Summary report, 3–14 June 1996

The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) met inIstanbul, Turkey, from 3-14 June 1996. Participants negotiated the Istanbul Declarationand the Habitat Agenda, which addresses the goals of adequate shelter for all andsustainable human settlements development. In addition to the negotiations, a number ofparallel events provided opportunities for the Habitat partners and government delegationsto explore the Conference themes. Statements regarding the state of human settlementswere offered by approximately 180 speakers during Plenary and 120 speakers during theHigh-Level Segment, including a number of Heads of State or Government. OneCommittee held hearings regarding the role of partners in implementation. In addition, theUNCHS launched its Best Practices Initiative.

Habitat II, as the culmination of a cycle of UN conferences, may best be remembered forthe ground-breaking participation of local authorities, the private sector, parliamentarians,NGOs and other “partners” in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. Anothersignificant accomplishment of the Conference was the reaffirmation of the commitment tothe “full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing.” A debate on thefuture of the UN Centre for Human Settlements identified a continuing role for the Centre,and invited the General Assembly and ECOSOC to review and strengthen the mandate ofthe Commission on Human Settlements.

The Conference was stymied by procedural delays and attempts to reopen contentiousissues from previous UN conferences. Once the dust settled, however, participantsemerged with a lengthy but substantive Agenda that provides an effective tool for creatingsustainable human settlements for the 21st century.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HABITAT II

The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) was held inIstanbul, Turkey on the 20th anniversary of the first Habitat Conference in Vancouver,Canada. The Secretary- General of Habitat II was Wally N’Dow. The objectives forHabitat II were: (1) in the long term, to arrest the deterioration of global human settlementconditions and ultimately create the conditions for achieving improvements in the livingenvironment of all people on a sustainable basis; and (2) to adopt a general statement ofprinciples and commitments and formulate a related Global Plan of Action capable ofguiding national and international efforts through the first two decades of the next century.

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION

The organizational session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for Habitat II washeld at UN Headquarters in New York from 3-5 March 1993. Delegates elected theBureau and took several basic decisions regarding the organization and timing of theprocess. Martti Lujanen (Finland) was elected PrepCom Chair.

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 increaseworld awareness of the problems and potentials of human settlements as important inputsto social progress and economic growth and to commit the world’s leaders to makingcities, towns and villages healthy, safe, just and sustainable. The PrepCom also tookdecisions on the organization of the Conference and financing, as well as the followingissues:

• Regarding national objectives, delegates agreed that each participating country should design, adopt and implement a national plan of action that would address the issue of human settlements in both urban and rural areas and involve the full participation and support of the public and private sectors, NGOs and community- based organizations (CBOs). Countries should also strengthen the capacity of institutions at all levels to monitor shelter conditions and urbanization processes using a minimum set of indicators.

• Regarding international objectives, delegates agreed that 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 and create institutional arrangements 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.

• Regarding participation, delegates agreed that governments of participating States should establish national committees with broad participation from all levels of government, civic leaders, the academic and scientific community, grassroots leaders, NGOs and CBOs, and the private sector. These committees should formulate, adopt and implement a work programme that includes the production of a national report, discussion on priority issues, organization of local and country consultations and fora, and preparation and presentation of audio-visual documentaries of examples of best practices in human settlement development.

• Regarding the draft Statement of Principles and Commitments and the draft Global Plan of Action (GPA), delegates agreed that the former 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 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 two decades. The GPA should be structured around the two main themes of the Conference: adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world. Multi-sectoral issues to be considered include: settlements management; poverty reduction; environmental management; and disaster mitigation, relief and reconstruction. Cross-sectoral issues include: women; the urban economy; social and economic dimensions of urbanization and shelter development; education and capacity building; and vulnerable social groups.

PREPCOM II

The second session of the PrepCom took place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 24 April - 5 May1995. The Committee considered organizational matters for PrepCom III and theConference itself; prepared the first part of the draft Statement of Principles andCommitments and the Global Plan of Action; and prepared draft decisions forconsideration by the 50th General Assembly.

Working Group I, chaired by Pamela Mboya (Kenya), considered preparations for theConference and the status of human settlements reports and major reviews. During theWorking Group’s discussion of the rules of procedure, the issue of the participation oflocal authorities came under scrutiny.

Working Group II, chaired by Amb. H.L. de Silva (Sri Lanka), began work on the DraftStatement of Principles and Commitments and the draft GPA. The GPA contained thefollowing sections: a preamble, principles, goals and commitments, and strategies forimplementation. The PrepCom made some progress on the first three parts of thedocument, but delegates acknowledged that a significant amount of work remained. Tofacilitate negotiations, delegates decided to continue drafting during the intersessionalperiod in an informal open-ended drafting group.

INTERSESSIONAL DRAFTING GROUP

The 17-member Informal Drafting Group (IDG), which included governmental, localgovernment and NGO representatives, was charged with preparing the documentation forPrepCom III. The IDG first met in Nairobi from 17-21 July 1995 to draft the fourth partof the GPA, which deals with strategies for implementation. The IDG draft focused on thefollowing issues: adequate shelter for all; sustainable human settlements in an urbanizingworld; capacity building and institutional development; international cooperation andcoordination; and tracking progress and impact evaluation. The draft was circulated to UNmember States, NGO networks and others, and revised.

The IDG met a second time in Paris from 9-14 October 1995. Delegates reviewed therevised draft and made progress on the text, but deferred a number of matters to PrepComIII, including the principle that deals with the family. The IDG did not submit a draft texton some points, including international financial assistance, housing rights and institutionalfollow-up.

PREPCOM III

The third session of the PrepCom met at UN Headquarters in New York from 5-16February 1996. Organizational questions included participation of NGOs and theimplementation of Rule 61 to facilitate input from local authorities, and financialresources. Negotiations began on the draft Statement of Principles and Commitments andthe GPA. Key debates included the “right to housing” and the role of the the UN Centrefor Human Settlements (UNCHS) in Habitat II follow-up. Due to time constraints duringthe final Plenary, the PrepCom had no choice but to forward a heavily bracketed text toIstanbul.

Working Group I discussed funding for Habitat II, the Best Practices Initiative, andparallel fora in Istanbul. Australia proposed that participants at Habitat II commit to actionby 2000.

Working Group II formed three subgroups to consider the draft Habitat Agenda.Subgroup A considered the Preamble, Goals and Principles, Commitments, InternationalCooperation and Implementation. It allocated problematic texts, including those onfinancial resources and the right to housing, to informal groups. Subgroups B and Cconsidered the GPA Introduction, Adequate Shelter and Sustainable Human Settlements.Due to time constraints, the text on Capacity Building was not addressed.

