates also agreed on paragraph 52, which addresses support for civil society, including community organizations working with groups with special needs.

In paragraph 53, delegates agreed to a G-77/China and US formulation on promoting an enabling environment for civil society organizations to, inter alia, facilitate participation in the delivery of social services in a transparent and democratic manner. Delegates agreed on a G-77/China proposal to delete 53 bis, on establishing appropriate mechanisms for advising social development and monitoring progress. In 53 ter, delegates agreed to promote the effective participation of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups when drawing up poverty eradication and social inclusion legislation and programmes.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 54, promoting the contribution that voluntarism can make to the creation of caring societies as an additional mechanism in the promotion of social integration, and inviting the Commission for Social Development to consider the issue in 2001, the International Year of Volunteers. Delegates also agreed on 54 bis,which recognizes the importance of families.

In paragraph 55, delegates agreed on promoting volunteer involvement by, inter alia: encouraging governments; considering all actors’ views; developing comprehensive strategies and programmes; raising public awareness of the values and opportunities of voluntarism; and facilitating an enabling environment.

The EU proposed 55 bis, recognizing the need for better defining the role and responsibilities of non-profit organizations in social integration, and recommending that ECOSOC include this issue as one of its priority themes in considering its multi-year programme of work for 2002-2006. Algeria, supported by the US and Sudan, said reference to accountable partnerships between non-profits and governments would limit their role and independence. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 56, which encourages the media to adopt policies to promote inclusive and participatory approaches regarding production, dissemination and use of information, including access to the Internet.

The G-77/China proposed paragraph 57, noting the need to identify and address certain information disseminated by the media and through the Internet. The US proposed, and delegates accepted, measures to counter the dissemination of racism rather than racist ideas and beliefs. The Dominican Republic called for countering ageism as well as intolerance, hatred and racism. The Holy See added pornography and religious intolerance. Canada added sexism. Alternatives for "ageism" were not decided, and these additions are bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 58, on factors to be promoted at all levels by education, including: an Algeria reference to full respect for all; an EU reference to human rights; a US reference to fundamental freedoms; a G-77/China reference to peace; and references to UN events, including the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2005).

All agreed to paragraph 59, calling for the elimination of all forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and supporting, inter alia, the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Brackets remain on references to resource mobilization and expected outcomes. Canada proposed 59 bis, with the EU and Norway, calling for continued and intensified action to combating violence against women. The US and the G-77/China preferred reference to all forms of gender-based violence. The paragraph was agreed.

Delegates considered paragraphs 21 bis and 21 ter together, having moved them from Commitment 1 to Commitment 4, to consider issues related to indigenous people in the context of social integration. The text calls for: recognizing the contribution of indigenous people to society; seeking means of giving them an effective voice; supporting development of effective consultation measures; establishing a permanent forum on indigenous rights; and encouraging ongoing work on a draft declaration on rights of indigenous people. India proposed, and all agreed, that discussion of this text be deferred pending further consultations currently taking place in Geneva.

Delegates agreed on language in paragraph 60 promoting full integration and continued participation of older persons in society as full actors in the development process, and, in this context, to support the convening of Second World Assembly on Aging. The US, recalling consensus on avoiding anticipation of future outcomes, refrained from backing an EU reference on supporting the revision and updating of the International Plan of Action on aging and the elaboration of a long-term strategy on aging.

Agreement was reached on paragraph 61, which seeks to expand the range of policies and measures to empower people with disabilities. Delegates also agreed to 61 bis, proposed by Norway, and amended by the EU, which addresses employment for people with disabilities.

Paragraph 62 was drafted to replace old paragraph 48, calling for the creation of the political, legal, material and social conditions to provide basic social services to refugees and internally displaced persons. The US proposed deleting reference to treatment for traumatic stress or replacing it with reference to psycho-social support programmes. The G-77/China proposed a separate formulation of this paragraph, and the EU requested both paragraphs remain bracketed.

Paragraph 63 calls for efforts to ensure: the protection of the human rights and dignity of migrants irrespective of their legal status; the social and economic integration of documented migrants; the provision of effective protection and basic social services; the facilitation of family reunification of documented migrants; and equal treatment under the law. Mexico proposed adding a reference to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This reference remains bracketed.

The G-77/China, EU, Japan, the US and Norway all propsed formulations for paragraph 64. After informal consultations, facilitated by Aurelio Fernández, agreement was reached on promoting international measures to prevent illegal trafficking and transport of migrants.

Subject to nomenclature checks, delegates agreed on paragraph 65, supporting the efforts of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme to implement its mandate within the framework of international drug control treaties and the outcome of the 20th Special Session of the GA devoted to combating the world drug problem.

The Holy See, supported by the G-77/China, proposed 65 bis, recognizing that a stable and supportive family life can provide a shield against drug abuse, and encouraging schools and media, including the Internet, to provide young people with information on addiction. The US preferred language on substance abuse over drug abuse, and the Holy See agreed. The EU bracketed the proposal.

Delegates incorporated G-77/China amendments into paragraph 66, agreeing to strengthen the effectiveness of organizations and mechanisms working for conflict prevention and resolution and to address the social roots and consequences of conflict. Canada proposed 66 bis, stressing the need to address the causes of armed conflict comprehensively to enhance the protection of civilians on a long-term basis, including by promoting economic growth, poverty eradication, sustainable development, national reconciliation, good governance, democracy, the rule of law and respect for and protection of human rights. The text remains bracketed.

Paragraph 67 addresses strengthening the capability of relevant UN bodies to promote measures for social integration in post-conflict management strategies and activities. The EU proposed reference to UN bodies and other international organizations. Iran, supported by Egypt and opposed by the EU, preferred measures for contributing to social integration over measures for social integration. On greater attention for abandoned children and those involved in armed conflicts, Sudan, supported by the Holy See but opposed by the EU, preferred reference to unaccompanied refugee and internally-displaced children over abandoned children. The EU, opposed by Sudan, suggested children separated from their families. Proposals remain in brackets.

The EU proposed substituting language from paragraph 18 for paragraph 69, on concrete measures to put an end to foreign occupation. Egypt, Algeria and Sudan noted differences between references to self-determination in paragraph 18 and social development in paragraph 69. The G-77/China’s reformulated text referred to social and economic development. The EU, supported by the US, proposed deleting the paragraph, which remains in brackets.

The G-77/China, with the Holy See, proposed deleting 69 bis, on social protection measures for specific groups. The EU preferred placing reference to reinforcing preventive measures elsewhere. Norway suggested, with support from delegates, incorporating 69 bis into 61 bis.

