Summary report, 24 April – 5 May 1995

The Second Session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements met in Nairobi, Kenya, from 24 April to 5 May 1995. The meeting overlapped with the 15th Session of the Commission on Human Settlements, which began on 25 April and concluded on 2 May 1995. During the two-week meeting, the PrepCom held plenary and working group sessions to: consider organizational matters for PrepCom III and the Habitat II Conference, which will be held in Istanbul, Turkey, from 3-14 June 1996; prepare the first part of the draft Statement of Principles and the Global Plan of Action; and prepare draft decisions for consideration by the 50th General Assembly, relating to the preparation for the Habitat II Conference and the third session of the PrepCom tentatively scheduled for 12-23 February 1996.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HABITAT II

The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) will be held in Istanbul, Turkey, from 3-14 June 1996 — the 20th anniversary of the first Habitat Conference in Vancouver in 1976. Habitat II received its impetus from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and General Assembly resolution 47/180. The objectives for Habitat II are: (1) in the long term, to arrest the deterioration of global human settlements conditions and ultimately create the conditions for achieving improvements in the living environment of all people on a sustainable basis, with special attention to the needs and contributions of women and vulnerable social groups whose quality of life and participation in development have been hampered by exclusion and inequality, affecting the poor in general; and (2) to adopt a general statement of principles and commitments and formulate a related global plan of action capable of guiding national and international efforts through the first two decades of the next century. The Secretary-General of the Conference is Dr. Wally N'Dow.

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION

The organizational session of the PrepCom for Habitat II was held at UN Headquarters in New York from 3-5 March 1993. Delegates elected the Bureau and took decisions regarding the organization and timing of the process. Members of the Bureau elected at this session included: the Chair, Martti Lujanen (Finland); Vice Chairs Pamela Mboya (Kenya), Wijepala Dharmasiri Ailapperuma (Sri Lanka) and Rufat N. Novruzov (Azerbaijan); and the Rapporteur, Marjorie Ulloa (Ecuador). Turkey, the host country, is an ex officio member of the Bureau.

PREPCOM I

The first substantive session of the PrepCom was held in Geneva from 11-22 April 1994. Delegates agreed that the overriding objective of the Conference should be to increase world awareness of the problems and potentials of human settlements as important inputs to social progress and economic growth, and to commit the world's leaders to making cities, towns and villages healthy, safe, just and sustainable. The PrepCom also took decisions on the organization of the Conference as well as on the following:

• National Objectives: Each participating country should design, adopt and implement a national plan of action, which will address the issue of human settlements in both urban and rural areas, taking into consideration environmental issues, and involving the full participation and support of the public and private sectors, and of non-governmental and community-based organizations. Countries should also strengthen the capacity of institutions, at all levels, to monitor shelter conditions and urbanization processes using a minimum set of substantially uniform and consistent indicators.

• International Objectives: The preparatory process should: present a State of Human Settlements report; produce a Statement of Principles and Commitments based on a new international consensus on policies and goals for shelter; produce a Global Plan of Action to mobilize international resources to assist countries to implement and monitor the goals of sustainable human settlements and shelter for all and to protect the environment against unwarranted and undesirable impacts of urbanization; and make available the broadest range of information concerning shelter strategies, technologies, resources, experience, expertise and sources of support.

• Participation: Governments of each participating State should establish national committees with broad participation from all sectors, including government, civic leaders, academia and professionals, grassroots leaders, non-governmental and community-based organizations and the private sector. These committees should formulate, adopt and implement a work programme including the production of a national report, discussion on priority issues, organize local and country consultations and forums, and prepare and present audio-visual documentaries of examples of best practice in human settlement development.

• Draft Statement of Principles and Commitments: The Statement should reaffirm and be framed within the general goals of the UN, contain a reference to the Principles adopted by Habitat I as well as reference to the Rio Declaration, and introduce the rationale for the new principles and commitments that will guide national and international action on human settlements for the next 20 years.

• Draft Global Plan of Action: The Global Plan of Action should be structured around the following two themes of the Conference: adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world. The following multi-sectoral issues should be considered: settlements management; poverty reduction; environmental management; and disaster mitigation, relief and reconstruction. Cross-sectoral issues that should be considered include: women, the urban economy and employment; social and economic dimensions of urbanization and shelter development; education and capacity building; and equity and vulnerable social groups.

PREPCOM II REPORT

The second session of the PrepCom for the Habitat II Conference was officially inaugurated Monday, 24 April 1995, by Kenya's Vice President Prof. George Saitoti.

In his introductory remarks, Martti Lujanen, Chair of the PrepCom, stated that this session is of decisive importance because it would decide the approach, elements and outline of the main document for Istanbul. This session must also transform the inputs compiled from recent seminars, conferences and meetings into workable policy recommendations.

On behalf of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Wally N'Dow, Secretary-General of Habitat II, noted that almost 100 national committees have been established. Habitat II must be a Conference for commitments by: governments to improve capacity and performance in dealing with problems of shelter; the private sector to play a stronger role in addressing social, economic and environmental problems; and the community of NGOs to enhance the ability of the public to act as agents of social and economic development.

In his own statement, Wally N'Dow said that resolving housing and shelter problems necessitates: fundamental shifts in public policy and land reform; concerted and urgent efforts to develop equitable and rational policies that guarantee security of tenure; new ways to combine financing strategies and the use of local materials; partnerships between the public and private sectors and communities; and an enabling environment.

Prof. George Saitoti, Vice-President of Kenya, stated that the deterioration of human settlements results not only from economic hardship, overpopulation and growing urbanization, but from an absence of sound policies and insufficient capital investment in shelter. He urged that UNCHS be maintained as a "distinct and separate entity" during UN restructuring and that its institutional capabilities be strengthened.

The Committee then turned to organizational matters. Amb. H.L. de Silva (Sri Lanka) and Amb. Eldar Kouliev (Azerbaijan) were elected as the Vice-Chairs representing Asia and Eastern Europe, respectively, to replace Wijepala Dharmasiri Ailapperuma (Sri Lanka) and Rufat N. Novruzov (Azerbaijan), both of whom had assumed other responsibilities in their countries.

After adopting the agenda (A/CONF.165/PC.2/1) and the organization of work (A/CONF.165/PC.2/1/Add.1), the general debate commenced in Plenary. Thereafter, the Plenary met another four times to continue the general debate. During the two-week meeting, Working Group I, chaired by Pamela Mboya (Kenya), met occasionally to consider Agenda Item 2, Preparations for the Conference, and Agenda Item 4, Status of human settlements report and major reviews. Working Group II, chaired by H.L. de Silva (Sri Lanka) considered Agenda Item 3, Draft Statement of Principles and Commitments, and the Global Plan of Action (GPA).

GENERAL DEBATE

During the general debate, which was held in Plenary over the course of five sessions, 86 statements were made by governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Although the level of progress varied, all delegations recalled their national preparations for Habitat II in their opening statements, including broad-based national preparatory committees, action plans and progress reports. Many States have organized public awareness campaigns, workshops, and national or regional preparatory meetings.

Some have initiated urban indicator programmes and reviews of national housing and environmental policies and submitted proposals for the Dubai competition on Best Practices.

Delegates recounted recent events that have exacerbated human settlements problems. Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Lebanon cited war; Ghana and Burundi mentioned natural disasters; and Burkina Faso and other developing countries spoke of severe economic crises. Others cited the initiation of specific national steps. Japan, Sri Lanka, Paraguay and Chile said they were increasing the availability of rental and low-cost housing for the poor. Countries with economies in transition, such as Poland, stated they were taking steps toward privatization of their housing sectors and securing land tenure. Namibia described an enabling housing process that allows people to build their own houses according to their needs, priorities and resources.

Delegations also commented on the goals for Habitat II. India addressed rural-urban linkages, Indonesia called for South-South cooperation, and Australia mentioned the need to recognize principles from other recent UN conferences. Norway, the Netherlands and China called for sustainable human, urban and economic development. Gabon cited the need for revised financing mechanisms to secure housing, and Kenya mentioned the need to strengthen the UN Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS). NGOs mentioned additional goals including increased urban planning, a panel of mayors from around the world, increased security of tenure, and emphasis on the quality of life. One NGO questioned whether safety for delegates can be secured in Istanbul, in light of the recent civil war.

Delegates also commented on the Global Plan of Action. The EU said the final output should be a single document indicating the Conference's political goals. Sweden said that the focus on household and city-level matters should increase. Brazil and the Philippines indicated that the role of the international community should be clear, particularly with regard to technical assistance. China mentioned the need for measures to control excessive population growth. Mexico said that the current document goes beyond the terms of reference given to the Conference. Finland cited basic structural problems with the document.

GENERAL DEBATE: TUESDAY, 2 MAY 1995

Editors' note: The following are Plenary statements made on Tuesday, 2 May 1995, which were not previously published due to space constraints.

Israel: Ursula Oelsner said that the absorption of immigrants has been the main thrust in Israel's housing efforts. Israel's recent measures include an urban renewal programme and an individual financial assistance programme. Tanzania: Alfonse Kyessi stated that Tanzania's preparatory measures include the Rural Roads Integrated Project and the Urban Sector Engineering Project. Tanzania has established a best practices competition, held workshops on housing issues and reviewed all existing policies. Pakistan: High Commissioner S. Shafquat Kakakhel said Pakistan's urban population is growing at a rate of 4.3% per annum and is transforming the rural demography into an urban one. Pakistan has established a national committee and initiated preparation of a national action plan and urbanization policy.