REPORT OF HABITAT II

UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opened Habitat II and noted that the recentseries of UN conferences has shaped an agenda for development and is crucial for thedetermination of the future of life on this planet. Innovative aspects of Habitat II includethe range of partners that have been included in the process and the Best PracticesInitiative.

The Conference then elected Turkish President Sleyman Demirel as President of theConference. He stated that the Habitat II Conference will generate innovative strategiesthat reinforce the importance of human development within the larger sustainabledevelopment agenda. Habitat II is an all-encompassing conference on humankind and, asthe last of the UN conferences of this century, it must incorporate and supplement thesuccesses of prior meetings to achieve a better quality of life for all in the 21st century.

Delegates then adopted the rules of procedure (A/CONF.165/2) and the agenda and otherorganizational matters (A/CONF.165/1). Representatives from the following countrieswere elected as Vice-Presidents: Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan,Zimbabwe, China, Indonesia, Iran, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Antigua and Barbuda,Argentina, El Salvador, Jamaica, Peru, France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, the US, theUK, Bulgaria, Romania and the Russian Federation. Emre Gnensay, Turkish Minister forForeign Affairs, was elected Vice-President ex officio.

Ricardo Gorosito (Uruguay) was elected Rapporteur-General. Shafqat Kakakhel(Pakistan) was elected to chair Committee I (Habitat Agenda) and Martti Lujanen(Finland) was elected to chair Committee II (role of partners). The Credentials Committeeincluded: China, Luxembourg, Mali, the Marshall Islands, the Russian Federation, SouthAfrica, Trinidad and Tobago, the US and Venezuela.

Delegates then adopted the recommendations of the Pre-Conference Consultationsregarding accreditation of international associations of local authorities (A/CONF.165/6and Add.1) and NGOs (A/CONF.165/5 and Add. 1 and 2). Greece noted its reservationsto the accreditation of the West Thrace Turks and Turkey noted its reservations to thenon-accreditation of three Turkish Cypriot organizations.

After expressing his gratitude to the city of Istanbul, its leaders and all involved in thepreparatory process, Secretary-General of the Conference Wally N’Dow highlighted theimportance of Habitat II in forging new pathways for the future of humanity. Partnershipsbetween governments and local authorities and other non-State actors are essential foreffective implementation of the Habitat Agenda. The hearings of Committee II wouldprovide an unprecedented platform for these actors. The Best Practices Initiative providesa unique opportunity to share successful strategies that will help bring about thecommitments needed to resolve human settlements problems.

Delegates then began the general exchange of views, focusing on the state of humansettlements, including strategies for their implementation. General statements continued inPlenary from 3-11 June.

THE ISTANBUL DECLARATION AND THE HABITAT AGENDA

Committee I, chaired by Shafqat Kakakhel (Pakistan), held its first meeting on 3 June1996. The US reminded the Chair that agreement had been reached at PrepCom III tocirculate a compendium of NGO suggestions in Istanbul. An information paper wasreleased on 4 June with the additional (NGO) comments on the Habitat Agenda.Responding to a number of delegations’ requests for clarification regarding NGOparticipation, the Chair explained that NGOs would have an opportunity to makecomments during the official meetings, subject to conditions, but would not be able to takethe floor during informal sessions. NGOs and local authorities continued, as they hadduring the PrepComs, to be able to present their proposals during the meetings of theworking groups.

Committee I established two working groups. Working Group II, chaired by GlynnKhonje (Zambia), considered Sections E (International cooperation) and F(Implementation and follow-up) of the draft GPA. Working Group I, chaired by Kakakhel,considered the rest of the Habitat Agenda. An informal drafting group on the IstanbulDeclaration was also established and chaired by Balkan Kazildeli (Turkey). A draftinggroup on the “right to housing,” chaired by Marcela Nicodemus (Brazil), met during thefirst week, and then continued to meet during the second week to address additionalunresolved text from Working Group I. Many informal groups also convened to work onproblematic issues.

In addition to the Chairs of the working groups, Committee I elected the followingdelegates as Vice-Chairs: Laszlo Lacko (Hungary), Clarkson Umelo (Nigeria) and RamonSantelises (Chile). The Rapporteur was Ayse Ogut (Turkey). For Working Group I, PavelSuian (Romania) was elected Vice-Chair. For Working Group II, Manford Konukiewitz(Germany) was elected Vice-Chair.

After taking care of procedural business, the Committee adjourned on Tuesday, 4 June toallow the working groups to meet. Although the working groups were supposed tocomplete their work by Tuesday, 11 June, prior to the High-Level Segment, this was notto be the case. Committee I attempted to reconvene on Thursday afternoon, 13 June,however, since a number of issues, including reproductive health and occupied territories,remained unresolved, the meeting was aborted and the working groups and draftinggroups reconvened at 4:00 pm. After fourteen hours of informal consultations (6:00 amFriday), delegates believed they had reached a package deal regarding all references toreproductive health care, but at the last minute several delegates backed out because theypreferred a stronger qualifying reference to the provision of reproductive health careservices than paragraph 267 of the Beijing Platform for Action.

After hours of further informal consultations, Committee I was finally able to reconvene toadopt its report at 9:30 pm Friday, 14 June. The Chair said was impossible to produce theReport as a formal document in all official languages, and he introduced informal paperscontaining negotiated paragraphs and corrections. The Rapporteur introduced the Reportincluding one formal document (A/CONF.165/L.1). The Chair invited delegates intendingto enter reservations to do so now, rather than at the closing plenary. The US indicated itsintent to submit a written interpretive statement.

The following countries entered reservations as follows: on the paragraph concerning thepurpose of Habitat, which refers to “living in harmony with nature”: Qatar, the UnitedArab Emirates, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. On the paragraph ongender equality: Qatar, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a paragraph onreproductive health and sexual health: the Holy See, Argentina, Malta, Qatar, Guatemala,Lebanon, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Malta alsoreserved on the reference to the International Conference on Population and Development(ICPD). On a paragraph concerning the family: the Holy See, Lebanon, Argentina, Qatar,Guatemala, Iran, Yemen, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. On a paragraph on the rightto inheritance: Iran. The Holy See indicated its intention to submit a statement ofinterpretation on the reference to the family.

Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Algeria entered reservations on thebracketed references to protection of cities under foreign occupation. The Chair noted thatmany speakers had called for the deletion of those brackets. He said the group was beyondthe drafting stage and delegates should be taking reservations. He noted that negotiationson some sections were not complete and urged delegations to continue so that the textcould be adopted. The US stated her understanding that the text in brackets concerningillegitimate confiscation of land and foreign occupation would be deleted. She said if thebrackets were removed and the text remained from these references and a bracketedreference to foreign occupation, the US would vote “no” on the Habitat Agenda. In lightof the sensitive nature of the issue, such a “tragic” situation shows that the UN has notcome as far as hoped. She said some delegations were using this forum to debate politicalissues when they should be focusing on human settlements development. The Chairadjourned the meeting for consultations. At 12:15 am, he announced that consultationshad been successful and text would be ready for Plenary.

