Co-Chair Krishnan noted that items 1-6 of the provisional agenda had been completed, and invited consideration of the Report of the Panel on its Second Session (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/L.1). The G-77/CHINA stated that the revised Co-Chairs' summaries do not reflect many of the fundamental positions of the Group nor indicate the disagreement on many points. He said the G-77/CHINA could not accept the summaries as part of the session's report. He also proposed a paragraph noting that the summaries were not subject to negotiation, and in no way constitute any agreement, temporary or definitive, on any elements of the work programme of the IPF.
The US stated that the texts represent a substantial amount of work and expressed regret that they would not be included as part of the report. He proposed including them in the report with a paragraph noting that there is no agreement. JAPAN agreed with the US and said that the proposed report amply demonstrates that there is no negotiated agreement. The PHILIPPINES said there were erroneous reflections of views in the texts. She said the G-77/CHINA had asked for clear indication of particular groups and their views. ITALY said the G-77/CHINA's proposal places a negative layer over the meaning of the meeting, and asked that the proposal be modified in a positive manner. Joke Waller Hunter (DPCSD) reminded delegates that the IPF must submit its report to CSD-4, and the summaries, as proposed by the G-77/China, would not constitute part of that report. She proposed noting that the report includes the Co-Chairs' summaries of the discussion of the elements under consideration, and that these summaries were not subject to negotiations. They are transitional in nature and the elements will be further considered and crystallized. The G-77/CHINA replied that the summaries cannot be part of the report because the texts reflect the convergence, but not the divergence, of views.
An extended debate ensued concerning the report. Co-Chair Krishnan reminded the Panel that the views expressed in the report were in no way final and were subject to reconsideration and alteration at IPF-3. The G-77/CHINA agreed that their full positions would not have to be attached, but said a statement noting that the views of the G-77/CHINA were not fully reflected must be included. CANADA, supported by the EU, the US and JAPAN, objected to a specific reference to one group and suggested the report convey that the summaries did not necessarily fully reflect the views of any one group or delegation. Co-Chair Krishnan proposed that the report include a statement to the effect that the report does not include all the views expressed by the delegations, and the delegations, especially the G-77/China, reserve their positions on many issues. These proposals were unacceptable to both the G-77/CHINA and other delegations.
A compromise was eventually reached based on text proposed by Co-Chair Holdgate, which stated that the summaries did not necessarily reflect the full views of the G-77/China or other delegations. The amendment was adopted by consensus.
Delegates then adopted the report of the Panel on its second session, as amended. The IPF acknowledged the hard work and contributions of Co-Chair Krishnan, who will be relinquishing his position as Co-Chair. Manuel Rodriguez (Colombia) will represent the G-77/China as Co-Chair during IPF-3 and 4.
[Return to start of article]