Holy See: Mors Edgar Pena stated that the Church's concern for human settlements flows from three considerations: adequate housing is important for fulfillment; the witness that is given by helping persons living in poverty; and the mission to make society more human. Cuba: Salvador Gomila, Deputy President, stated that Cuba has prepared national reports, held housing workshops and initiated a national housing programme. Cuba is experiencing shortages in housing materials due to changes in Eastern Europe and the US commercial blockade. Ukraine: Deputy Chair Prissiajniouk Vassili said that Ukraine is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, and is experiencing housing problems. Ukraine has established a national organizing committee for Habitat II and introduced a private property policy.

Malawi: Hon. T.S. Mangwazu stated that population has grown substantially and most land-holding households have less than one hectare. Malawi has introduced low-cost housing schemes, lowered rental subsidies and encouraged NGO housing projects. Croatia: Jasminka Dinic said assistance was needed for the success of Habitat II, but concrete measures have not been implemented. Croatia has begun the reconstruction of buildings following the war and created a national committee. Egypt: Amb. Ahmed Sabry stated that Egypt has embarked on programmes to replace squatter areas with more modern housing, re-examined housing legislation, and expanded the construction of housing for vulnerable groups.

Canada: Deputy High Commissioner Jim Wall reported that Canada has held preparatory workshops and a monthly forum, provided assistance for NGO participation, and given international assistance through "technology twinning" arrangements. Lithuania: Abraham Kroma said that Lithuania has cooperated extensively with Nordic countries to hold workshops, seminars and exhibitions on housing issues. Lithuania has also taken steps to employ a private housing system and private housing construction increased by 35% last year. Habitat International Coalition (HIC): Tabitha Siwale gave two statements on behalf of the NGOs. She first noted that the GPA should elaborate more on national action plans and must recognize the essential humanity of cities. The second statement expressed concern over large scale evictions in Turkey. There must be clear commitments that Habitat II be conducted in a transparent manner.

Greece: Mr. V. Vamvakopoulos reported that Greece has established a national committee, and provided a secretariat and funding for implementation. Greece has developed a country-wide competition on best practices, an urban indicators programme and a national progress report. Argentina: Amb. Jos Cantilo reported that a national meeting on housing policy covering Habitat II issues had been held and another is scheduled for June 1995. Argentina has begun preparations for a national report, a national committee and a national action plan. Rwanda: Charles Ntakirutika said that war has severely worsened housing problems, leaving millions of people homeless.

Cambodia: Vice Governor Kry-Beng Hong said that Cambodia recently emerged from a 25-year war, and housing problems are at a critical stage. He appealed to UNCHS to provide financial assistance and open an office in Cambodia. Seychelles: Hon. Dolor Ernesta said that Seychelles has a programme that allows the private sector to play a role. Seychelles' new constitution recognizes the right of every citizen to adequate housing. Cameroon: Antoine Zanga reported that Cameroon has set up a broad-based national committee, and developed an urban indicators plan. Cameroon will prepare a national plan of action, an additional survey of indicators and a national report.

Sierra Leone: General Manager P.O. Beckley stated that the need for efficiency is important but the need to rebuild from the ongoing civil strife takes priority. Sierra Leone will draft a national plan of action. Lebanon: Eng. E. Samaha noted that Lebanon has a backlog of 400,000 requests for housing units and 100,000 units have been destroyed by Israeli attacks. He stressed the role of the family and women. Djibouti: Ali Cheik Barkad stated that Djibouti remains proactive on housing issues. Djibouti has expanded its public works ministry, submitted a progress report, established a national committee and written a document on best practices.

UNDP: G. Shabbir Cheema stated that UNDP will support the Habitat II process by providing substantive inputs, mobilizing resources at the national, regional and global levels, and encouraging the participation of UNDP Resident Representatives. Asian Coalition of Housing Financing Institutions (ACHFI): Nassar Munjee stated that ACHFI would like to see the detailing of financing processes, and added that the GPA must bring financial mechanisms to the fore. International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP): Prof. Serge Domicelj said that 1995 ISOCARP Congress will lend substance to several of the global actions now in place for Habitat II. The 1996 meeting will focus on implementing the Habitat II recommendations.

Colombia: H.E. Mr. Garcia-Duran stated that Colombia's preparations include a development plan, a national preparatory committee and a national programme that enables the government to consult with different social sectors. Bhutan: Phuntsho Wangdi stated that Bhutan has initiated an urban planning process and a national housing policy. Due to the fact that urbanization is new to Bhutan, they must learn from other countries. Mongolia: Mr. T. Dolor stated that Mongolia's preparatory work for Habitat II includes a working group review of legislation, a national policy, research campaigns, and a public awareness campaign. He called for technical and financial assistance.

WORKING GROUP I

Working Group I considered Agenda Items 2 and 4, Preparations for the Conference and the Status of Human Settlements, respectively. Following requests for information regarding the arrangements for the Istanbul Conference and other matters during consideration of the two items, Lujanen and an informal drafting group chaired by India prepared and presented four documents altogether, which were then discussed during the second week and adopted as draft decisions by the Group.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE CONFERENCE

Discussion on this agenda item was based on document A/CONF.165/PC.2/2, Progress report of the Secretary-General of the Conference on the activities of the Conference secretariat, and document A/CONF.165/PC.2/2/Add.1, Progress report on national preparations. In his introduction, Wally N'Dow said preparations at the national level have included dissemination of guides and working documents as well as briefings and advisory missions. As of February 1995, 79 countries had established national committees, and 52 had submitted progress reports. Regional and subregional preparatory meetings have been held in Africa, the Arab States, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe. Global and regional meetings of mayors, development banks, city associations, NGOs and professional associations were also held. The Secretariat also reported on host country preparations, such as NGO activities and the trade fair, and described the participatory design process for preparing the Draft Global Plan of Action.

The two-day discussion of this agenda item focused on preparations for Istanbul, information dissemination, reports by countries on their preparations at the national and regional levels, financing of preparatory activities in developing countries, and preparations for the Dubai competition on best practices.

Preparations for Istanbul and Dubai: Several delegates noted that there is a lack of information on logistical and other matters 13 months before the Conference, and called for the host country to provide the necessary information to facilitate national preparations. India also requested information on the Istanbul trade fair, while Kenya stated that being a self-financing event, it will be difficult for small firms to participate. Gabon said the Committee had received no information about the civil war in Turkey.

Turkey responded that registration and rules of procedure are the responsibility of the United Nations. Regarding the trade fair, an organizing company has been identified through a tendering process, and it will communicate with governments soon. A flyer providing details on the trade fair is available. The fair, located close to the Airport, plans to exhibit low cost products, services and technologies for low cost housing and construction, as well as financing institutions. Fifteen percent of the exhibition grounds have been set aside for allocation to the least developed countries. In addition, Turkey said the best answers on the "alleged civil war" should come from the Secretary-General of Habitat II, who recently visited Istanbul. He informed delegates that Turkey had hosted many international meetings in 1994.

Regarding the Dubai competition on best practices, the Secretariat said it is currently considering the selection criteria and the possibility of setting up an independent international jury comprising all key actors.

Information dissemination: Several delegates also complained about the information flow between the Secretariat and governments. Information is either not received or received too late, especially for countries without missions in Nairobi. National committees are not informed about regional meetings, there is no feedback from the Secretariat on whether work undertaken by governments is relevant or not and there is no information about preparations for the NGO forum in Istanbul. China called for publicity on the Conference.

The Secretariat said it utilizes four channels to communicate to governments: missions located in Nairobi; national steering committees that have provided their addresses to the Secretariat; key actors; and the media. The Secretariat announced it would distribute an information sheet during the session providing an overview, a timetable and a list of parallel and public events during Habitat II. The timetable for national reports would be discussed at this PrepCom. Reports from about 40 upcoming international meetings would be consolidated into a progress report before PrepCom III.

National and regional preparations: Several countries, including India, Kenya, Ukraine, Hungary, Finland, Romania, Nepal, Ghana, Benin, Algeria, Tanzania, Cameroon, Senegal, Bulgaria, Malawi, Gabon and the Gambia reported that they had either set up multi-sectoral national coordinating committees, prepared national reports or both.

Indonesia is planning a national awareness campaign. Greece has held three national conferences and has begun a country-wide competition on best practices. Nigeria will hold a workshop for local councils. Kenya stressed that Habitat II should synchronize the two indicators' programmes so that countries do not repeat the exercise when gathering information.

The regional activities reported include a seminar hosted in Eastern Europe and a meeting held in September 1994 by the Economic Commission for Europe, which led to the establishment of a follow-up task-force. France is planning an international mayors meeting in November. UNIDO will organize a colloquium on various issues and regional consultations with the housing industry. ESCAP will convene a forum on urban issues in Asia.

Financial issues: India, supported by Kenya, Swaziland, Malawi, Gabon and Algeria, noted that although PrepCom I had decided that half of the funds received by the Secretariat for national preparation would be shared evenly among developing countries and the other half allocated on the basis of need, no money had been received. India also noted that the Secretary-General's report was silent on how the resources mobilized so far, reported in paragraphs 6 and 34, had been used. Furthermore, India was not aware that there is funding for developing countries to support the documentation of best practices. The Gambia, Sudan, Hungary and Zambia said they needed funds to continue the activities they had initiated but were now unable to complete. Uganda said recent promises for financial assistance and assistance to women participants have not materialized. China said the Secretariat should actively seek funds to support the full participation of developing countries.

The Secretariat reported that the total income, including pledges and funds requested from the regular UN budget, is US$5.3 million. The total received to date is US$4.6 million. US$3.3 million has been spent for partial reimbursement of activities including PrepCom I participation, regional and subregional meetings, gender and women's networking activities, documentation on best practices and NGO participation. In kind contributions amount to US$8.9 million. Cash pledges have been provided by 18 countries, including two developing countries. Thirty-nine requests for financial assistance have been received from developing countries. The assistance provided falls into three categories: application of indicators, documentation of best practices and ad hoc technical assistance. In total, 55 countries have received technical assistance. The Secretariat hopes to provide assistance to 39 countries in 1995, in particular to national committees, regional and subregional meetings and the preparation of national reports and national plans of action.

DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT DECISIONS: The working group then established an informal drafting group to prepare a report on the issue of best practices. The group submitted A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.8, Criteria for nominating and selecting best practices, which the group discussed. The Bureau of the Committee also prepared A/CONF.165/PC.2/CRP.2, Organization of work, including establishment of committees and procedural matters, and A/CONF.165/PC.2/CRP.3, Rules of procedure, as a response to requests for information on preparations for Istanbul.

Criteria for Nominating and Selecting Best Practices: The document, A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.8, was first considered in an informal session and then presented to the Working Group. The document sets out three criteria for nominating best practices — impact, partnerships and sustainability — and provides reporting guidelines, including deadlines, format, gender analysis, indicators, video-films and national competitions.

The proposal to have an 11-member jury was discussed in detail and it was agreed that the number shall be determined by the Secretary-General, but that it should consist of an odd number of persons. In addition, the question of "gender" representation on the jury was raised and consensus reached that "gender sensitivity" rather than "gender balance" will be necessary when establishing the jury. There was also protracted debate on whether to use the word "good governance." It was agreed that the term should be replaced with "efficient, transparent and accountable management...." The summary submissions should be provided by 1 September 1995, and the detailed ones by 1 December 1995. It was also agreed that this document would replace paragraphs 38-46 of A/CONF.165/PC.2/2/Add.1, Guidelines for national preparations.

Organization of Work: Following requests from delegates on information on the preparations for Istanbul, PrepCom Chair Lujanen presented document A/CONF.165/PC.2/CRP.2, Organization of work, including establishment of committees and procedural matters. The document addresses pre-Conference consultations, the election of officers, adoption of the rules of procedure, adoption of the agenda, organization of work, participation of local authorities and the report of the Conference.

The document highlights the level of participation of NGOs and local authorities, based on the provisions of GA resolution 49/109 of December 1994, and the decision of the PrepCom at its first session to involve all the listed sectors as full members of the national committees.

A two-day pre-conference consultation will be held in Istanbul to deal with organizational matters, with one representative from each delegation attending. This proposal needs General Assembly endorsement. The section on election of officers and adoption of rules of procedure is based on a standard UN format, and the agenda will be adopted during PrepCom III. One Plenary and two Main Committees are planned. The Plenary will have two segments: a general debate on the themes of the main conference and a high-level segment. Committee I will prepare the Draft Statement of Principles and the Global Plan of Action and address organizational matters. Committee II will conduct hearings between member States and participants from other sectors and possibly receive recommendations on thematic issues from round-tables. Representatives of Local Authorities' associations will have access at the level of government delegations without the right to vote. The Report of the Conference will include the hearings from Committee II.

Before the document was adopted, some issues were extensively debated. Delegates primarily directed their attention to sections of the document dealing with participation of local authorities and establishment of committees.

Rules of Procedure: The Rules of Procedure, which were circulated in document A/CONF.165/PC.2/CRP.3, were discussed concurrently with the preparations for Istanbul. The most contentious issues related to the level at which local authorities will participate in Istanbul and the election of officers.

The Secretariat noted that the Rules of Procedure used standard UN language except for Rule 61, which defines terms of participation for local authorities. Delegates debated the rule extensively, some arguing that local authorities would receive sufficient representation as national delegates, or that their designation as observers should be made by national committees, not by international associations of local authorities, as stated in the proposed rule. The US, Finland, Senegal and France said there should be two avenues for local authorities to participate as national delegates and as representatives of local authorities associations. Indonesia and Mexico expressed concern about possible double representation.

During deliberations of an informal drafting group established under Working Group I, India said Rule 61 should be amended to say that national committees are the main vehicle for local authorities' participation, and proposed amending the rule to admit local authorities "designated by international associations of local authorities and respective national committees acting together." India said it objected to the possibility that Rule 61 would permit local authorities to attend without the knowledge of either the national government or the national committee. France said the rule should not refer to governments. Canada said it would strenuously object to giving national governments authority to veto participants. Senegal, supported by Uganda, Finland, France and the UK, said the problem was political, and that efforts to control or monitor what local authorities will say was not in line with democracy or freedom.

Habitat II Secretary-General Wally N'Dow was summoned to the drafting group meeting. He appealed to India to permit the meeting to move forward unless the issue created a preponderant constitutional crisis. Participation of local authorities is fundamental to the agreed spirit of partnership for Habitat II. Partnership means giving up part of the governmental process. If governments can decide who attends at Istanbul, progress on participation of non-governmental partners has been lost.

India said he would heed the appeal, and a small group was formed to propose specific compromise language. After brief consultations, France, Finland and India presented the text that was adopted both for Rule 61 and paragraph 22 of the Organization of Work: "Representatives of local authorities, designated by accredited international associations of local authorities in consultation with national associations of local authorities, invited to the conference may participate, without the right to vote, in the deliberations of the conference, its main committees and all working groups as appropriate, on questions within the scope of their activities. Every effort shall be made to make the representation of local authorities balanced in terms of region, size and type of local authorities."

Rule 62 on NGO participation was adopted with little debate. It states that NGOs may be accredited as observers to attend public meetings of the Conference and the Main Committees. If time for speakers is limited, NGOs may be requested to choose speakers who will intervene on behalf of coalitions.

Committees and election of officers: Paragraph 8 on election of officers originally provided for election of a president, 27 vice presidents and an ex-officio vice president, and other offices deemed necessary by the Conference. Paragraph 12 of the Organization of Work and Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure originally established a Plenary and two Committees. The drafting group dealt with these paragraphs together.

In paragraph 8, the Philippines proposed text designating a Chair for the drafting committee. Canada preferred that delegates be given the option to elect the Chair of a drafting committee "in accordance with practice at other conferences." China suggested that similar language permitting a drafting sub-committee could be added to paragraph 12 on committees. The Philippines said a drafting committee should be established under the Plenary, not as a sub-committee, and that Rule 46 on Main Committees should do the same. Delegates agreed to "a chairman for a drafting committee which may be set up in accordance with the practices of other UN conferences" in paragraph 8 and the reference that the Conference could establish "...two Main Committees and a drafting committee which may be set up in accordance with the practice of other UN conferences" in paragraph 12 and Rule 46.

The Philippines proposed new text that the drafting committee "shall consider the decisions, resolutions and other documents emanating from Committee 1 and Committee 2 before submission to Plenary." Numerous delegations objected to this proposal. The Philippines said its proposal should be bracketed. The drafting group Chair noted consensus seemed against the Philippines proposal. A small consultative group was formed, which proposed that the drafting committee shall undertake work on documents, resolutions and decisions that may be allocated to it by the Conference.

STATE OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

The Working Group considered the issue of the state of human settlements based on documents: A/CONF.165/PC.2/3; A/CONF.165/PC.2/4; A/CONF.165/PC.2/5; A/CONF.165/PC.2/6; A/CONF.165/PC.2/7; A/CONF.165/PC.2/8; A/CONF.165/PC.2/9; A/CONF.165/PC.2/10; and A/CONF.165/PC.2/11, following a summary of the documents by the Secretariat.

India said the documents did not sufficiently reflect developing countries' priorities on international technical and financial assistance. He also pointed out problems related to inflexible regulations, the relations between public and private sector finance, equal opportunity for borrowing, and the abolition of rent control.

India placed a reservation on A/CONF.165/PC.2/11's treatment of the human right to housing pending the decision of the Commission on Human Settlements (CHS). The Netherlands agreed that the Group should defer discussion on housing rights until the CHS completed deliberations.

Finland said the review of Agenda 21 implementation in A/CONF.165/PC.2/8 shows that development of viable indicators can ensure an efficient monitoring system. She called for consideration of relevant documents and goals from Cairo and Copenhagen. Kenya said the reports do not address the needs of vulnerable groups. The rural-urban imbalance was not shown, and statistics were needed on regional levels of urbanization. Spain said a statement in A/CONF.165/PC.2/8 that "the business of development is an eminently private affair" should be revised to state that the government can help mobilize private sector resources.

The Chair said an informal, open-ended drafting group chaired by India would be formed to revise the documents. The output of the drafting group was presented by India and contained in document A/CONF.165/PC.2/2/Add.3. The document has two main sections each with sub-sections: preparatory activities at the national, regional and international levels, highlighting each of their objectives and activities; and the nature of Habitat II, which addresses the State of human settlements, accreditation and participation of local authorities, date and agenda of the third session of the Committee and two different sub-sections on the financing of the Conference.

I. Preparatory Activities — A. National objectives, activities and reporting: China, Sweden and Finland questioned the five-year national plan of action. China said the national plans of action should follow the Global Plan of Action (GPA), which will not be complete until Habitat II. Sweden and Finland said their national action plans are not on five-year scales. The Secretariat said the language is based on recommendations from the first PrepCom and that the national reports and GPA are to be developed in parallel. The Chair suggested that the decision could refer to "national plans and five-year plans." The Netherlands, supported by Sweden and Denmark, added that countries can formulate a plan and also give an overview of existing plans of action. It was agreed that the deadline for national reports would be 1 September 1995.

B. Regional objectives and activities: Colombia said that a statement emphasizing similarities in regional cultures and economies should instead note their difference or diversity. France suggested "cultural, economic and social convergence." Gabon suggested "convergence and diversity."

C. International objectives and activities: Romania suggested substituting "housing" for "shelter" in a paragraph describing best practices. Swaziland said subregional organizations should be included in technical cooperation. A paragraph on the GPA was deferred, pending further discussions in the PrepCom.

II. The Nature of Habitat II — A. Financing of Habitat II and its preparatory activities: China added to a paragraph requesting funding from governments, "especially those of the developed countries and others in a position to do so, and to international and regional financial institutions."