ISTANBUL DECLARATION ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

The Istanbul Declaration, which was proposed and negotiated entirely in Istanbul, drawson the issues addressed in the Habitat Agenda. During their opening Plenary statements,the G-77/ CHINA announced that it would table a draft text and the EU stated that itwould consider a summary document. The G-77/CHINA’s text included references torural areas, new and additional resources and the future role of UNCHS. An EU proposalwas significantly shorter. TURKEY submitted a “compromise” text that provided a“precise” summary of the Habitat Agenda.

Early debates in the open-ended Drafting Group centered on the purpose, structure andtenor of the text. Chair Kazildeli (Turkey) was asked to provide a shorter, more focuseddraft based on the original proposals, which included: a right to housing; rural settlements;production and consumption patterns; local government; and resources andimplementation. The drafting group met until late Friday, 14 June, in part because itwaited for the working groups to finalize text on related issues. Among the issues debatedduring the final days were: sustainable development and economic growth; the globaleconomy; the promotion of gender equality [and equity]; the importance of [all][thefamily][families]; common but differentiated responsibilities; local action guided throughlocal plans; and resources and implementation.

The fifteen-paragraph Declaration reaffirms Governments’ “commitment to betterstandards of living in larger freedom for all humankind.” Governments must combatdeteriorating conditions by, inter alia, addressing “unsustainable consumption andproduction patterns, particularly in industrialized countries.” The interdependence of ruraland urban development is noted. The promotion of “gender equality in policies,programmes and projects” for shelter is pledged. The “commitment to the full andprogressive realization of the right to adequate housing as provided for in internationalinstruments” is reaffirmed. In view of different contributions to global environmentaldegradation, governments reaffirm the principle that countries have common butdifferentiated responsibilities. Local action should be guided “through local programmesbased on Agenda 21, the Habitat Agenda, or any other equivalent programme.” TheDeclaration calls for mobilization of financial resources at the national and internationallevels, including new and additional resources from all sources, and reiterates previouscommitments, especially those in Agenda 21 on funding and technology transfer. Finally,the Declaration states that implementation of the Habitat Agenda requires “thestrengthening of the role and functions of the UN Centre for Human Settlements,” takinginto account the need for “the Centre to focus on well-defined and thoroughly-developedobjectives and strategic issues.”

THE HABITAT AGENDA

The following is a summary of the Habitat Agenda, with emphasis on the issues that wereresolved in Istanbul.

I. PREAMBLE

In the first chapter of the Habitat Agenda, governments recognize the imperative need toimprove the quality of human settlements and identify the goals of Habitat II: adequateshelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world.

In the opening discussions, the SUDAN, on behalf of the Arab Group, introduced text onspiritual and cultural values. The preamble also gave rise to early negotiation of the “rightto housing” issue, with the US, supported by JAPAN, objecting to a proposal to removebrackets from a reference to “the right to adequate shelter.” The drafting group on theright to adequate housing eventually deleted this reference. On the needs of children andyouth, delegates debated a reference to the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents,consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The G-77/CHINA, the HOLYSEE, and the US agreed that it contained previously agreed UN language. NORWAYmoved the reference to the end of the paragraph and introduced new language linkingyoung people’s needs to their living environment. The EU and US replaced a reference to“sustained economic growth and sustainable development,” which appeared in a paragraphidentifying problems confronting human settlements, with the World Summit for SocialDevelopment (WSSD) formula recognizing the three elements of sustainable development:economic development, social development and environmental protection asinterdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development.

Another bracketed reference called for “democracy and transparent, representative andaccountable governance.” The final version of the text notes that “democracy, respect forhuman rights (CANADA), transparent, representative and accountable government andadministration...as well as effective participation by civil society (US)” are indispensable.

The G-77/CHINA suggested removing a reference to “gender discrimination” andreplacing it with “discrimination against women,” but the US and CANADA stronglyrecommended retention of the original phrase.

The final text notes that a large segment of the world’s population lacks shelter andsanitation. The international community, in convening the Conference, has decided that aconcerted global approach could enhance progress. The most serious problemsconfronting cities and towns, including inadequate financial resources, lack of employmentopportunities, spreading homelessness and expansion of squatter settlements, are noted.The challenge and opportunity for renewed developmental initiatives for rural settlementsare also identified, as is the importance of urban-rural linkages. The needs of displacedpersons, children and youth, indigenous people, women, persons with disabilities, andolder persons are identified. Cooperation at all levels and institutions such as theCommission for Human Settlements and the UN Centre for Human Settlements are notedto be central to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.

II. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES

This chapter commits States participating in Habitat II to a political, economic,environmental, ethical and spiritual vision of human settlements based on the principles ofequality, solidarity, partnership, human dignity, respect and cooperation. Commitments areundertaken at the national, local and international levels.

During the final day of the Conference, a new paragraph was added to the beginning ofthis chapter as part of a package deal on references to reproductive health care. The newparagraph is a compromise between Cairo language, supported by the G-77/CHINA andthe HOLY SEE, and Beijing language, supported by the EU and the US. It states that: theobjectives of the Habitat Agenda are in full conformity with the purposes and principles ofthe United Nations Charter and international law; it is the duty of all States to promoteand protect human rights; and implementation is the sovereign right and responsibility ofeach State, with full respect for various religious and ethical values, cultural backgroundsand philosophical convictions.

Another issue resolved in the final hours of the Conference and contained in this chapterwas the bracketed reference to the destructive nature of civil, ethnic and religious strife,nuclear armament, armed conflict, alien and colonial domination, foreign occupation,international economic imbalance, coercive economic measures, poverty and organizedcrime. The US opposed the text, but several members of the Arab Group supported it.The final compromise deleted references to nuclear armament, armed conflict,“international” economic imbalance and coercive economic measures, and added a call forthe elimination of unilateral measures. Additional references to foreign occupation inChapter III (Commitments) were also removed.

A reference to “the right to inheritance,” in the context of equal access to resources, wasremoved from brackets after delegates were informed that it had been taken from theBeijing Platform for Action. Discussion on a reference to “various forms of the family” inthe original draft included a statement by MALTA that reopening this issue could derailthe entire Conference. The G-77/CHINA, with BRAZIL dissenting, wanted to delete thereference. The EU, NORWAY and BRAZIL said the language had been taken from theWSSD and other UN conferences. Delegates agreed to recognize that in different cultural,political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. The US and CANADAintroduced a new paragraph on education and health care, and CANADA proposed, onbehalf of the NGOs, a principle emphasizing environmental health.