COMMITMENT 5: GENDER EQUALITY: Delegates adopted paragraph 69 ter, which was proposed by the EU, with Switzerland and Norway, promoting the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all women and girls.

Paragraph 70 states that the elimination of discrimination against women and their empowerment and full participation in all areas of life and at all levels should be priority objectives at the national as well as the international level, and an intrinsic part of social development. Delegates agreed to the paragraph and to the EU’s proposal to place it in the political declaration.

Delegates deferred discussion of a G-77/China reformulation of paragraph 71, taking into account the outcome of the special session of the General Assembly on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women, when addressing specific issues related to gender equality and the empowerment of women. The paragraph is bracketed.

Paragraph 72 reiterates the commitment to ensure gender is mainstreamed within all proposals for further initiatives related to each of the commitments made at the Summit, considering the specific roles and needs of women in all areas of social development. The EU suggested that this agreed paragraph be re-opened later.

Paragraph 72 bis promotes women's empowerment by strengthening efforts, inter alia, to: reduce female illiteracy rates to at least half of the 2000 level by 2005; increase women's and girls' access to all levels and forms of education; close the gender gap in employment and earnings; reduce maternal mortality by half of the 2000 level by 2015; and eliminate all forms of violence against women in domestic and public spheres. The EU integrated 72 ter into 72 bis, adding a reference to developing programmes to reconcile family and professional responsibilities for women and men. The US preferred mechanisms to programmes and, with Brazil, the term work over professional. Delegates agreed to use language on programmes and mechanisms and work. The G-77/China bracketed the paragraph.

Paragraph 72 quat addresses the need for gender sensitive statistical indicators and disaggregated data, but there was disagreement regarding general wording. The EU proposed reference to statistical indicators for gender impact assessment, while India preferred language on encouraging formulation of statistical indicators for monitoring and assessment of the gender impact of policies and programmes. After a lengthy debate, no consensus was reached, and the paragraph remains bracketed.

Paragraph 73 encourages governments to consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Japan proposed deleting text on enabling it to enter into force before the WSSD Special Session. The text remains bracketed.

The US proposed 73 bis, assuring women and girls the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including access to the full range of reproductive and sexual health services, including those necessary to enjoy safe motherhood, freedom of reproductive decision-making and a healthy and satisfying sexuality free of coercion, discrimination and violence. The paragraph is bracketed.

COMMITMENT 6: EDUCATION AND HEALTH: Delegates agreed to paragraph 74, which calls for recognition of governments’ primary responsibility for providing or ensuring access to basic social services for all.

Paragraph 73 bis, proposed by the EU and incorporating a reformulation by New Zealand, ensures appropriate and effective expenditure of resources for universal access to basic education and primary health care, within the country context, with particular efforts to target the special needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. The G-77/ China accepted the text, and the EU proposed new placement for this paragraph following paragraph 74.

Paragraph 74 bis calls for improving the performance of health care systems, particularly at the primary health care level, by broadening access to health care. The paragraph was agreed. 74 ter, proposed by the EU, considers the promotion of community-based health insurance schemes as a possible method to make essential health services affordable and accessible for all members of society and to adapt national frameworks in ways that will encourage the creation of non-profit insurance schemes. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Paragraph 75 advocates taking all appropriate measures to ensure that infectious and parasitic diseases, such as malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy and schistosomiasis, neither continue to take their devastating toll nor impede economic and social progress; and strengthening national and international efforts to combat these diseases, inter alia, through capacity building in LDCs with the cooperation of the WHO. A reference to support for research, proposed by the G-77/China, remains in brackets.

Delegates agreed to combine 75 bis, 75 ter, 76 and 77, into two paragraphs on national and international efforts on HIV/AIDS. All text on these paragraph remains bracketed. 75 bis (combined with 75 ter) addresses the importance of taking measures at the national level to enable all women and men, including young people, to protect themselves against HIV infection, including, inter alia: strengthening services for sexual and reproductive health; promoting analyses of the political, social, economic and legal aspects of HIV and AIDS, including the impact on national development; and providing social and educational support. The Holy See added proposals on, inter alia: strengthening information, education and communication campaigns; taking into account the rights of the child; and training health providers. Paragraph 76 calls for strengthening international efforts against HIV/AIDS, with a focus on developing countries and countries with economies in transition, through partnership among UNAIDS and its co-sponsors, bilateral donors, national governments and NGOs, based on a multi-sectoral approach. Paragraph 77 addresses provision of support to countries with economies in transition to revitalize primary health care systems and to promote more vigorous campaigns for health education and the promotion of healthy lifestyles.

Delegates agreed to combine paragraphs 78 and 79, aimed at investment in research aimed at finding affordable remedies for diseases that particularly afflict people in developing countries. Syria opposed text on inviting international organizations to encourage improving public-private sector partnerships. Delegates agreed on text inviting WHO to consider improving such partnerships in health research.

The US proposed to delete original text for paragraph 80, on making use, in the case of medicines essential to public health, of the provisions in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) that allow circumvention, under certain circumstances, of normal patent rights. The EU proposed replacing this formulation with text acknowledging the importance of intellectual property rights in the facilitation of such arrangements and incentives, while recognizing the opportunity for limited exceptions to normal patent rights. Discussion was deferred, and both formulations remain bracketed.

The Holy See proposed 80 bis, on ensuring that food and medicine are not used as tools for political pressure. Discussion was deferred.

Paragraph 81 encourages new action at the international level to support national efforts to achieve universal access to basic education and primary health services for all by the year 2015. Mongolia proposed including the feasibility of proclaiming a United Nations Literacy Decade. Discussion was deferred.

Delegates accepted Mexico's proposed 81 bis inviting international organizations, in particular the international financial institutions, according to their mandates, to keep in mind the overall objective of facilitating long-term development in supporting national health and education programmes.

The original formulation of paragraph 82 invites the WHO in collaboration with UNCTAD, the WTO and other concerned agencies to, inter alia, help strengthen the capacities of the least developed countries to analyze the consequences of agreements on trade in health services. The G-77/China indicated it would propose new language, and the US proposed replacing the paragraph with text taken from the World Health Assembly Resolution 52.19 of 1999, inviting the WHO to cooperate with governments, at their request, and with international organizations in monitoring and analyzing the pharmaceutical and public health implications of relevant international agreements, including trade agreements. Discussion was deferred.

Paragraph 83 invites the UN system to cooperate with the WHO to integrate the health dimension into social and economic policies and programmes. The G-77/China indicated it would propose new language for paragraph 83. Discussion was deferred.