The draft decision on the State of Human Settlements Report, major reviews and other substantive documentation was adopted. Draft decisions on accreditation and participation of local authorities, organizational arrangements for the conference, and activities parallel to the main activities of the Conference were deferred until other discussions on these matters are complete.

B. Date and agenda of the third session of the Preparatory Committee: Delegates noted that the dates in the decision are blank. The Secretariat said the dates depend on the availability of facilities in New York and on other arrangements. He said the third session is likely to take place between the second half of February and first half of March. Sweden said the decision could not yet accurately reflect the incomplete GPA work in Working Group II. Adoption of the subparagraph was deferred.

Japan said discussions had not been held on accreditation, so that portion of the decision should be deferred. Finland suggested adding a review of best practices to the status of preparations. The portion on the status of preparations and the remainder of the decision were adopted.

The Chair introduced a draft resolution from the Bureau stating that the PrepCom authorizes its Bureau to hold, as necessary, meetings between the sessions of the Committee to guide, inter alia, the Secretariat's work. Canada, China, Colombia and the UK said they would prefer to hear details on possible meetings. Until the details are provided, the resolution should be deferred. Japan said it had doubts about intersessional meetings because of the budgetary implications.

The revised version of this discussion was presented to the Working Group as document A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.5. The document contains four sections: preparatory activities at the national, regional and international levels, summarizing the objectives and activities; financing of the Habitat II Conference; the State of Human Settlements; and the dates and agenda of the third session of the Preparatory Committee.

There were only two contentious issues during the last meeting of the Working Group: the request to the General Assembly to "allocate sufficient funds" to cover various costs of the Secretariat for the period October 1995 to July 1996; and the proposal that the third session should be held from "12 to 23 February 1996...." The US suggested compromise language, in line with paragraph 20 of resolution 47/180, to request the GA to "allocate within existing UN budgetary resources sufficient funds..." while India, supported by Uganda, preferred "allocate, within available UN budgetary resources..." because the resources are likely to increase by October. The US was adamant and their proposal was accepted.

The US, supported by Italy, sought an explanation on the need for a two-week third session. Norway reminded delegates of the need to observe paragraph 3 of GA resolution 49/109, which had also recommended slashing PrepCom II to two weeks from the planned three weeks, and noted that a two week proposal may not survive in the GA and that the credibility of the Committee was at stake. Canada advanced the argument by stating that by PrepCom I, a third session was not envisioned, but was agreed to only if it was to be "relatively short." Sweden also noted that two pre-conference consultation days are planned in Istanbul.

Uganda, supported by Swaziland, noted that negotiation on the document has not yet started and the current session had demonstrated that there will be some areas of difficulty. India concurred, noting that it had been a hard struggle to produce even part of the first draft of the GPA and sufficient time will be needed to arrive at consensus. The Secretariat explained that there is consensus that the third PrepCom is going to be the toughest and therefore a two week session is justified. The US conceded but Canada and Norway did not and the matter was deferred to Plenary.

WORKING GROUP II

The Working Group, chaired by Amb. H.L. de Silva (Sri Lanka), focused on Agenda Item 3, Draft Statement of Principles and Commitments, and the Global Plan of Action (GPA) contained in document A/CONF.165/PC.2/3. The draft GPA has five sections: a preamble, key issues, principles, a strategy and commitments. There are three principles: civic engagement, sustainability, and equity. The strategy of enablement is a central element. It emphasizes partnership between people in various social sectors, and its objectives are to increase participation through broad-based consultation and building of partnerships.

The first commitment is related to the enablement strategy. A long set of government commitments follows, including gender equity, strategic partnerships, institutional and legal structures, public service, leadership and accountability. Separate commitments sections are included for NGOs and community-based organizations, business groups, academic and scientific institutions, professional associations, media, philanthropic foundations and others.

Introducing this document during the Working Group's first meeting, Wally N'Dow explained that this Plan of Action is important not only for Habitat II, but as a way to transform the promises of other major initiatives, such as Rio, Cairo and Copenhagen Conferences, to the local level. The four basic philosophies used in developing the document were civic engagement, sustainability, equity and enablement.

After N'Dow's presentation, several delegates made their comments. France, on behalf of the European Union (EU), said the Conference's documents must be more action-oriented to support government actions and added that the current draft does not sufficiently focus on the Conference themes and lacks a substantive base. Pakistan, supported by Egypt and Sudan, said the document does not reflect the overriding responsibility of the international community. The problem has been left to national governments, local authorities and the private sector, but they will not have the fiscal, technical or financial resources to meet the commitments. An NGO, Women and Shelter, said the role of women in urban settlements has been overlooked and the document contains no details on the negative effects of structural adjustment programmes. Habitat International Coalition said the present document is unsuitable and needs to be fundamentally restructured.

In order to enable governments to prepare a more detailed and comprehensive document, the Working Group agreed to meet informally. Dr. Glynn Khonje (Zambia) was appointed the Chair of the open-ended informal working group, which met twice and discussed the document prepared by the Secretariat as well as a draft proposal submitted by the EU.

During the first meeting of the informal working group, the Secretariat outlined the methodology used to develop the draft GPA, the fundamental premises used in its elaboration and how changes in the problems of human settlements argue for a new approach to urbanization. The Secretariat also introduced another document A/CONF.165/PC.2/3/Add.1, Draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the Global Plan of Action, which focuses on three programme areas: sustainable urban and regional development; sustainable shelter and community development; and sustainable settlements management and governance.

Delegations never discussed the second document, but pointed out technical problems with the Secretariat's draft GPA, including its avoidance of the political issue of planning, the responsibilities of national governments and an implicit anti-rural bias. The EU circulated its outline for the structure and the content of the final document, as a possible alternative to the Secretariat's GPA. The document contains brief sections describing a preamble and the three principles from the Secretariat draft and reorganizes the discussion on commitments into subject-oriented clusters.

Dr. Khonje suggested that delegates first deal with the GPA's structure and then discuss substantive issues. The EU summarized its proposal, reiterating the need for the GPA to support Habitat II's agreed political aims. He said the final GPA could be divided into two documents — one covering principles and commitments, and a second containing the GPA. The commitments should be between governments, and the action programme should include national or sub-national elements. The African Group said the final document should have four sections: a preamble; principles, strategies and commitments; the GPA; and a fourth section describing monitoring and evaluation programmes based on performance measures and indicators.

Several delegates supported the general structure of the EU outline and recommended additions or modifications, including a section describing strategies and a timetable for their implementation; sections on financial resources and mechanisms; combining the preamble and principles; and additional emphasis on national plans or international aspects. Delegates also noted the need to distinguish clearly between principles, commitments and strategies and to determine the sectors or administrative levels to which they should apply.

The group then discussed substantive elements. Several comments from delegates underscored the preamble's importance in setting the scope for the document: a new conceptualization of settlements and settlement problems; integration of rural and urban concerns; an evolutionary perspective on settlements; inclusion of people of all spiritual heritages; and a justification for the global conference encompassing the similarity of different countries' problems, ecological concerns, new human rights related to settlements and international responsibility for the solution. Regarding general substantive issues, delegates highlighted the need for: a plan that allows for national action; inclusion of rural as well as urban concerns; financial and fiscal issues; and development concerns related to both settlements and natural and human resources. Several delegates stressed that the document should be written in simple language for politicians and the public to understand.

The Chair accepted the proposal by several delegates to establish a drafting group to combine the various texts. The group would consist of two representatives from each regional group, two NGO representatives, and a representative each from the EU, the African Group and local authorities. The drafting group was asked to combine the Secretariat's draft of the GPA with the EU outline and the African Group outline.

The drafting group, also chaired by Dr. Khonje, included representatives from: Africa (Kenya and Senegal), Arab States (Sudan), Asia (the Philippines and China), Eastern Europe (Poland and Hungary), European Union (Germany), Group of 77 (Pakistan), Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil and Cuba), Local Authorities (UK), NGOs (two Habitat International Coalition representatives) and the Western European and Others Group (US and Finland).

The drafting group held one session Thursday and, without first reporting back to the informal working group, gave its proposals on the structure and content to Working Group II on Friday. The structure has a preamble, principles, goals and commitments, and a Global Plan of Action. The principles are drawn from the EU document, with an addition of the principles of international solidarity and justice, the family, peace and poverty eradication. In addition, the document would contain an outline of the commitments, a comprehensive preamble and an outline for the Global Plan of Action.

The drafting group worked through the weekend. They agreed on the structure and completed preparation of the Principles, Preamble and Goals and Commitments. Yet, by the end of the session, the Working Group had only completed a first reading of the Preamble, Principles and Commitments.

PREAMBLE: The group considered the preamble contained in A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.2. Paragraph 1 recognized the centrality of human concerns to sustainable development, as well as the human being's entitlement to a life in harmony with nature and shared spiritual and moral values. There was a brief debate on the need to include "ethical values."

Paragraph 2 reviewed the state of urban growth and state of human settlements since Habitat I and noted that there has been no significant improvement in shelter conditions. Japan objected to this statement since it implies that all international efforts have been useless. India said that it was a fact that little change had been made. Agreement was reached that "despite the great effort by the international community and States, there have been no significant changes...."

Paragraph 3 noted that Habitat II has been preceded by other UN conferences whose contributions are reflected in the Global Plan of Action. Habitat II's function is to continue the process. Italy requested mention of the effects of technology on human settlements in developed countries.

Paragraph 4 underscored the importance of sustainable human settlements in an urbanizing world. Benin, supported by the Philippines, Kenya and the Holy See, said the word "human" should be deleted as the process aims at achieving "sustainable development."

Paragraph 5 described the world situation since the end of the Cold War.