The rest of this chapter addresses: commitment to human rights set out in internationalinstruments, including the right to adequate housing; equitable settlements with access tofacilities without discrimination; eradication of poverty; sustainable human settlementsincorporating the Rio principles; quality of life, including economic, social, environmentaland cultural factors; strengthening of the family; citizenship and identity; cooperation anddialogue; partnerships among countries and among domestic actors; solidarity with thosebelonging to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and primary health servicesconsistent with the Report of International Conference on Population and Development(ICPD).

III. COMMITMENTS

The chapter on commitments originally opened with a chapeau on implementation of theHabitat Agenda. The G-77/CHINA and the HOLY SEE supported language borrowedfrom the ICPD, which noted that implementation is the sovereign right of States,consistent with national laws and with respect for religious and cultural backgrounds andin conformity with universally recognized international human rights. The EU and the USpreferred stronger language from Beijing and Copenhagen, referring to the duty of Statesto protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. During informal consultations on thefinal day of the Conference, these issues were included in the package deal on referencesto reproductive health care and moved to the Preamble. In the remaining paragraphs onimplementation, a commitment was made to enact plans of action at all levels, taking intoaccount that humans are at the center of sustainable development concerns. Refugees,migrants and street children were added to the list of those requiring special attention.

A. Adequate shelter for all: In this section, governments commit themselves tothe objectives of, inter alia: legal security of tenure and equal access to land; accessto safe drinking water and sanitation; environmentally sound construction methods andtechnologies; and protection from discrimination.

Paragraphs in this section were negotiated at length based on a Chair’s draft thatincorporated delegates’ proposals into the original Agenda. A separate drafting groupproduced agreement on a commitment to the “full and progressive realization of the rightto adequate housing” and the obligation of Governments to enable people to obtainshelter. The G-77/CHINA sought to qualify “we further commit to the followingobjectives” by adding “within the national legal authority,” but the EU objected and thelanguage was deleted in the final text.

The equal right to inheritance was debated extensively, with the US, the EU, NORWAY,AUSTRALIA and CANADA supporting its inclusion and QATAR and IRAN opposing it.In the final text, the following language from Beijing was inserted: “undertaking legislativeand administrative reforms to give women full and equal access to economic resources,including the right to inheritance and to ownership of land and other property, credit,natural resources and appropriate technologies.” The HOLY SEE added a sub-paragraphon shelter and the family. The EU and CANADA preferred “families” and NORWAYpreferred families “in their various forms.” The HOLY SEE’s version was formallyadopted with a footnoted reference to the paragraph on the family in the Goals andPrinciples section, which states that “various forms of the family exist.”

Shelter and services to disadvantaged groups generated extensive debate. ThePHILIPPINES wanted to replace “legal migrants” with “migrant workers,” but the USobjected. As a compromise, “internally displaced persons, documented migrants andmigrant workers” was replaced by “displaced persons.” CANADA substituted “survivorsof family violence” for “women and children leaving violent and abusive situations.” Asub-paragraph regarding legal protection from forced evictions was strengthened from itsoriginal formulation after negotiation in the drafting group. The original formulation calledfor “avoiding forced evictions and when unavoidable, striving for rehabilitation,” while therevised language calls for “protecting from and providing legal protection and redress forforced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights into consideration; whenunavoidable, ensuring, as appropriate, that alternative suitable solutions are provided.”

Following a G-77/CHINA proposal, a new paragraph was added regarding continuedinternational support for refugees in accordance with relevant UN resolutions andinternational law.

B. Sustainable human settlements: This section describes commitment to theobjectives of sustainable human settlements, including: integrated urban planning;integrated water use planning; environmental infrastructure facilities; informal and privatesector support; changes in unsustainable production and consumption patterns; energyefficient technology; and sustainable use of coastal areas.

In a paragraph on transportation system improvement, new language on promotingmeasures to encourage the polluter to bear the cost of pollution was added. CANADAadded sub-paragraphs on upgrading informal settlements and slums, urban pollutionreduction, and energy-efficient technology and alternative/ renewable energy. The EUadded a sub-paragraph on strengthening vitality of rural areas.

The US added a sub-paragraph regarding basic education, primary health care and genderequality, and introduced two sub-paragraphs on the prevention of lead poisoning. In aparagraph on man-made disasters, CANADA inserted amendments regarding planningmechanisms and people-centered responses and the G-77/CHINA inserted amendments onprevention of major technological disasters. In a paragraph on reduction of adverse effectsof structural adjustment, brackets were removed around the reference to gender-sensitivesocial impact assessments. CANADA amended a paragraph on indigenous land rights with“legal traditional rights.”

In two G-77/CHINA-proposed paragraphs referring to areas under foreign occupation(combat illegal confiscation of land, and protect legal status and demographiccomposition), several ARAB GROUP countries called for the deletion of brackets aroundthis text while the US insisted on deletion of the text. In the final hour, the text wasdeleted but several ARAB GROUP countries announced their reservations.

C. Enablement: The commitment to enablement calls for transparent governance,decentralization, capacity building and training, promotion of institutional and legalframeworks for mobilizing financial resources, and equal access to information.

The US added “gender-sensitive” to the sub-paragraph on institutional frameworks andcapacity building. AUSTRALIA inserted a sub-paragraph on tenant participation inhousing management. The EU inserted a sub-paragraph regarding education for all andadded “enabling local leadership and promoting democratic rule” to a paragraph ontransparency and accountability of governance. MOROCCO added a sub-paragraph onprivate sector development. CANADA introduced sub-paragraphs on partnership withyouth, encouraging the establishment of non-governmental entities, and institutionalizing aparticipatory approach. CANADA also added a paragraph on gender equality, with sub-paragraphs on gender-disaggregated data to make unremunerated work of women visible,integration of a gender perspective in resource management and infrastructuredevelopment, and full and equal participation of women in planning and decision making.

D. Financing shelter and human settlements: Objectives for financing shelter andhuman settlements include: fiscal and financial management; strengthening fiscalinstruments conducive to environmentally sound practices; access to credit; performance-based mechanisms for resource allocation; and subsidies and credit mechanisms.Additional language was introduced regarding the potential of local institutions involved inmicro-credit for housing the poor.

In a paragraph on stimulating economies, “competitive and sustainable economicdevelopment” was replaced by “economic development, social development andenvironmental protection.” In the paragraph on enabling markets, the US added “promotesocially and environmentally responsible corporate investment and reinvestment.” The EUand the US changed the language in a paragraph on access to credit from “increasedequitable” access to “equal” access. In the paragraph on subsidies and credit mechanisms,the EU added “fostering the accessibility of the market for those who are less organizedand informed or otherwise excluded from participation.”