Norway proposed a reformulated paragraph 84, on promoting universal and equitable access to education. Brazil, with Algeria and the US, opposed an EU reference to improving education through national legislation. The US opposed a reference to national responsibility. The EU questioned, while Sudan and Algeria supported, a Holy See proposal on parents' rights in choosing education for their children. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed on paragraph 85, which advocates measures to better acknowledge and support the work of teachers and other educational personnel, including, where appropriate, improved compensation and benefits, relevant training and re-training programmes, human resource and career development strategies, and measures to encourage teachers’ sustained contributions to quality education.

Paragraph 86 calls for, inter alia: assisting developing countries and others in need to build capacities for secondary and tertiary education; promoting international exchanges in the field of education to foster greater self-reliance in meeting the challenges of social and economic development; and increasing sensitivity for and better understanding of all cultures and awareness of global issues. The paragraph was agreed.

Japan proposed inclusion of a reference to the Dakar Framework for Action in this section, after its adoption at the World Education Forum in April 2000.

COMMITMENT 7: AFRICA AND THE LDCS: Preferring to alter the bias towards trade and HIV/AIDS concerns, Canada proposed 86 bis, on encouraging efforts to promote sustainable human development integrating pro-poor economic growth, universal access by all to basic social services, transparent and accountable governance, and sustainable development. The G-77/China preferred that no reference be made to sustainable human development. The proposal remains bracketed.

In paragraph 87, on encouraging international efforts to establish favorable conditions for integration and participation, the G-77/China supported, and the EU and US opposed, references to favorable conditions, equitable integration into the global economy and participation in the multilateral trade system. The EU proposed EU-Africa partnership agreement language on smooth and gradual integration to promote sustainable development and poverty eradication. Turkey suggested UNCTAD X language on successful integration. The G-77/ China proposed language from GA Resolution A/54/198 and Copenhagen on making concerted international efforts to create an enabling environment to facilitate full integration for their equitable participation in the multilateral trade system. Proposals remain bracketed.

In 87(a), on implementing debt relief consistent with the HIPC initiative, the G-77/China proposed text referring to debt cancellation and to an EU-amended Norwegian proposal on implementing "innovative" debt relief initiatives for LDCs. Japan and the US objected. The Holy See suggested reference to the enhanced HIPC initiative. Text remains bracketed. In 87(b), on improving market access for export products, the G-77/China proposed language on improving such access by eliminating all trade barriers and other protectionist measures via duty-free treatment, quota elimination and preferential schemes for their products. The Holy See supported Norway’s proposal to reduce tariffs. Japan, New Zealand and the Holy See preferred "tariff-free" to "duty-free." The US preferred deletion of text on eliminating all trade and protectionist barriers. Norway and the EU (ad referendum), supported an amended G-77/China proposal to improve market access, including by eliminating trade barriers and other protectionist measures, inter alia, securing tariff free treatment, eliminating quotas and providing preferential schemes for essentially all of their products. Pending Japan’s position, the amended paragraph remains bracketed.

In 87(c), on supporting programmes for taking advantage of the multilateral trading system, the EU proposed reference to regional trade organizations, such as SADC. Delegates agreed to Norway’s proposal on referring to the ITC in addition to the WTO and UNCTAD, but deleted his reference to the Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries. The text was agreed.

Delegates agreed to 87(d), on supporting growth-enhancing and poverty reduction economic reforms relevant to African and LDC SAPs. Delegates bracketed the EU proposed replacement of paragraph 91 with 87(e), on encouraging the development of venture capital funds for social investment.

In paragraph 88, delegates agreed to merging US and G-77/China references to public and private information sharing systems. The US preferred reference to creating a stable climate for investment. Delegates agreed to language on assisting governments to enhance their productive capacity and competitiveness through diversification, cooperative business networks, information-sharing, technology promotion and domestic and foreign investments, especially in the field of technology.

After discussion on what constitutes an international institution, delegates deleted paragraph 89, on encouraging international efforts to assist governments to improve the foreign investment environment.

In paragraph 90, on donors encouraging investment in critical infrastructure, including in post-conflict situations, the US expressed difficulties with a reference to utilizing infrastructure investments to promote employment. The text remains bracketed. The EU and G-77/ China proposed 90 ter, on calling on the World Food Programme and other agencies to strengthen food-for-work activities, community infrastructure, household food security in low-income food-deficit countries. This proposal remains bracketed.

After US expression of problems with tax concessions, delegates bracketed paragraph 91, on giving incentives, including tax concessions to companies, investing for sustainable development and supporting the development of venture capital funds in Africa and the LDCs.

In paragraph 92, delegates bracketed the G-77/China’s reference to regional technology promotion centers, but agreed to a US amendment to promote rather than to enforce regional human resource and technology development in efforts to strengthen South-South cooperation by enhancing investment and transfer of technology through mutually agreed agreements.

In paragraph 93, on allocating additional resources to achieve basic education for all, delegates agreed that Working Group II consider under Commitment 6 their language on: enhancing educational sector resources and management capacities; improving enrollment ratios, particularly for girls and women; and, as Norway formulated, encouraging educated Africans to further utilize and develop their skills in the region. Regarding remaining elements, the G-77/China supported promoting human resource development, deleted reference to 7% GDP target for human resource development and appended text on continued investment in secondary and tertiary education. The EU and US insisted on partnership with civil society at all educational levels. Uncertain about whether civil society includes the international level, Algeria opposed a US formulation encouraging governments with the support of the international community to strengthen education. Delegates agreed to an Algerian reformulation to support government efforts in human resource development with civil society’s partnership and to achieve basic education for all, and to continue investing in secondary and tertiary education, with enhanced international community cooperation. Delegates also agreed to an EU amended G-77/China proposal for 93 bis, on urging developed countries to strive to fulfill as soon as possible the agreed target of 0.15 to 0.2% of GNP as ODA for LDCs.

In paragraph 94, on allocating resources on concessional terms for social and economic development through UN funds and international and regional financial institutions, Bangladesh and the G-77/ China opposed EU language on according priority to those LDCs committed to poverty reduction and economic and social reform. The latter qualifying phrase remains bracketed.

In 94 bis, the G-77/China proposed and delegates agreed to text incorporating Norway’s proposal to encourage the UN and its affiliated agencies to enhance technical cooperation and to call for, in this context, strengthening of the Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technical Assistance to the Least Developed Countries.

In paragraph 95, on encouraging creditor countries to convert debts, Japan and the US opposed a G-77/China proposal to encourage creditor countries to convert into grants all remaining official bilateral debt of the poorest countries and to cancel the entire debt stock of the poorest African and LDCs. The EU supported Canada’s insertion of text on ensuring commitment to reform and poverty alleviation, preferring references to HIPC rather than the poorest countries and clearing rather than canceling the former’s debt stock. Delegations bracketed proposals and, with the Chair and US, deferred finding uniformity in debt-related language to ongoing facilitation by Sonia Felicity Elliott.