Paragraph 6 highlighted the effects of poor housing and homelessness, in particular in developing countries, noting that developed countries are also face these problems. It acknowledges the "right to a place to live in peace and dignity." Forty-five minutes of debate produced no consensus on the "right" issue. It was agreed that the two options, "is equally entitled to" and "have basic human needs, including" would be left in brackets.

Paragraph 7 dealt with the effects of industrialization on the environment in developed countries and the lack of personal acceptance of responsibility.

Paragraph 8 outlined the constraints facing local authorities in addressing human settlements. Delegates endorsed the alternative text provided by the International Union of Local Authorities on measures to strengthen the operational capacity of local authorities.

Paragraph 9 highlighted the role of cities in economic development as well as their negative social and environmental effects, which can become an obstacle to stability, well-being and development. Delegates said the paragraph's orientation is negative.

Paragraph 10 focused on international migration and stressed that the education, housing, employment and social integration needs of migrants should be addressed by host countries. Croatia suggested additional text providing for international assistance for reconstruction of human settlements for refugees and internally displaced persons.

Paragraph 11 called for preventive measures beyond the city-level, against natural, technological and other disasters. Benin added "man-made disasters" and introduced language referencing excessive military expenditures, arms trade and investment for arms protection and acquisition.

Paragraph 12 stated the need to address urban-rural linkages related to economic development in rural areas. Several alternatives were given to eliminate the impression that urbanization is a negative process.

Paragraph 13 stressed the need for decision-making that is decentralized and includes participation of affected persons.

Paragraph 14 focused on the status of women as a measure of a nation's development and stressed the need for equality in all aspects. Delegates also requested a new paragraph on children and youth.

Paragraph 15 underscored the justification of the preceding paragraphs and endorses the principles, goals and commitments in the document.

Paragraph 16 outlined the objective of the principles, goals and commitments adopted by Habitat II.

A revised version of this document, A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.2/ Rev.1, was presented to the Working Group, but was not discussed.

PRINCIPLES: Six principles were considered, at the end of which two principles, Livability and Partnerships, were added.

Peace: The principle states that peace is an essential condition to achieve sustainable human settlements. It calls on all nations to renounce armed conflicts, various forms of strife, foreign aggression and occupation, and urges the international community to promote peace, justice and security and to resolve conflicts by peaceful means.

India said the statement that "governments at all levels, the international community and civil society should collaborate to preserve peace," assumes that peace exists, and suggested they should also strive "to secure" peace. Benin, supported by the Holy See, suggested including "to promote and preserve peace," rather than "to secure," deleting "collaborate" and adding "lasting" to the statement that "just and comprehensive peace is an essential condition." Sweden and Zambia questioned the inclusion of the qualifier "just" to the concept of peace. Benin, India, Nigeria and the Holy See stated that there are many examples where countries have experienced peace, but it is imposed and unjust.

Family: The principle recognizes the family as the basic unit of society and its constructive role for all sustainable human settlements, and calls for all conditions necessary for its integration, preservation, improvement and protection to be facilitated.

Turkey noted that many statements in this principle are actually commitments and proposed moving them to that section. She added that specifically including the family as a principle requires including other societal units such as the community and the individual. Many delegations responded that the family should be highlighted as a principle because of its importance.

International Solidarity and Cooperation: The three-paragraph principle outlines the justification for human settlements, the rationale for international solidarity to meet the challenges of human settlements and the relevance of global terms of trade, technology transfer and extended economic cooperation to urbanization issues.

India, supported by the Russian Federation and Nigeria, said the title should include "assistance." Nigeria suggested the addition of "substantial assistance." Sweden, supported by the US and Australia, said the main financial responsibility will lie with national governments and local authorities. The US then proposed: "implementation of the GPA will require application of substantial resources, local or international...."

Government Responsibility and Civic Engagement: The principle recognizes the responsibility of governments in creating conditions for meeting the shelter needs of people, including providing guidance and setting norms, standards and rules. It also calls for women to be enabled to achieve their full potential in participating in making decisions affecting their living and working environments. It then outlines what civic engagement is: understanding and acting on one's own responsibility to the community; and one's obligations towards others. Governments are responsible for promoting civic engagement in human settlements.

Delegations made several suggestions regarding the responsibilities of governments including: settlement planning frameworks should be consistent with Agenda 21; mobilization of adequate financial and technical resources should occur within States; effective and just human settlement management should be ensured; and property rights should be established.

Sustainability: The principle calls for all human settlements to be developed and adjusted to requirements of sustainability. The principle identifies three aspects essential to sustainable human settlements: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. Environmental sustainability requires planning that takes into account the ecosystems' carrying capacity. Economic sustainability deals with managed settlements that provide sustainable economic growth, in particular addressing consumption, transport, economic and development activities. Social sustainability ensures that settlements provide conditions such as social welfare, solidarity and social cohesion in families and ethnic groups.

Substantive discussions centered on: whether to delete the actors mentioned in the principle; the need to replace "social sustainability" with alternative wording because the concept could not be defined at the World Summit for Social Development; deletion of the reference to debt; and the need to specifically identify the relevant government institutions. Several delegations wanted the impact of "natural disasters" recognized. Discussion on the economic aspect focused on the choice between "sustainable economic growth" or "sustained economic growth." Developing countries want the latter, arguing that it is the language used in the Rio documents.

Equity: This principle states that all men and women, in particular the vulnerable and disadvantaged, should have equitable access to all benefits of human settlements, and rights and obligation in equitable development and management of the settlements. Equitable human settlement includes: having access to shelter, infrastructure, basic services and resources; effective participatory decisions; addressing physical and mental health; transparency, efficiency and accountability; burden sharing through equitable taxation; and encouragement of volunteerism for the public good.

Turkey suggested referring to equity between settlements, not just within settlements and suggested additional language. Sweden stated that the special needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged people warranted a separate sentence. Brazil, supported by many other delegations, commented that the idea of good governance should not be included because it is too controversial. Other suggestions included mentioning physical and mental health needs, referring specifically to homeless people, and providing education and training for women and children.

Livability: The principle of livability lists thirteen items that livable human settlements should provide, including: adequate living and sanitary conditions; the basic medium for the preservation of the cultural memory of people; spaces and flow channels that respond to the behavioral needs of the inhabitants; and a variety of human interaction and access to resources and information.

Pakistan commented on the need to eradicate crime. Israel requested a reference to the integration of the natural environment into the city. Bangladesh suggested a provision regarding the education of children. Brazil, supported by Israel and the Holy See, said the document lacks specificity and fails to define the term livability. He enumerated points that were repetitive or unclear. The UK questioned whether the principle, after removal of the duplicative points, would be worth retaining. The Chair stated that the principle should be retained but must be harmonized with other principles.

Partnerships: The principle on partnerships states that "partnerships between and among all actors are essential to the development of sustainable human settlements and the provision of adequate shelter for all, as they have the ability to integrate and mutually support objectives of participants through, inter alia, forming alliances, pooling resources, sharing knowledge, contributing skills, and capitalizing on comparative advantages." Delegates stated that this principle is less explicit than the others. Brazil suggested a reference to urban management and Benin proposed two additional paragraphs on the importance of partnerships in addressing human settlements problems.

Although this document was revised and issued as A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.3, it was not discussed.

COMMITMENTS ON ADEQUATE SHELTER FOR ALL: The group first considered the national and international commitments related to "ensuring adequate shelter for all" contained in documents A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.4(No.1) and A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.4(No.2), respectively.

National Commitments: The draft commits governments to ensure an adequate supply of shelter and to improve living conditions on a sustainable basis so that everyone will have access to affordable and adequate shelter. To this end, governments shall look into: (a) policies to ensure adequate shelter for everybody, including the poor and disadvantaged; (b) policies that ensure access to serviced land, finance and credit, and affordable building materials; (c) macro-economic and shelter policies that maximize the positive economic impacts of shelter development; (d) the promotion of partnerships among all actors, especially between the private sector and community; (e) the establishment of a regulatory and legal framework to ensure equitable access by all people to resources for shelter development; (f) expanding the supply of affordable rental housing with due consideration to the rights and obligations of the tenant and owners; and (g) removal of all forms of discrimination that may place disadvantaged groups in a vulnerable position in the housing market.

Kenya proposed "National Commitments for Adequate Shelter for All" as the title. Zambia, supported by the UK and Israel, provided text that highlights the shelter aspect in physical planning. Australia submitted text to indicate where shelter should be provided.

Debate ensued on the preference between the terms "shelter for all" and "housing for all." The Secretariat said the CHS uses the terms interchangeably, but the PrepCom should use "shelter for all," as recommended by the 14th Session of the CHS. Germany said shelter for all refers to both housing and the provision of basic services, but suggested that due to ambiguity in the term "basic services," "public services" should be used instead. This triggered another debate. Delegates agreed to use "basic services," and to define the term at the beginning of the document.

International Commitments: In this section, governments commit themselves to supporting the implementation of the commitments through multilateral and bilateral cooperation, technical assistance [new and additional] financial resources and through follow-up, monitoring and evaluation of global urbanization. It then outlines the various aspects it will assume, including: promoting international peace and security; strengthening demand-driven international cooperation and partnerships; promoting international support for the implementation of the GPA; and periodically evaluating and revitalizing the role of the UNCHS.

The UK suggested that the GPA should also be implemented "through national actions." Benin said it was not necessary to mention national actions because international commitments are intended to support national commitments. Benin, Brazil, China, Algeria, the Philippines, Cuba, Senegal and Gabon supported the inclusion of new and additional financial resources. Zambia said it could be included, but should be matched by a pledge in the national commitments "to adopt and implement measures that will encourage increased domestic savings for shelter development." India said new and additional resources could be added if a conditional clause could be included. Egypt supported provision of new and additional resources but proposed "adequate financial resources." Denmark agreed that new and additional resources are necessary but proposed the commitment should include "to the extent possible." Germany, supported by the UK, the US, Australia and Japan, said new and additional resources did not belong in the section on international commitments. He said the language was added to documents in Rio only after a careful examination of the incremental financial implications, which has not yet been done for the GPA.