E. International cooperation: The commitment on international cooperation andpartnerships affirms Governments’ contribution to and participation in cooperationprogrammes, institutional arrangements and technical and financial assistanceprogrammes, promotion of exchange of appropriate technology and analysis, anddissemination of information.

With regard to the objective on 0.7% of developed countries’ GNP for OfficialDevelopment Assistance (ODA), the G-77/ CHINA replaced the “accepted” with the“agreed” target of 0.7%. In the objective on effective use of resources and economicinstruments, the US added in a “non-discriminatory” manner. The US proposed deleting“equitable,” but the G-77/CHINA objected.

F. Assessing progress: In the section on progress assessment, governmentscommit to observe and implement the Habitat Agenda and to monitor progress, and torecognize the need for an integrated approach, concerted action and coordinatedimplementation to achieve the objectives of the Agenda. The US, CANADA andAUSTRALIA inserted language regarding the importance of disaggregated indicators inmonitoring and evaluating progress and added the well-being of children as an importantindicator. Based on negotiations of Section F of the Global Plan of Action (GPA)(implementation and follow-up), delegates agreed to “assess, with a view to revitalizingthe UNCHS, whose responsibilities, inter alia, include coordination and assistingStates in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.”

IV. GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION: STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

A. INTRODUCTION: This section outlines changes since the first HabitatConference 20 years ago, including population growth, urbanization and globalization ofthe economy. Actions at the local level are recognized as increasingly important inaddressing human settlements problems, and an enabling approach by governments is keyto solving these problems. The strategy of the GPA is based on enablement, transparencyand participation.

The paragraph on globalization generated considerable debate. GUATEMALA proposeda reference to disintegration of the family and the EU added a reference to human rightsviolations, but neither was in the final text. References to “sustainable development,including sustained economic growth” were negotiated extensively. The G-77/CHINAproposed “sustained economic growth and sustainable development,” NORWAYproposed “sustainable economic growth in the context of sustainable development,” andthe EU suggested “sustainable development.” Consensus was finally reached on“achievement of adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development.”

B. ADEQUATE SHELTER FOR ALL: This section defines adequate shelter andrecognizes the right to adequate housing as an important component of the right to anadequate standard of living. Actions concerning discrimination, legal security of tenureand equal access to land, forced evictions, housing policies and monitoring and evaluationof housing conditions are specified. Fundamental objectives are to integrate shelterpolicies with those that guide macroeconomic and social development and soundenvironmental management, and to enable markets to work efficiently.

Recommended actions under shelter policies include: decentralization; integration withother policies; promotion of an enablement approach; and improvement of shelter deliverysystems. Actions identified for shelter delivery systems include: enabling markets to work;facilitating community-based production of housing; ensuring access to land and legalsecurity of tenure; mobilizing sources of finance; ensuring access to basic infrastructureand services; and improving planning, design, construction, maintenance andrehabilitation. Actions to address the special needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged groupsinclude: establishing and enforcing laws to prevent discrimination; promoting affordableand accessible public transport; providing increased coverage of water supply andsanitation services; providing subsidies, social services and safety nets; and providing legalprotection from forced evictions. The need to strengthen support for internationalprotection of and assistance to refugees is also noted.

Considerable debate occurred on the subject of the right to adequate housing, and adrafting group was formed to deal with this issue. The consensus language reaffirms thefull and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing and notes theresponsibility of all governments, using an enabling approach, to protect and ensure thefull and progressive realization of this right. The drafting group also agreed on languageregarding forced eviction, which states that governments should provide “effectiveprotection from forced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights intoconsideration.”

In a paragraph regarding reforms to give women full and equal access to economicresources, a reference to credit, natural resources and appropriate technologies was addedto conform with Beijing language. MOROCCO added a new sub-paragraph on mitigationof spontaneous settlements problems. The PEACE CAUCUS recommended languageregarding the removal of land mines. In a paragraph regarding land use taxation, the USreplaced “equitable” with “accessible” use of land. In paragraphs regarding barriers toaccess to land, brackets were removed from “equal and equitable” access, while “equal”inheritance was deleted in conformity with Beijing language.

In the paragraph regarding provision of basic infrastructure, the EU and G-77/CHINAremoved the brackets around “equitable” provision, but the US preferred “equal.” Acompromise of “more equitable” was approved. In a paragraph on non-renewableresources, the G-77/CHINA deleted “particularly fossil fuels.”

A drafting group conducted informal consultations on the section on vulnerable groupsand agreed on several amendments. All references were changed to “vulnerable anddisadvantaged groups,” and new language was inserted on access to resources,enforcement and effectiveness of legal protection, and disproportionately adverseenvironmental and health impacts. The new language also states that not all members ofthese groups are vulnerable and disadvantaged at all times, and circumstances rather thaninherent characteristics cause vulnerability and disadvantage.

C. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT IN ANURBANIZING WORLD: This section notes that urban areas will strongly influencethe world of the 21st century. Governments, at appropriate levels, are called on to createpartnerships with relevant interested parties to encourage the sustainable development andmanagement of cities. The final text focuses on ten human settlements issues and suggestsa number of actions for each. The ten issues are: sustainable land use; social development(eradication of poverty, creation of productive employment and social integration);population and sustainable human settlements development; environmentally sustainable,healthy and livable human settlements; sustainable energy use; sustainable transport andcommunication systems; conservation and rehabilitation of historical and cultural heritage;improving urban economies; balanced development of settlements in rural regions; anddisaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and post-disaster rehabilitation capabilities.

In a paragraph regarding sustainable urban development, the G-77/CHINA, supported byNORWAY, replaced “trade” with “transboundary movement of” hazardous waste. TheG-77/CHINA also proposed deleting “by parties to those agreements,” but the USobjected.

The brackets were removed from the paragraph calling for partnerships to encourage thesustainable development and management of cities of all sizes. The reference in thatparagraph, and throughout the text, to [stakeholders] was changed to “interested parties”by the EU. A bracketed reference to the precautionary approach was supported by the EUand opposed by the G-77/CHINA. The CHAIR proposed text from Rio stating that theprecautionary approach shall be widely applied according to States’ capabilities. The USand NORWAY agreed, but retained the additional reference to environmental and socialimpact assessment, which was not derived from Rio.

The US added a number of references regarding lead poisoning prevention. CANADAadded sub-paragraphs calling for preservation of aquatic ecosystems, strategies to reducedemand for limited water resources, and the participation of women in all decision-makingrelated to water resource conservation, management and technological choice.

The G-77/CHINA, supported by AUSTRALIA, replaced a reference to energy sources“based on fossil fuels” with “non-renewable” in a paragraph on sustainable energy use. Ina chapeau regarding government action to promote sustainable energy use, IRAN andSAUDI ARABIA added “efficient” to “sustainable.” IRAN proposed text calling forspecial consideration for those countries whose economies are based on oil in a sub-paragraph regarding energy-pricing policies, but the US and EU objected.