The EU, Bangladesh and Libya debated the status of paragraph 96, on implementing the 20/20 initiative with special attention to LDCs and in cooperation with civil society to ensure access to basic services for all. Delegates reiterated their agreement to its text and agreed to standardize references to African and LDCs in future deliberations.

In paragraph 97, on supporting recommendations in the Secretary-General’s report on the causes of conflict, promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, the G-77/China proposed supporting all report recommendations or deferring to the ongoing Working Group on Africa dealing with the report. The US preferred strengthening efforts to follow up, and amended an EU proposal to take into account the link made between peace, democracy, human rights and "sustainable" development. The G-77/China disagreed and Japan stated its inability to support all report suggestions. Proposals remain bracketed. Delegates agreed to the EU substitution of paragraph 100 language into 97 bis, on encouraging the 25 African countries most affected by HIV/AIDS to reduce young people’s infection levels by 25% by 2005 and on inviting the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and its co-sponsors to propose means to implement a strategy to achieve this target.

In paragraph 98, delegates agreed to G-77/China language to support most-affected African governments in ensuring multi-sectoral and collective responses and interventions, facilitated by the establishment of national young people’s task forces, to raise awareness and address the needs of young people and the needs of those living with and children orphaned by HIV/AIDS.

In paragraph 99, on resource allocation to the African countries most-affected by HIV/AIDS, the G-77/China proposed, and the US opposed, language on inviting UNAIDS and its co-sponsors to ensure adequate resource allocation, particularly financial and medicine at affordable prices, and to develop a resource mobilization strategy for young people as part of the International Partnership Against HIV/ AIDS in Africa. The Holy See proposed referring to increased resource allocation, while the EU opposed reference to ensuring adequate resources without inserting reference to develop a core set of indicators and tools to monitor youth programme implementation and to consolidate capacity-building by strengthening technical resource networks at country and regional levels. Proposals remain bracketed.

In 100 bis, on supporting African governments and civil society in the provision of key services for HIV/AIDS prevention, the EU supported references to: condom supply (both male and female); prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections; access to voluntary and confidential counseling; and support for behavioral change. The EU supported a Holy See amendment on guaranteeing a safe blood supply, but opposed their text on responsible sexual behavior, including abstinence. The US further proposed inserting reference to reduce infections including by mother-to-child transmissions. Delegates agreed to all proposals except the Holy See’s reference to sexual abstinence.

Norway suggested deletion of paragraph 101, on controlling the spread of communicable and infectious diseases and on strengthening capacity for HIV/AIDS research and development in medicine and public health. The G-77/China proposed supporting research and development centers and efforts to treat and control the spread of communicable, infectious disease, such as malaria and tuberculosis, and by making medicine available at affordable prices and training medical personnel. The EU, with the US, preferred specific mention of HIV/AIDS and deletion of language on subsidized medication. The US proposed text on reducing excess HIV/AIDS burdens causing poverty and affecting the poor disproportionately. Proposals remain bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 102, proposed by the G-77/China, on encouraging the international community to fully support outcomes of the 2001 Third UN Conference of the Least Developed Countries.

COMMITMENT 8: STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMMES: Delegates agreed to an EU request to move 102 bis, on assessment and monitoring of the social impact of economic policies, to Commitment 1. In paragraph 103, the US and EU supported Chair Maquieira’s formulation on encouraging policy makers at all levels to reduce the need for SAPs, through appropriate and integrated economic policies aimed at economic expansion and social development. The text remains bracketed. After debating whether to refer to full, appropriate or better integration, delegates agreed to a G-77/China-proposed 103 bis, on encouraging IFIs and national governments to adopt the principle of social integration and economic aspects in SAP designs. The EU opposed, while Thailand supported, Mexico’s proposed 103 ter, on addressing economic crises in SAPs. New Zealand, with the EU and G-77/China, withdrew a proposal to refer to inappropriate rather than sharp cuts in social spending. The US proposed deletion of mention of IFIs, while the Russian Federation proposed reference to relevant IFIs. Delegates agreed to language calling for SAPs negotiated with the IMF to strive to ensure that economic activity does not cut social spending.

In paragraph 104, on dialogue to ensure the integration of social and economic aspects in SAP design, Norway and the EU proposed dialogue between governments, partners and IFIs. The G-77/China and Libya disagreed with the EU emphasis on civil society, preferring to encourage IFI dialogue with governments. The text remains bracketed.

To further Norway’s 104 bis, on encouraging nationally-owned Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS), the World Bank stated that PRS are efforts to guide, focus and be consistent with HIPC country development frameworks, including SAPs. She added that PRS will likely expand to low-income countries. Responding to Pakistan’s concern that the evolving PRS concept is piloted as if one size conditionally and universally fits all, the World Bank said PRS were not "bank trademarks," but aim to contribute to flexible, holistic country-owned approaches negotiated by broad–based participation with national leadership. The text remains bracketed. Delegates agreed to delete 104(f), on encouraging the production and consumption of developing country products.

In paragraph 105, on designing national policies for people living in poverty, the US proposed guiding poverty-oriented public policy in consultation with governments, civil society donors and relevant UN institutions, with the facilitation of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs). The EU supported, and the G-77/China opposed, Chair Maquieira’s reformulation on designing national policies by incorporating social development goals in SAPs, including PRS consultations with civil society. The G-77/China proposed language on taking measures to protect the poor and vulnerable from disproportionate SAP effects and the US proposed reference to guiding public policy choices for the poor and poverty reduction. The EU preferred amending the Chair’s text by adding references to consulting with civil society. Delegates disagreed with a Holy See suggestion that civil society support rather than be consulted, but agreed to the EU-amended Chair’s formulation, on designing national policies in consultation with civil society and taking into account the concerns of people living in poverty by incorporating social development goals in SAP and PRS formulation.

Supporting the G-77/China, delegates deleted the original 105(a), on ensuring macroeconomic, structural, environmental and social policy integration. Delegates disagreed with a G-77/China proposal to delete or move 105(b), on identifying social outlay needs and commensurate financing consistent with macroeconomic stability, to Commitment 2. Opposing G-77/China replacement of sustainable growth with sustained economic growth, the US underscored the linkages between sustainable development and sustained growth. The EU and Canada emphasized Copenhagen language regarding more equitable distribution of such growth, supporting US text on designing economic policies for poverty reduction, sustainable development and more equitable growth. Delegates agreed to a G-77/China reformulation for new 105(a), on designing economic policies for more equitable and enhanced access to income and resources promoting sustained economic growth, sustainable development and social and economic programs aimed at poverty reduction.