Kenya recommended changing the title from Global Plan of Action to "Commitments in an Urbanizing World." Poland said commitments should not be directed to developing countries only because they should be universal. Croatia said a reference to countries in need should mention "particularly those with large numbers of refugees." Bangladesh and the Philippines proposed a paragraph on disaster management. The International Local Government Associations called for language encouraging decentralized cooperation and capacity building.

When these two documents were revised and then issued to the Group, each with an additional section on commitments on sustainable human settlements. These latest versions of national and international commitments are contained in documents A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.4(No.1)Rev.1/Add.1 and A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.4(No.2)Rev.1, respectively. In the national commitments, the section on sustainable human settlements commitments covers issues including: development of human settlements that are socially and economically sustainable; management of transport to minimize negative effects; balanced development of urban and rural settlements, the special needs of the largest metropolitan areas; respect for cultural traditions, religious beliefs and spiritual values; eradication of poverty; decentralization and empowerment of the local governments and efficient, transparent and accountable management; enablement and participation of all actors; and policies that combat segregation, discrimination and exclusion.

The informal working group was unable to do a second reading of the revised documents to enable the Working Group to adopt them. It was therefore agreed that the Working Group should receive the documents from the informal working group and then present them to PrepCom III. Following questions on scheduling, document distribution and input from workshops and delegations, the Chair stated that documents prepared so far are the product of a drafting group, not a negotiated process. He assured delegates that they could submit comments and that the revised drafts would be circulated.

DRAFT DECISION: The Chair presented a draft decision of the Bureau on intersessional arrangements contained in document A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.6. The draft decision states that the PrepCom, having received Working Group II's report on matters considered, decides to continue drafting during the intersessional period in a similar informal manner through an open-ended drafting group to facilitate further negotiations. The delegates questioned the definitions of "similar informal manner" and "open-ended drafting group," the dates of the sessions, modalities and costs.

Many delegations requested that the document distinguish the topics already discussed from those still pending. The Chair replied that all documents currently have the same legal status because they have not been adopted and are subject to change. However, several delegates expressed concern that the work achieved is not reflected in the decision and feared starting from scratch at PrepCom III. The US summarized the situation: the group has a set of non-negotiated documents. Although some parts have been discussed, they represent the beginning of a complete reformulation. Following this meeting, the Secretariat will put together a revised draft to facilitate the work of the drafting group. That group will make changes, and the Secretariat will create a second draft that will then serve as the basis for negotiation at PrepCom III. The group was satisfied with this summary, but did not accept the decision as amended.

At its final meeting on Friday, 5 May, Working Group II continued discussion on the draft decision on intersessional arrangements, and the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) introduced an amended text based on the Bureau's draft decision. The document issued as A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.9 explained the intersessional process in more detail and mentioned two drafting sessions. Delegates asked for clarification on venue and duration, agreed on the composition of the drafting group during the intersessional period and stressed that the group must be open-ended because of travel constraints on developing countries. The Secretariat commented that the question of location and duration has not been decided, and will be determined by cost considerations. Delegates also questioned the need for two sessions and the process for submitting comments, and suggested that the drafting group also be given the mandate to negotiate.

CLOSING PLENARY

PrepCom Chair Martti Lujanen called the final plenary to order at 3:30 pm, on Friday, 5 May 1995, and invited the Secretary- General for Habitat II, Wally N'Dow to make a statement.

N'Dow said he was encouraged by the pioneering spirit delegates had shown that is not given to defeatism and old habits but to finding and creating ways to resolve potential impasses and roadblocks in dealing with issues that could have detoured and diverted the PrepCom. The PrepCom has opened up the Conference to its constituents, thus Habitat II will be a real conference of partners, a vision no other conference has achieved. The GPA that will emerge must be a real blueprint for enablement, an open and flexible instrument characterized by a willingness to accommodate differences.

PrepCom Chair Martti Lujanen said delegates have a better idea of what each individual country and other institutions should do in order to make the Conference a success. The PrepCom is making a historical change for two reasons: for the first time, local authorities will be able to participate as full partners and this is the first UN conference to recognize NGOs and local authorities as partners. He said the strong national involvement through the national coordinating committees and the national plans of action have provided the success in PrepCom II. The Chair then invited the Chairs of the Working Groups to present their reports.

WORKING GROUP I: Pamela Mboya, Chair of Working Group I, presented four decision documents. With regard to the future work of the PrepCom, Norway, Canada and Italy initially objected to the proposal for a two-week PrepCom III but, in order to attain progress, relented. However, Norway, supported by Canada and Australia, made a statement for the record, noting that the decision taken is not in line with the letter of paragraph 3 of GA resolution 49/109, and that they reserve the right to re-open the matter later. With regard to the decision on Best Practices, the Chair highlighted the amendments made by the Group and the draft decision was adopted.

With regard to the decision on the organization of work, including establishment of committees and procedural matters, there was a brief discussion on the status of full-length statements that will be circulated after the seven-minute statements are presented in Plenary. The reference to the circulation of written statements was deleted. After a discussion on the participation of the European Community (Rule 47), the entire document was adopted.

The Secretariat noted that in line with PrepCom I recommendations and operative paragraph 4 of Part A of the decision document A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.5/Rev.1, the Group reviewed, finalized and adopted the document that will be sent to all governments in the report of the Committee. In addition to the few amendments made, the section on Best Practices will be replaced with the new recommendations.

WORKING GROUP II: Dr. Glynn Khonje, who chaired the Group's informal working and drafting groups, presented the report, on behalf of Working Group II Chair Amb. de Silva. Khonje introduced the Group's report contained in a draft decision, A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.9. He said that after considerable debate, the Working Group has approved the decision regarding intersessional arrangements for the drafting of the GPA.

The draft decision acknowledges the work done under the chairmanship of Khonje and decides to continue with the drafting and review of documents during the intersessional period in an open-ended informal group with a core team of 15, and requests the Secretary-General of the Conference to provide appropriate assistance during that process. The draft decision recommends that: the drafts prepared by the Group should be submitted to the Secretariat who will prepare a draft document to facilitate the work of the informal working group; the first intersessional meeting of the informal drafting group take place no later than August 1995 to review the Secretariat draft, which will thereafter be forwarded to member States; and if deemed necessary, the drafting group will meet a second time no later than the end of October 1995. The final document should be submitted to governments at least six weeks before PrepCom III. The document will be considered non-negotiated.

Responding to a question by the Russian Federation, Khonje said the first intersessional meeting is likely to take place in Nairobi, and the second in New York to coincide with the GA discussions on Habitat II.

In response to Swaziland, Khonje said the core drafting team will comprise the 15 who had been drafting the Group's documents during the session, however, other interested delegates who are in a position to fund their own participation can also participate. Chile requested that once the dates of the meetings are decided, all member States should be informed. Without further discussion the paper was adopted.

PrepCom Chair Martti Lujanen then turned to Agenda Items 5, Arrangements for the third session of the Preparatory Committee and the provisional agenda, and 7, Other matters.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA FOR THE THIRD SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE: Lujanen said the arrangements for PrepCom III and the provisional agenda are contained in document A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.5/Rev.1, which had already been adopted.

OTHER MATTERS: The Chair drew attention to document A/CONF.165/PC.2/L.7, accreditation of NGOs. The Committee reviewed the rules received, in accordance with the rules of procedure for the accreditation of NGOs to the Preparatory Committee and the Conference itself. The Bureau has recommended the accreditation of NGOs listed in the annex to the document. The document was adopted.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF COMMITEE: The Rapporteur, Marjorie Ulloa, presented her report on the work of the Second Session of the Committee. Lujanen said this report would be forwarded to ECOSOC and the General Assembly and closed the session.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (CHS)

Editor's note: The Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage of the UNCHS is limited to those items on the agenda that have direct relevance to the negotiations on the decisions to be taken in Istanbul. Please contact UNCHS directly for further information on the work of the Commission.

The 15th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (CHS) met in Nairobi, from 25 April to 2 May 1995. David Johannson (Finland), Chair of the 14th Session who presided over the Commission's opening Plenary, said the session shall consider proposals on the new objectives for the UN Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS), including those anticipated for adoption by the Habitat II Conference, the role of the Centre within the UN and the proposals on the work programme and budget for the biennial period 1996-1997. Assistant-Secretary-General of UNCHS (Habitat) Wally N'Dow said the session carries a special significance as it is the last before Habitat II. Five resolutions related to the Habitat II Conference, contained in four decision documents, were passed by the Commission as follows:

• include all issues contained in document HS/C/15/L.2/Rev.1, relating to the promotion and participation of women in human settlements development, in the preparations for the Conference; available resources, an expert seminar on "The Rights of the Child particularly with respect to Shelter and Related Services" prior to the third session of the Preparatory Committee of Habitat II (HS/C/15/L.5/Rev.1);

• report to the PrepCom on guidelines for national preparations and urges governments to collect key indicators for one or more cities as part of their preparations for the Habitat II Conference and to use these and other indicators as the quantitative basis for country reporting at the Conference, on the status of human settlements (HS/C/15/L.6/Rev.1);

• make financial contributions to the UNCHS in order to support requesting governments in the collection of indicators for the Habitat II Conference preparations (HS/C/15/L.6/Rev.1); and

• towards the creation of the Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean, in order to support the region's national activities in the preparation for the Habitat II Conference (HS/C/15/L.7).

THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING: The CHS first addressed the right to adequate housing during a week of debate in Committee II under CHS Agenda Item 4, Activities of the UNCHS: Progress report of the Executive Director. Much of the discussion centered on housing rights, as described in document HS/C/15/2/Add.2, "Towards a Housing Rights Strategy: Practical Contributions by UNCHS (Habitat) on Promoting, Ensuring and Protecting the Full Realization of the Human Right to Adequate Housing." The report was the result of Commission Resolution 14/6 recommending that the Executive Director of UNCHS explore ways in which the Centre could support development of the right to housing.

The US said that while it endorsed the goal of shelter for all and rights of non-discriminatory access to housing, financing and other conditions that support adequate housing, the right to adequate housing should be deleted. The Netherlands, Sweden and the Holy See supported retaining the right to adequate housing. An informal consultative group chaired by the Philippines and including the US, Mexico, the Netherlands and Uganda was formed to draft a resolution on the right to housing.

The group produced a draft resolution that takes note of the UNCHS report and requests the Executive Director to examine and update the report. The Executive Director is to consider the legal, social, economic, political and practical aspects, and the views and concerns expressed by some member States, including those regarding the existence and/or the legal status of the right to adequate housing. The Executive Director will report to the next Commission meeting. The draft resolution was adopted by the Committee.

The US then introduced a series of revisions that would change or remove references to the right to housing from all of the CHS documents. The US did not want to send documents to other meetings that mention a human right to adequate housing when the meaning is not clear. He did not believe that the right to housing exists in international law as a separate human right. Documents referring to that right were a misrepresentation of facts that needed correction. Text describing the need for adequate housing was sufficient.

The Russian Federation, supported by Sweden and Mexico, suggested placing an addendum in relevant documents noting the reservations of some delegations. The Netherlands said other fora would clarify uncertainties regarding the right to housing, so the references should remain. Canada, supported by Uganda and India, suggested adding text that would note that the right to housing is an aspiration and a goal, but not a legally-binding concept. The Chair appointed an open-ended working party, chaired by Brazil and including the US, Uganda, India, Romania and Canada, to develop a proposal on the revisions.

This working party presented a draft that takes note of the appearance of the term "right to adequate housing" in several Commission reports and states that any such reference should be understood as referring to the basic need for adequate shelter and the goal of governments to help their populations meet that need. The phrase does not, in such documents, refer to an international human right. The draft also required that the statement be appended to documents distributed outside the Commission. Brazil said the draft did not prejudice other decisions or activities of the commission.

The Netherlands objected to the working party's text, noting that it prejudges the Executive Director's report agreed to in the Committee's resolution. Supported by Sweden, the Holy See, France, and Senegal, the Netherlands proposed an alternative stating that no consensus existed on the interpretation of the concept of the right to adequate housing.

The Philippines rejected the working party's text, noting that it would manacle the ability of member States to apply their own legal systems regarding right to housing. It would preclude further consideration of other instruments on the right to adequate housing and negate existing international instruments that many delegations believe include the human right to housing. The right does not mean a State is obliged to give property to citizens.

Cameroon opposed the working party draft. China said the document should be re-examined. Supported by Mexico, the Russian Federation said the document should indicate that there is no consensus on assessing the legal meaning of the right to housing or on the contents of the documents, and that this should be indicated in Commission documents.

The Chair proposed a non-paper stating that: the Commission found no agreement on the existence and/or the legal status of the "right to adequate housing;" a note to that effect be appended to documents distributed outside the Commission; factual errors on this matter be corrected; and the Commission's biennial work programme (HS/C/15/7) should be revised to reflect this. No consensus was reached and the non-paper was withdrawn.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF PREPCOM II

PrepCom II has come and gone, but as delegates boarded planes to leave Nairobi, they could be heard grumbling a familiar refrain. It was the same as when they landed two weeks ago: "Where's the document?" Delays in document distribution before and at the outset of PrepCom II kept delegates in the dark about what they were being asked to consider. And, at the end of two weeks of work, they only had a partial, "non-negotiated" text to show for their labors. The general feeling by delegates during the closing days was one of unease as they noted that they will be going into PrepCom III with a central document that delegations will not have discussed as a group and for which they have no consensus. There was, however, general agreement that if the intersessional period is well spent, there is still opportunity to recapture lost time.

Despite failures to deliver any agreed text or, alas, even a single bracket, PrepCom II made three positive steps. Two of these, broadening participation and forming partnerships, will not only affect the Habitat II Conference, but have the potential to change other United Nations processes. The third, cobbling together an intersessional drafting process, may give delegates something solid they can begin negotiating at PrepCom III.

BROADENING PARTICIPATION: Over the last five years, there has been a growing shift in the way State and non-State actors interact at UN meetings. These incremental precedents are slowly being institutionalized into UN procedures with each passing conference, expanding the level of participation by different constituencies. The extensive discussions held during this meeting on the level and status at which NGOs, local authorities and private sectors will participate both in the negotiating processes and at the Istanbul Conference is a reflection of this change. Some delegates and participants at the meeting pointed out that in spite of government resistance, this is a positive development and that the vision needs to be kept alive. In fact, this Conference needs to provide the entry point into this new epoch, but it has to be done subtly to avoid any backlash.

Openness, transparency and democracy are buzzwords that have dominated the recent rhetoric of the United Nations. Still, negotiations often disappear into small, informal-informal drafting groups that leave non-participating delegations and others speculating about what is happening behind the scenes. The drafting group established to prepare the GPA demonstrated a departure from this practice. To start with, NGOs were allowed to have two representatives participate in the drafting group, a level of representation that has no precedent in the UN.

Second, although the drafting group had only 15 people, interested delegates and NGOs could sit in the meeting as observers, and even offer advice to those drafting the text.

Both NGOs and delegates hailed this as a positive development. As some delegations observed, it is essential to retain this approach, especially for the anticipated intersessional drafting meetings. The expanded participation can produce a document that is stronger, more representative and still leave governments with a true sense of ownership.

PARTNERSHIPS: Another achievement of the PrepCom was the decision that recognizes the important role of forming partnerships with various sectors, in particular the local authorities. In spite of fierce opposition from some delegations, the Secretariat fought to formally include NGOs, women's groups and local authorities in the official meeting in Istanbul on an equal level with governments. The summoning of Wally N'Dow from his office at UNCHS down to a Working Group session to appeal to the most resistant delegates at a critical point in the Rules of Procedure debate was an indication of the Secretariat's commitment to the matter.

Some Secretariat staff pointed out that this was the Conference's greatest achievement. In the twenty years since Vancouver, UNCHS has been operating through governments and has had no opportunity to work directly with the actors on the ground — the local authorities. As some delegates observed during the discussions, the opposition was based on national political interests since opening up the process to local elected officials would enable local politicians to work directly with UNCHS. Notwithstanding, participation of local authorities in the Conference on equal status with governments is only the beginning. True enablement will require commitment by governments. Thus, the issue of participation of local authorities needs to find a place in the obligations section of the eventual Statement of Principles and Global Plan of Action. In this respect, the "enablement" section of the Secretariat's draft GPA, which now has no place in the newly drafted GPA, has to find a way back into the document.

NGO observers and some delegates, however, cautioned that the expansion of partnership to include local authorities could effectively create tiers of access for non-State actors. They noted that efforts to extend participation should do just that, not classify or exclude other non-governmental actors. The solution to give special consideration to participation of local authorities may be appropriate to the goals of Habitat II, but the decision has larger implications for the UN's review of the relationship between State and non-State actors.

THE REDRAFTING PROCESS FOR THE GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION: That delegates established an open-ended drafting group is an essential and positive step. Many delegates agree, however, that the PrepCom should be further along in its work toward a negotiated GPA.

Intersessional work by the drafting group may produce the complete text needed for PrepCom III, but the process itself sacrifices a measure of the openness and democracy that should surround the drafting. A negotiation process is a carefully orchestrated relay race that requires the smooth hand-off of the document from one to the next of the three runners in the race. Bureaucrats begin with a draft, they pass it on to diplomats to negotiate, who pass it on to politicians who have the power in the final stretch to remove those resistant brackets. As the Secretariat writes text for consideration by the delegates, it needs to take direction from the PrepCom and allow the document to be taken up by governments so that the delegates take ownership. In this way, States begin negotiating with each other, not with the Secretariat, over items to be included in the draft. Finally, delegates need to know what items can be negotiated and those that need to be bracketed and left to the politicians in the final dash to the closing ceremonies in Istanbul. The Habitat II PrepCom is still staggering toward the first hand-off when it should be in the middle of the second leg of the race.

The Secretariat's Draft Statement of Principles and Global Plan of Action is no longer the text being considered for negotiation. Governments decided early at PrepCom II to draft their own. Some delegations argued that in rejecting the document, they were rejecting the process used to draft the documents, not the enablement-oriented document itself.

At the beginning of PrepCom II, delegates chafed at receiving the two documents on the GPA late — the section on programmes was distributed only at the first meeting of the informal group of Working Group II — and at the process used to write them. The Secretariat based its work on instructions from the first PrepCom, then solicited input from a network of experts. But that process, combined with the last-minute distribution, gave some delegates the feeling that they had little opportunity for input into the initial draft of the GPA. They questioned the selection of the experts. They questioned the structure of the document. Regardless of the substance of the draft, some delegates said the process suggested the document was not their own. The EU and African Group proposals for revising the GPA structure changed the tone and direction of debate. Delegates had asserted themselves and begun to reshape the plan.