The US proposed deleting a paragraph on the need for resettlement of displacedpopulations as a consequence of nuclear weapons testing. The SOLOMON ISLANDS,the HOLY SEE, SYRIA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, IRAN and the PHILIPPINESobjected. The text was retained. The US proposed additional sub-paragraphs on land minedetection and clearing, provision of mine clearance equipment for humanitarian purposesand an international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer ofanti-personnel mines. A separate drafting group was created to discuss this issue, but thenew text was not included.

Reference to reproductive health care was the subject of extensive consultations, out ofwhich a package deal emerged. One reference to reproductive health care was altered tocall for “basic health care services.” One sub-paragraph calls for public informationcampaigns centered on the significance of population-related issues and responsibleactions necessary, including health, family planning and consumption and productionpatterns. A final sub-paragraph calls for programmes to ensure universal access for womento affordable health care, “including those related to reproductive health care, whichincludes family planning and sexual health,” consistent with the ICPD.

D. CAPACITY-BUILDING AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Thissection notes that an enabling strategy, capacity-building and institutional developmentshould aim at empowering all interested parties to enable them to play an effective role inshelter and human settlements planning and management. The final text identifies actionsrelated to: decentralization and strengthening of local authorities; popular participationand civic engagement; human settlements management; metropolitan planning andmanagement; domestic financial resources and economic instruments; and information andcommunications.

Since this section was not discussed at PrepCom III, it arrived in Istanbul entirely inbrackets. The Chair distributed a redraft, based on submitted amendments, which wasdiscussed on Monday, 10 June. The EU initially offered to accept the text as drafted, butothers preferred to negotiate changes. The US proposed a reference to “ensuring andprotecting human rights.” CHINA objected, but the reference was included in the finaltext. The US, supported by the EU and IRAN, added calls for “gender-, age- and income-based” data collection to two sub-paragraphs on decentralization and strengthening oflocal authorities and their associations/ networks.

In a sub-paragraph calling for the development of global and easily accessible informationnetworks, the G-77/CHINA added a reference to technology transfer and supported thereference to action in cooperation with the UN Centre for Human Settlements. The USobjected to the reference to the Centre. Delegates accepted an EU proposal calling fordevelopment and/or strengthening of networks, as appropriate, in cooperation withrelevant UN bodies.

BOLIVIA added “popular participation” to a sub-heading calling for “Participation, civicengagement and good governance.” IRAN proposed deleting “good governance,” but theUS and the EU objected. The final text reads: Popular participation and civic engagement.

CANADA added a new sub-paragraph calling for promotion of the full potential of youthas key partners.

Several hours into consideration of the section, the Chair appealed to delegates to acceptthe EU proposal to adopt the remaining text as drafted, given the fact that little time wasleft to resolve all outstanding issues. The delegates agreed.

E. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION: Theintroduction to this section states that international cooperation takes on addedsignificance in light of economic globalization; notes recent declines in ODA; calls forinnovative approaches for cooperation using new forms of partnership; and notes theimpact of international migration on cities. Sub-sections include: an enabling internationalcontext; financial resources and economic instruments; technology transfer andinformation exchange; technical cooperation; and institutional cooperation.

The debate on this section generally fell along developed and developing country lines.While often in agreement on the topics for inclusion, they debated language regarding theextent and effect of global problems at length. Regarding economic globalization anddeveloping country deterioration, INDIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, supportedlanguage on problems with poverty, urbanization and economic stagnation. Many Africancountries said this language reflected their own situation. The EU said the paragraphfocused only on negative aspects, and delegates added text noting the opportunities andchallenges of globalization. Delegates disagreed strongly on language concerning therelationship of Habitat’s goals to problems of external debt and international trade.Delegates also debated equitable pricing mechanisms, effectiveness of public and privateresources, and special financing needs.

The issues of ODA and agreed targets were debated at length. The US and EU preferredretaining a reference to striving to fulfill the 0.7% GNP for ODA target and deleting areference to the “agreed” target, while the G-77/CHINA proposed the reverse.AUSTRALIA deleted a reference in the same paragraph to 0.15% of GNP to the leastdeveloped countries (LDCs), but NORWAY insisted on the LDC target. Delegates alsoagreed to strive to fulfill the agreed target as soon possible and increase the share offunding for adequate shelter. Delegates agreed on a new paragraph that included referenceto 0.15% of GNP for ODA for LDCs.

On international migration, MEXICO proposed text noting that international migrationcan facilitate the transfer of skills but may give rise to racism and violence. The US and theUNITED ARAB EMIRATES deleted the reference to racism. The PHILIPPINESproposed references to migrant workers and objected to specifying “documented”migrants.

Delegates also heard proposals from local authorities and NGOs, and debated referencesto their role in human settlements development. They accepted language, withamendments, on local authority access to international financial markets, strengtheningdecentralized development assistance programmes and cooperation with associations andnetworks of local authorities. NGO-proposed language on ensuring compliance withnational laws by the private sector, including transnational corporations, was alsoaccepted.

F. IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE HABITAT AGENDA:This section invites the General Assembly (GA) and ECOSOC to review andstrengthen the mandate of the Commission on Human Settlements. A central role inmonitoring implementation within the UN system is noted for the Commission. Theprimary role of the UN Centre for Human Settlements, located in Nairobi, Kenya, is toprovide substantive servicing to the Commission. The Secretary-General is requested toensure more effective functioning of the Centre by providing sufficient human andfinancial resources.

Opening statements in Working Group II revealed fundamental differences betweendeveloping and developed countries on the future of the Centre, the role of Habitat II inaddressing the Centre’s mandate and functions, and the effect of reviews by the GA andECOSOC.

The EU said there were many rumors regarding its position on follow-up. TheCommission should give its advice on the mandates to ECOSOC, which will review themandates of all of the functional commissions next year. He said it was impossible toexamine the mandates at this Conference. The substance of the GPA must first be agreedupon, and implementation must then be considered by the Commission, ECOSOC and theGA. The US and CANADA noted that the GPA should be completed prior to determiningwho will implement it. INDIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, noted that the rumors havea “ring of authenticity” based on past experiences. After the Rio Conference, UNEPbecame less important and its resources declined. He expressed concern that a similar fatewould befall the Centre. The Conference should reaffirm the central role of the Centre inimplementation and its need for greater resources, and ensure that the Centre will remainin Africa.