After incorporating US references to identification by individual governments, agreement was also reached on a new 105(b) to encourage international development banks to support national efforts to protect core social development expenditures from budgetary cuts, especially in times of crisis. Pending a G-77/China position, delegates bracketed 105(c), on ensuring good governance, accountability and efficient monitoring of budgets.

In 105(d), delegates agreed to incorporate 105(f) language on ensuring that public services reach the poor and vulnerable through existing social programmes. Consensus was also reached for 105(e), on implementing SAPs and stabilization policies that protect vulnerable groups and people living in poverty.

In 105(g), the G-77/China questioned US and EU language on preserving social capital and the social fabric of society, and proposed additional text on considering the introduction of compensatory debt relief to countries implementing SAPs. The EU suggested placing such HIPC-related issues under Commitment 9 and supported Japan’s proposal to implement the enhanced HIPC initiative for debt relief to countries implementing PRS. The US and EU questioned the SAP-HIPC linkage, preferring PRS deft relief under the HIPC and Paris Club initiatives. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Delegates tentatively agreed to 105(h), on information provision to monitor and evaluate financial crises. Sub-paragraph 105(i), on ensuring good governance, especially transparent budget monitoring, remains bracketed pending agreement in the draft political declaration.

In paragraph 106, on participatory SAP assessments to mitigate negative social impacts, the G-77/China preferred reference to national governments establishing participatory mechanisms. Delegates agreed to a US formulation that such assessments might benefit from cooperation with civil society, regional development banks, the BWIs and the UN system, and should be undertaken before, during and after SAP implementation to mitigate negative impacts and to improve their positive policy impacts on social development goals.

In paragraph 107, on improving coordination among international organizations, Canada and the US agreed with Chair Maquieira’s view that ECOSOC and the BWIs are related to the issue of reducing negative SAP impacts, while the WTO pertains to improving social development goals more generally. The G-77/China: underscored the need to address negative social and economic SAP impacts; proposed deleting, with the EU and the US, reference to the WTO; and opposed EU language on SAP integration of social, economic, environmental and gender policies.

Delegates agreed to EU language for paragraph 107, on improving information-sharing and coordination between ECOSOC and relevant institutions in the UN system and the BWIs to explore means to reduce negative impacts and to improve positive SAP impacts with a view to promoting social development. Delegates agreed to 107 bis, on ensuring that gender be taken into account in SAP formulation and implementation.

COMMITMENT 9: RESOURCE ALLOCATION: Delegates agreed to 107 ter, on recommending that the High-Level Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development consider mobilization of national and international resources to implement the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. On strengthening national information systems with the international community and upon request, delegates agreed to 107 quat, on producing reliable and disaggregated statistics on social development for assessing social policy impacts on economic and social development and to ensure efficient and effective use of resources.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 108, on undertaking efforts to mobilize domestic resources for social development with national priorities and policies. Delegates also agreed to 108(b), on reallocating public resources for investment in social development through, inter alia, the appropriate reduction of excessive military expenditures, including global military expenditures and the arms trade; and investments for arms production and acquisition, taking into consideration national security requirements. Delegates agreed to: 108(c), on endeavoring to enhance the cost-effectiveness of social spending; 108(d), on strengthening mechanisms and policies for private investments, thus freeing and increasing public resources for social investments; and 108(e), on facilitating the involvement and active partnership of civil society in social service provision.

Taking into account globalization challenges faced by developing countries, delegates agreed to paragraph 109, on supporting governments, at their request, in establishing guidelines for domestic revenue generating policies for social programmes, including those for social protection and services. Agreement was also reached on 109(a), on promoting equitable and progressive broadening of the tax base, and on 109(b), on improving the efficiency of tax administration, including tax collection. In 109(c), on seeking new revenue sources to simultaneously discourage "public bads," delegates bracketed all proposals, including one on restructuring national tax regimes and administrators to support social development goals in an equitable and efficient manner. With the G-77/China and the Russian Federation, delegates agreed to text in 109(d), on public borrowing to finance capital works, including bonds issuance, other financial instruments and non-public entities.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 110, on further means to mobilize additional resources for national level social development, reiterating support for 110(a), on extending access to micro-credit and other financial instruments to people living in poverty, particularly women. Regarding community participation in the maintenance of local infrastructure, delegates agreed to 110(b), on participatory mechanisms, such as community contracting of labor-based infrastructure works. No action was taken and brackets were kept on 110(c), on improving and restructuring national tax systems, and on 100(d), on removing tax allowances for bribes.

In paragraph 111, the EU supported G-77/China text on considering further international means to mobilize additional social development resources. The US preferred Copenhagen language on seeking new and additional resources. The text remains bracketed. In 111(a), on formulas for tax liability of multinational corporations, delegates supported a US formulation on methods to divide corporations’ liability and tax payments on profits by the various jurisdictions in which they operate. In 111 new (a), on means for international cooperation in tax policies, delegates agreed to US text on developing such appropriate means in tax matters. The EU and US expressed reservations on 111(b), on exploring limits on tax shelters and havens. The text remains bracketed. Proposals for 111(c), on mechanisms to stabilize commodity export earnings, also remain bracketed. Delegates agreed to 111(d), on information-sharing to prevent tax avoidance and treaties for avoiding double taxation. Delegates also agreed to 111(e), on exploring ways to increase public and private financial resource flows to developing countries, adding an EU specification of LDCs. In 111(f), the US, Japan and the EU opposed Canada’s proposal for the further study of the feasibility of a currency transaction tax to generate income for social development. The G-77/China requested clarification, and the text remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 112, on urging international action to support national efforts to attract additional resources for social development. In 112(a), on encouraging creditor action for faster, broader and deeper debt relief, the US and Japan opposed a G-77/ China reference to include increased flexibility with regard to eligibility criteria. The EU insisted on encouraging creditors to implement the HIPC initiative, as agreed, for the purposes of social development and poverty eradication. The US emphasized the importance of measures to ensure effective good governance and ensuring a permanent exit from unsustainable debt burdens for the poorest countries. Proposals remain bracketed.

In 112(b), on calling upon the international community to support debt-management capacity-building efforts, delegates agreed to Norway’s proposal to stress the importance of the Debt Management and Financial Analysis System.

In 112(b) bis, the G-77/China proposed new text on taking measures to address the debt sustainability problem of middle-income developing countries. Brackets remain pending US reflection on the "new concept" and EU consideration of "respectable documents," such as GA Resolution A/54/202, paragraph 20.