The revised structure included a new set of principles and commitments, and with it delegates significantly altered the thrust of the GPA. PrepCom II's version of the document does not render as strong support to enablement. Delegates said early on in Nairobi that they wanted to tighten the focus, downplay some of the broader social conditions and elevate specific human settlements issues. During debate, delegates supported parts of the enablement concept such as national and decentralized responsibility, but enablement's role as the foundation of the GPA has been muted. Instead, the more political and economic aspects are being emphasized. However, the document is still in a framework stage, without a dominant theme.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Information dissemination and the lack of adequate facilities are two aspects that marred delegates' ability to operate efficiently at PrepCom II. Numerous delegations complained about the difficulty of obtaining information on activities associated with the PrepCom, including technical and financial assistance for developing countries or reporting guidelines and deadlines. During the meeting, information dissemination and document management, was a problem. Delegates were often asked to consider a document that was not yet available. In one instance, even the Chair did not have a copy of the document that was being considered by the Working Group. Delegates often did not know the organization of work from one day to the next, which prevented regional groups from considering upcoming matters, resulting in a breakdown in group discipline.

It was also apparent that there was a generalized lack of experience in conference management, both on the part of the Secretariat and the members of the Bureau. The intricate and often intractable United Nations procedures for committees are, in fact, a highly effective tool that when understood and used as a discipline within a negotiation, can accelerate the process. Yet, it is this same set of procedures that seemed beyond the ken of many of the participants, slowing their work and confusing the delegates. Working Group II negotiated a Conference Room Paper on principles for a week and some were surprised at the end that their work was only a "non-negotiated document." Furthermore, these non-negotiated texts were finally produced as "L" documents. The sessions was also riddled with numerous documents, some of which could easily have been combined. The numbering of the documents, in the end, was at worst confusing and at best cumbersome.

None of this was made any easier by holding of the 15th Session of the UN Commission on Human Settlements concurrently with the PrepCom. While this made economic sense, the PrepCom II delegates, who were given secondary consideration in servicing to the Commission, became frustrated by being allocated inadequate facilities. There was also confusion about which meeting was which and some delegates found themselves attending the wrong meetings. This Committee/Commission overlap also meant that countries with small delegations could not attend all meetings, which at one point totaled five concurrent sessions.

In addition, neither governments nor NGOs were given the communications and document preparations facilities that they have come to expect at other UN meetings. Apart from four computers set up in the delegates lounge — an uncomfortable setting to do any serious work — there were no rooms for either group with computers to facilitate preparation of documents for circulation, send e-mail or access the Internet. Delegates worked late in the night to enable the Secretariat to type out the documents they wanted circulated.

NGO INPUT: NGOs that came to PrepCom II were not able to provide the level of substantive input that has characterized and distinguished their involvement at previous meetings, specifically during the International Conference on Population and Development, the World Summit for Social Development and the negotiation of the Convention to Combat Desertification. Despite attempts by the Habitat International Coalition to organize a consultative process between sessions of the PrepCom, part of the problem was that they were not successful in broadening involvement beyond their members into the wider NGO community.

While having two NGO representatives included in the drafting group provided an excellent opportunity to make an impact, the representatives received little guidance or instruction from their colleagues. Many delegates and NGOs alike noted that if members of the Women's Caucus had attended this meeting, there would have been an organized support group providing textual alternatives to the NGOs in the drafting group.

As a result of the narrow involvement, there were many shelter groups and hardly any development and environmental groups in attendance to inject new thinking on socio-economic and environmental problems in urbanization into the predominantly government housing sector.

However, the intersessional drafting period provides an opportunity for the NGOs to come up with an effective agenda that should be reflected in the Statement of Principles and the Global Plan of Action when the drafting Committee meets. Given how far behind governments are in the drafting process, it is not too late for NGOs to organize themselves to have a significant impact on the document.

CONCLUSIONS: Only two weeks of negotiation now remain before Istanbul. The problems encountered and organizational matters raised at PrepCom II need attention, in particular during the intersessional period, to facilitate both PrepCom III and the Istanbul Conference. Timely distribution of the drafting group's intersessional revisions to the GPA is equally essential to the success of PrepCom III. Delegates must be able to respond to the intersessional drafting process if the document to be presented at PrepCom III is to have legitimacy and the Istanbul Conference is to succeed.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: Informal consultations on the Global Plan of Action will be held during the intersessional period. The first meeting will probably be held in Nairobi and the second may be held to coincide with the Second Committee of the General Assembly's consideration of Habitat II in late October or early November 1995. Look for drafts to be circulated by the Secretariat for comments between now and PrepCom III. For more information, contact the Habitat II Secretariat, UNCHS, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya; tel:+254-2-623988; fax: +254-2-623080; e-mail: habitat2@unep.no.

50TH UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The 50th Session of the United Nations General Assembly will consider the report of the Second Session of the PrepCom. This agenda item may be brought before the Second Committee at the end of October or early November and the drafting of any resolutions dealing with Habitat will occur in November. It is likely that the informal drafting group may meet in New York during this period.

PREPCOM III: The proposed dates for the Third PrepCom for Habitat II, to be held in New York, are 12-23 February 1996.

URBAN TRANSPORT SEMINAR: The National University of Singapore, with support from UNCHS, is organizing a Global Workshop on the theme, "Transport and Communication for Urban Development." The Workshop will be held in Singapore from 3-5 July 1995. Other sponsors of the meeting are UNEP, the Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). For further information contact Prof. Lim Lan Yuan, School of Building & Estate Management, National University of Singapore; fax: +65- 775-5502.

UN 50TH ANNIVERSARY MEETING AND HABITAT II PEOPLE'S FORUM: A meeting called "We the Peoples" will be held in San Francisco from 21-24 June 1995 during the 50th Anniversary celebration activities. This meeting will focus on the relationship between NGOs and the UN system. One of the themes for the event will be human settlements and US NGOs hope to raise awareness about Habitat II. For more information contact Don Edwards, Citizen's Network for Sustainable Development; fax: +1 202-667-4870; e-mail: donedwards@econet.apc.org.

MEETING WITH TURKISH NGOS: Plans are underway for a meeting in July between Turkish NGOs and those NGOs involved in preparations for the NGO Forum in Istanbul during the Habitat II Conference. For further information on preparations for the NGO Forum, NGOs should contact an NGO facilitating committee representative. (See box on page 12.)

THE FUTURE OF LATIN AMERICAN CITIES: A regional conference on the future of Latin American cities will be held in Belo Horizonte, Brazil from 14-16 August 1995. The meeting is co-sponsored by UNEP and the Inter-American Development Bank. For more information contact the Habitat II Secretariat.

BEST PRACTICES: The Habitat II Secretariat is sponsoring a sharing of experiences on ways to make the world's cities more healthy, safe, equitable and sustainable. Examples of "Best Practices" that can be considered useful models can be nominated for the Global 100 Knowledge-base of Best Practices. A panel of experts will select the ten Best Practices, which will form part of an exhibit of Best Practices at the Conference and those involved will be invited to Istanbul. For information on how to nominate and submit examples of Best Practice, contact the Habitat II Secretariat.

WORLD CITIES AND THE URBAN FUTURE COLLOQUIUM: The United Nations University will host a colloquium on "Human Settlements and the Urban Future" in Tokyo from 23-25 August 1995. For more information, contact Nicholas You at the Habitat II Secretariat.

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BEST PRACTICES: The Municipality of Dubai and UNCHS are jointly organizing a meeting to be held in Dubai from 19-22 November 1995, on best practices. The Conference will provide an opportunity for participants to share experiences in addressing shelter and urbanization problems. For further information contact: Dubai Municipality, P.O. Box 67, Dubai, UAE; tel: +971-4-221141 and fax: +971-4-231795; or Nicholas You at the Habitat II Secretariat.

THE NANTES MEETING: The French Government will sponsor a meeting, ECOPOLIS-95, following the Dubai Conference, to address the question of partnerships between the public and private sectors. Mayors of 21 cities, with equal representation from the different regions, who have significant initiatives on the issue, will be sponsored to the meeting. Additional information may obtained from the Habitat II Secretariat.

UK NGO/ACADEMIC CONSULTATION ON URBAN SUSTAINABILITY: The first meeting in a series of sessions on urban sustainability will be held on 19 May 1995 in London. These sessions will cover issues such as sustainability indicators, transport, poverty alleviation and the notion of sustainable cities. For further information contact Felix Dodds, UNED-UK; tel: +44-171-930-2931; fax: +44-171-930-5893; e-mail: una@mcr1.poptel.org.uk

URBAN GOVERNANCE: Germany will host an international workshop in Berlin during October on Urban Governance.

ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION: The fourth meeting of Ministers responsible for Human Settlements in the countries with economies in transition will be held from 13-14 June 1995, in Budapest, Hungary. The meeting will focus on preparations for Habitat II at both the regional and local levels.

WORLD HABITAT DAY: World Habitat Day will be celebrated on 2 October 1995. Two special events are planned for Curitiba, Brazil, and Johannesburg, South Africa. For more information, contact UNCHS, fax: +254-2-624266.

WOMEN'S ACCESS TO LAND: The National Land Survey Agency of Sweden will host a meeting on Women's Access to Land during the Fall of 1995. This meeting will focus on proposals for addressing the problem. For more information contact Lars Karlberg, Executive Secretary of the Swedish Preparatory Group, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Boplats 96, Stockholm, Sweden, S-10333; tel: +46-8-405349; fax: +46-8-241578; e-mail: Lars_G.P._Karlberg@ett.se.

ARAB CITIES TOWARDS HABITAT II: The Municipality of Amman, Jordan, UNCHS (Habitat) and UNDP are jointly coordinating a meeting on "Arab Cities Towards Habitat II", to be held in January 1996. For more information contact Mamdouh Al Abbadi, The Lord Mayor of Amman, Amman Municipality, Amman, Jordan; fax: +962-6-628938.

"COUNTDOWN TO ISTANBUL": The Habitat II Secretariat publishes "Countdown to Istanbul, which focuses on preparations for Istanbul. To request a subscription or to inquire about submitting articles, contact Rasna Warah at the Habitat II Secretariat.