Regarding the ECOSOC review, the G-77/CHINA proposed deleting references toECOSOC oversight on coordination of the GPA and review of implementation. The EU,supported by the US, AUSTRALIA and CANADA, proposed including a review of themandate of the Commission by ECOSOC. The G-77/CHINA said this request assumesthat action should be taken regarding the Commission, but later proposed a review “with aview to strengthening” the Commission. The US proposed, “with a view to reorientingand, as necessary, strengthening,” but KENYA and ZAMBIA objected. The EU proposeda new paragraph on the Commission, which states that the Commission should promote,review, monitor and assess progress in implementation. The G-77/CHINA said theexisting paragraph represents an understanding that the Commission must be strengthened.

Regarding the Centre, the US said the Conference cannot decree and proposed that theCentre “should” rather than “shall” continue to service the Commission. The G-77/CHINA said this implied that the Centre would not continue in this capacity. The G-77/CHINA also disapproved of references to “within its present mandate” and said HabitatII will add responsibilities, and should expand the Centre’s mandate. The EU said theConference cannot change the mandate. The US, supported by the EU and CANADA,proposed deleting a reference to the post of Executive Director for the Centre. The EUnoted this was not the decision of the Conference. The G-77/CHINA objected andbracketed the reference. A reference calling for the addition of the Center to theAdministrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) was also bracketed. The text alsoinvites the Secretary-General to ensure the Centre’s more effective functioning. Thereference to the Executive Director and the ACC remained bracketed until the finalmeeting of Committee I, where the G-77/CHINA agreed to delete the references.

HEARINGS ON THE ROLE OF PARTNERS

During the two weeks of the Conference, Committee II conducted hearings regarding therole and contribution of local authorities, the private sector, parliamentarians, NGOs andother partners in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. The hearings involvedrepresentatives from the following groups: Local Authorities; the World Business Forum;the Foundations Forum; the Parliamentarians Forum; the Academies of Science andEngineering Forum; the Professionals and Researchers Forum; the Labour Unions Forum;the UN system; non-governmental and community-based organizations; Habitat Dialoguesfor the 21st Century; and the Forum on Human Solidarity.

Committee II met on Thursday, 13 June to consider its report. The report, as contained inA/CONF.165/L.5 and Add. 1-9, contains the Chairperson’s summaries of each of thehearings held in Committee II during the course of the Conference. The Chair, MarttiLujanen (Finland), also presented a Preamble of the Chairperson’s Summary Report.

The Preamble states that the Partners’ Committee was the most exciting feature of HabitatII. It notes that, although NGOs were accustomed to assembling at previous conferences,many other partners assembled for the first time at a UN conference. A significantoutcome of the hearings was the determination of partners to contribute to theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda. In addition to the new relationship with the UN,the partners recognized the need to support each other.

BEST PRACTICES

A Best Practices Exhibition also paralleled the Conference, and showcased examples ofhuman settlements development from around the world. The Best Practices Initiative is aninteractive, computerized tool developed by the Together Foundation. Users can accessinformation on over 500 case studies in the realization of Habitat’s objectives — shelterprovision for all and sustainable human settlements development.

On Tuesday, 4 June, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opened the BestPractices Awards ceremony, which honored 12 initiatives designed to provide positivesolutions to the world’s most pressing human settlement problems. He highlighted theirefforts to build partnerships between civil society and private enterprise and offered themas proof that sustainable human development is indeed possible. The awards were given toprojects involving a wide range of practices, including technology, information, povertyalleviation and improved access to land.

Awards were presented to the following 12 Best Practices: Project on Sites and Servicesfor Family Groups with Low Income Living in the North of Gran, Buenos Aires,Argentina; Integration Council in the Favela’s Rehabilitation Process, Fortaleza, Brazil;Metro Toronto’s Changing Communities: Innovative Responses, Metro Toronto, Canada;Post-calamity Reconstruction of Anhui Province’s Rural Areas, China; SuccessfulInstitutionalization of Community-based Development in the Commune of Adjam,Abidjan, Cte d’Ivoire; A Women’s Self-help Organization for Poverty Alleviation inIndia: The SEWA Bank, India; Shelter Upgrading, Agadir, Morocco; City Management inTilburg, the Netherlands; Local Initiative Programme: Community Planning Process andCity/Neighborhood Partnership, Lublin, Poland; Community Information Resource Centre(CIRC), Alexandra, South Africa; “Don’t Move, Improve,” Community-owned and -governed Urban Revitalization Project, South Bronx, New York City, US; and thepollution clean-up and environmental conservation efforts of the City of Chattanooga,Tennessee, US.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The High-Level Segment was opened on 12 June 1996 by the President of Turkey,Sleyman Demirel, who said it is essential to review existing policies on shelter and humansettlements development. The question at hand is to show the international community’spolitical will. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said the internationalcommunity must respond to the processes of urbanization and globalization sooner ratherthan later. Habitat II has emphasized alliance building, innovative ideas and involved thecontributions of many specialized constituencies and stakeholders.

Approximately 120 statements were offered during the two-and-one-half day High-LevelSegment, which gave world leaders a platform from which to declare their commitment toimproving the settlements in their countries. During the Segment, speakers addressed themajor national and global issues of human settlements. They pledged their commitment toimplement the Conference’s Global Plan of Action at the national and international levelsin cooperation with all the partners who were integrated in the Habitat process — localauthorities, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and youth.

A number of speakers stressed the importance of national efforts in improving their humansettlements. However, several others called for assistance for the developing States andcountries in transition to realize economic growth and achieve sustainable humansettlements. The importance of international cooperation in translating the HabitatAgenda, goals, principles and commitments into concrete results was also highlighted. Therole of the international development and lending institutions, the United Nations system,bilateral donors and the developed countries in helping to attain those goals was stressedby several speakers. Others emphasized the positive aspects of the Conference and itspreparatory process, expressing pride in what they had achieved. Particularly importantwas the agreement in reaffirming the right to housing as a human right, integrating theempowerment of women, and addressing the concerns of youth and indigenous people.Participation of the beneficiaries of housing settlements in decision-making was seen asbeing crucial in the process of creating sustainable human settlements. Local authorities,non-governmental and community-based organizations, too, should be involved. Theeradication of poverty and the development of the rural areas were also highlighted byseveral speakers.

Copies of the statements delivered during the High-Level Segment are available on theUnited Nations World Wide Web site at <<http://www.un.org/Conferences/habitat/eng-stat/>>. Summaries of the statements in the official UN press releases from the Conferencecan be found on the Internet at <<http://www.un.org/Conferences/habitat/eng-pres/3/>>.

CLOSING PLENARY

At 1:00 am on 15 June, delegates moved from the final meeting of Committee I to thePlenary Hall with their watches stopped at midnight. Habitat II President SleymanDemirel opened the meeting and called on the Rapporteur, Ricardo Gorosito, to introducethe report of the Conference (A/CONF.165/L.4 and Add.1). Delegates adopted the reportand authorized the Rapporteur to finalize it for submission to the 51st General Assembly.