In 112(c), on urging donor countries to reverse current ODA decline and fulfill the agreed target of 0.7% of GNP, Japan, the EU and the US proposed urging donor countries to strive to fulfill this target as soon as possible. The G-77/China preferred a date of 2005. The Holy See proposed language on striving to fulfill yet-to-be attained internationally agreed targets. Proposals remain bracketed.

In 112(d), on encouraging the implementation of the 20/20 initiative, Norway and the EU proposed, and the G-77/China opposed, deleting reference to interested countries and to monitoring. The G-77/ China opposed the following proposed additions: by enhancing coordination of efforts in relevant fora (the US); by establishing poverty eradication indicators for monitoring (Switzerland); and by monitoring and discussing implementation in relevant fora (the EU). Delegates agreed to text on encouraging interested countries to implement the 20/20 initiative, in line with the Oslo and Hanoi Consensus.

The US and the EU opposed 112(e), on preferential interest rates for social development, noting the forum was inappropriate and that preferential rates already exist. The text is bracketed pending a G-77/ China position. After a debate about providing land-locked and transit countries with support to implement the POA in 112(f), Chair Maquieira agreed to research existing UN language. Delegates agreed to 112(g), on implementing commitments regarding the special needs and vulnerabilities of small island developing States (SIDS), including new and additional resources for social development in accordance with the Barbados POA and follow-up. Delegates deleted 112(h), on assisting EIT countries to develop progressive and efficient tax systems, and paragraph 113, on the UN Ad Hoc Group of Experts on International Finance by promoting international cooperation in tax matters.

In paragraph 114, on improving methods of controlling the use of available funds to benefit groups with special needs, the Holy See suggested referring to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. The EU proposed a new 114 bis, on cooperation between governments and civil society to increase efficiency and effectiveness of resources for health and education. The G-77-China proposed, and the US opposed, a merged proposal for a new 114 on increasing transparency and accountability in the use of resources for social development, including ODA. No action was taken on these proposals.

COMMITMENT 10: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: Paragraph 114 ter, proposed by the EU, requests that the Secretary-General report to the CSD on a regular basis on the ratification status of all relevant instruments in the field of social development, and to disseminate this information. Egypt, with Algeria, opposed the proposal. The text remains bracketed.

Paragraph 115 calls for developing, strengthening and making more effective indicators at the national level for assessing and guiding social development, including support from relevant bodies of the UN and other institutions. Delegates agreed to, inter alia: delete reference to governments and civil society; add reference to the national level; and delete an EU-proposed list of indicators. India opposed a reference to producing reliable statistics on social policy. New Zealand, with the EU, noted that this was ICPD+5 language. The US proposed, with India and the EU, deletion of reference to capacity building, monitoring and evaluation. Delegates also agreed that a reference to age- and sex-disaggregated data could be deleted if agreement was reached on 72 quat, on national statistics offices. The text remains bracketed.

Paragraph 116, proposed by the EU, invites the UN system to identify a limited number of common qualitative and quantitative indicators for social development. The G-77/China proposed another formulation, including a reference to assisting governments in developing social policies. Many delegates could not ascertain the actual purpose of collecting such indicators. New Zealand, India and China proposed deleting the paragraph. Both formulations remain bracketed.

Delegates agreed to paragraph 117, on strengthening cooperation at the regional level; 117(a), on promoting dialogue among regional and subregional groups and organizations; and 117(b), on encouraging regional commissions to initiate or continue evaluation of the implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA and the further initiatives of the Special Session. In 117(c), on encouraging implementation of regional social development agendas where they exist, delegates could not agree on text encouraging recipient countries, donor governments and agencies as well as multilateral financial institutions to consider the agenda of regional commissions and other regional and sub-regional organizations in their funding policies and programmes. The EU proposed deleting this text, which remains bracketed. The US agreed to delete its proposal for 117(d), on support for regional social development initiatives.

In paragraph 118, delegates agreed to further strengthen ECOSOC as the body primarily responsible for coordinating international action in follow-up to the UN conferences and summits. Text was agreed for: 118(a), fostering a closer working relationship with the UN funds and programmes and the specialized agencies and 118(b), expanding the agenda of the high-level meetings between ECOSOC and the BWIs. No action was taken on 118(c), on continuing cooperation between ECOSOC and the BWIs, in particular through joint meetings with the Development Committee and the International Monetary and Financial Committee, the WTO and UNCTAD. The US proposed reference to ACC assistance, while the EU proposed other relevant economic and social issues with a view to encouraging greater cohesion. The G-77/China preferred to bracket the paragraph.

Paragraph 119, proposed by the EU, calls for strengthening cooperation within the multilateral system to share information on existing, internationally-developed standards and good practices in social policy and to make such information more easily accessible to all actors. The EU further proposed reference to developing sound principles of social policy. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Paragraph 120, proposed by the G-77/China, advocates establishing and strengthening channels of dialogue with the institutions and fora of finance and industry, in and out of government, such as key central banks and industry fora. The US and EU proposed deleting this paragraph, which remains bracketed. Delegates deleted 120 bis, on facilitating NGO contributions to international fora.

Paragraph 121 promotes South-South cooperation, particularly in terms of economic and technical cooperation, and supports triangular mechanisms whereby donor countries would provide appropriate support. Further discussion was postponed, pending information from the South-South Summit.

Delegates came up with six different versions of paragraph 122, on the right to development. The G-77/China emphasized promoting full realization and effective application of the Declaration on the Right to Development. The US referenced the Vienna Declaration. The EU highlighted the links among human rights, democracy and development, including social development. Japan’s proposal noted social development concerns. Mexico underscored links among human rights, democracy and development, including social development. The Chair proposed a formulation that attempted to incorporate all versions. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Paragraph 123 addresses reform of the international financial structure. The G-77/China included text calling for a re-examination of current voting rights of the IMF. The US proposed references to weak policies and institutions in many developing countries and an inadequate focus on risk on the part of banks and investors in industrialized countries. Norway suggested working on a wide range of reforms. The EU, US, Norway and Mexico proposed deleting this paragraph. The G-77/China opposed, and all proposals remain bracketed.

Paragraph 124 addresses an integrated approach to development. Japan suggested an optimum policy mix that takes into account the specific situation of each country, based on a global partnership of all actors. The G-77/China text considers ODA as well as other elements, such as trade, financial flows, private investment, debt relief, and technology transfer. The EU version ensures full government ownership. The Chair proposed language on an integrated approach to development based on good governance and incorporating key elements of the other proposals. The text remains bracketed.

Delegates agreed to G-77/China language on paragraph 125, on considering the establishment, as appropriate, of national mechanisms, where they do not already exist, for the implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA and the further initiatives agreed at the Special Session.

The US, Canada, and the G-77/China proposed deletion of paragraph 126, on adoption by parliaments of appropriate legislative measures conducive to the implementation of the commitments of the WSSD and the further initiatives contained in this document. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Delegates deleted paragraph 127, on an institutional process for poverty eradication. Paragraph 128 invites ECOSOC to consolidate the ongoing initiatives and actions established in the Copenhagen Declaration and POA, the first UN Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (1997-2006), and the WSSD+5 outcome document. The G-77/ China proposed references to launching a global campaign at all levels to eradicate poverty. The paragraph remains bracketed.

Paragraph 129 calls for commitment and encourages all organizations, institutions, communities and individuals to take further determined, sustained action to implement WSSD+5 outcomes. The G-77/ China proposed including reference to achieving the objectives of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA, and suggested deleting text on convening a Second World Summit for Social Development in 2005. The US proposed reference to regularly assessing further implementation of the Copenhagen POA with a view to bringing together all parties involved in the year 2005. The text remains bracketed.

The closing plenary session convened at 4:30 pm on Friday, 14 April. Delegates adopted the draft provisional agenda and organizational matters for the 24th Special Session of the GA (A/AC.253/ L.16). Vice-Chair Richelle verbally amended the substantive items under Agenda Item 7 to include the review and appraisal of progress since the WSSD and proposals for further initiatives for the full implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and POA. Chair Maquieira then invited the PrepCom to take note of documents listed in the draft report of the meeting (A/AC.253/L.17). Delegates agreed to request Amb. Asadi to finalize the report.

Vice-Chair Richelle summarized progress in Working Group II, noting that work had gone fairly well. He added that in many bracketed paragraphs, delegates have agreed on a common basis for further discussion. He stated that other upcoming international meetings would assist this process.

Sonia Felicity Elliott reported that her facilitation group completed text related to national disasters and humanitarian assistance in paragraph 19 and conflict and refugees in 19 bis, but she said that work on text in paragraph 23 linking social, economic and environmental issues had not progressed enough to be discussed.

Aurelio Fernández stated that small-group debate on paragraph 38, on labor and workers’ rights and the ratification of ILO conventions, was nearly complete. He said consensus was reached on text in paragraph 64 and 64 bis, on illegal trafficking and transportation of migrants and persons, and that delegates had exchanged views on paragraph 39, on a multilateral initiative to better understand the social dimensions of globalization.

Luis Carranza (Guatemala) said he expected an agreement pending consultations over the next few weeks on a paragraph 9 reference to unilateral measures that are not in accordance with international law and that create obstacles to trade.

Chair Maquieira highlighted the activities of Working Group I. He noted the text offers the clearest expression of the overlapping of economic and social issues, and breaches new subject areas. He urged delegates to make all efforts to arrive at the Special Session with unbracketed text, and noted intersessionals were tentatively scheduled for 17-23 May 2000, at UN headquarters in New York.

The G-77/China expressed thanks to all those involved in the negotiations. The EU said that the PrepCom had made some progress, and now understands the issues that lie ahead. Chair Maquieira closed the meeting after the PrepCom agreed to meet again in June to officially adopt the results of the preparatory process.

Delegates to the final PrepCom for WSSD+5 faced the delicate and difficult task of holding reality and justice in one vision, in the words of the poet W. B. Yeats. Justice is in the original intent of the Copenhagen process, which has attempted to set national and international standards for social development, and to find ways of bringing economic and social benefits to poor countries and people. Reality is globalization, which in five years has redrawn economic, political and social landscapes. While WSSD+5 is intended to review and reaffirm the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, it is also designed to update and refresh the process through the further actions and initiatives document. How successfully delegates grapple with globalization issues in this document may be one measure of the review’s success.

In UN terms, the Social Summit is a new process and has a less clearly defined constituency than other areas, such as women, population and the environment. For this reason and because of its subject matter, which attempts to be comprehensive but also risks being diffuse, the WSSD process is highly vulnerable to issues outside its control. The first of these is the ongoing debate about the changing nature of the UN’s role, both as an intergovernmental forum and as a participant in globalization. The second is whether the international economic order should be regulated by social concerns and, if so, who should participate in this process.

Supporters of the WSSD would like this process to become part of an integrated approach to globalization that includes the WTO, UNCTAD and the World Bank. They view Copenhagen as the most democratic of these elements, as the most representative of developing country views, and as the strongest link between social and economic concerns. For WSSD+5, Chair Maquieira and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs were credited with forging a further actions and initiatives document that contains many innovative ideas, and draws upon a variety of expert sources, including a set of 26 reports by an array of international development agencies. There are proposals linking tax systems to resource mobilization, encouraging corporate social responsibility, and calling on international institutions and governments to set up a multilateral initiative to better understand the social dimensions of globalization.

Yet the governments at the PrepCom, despite strong Chairs in each Working Group, showed only a lukewarm willingness to push the agenda of the further actions and initiatives forward. While speaking emphatically about new issues, particularly globalization, delegates displayed little new political vision on how to address them, much less with the aim of global equity. One participant remarked that it was time to give up the ghosts of the past and start dealing with those of the present and future. Another noted the seemingly insurmountable impasse between the North, which won’t give money without accountability, and the South, which won’t be accountable without money.

Along these lines, while delegates reached agreement on much of the draft political declaration, a tense final evening of negotiations fell apart over paragraphs on poverty, debt and the international financial system. On the one hand, the declaration now contains a paragraph that balances the positive and negative impacts of globalization, and recognizes the need to take action against marginalization. On the other hand, no agreement was reached on the issue of eradicating poverty, with the industrial powers suggesting this can occur mainly through sound democratic governance, and the developing world insisting that the primary beneficiaries of globalization should mobilize new resources and hand them over.

As has been true of other five-year conference reviews, text that started with specific initiatives frequently dissolved into language on promoting or encouraging more abstract ideas. There were many references to existing documents—the Copenhagen Declaration and GA resolutions—that in some cases made important links, but were often indicative of an unwillingness to mark new territory. One observer pointed out that while delegates agreed once again on an ODA target of 0.7% of GNP, this does not acknowledge the reality that only four countries have been willing or able to reach this goal. A more proactive approach must involve either some form of "peer measurement" to underscore compliance, or the development of other financial resources.

The lack of substantive debate resulted to some extent from the poor quality of many delegations, a clear statement of low political interest. Negotiations often stopped for long stretches as delegates asked for clarification on basic terms such as "pro-poor development," or to quibble over "distinctions that don’t make a difference." Many delegations were dominated by junior members of New York missions, with little or no support from experts on the issues or from relevant ministries in the capitals. In a few cases, delegations submitted positions that more senior staff later withdrew.

One of the most talked-about issues at the PrepCom was the notion of a currency transaction tax that would simultaneously raise funds for social development and moderate the volatile movement of capital. Canada proposed a feasibility study for the tax, after years of assiduous lobbying by NGOs. When the proposal reached the floor, the EU, US and Japan immediately objected while the G-77/China asked for clarification. The proposal survived mainly because Chair Maquieira asked Canada to redraft it. The Canadian delegation hopes to have enough time before Geneva to rally wider support for a reference that, according to some analysts, could be an important step toward acknowledging the need for some regulation of the international market.

Delegates also took positive steps on structural adjustment, when the industrial powers permitted a statement on IMF programmes striving to avoid severe drops in economic activities or sharp cuts in social spending. They strengthened social and economic links through references to social capital and to social assessments of economic policies. In a section recognizing the challenges of globalization faced by developing countries, they agreed on unprecedented language around specific tax initiatives designed to generate domestic resources for social services.

For the most part, the PrepCom was a tussle between the industrial countries and the developing world over who controls the global economic system and what is required for participation. The US and the EU stood behind the opportunities of globalization, labor rights, civil society, governance and transparency, while blocking references dear to the G-77/China, such as market access, controls on currency flows, links between international and financial institutions, and equitable trade conditions. The G-77/China questioned EU and US references to transparent governance and accountability, and pushed its own agenda on debt cancellation, the negative impact of globalization, strengthening the role of the UN, the provision of international resources without conditionalities and the right to development. The EU in particular favored a streamlined version of the further actions and initiatives document, stating this would focus implementation efforts on a few important initiatives. By other accounts, this was an attempt to weaken the text.

There was some criticism from developing country NGOs and delegates about the capacity of the G-77/China to stand up for its own interests. Responses within the group were fractured on many critical issues, which led to weak positions on the floor. Some observers suggested that the group ought to begin acknowledging the need for more independent regional blocs, as happened with Mercosur and Caricom at the Seattle WTO meeting. Delegates from SADC expressed particular disappointment on the negotiations over the flimsy gender commitment, and strongly supported language on human and workers’ rights that others in the group opposed. SADC even issued a statement from their social development ministers that takes significantly different positions from the G-77/China. While recognizing the negative fallout from globalization, stressing debt cancellation and marking the worsening terms of international trade, SADC also calls for aid conditionalities in accordance with a development agenda, affirms transparent government and emphasizes national and regional monitoring and evaluation.

Historically, in the words of one observer, the UN has been strong on principles, weak on strategies and virtually absent when it comes to implementation. With some progress made and with half of the further actions and initiatives text still to be negotiated in the coming weeks— including the most difficult issues—the WSSD+5 has a clear chance of endorsing sound principles and even venturing into strategies that provide clearer guidance in a turbulent world. The process is backed by strong leadership and a small but dynamic NGO movement. In the end, however, most responsibility for implementation will lie with individual governments, and their willingness to address the needs of their own populations and to act from positions of both strength and justice. The level of representation in Geneva will be one indication of who intends to allow this to happen.

UN COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS: This Committee, acting under the auspices of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will meet in Geneva from 25 April-12 May 2000; the Committee’s 23rd Working Group will meet from 15-19 May 2000. For more information, contact: Office PW-1-025, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, 8-14 avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland; tel: +41 (22) 917-9321; fax: +41 (22) 917-9022; e-mail: webadmin.hchr@unog.ch; Internet: http://www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu2/6/cescr.htm.

WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE: This UN conference will be held in 2001 in South Africa and will focus on practical steps to eradicate racism. The UN Commission on Human Rights will act as the Preparatory Committee. Two preparatory meetings are planned, the first from 1-5 May 2000, with a second scheduled for May 2001. Both preparatory meetings will be held in Geneva. For more information, contact: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Conference Secretariat, United Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, tel: +41 (22) 917-9290; e-mail: husbands@un.org; Internet: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ racism/racism.htm.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY: NGO Consultations with the GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies will take place on 8 May and 31 October 2000 at GEF Headquarters in Washington, DC. The GEF Council will meet from 9-11 May and 1-3 November 2000. For more information, contact: GEF Secretariat, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA; tel: +1-202-473-0508; fax: +1-202-522-3240; Internet: http://www.gefweb.org.

ISTANBUL +5 FIRST PREPARATORY MEETING: The Commission on Human Settlements will meet in Nairobi, Kenya, from 8-12 May 2000. The Commission will be acting as the preparatory committee for a three-day special session in June 2001 to review and appraise the implementation of the outcome of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). For more information, contact: Ms. Axumite Gebre-Egziabher, Coordinator, Istanbul +5, United Nations Center for Human Settlements (UNCHS-Habitat), P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya; tel: +254 (2) 623831; fax: +254 (2) 624262; e-mail: Axumite.Gebre-Egziabher@unchs.org; Internet: http://www.istanbul5.org.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION: The 88th Session of the International Labour Conference will meet in Geneva from 30 May-15 June 2000. For more information, contact the Official Relations Branch; tel: +41 (22) 799-7732; fax: +41 (22) 799-8944; e-mail: RELOFF@ilo.org; Internet:http://www.ilo.org/public/english/ standards/relm/ilc/ilc88/index.htm.

BEIJING +5: The GA Special Session on gender equality, development and peace for the 21st century will be held from 5-9 June 2000, at UN Headquarters in New York. The Special Session will review and assess the progress achieved in the implementation of the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, adopted in 1985, and the Beijing Platform for Action, adopted at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women. It will also consider future actions and initiatives for the year 2000 and beyond. For more information, contact: UN Division for the Advancement of Women, 2 UN Plaza, DC 2-12th Floor, New York, NY 10017 USA; tel: +1-212-963-1234; fax +1-212-963-3463; e-mail: daw@un.org; Internet: http:// www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/beijing+5.htm.

WSSD +5: The Special Session of the GA will be held from 26-30 June 2000, in Geneva. Intersessional consultations are tentatively scheduled to meet from 17-23 May 2000, in New York. For more information, contact: Gloria Kan, Chief, Intergovernmental Policy Branch, Division for Social Policy Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, Room DC2-1362, New York, NY 10017 USA ; tel: +1-212-963-5873; fax: +1-212-963-3062; e-mail: kan@un.org; Internet: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ geneva2000/.