Delegates then considered the report of Committee II (A/CONF.165/L.5 and Add. 1-11),as presented by the Chairperson, Martti Lujanen (Finland). He noted that the UN hastraditionally relied on intergovernmental cooperation to solve the world’s problems.Habitat II was the first opportunity for partners to engage in a dialogue with governmentaldelegates, and delegates should be proud of the break with past UN procedures.

COLOMBIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, asked how the Committee II report wouldbe annexed to the Report of the Conference. He was told that it would be included in thereport and the Plenary would take note of it. IRAN stated that the text was not negotiatedand could not be part of the final report. He suggested that it be included in a seconddocument, which would be referenced in the final report. Secretary-General WALLYN’DOW noted that the partners were invited by the GA to participate in the Committee,and that “we cannot build a new heaven and new earth” using status quo methods. Hesuggested that the Secretariat consult with members designated by Iran to find a newpathway for the report. Delegates took note of the report, which they noted is non-binding. The PHILIPPINES noted that points it had raised during Committee II regardingmigrant workers and indigenous peoples were not reflected in the Chairperson’ssummaries.

Delegates then considered the adoption of the Istanbul Declaration and the HabitatAgenda. The Chair of the Istanbul Declaration Drafting Group, Balkan Kazildeli (Turkey)and the Chair of Committee I, Shafqat Kakakhel (Pakistan), presented the results of theirgroups. Delegates agreed to delete bracketed text in paragraphs 27(a) and 27(f) bisregarding activities in territories under foreign occupation. CUBA noted that the text to beadopted was consistent with previously adopted texts, and stated that all are aware of thatunilateral measures can damage the economic and social development of a country.COSTA RICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, introduced resolution A/CONF.165/L.7,calling for the adoption of the Declaration and the Habitat Agenda, which was adopted byacclamation.

The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the Asian Group, noted the historical partnershipbetween national and local governments, parliamentarians and others that occurred atHabitat II.

COSTA RICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, introduced A/CONF.165/L.3, Expressionof thanks to the people and Government of Turkey, which was adopted by acclamation.

COLOMBIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, noted that hopes for the transfer oftechnology and know-how have not emerged strengthened from Habitat II, and that thefuture of the UN Centre for Human Settlements seems uncertain. He recognized that theConference did achieve positive results, such as the reaffirmation of the right to housingfor all and the need to relieve the distress of those who live in poverty.

ITALY, on behalf of the EU, stated that partnerships were strengthened at Habitat II andinternational cooperation will increasingly lean on these forces.

SOUTH AFRICA, on behalf of the African States, noted that the active participation of alldevelopment partners, especially women, have made Habitat II a success. Implementationof the Habitat Agenda in Africa will be more successful if the role of UNCHS isrecognized.

URUGUAY, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, noted that his Groupis committed to the goals, principles and strategies adopted in Istanbul. He hoped that thesame energy that has been put into the discussions and that has prompted delegates towork at this late hour would help translate principles into practice.

The US, on behalf the Western European and Others Group, noted that delegates toHabitat II “refused to fail.” He thanked all partners in the negotiations and said he lookedforward to returning home to begin the implementation process.

The SUDAN, on behalf of the Arab States, stated that the deliberations show thatmankind is capable of resolving its problems through dialogue. MOROCCO said that theConference is historic for Arab countries, who have had close contact with their partnersin Africa and the North. He stated he would like to see UNCHS strengthened, becauseimplementation requires coordinators.

ROMANIA, on behalf of the Central and Eastern European region, thanked all involvedwith Habitat II.

Secretary-General Wally N’Dow noted that Habitat II has been a people’s conference inevery way, and hoped that its example would bring about a more representative process inthe way international business is conducted. He called for a shift from military budgets forthe “old” international security into areas that compose a new definition of security.UNCHS looks forward to its role in implementing the Habitat Agenda and he thankedthose who recommended strengthening the Centre. He expressed hope that when theCommission on Human Settlements meets next year the partners will be “part and parcelof the process,” as bona fide members. He also paid tribute to the women’smovement, and noted especially the extraordinary efforts of Bella Abzug, “a campaignerfor humanity.”

Habitat II President Sleyman Demirel noted that it is time to transform words into deeds.Coordination and monitoring of implementation will rest mainly on the UN system,particularly on the Centre for Human Settlements and the Commission on HumanSettlements. The UN restructuring process should not adversely affect the functioning ofthese bodies. The consensus reached on “the right to adequate housing” was a noteworthyaccomplishment of the Conference. He then declared the Second UN Conference onHuman Settlements closed at 3:20 am.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF HABITAT II

The Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements brought to a close a seriesof world conferences designed to define and launch a global agenda to meet the complexchallenges created by a century of unparalleled change. The issue of shelter andsustainable human settlements is recognized as a problem of crisis proportions that affectsall countries. The crisis appears in stark and dramatic statistics: in the year 2025 the Earthis expected to be home to almost 100 megacities with populations exceeding five million.

The Habitat Agenda and Istanbul Declaration form the closing chapter of this agenda-setting phase — one inspired largely by the end of the Cold War and a politicalopportunity for the UN to become a key player in shifting the traditional security agendaof States toward people-centered sustainable development. It is anticipated that Habitat IIand the special five-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 in 1997 will preparethe ground for a new era focused on implementation of the conference outcomes in aseries of partnerships involving States and their new competitors for resources andinfluence in a rapidly globalizing world: cities, transnational corporations, NGOs, andmembers of an epistemic and scientific community who have become indispensablesources of the risk-laden knowledge that informs contemporary policy in almost everyarea.

It was both appropriate and perhaps indicative of things to come that two of the majorthemes of Istanbul were “partnership” and local action. Given the importance of LocalAgenda 21s in the dissemination and implementation of sustainable development concepts,Habitat II will complement and reinforce the UN system’s desire to create essentialalliances at the community level. If some delegations demonstrated unease at the prospectof ceding sovereign control of the Habitat Agenda, there was no hesitation by the partnersin asserting their expectation that things will never be the same again.

NEGOTIATING THE HABITAT AGENDA

While most of the technical aspects of the Habitat Agenda had been resolved by the end ofPrepCom III, there was still much work to be done in Istanbul. Most participants hadready explanations for the slow pace of the negotiations. UN staff members tended tothrow the ball back into the governments’ court, pointing to the fact that the UNCHS hadbeen mandated to organize the Conference largely within existing resources and criticizinggovernment delegations for leaving the appointment of Chairs until they arrived inIstanbul. Others pointed the finger at the UNCHS Secretariat and weaknesses in theorganization and management of the Conference — a view confirmed to some extentwhen senior staff from the UN Department of Policy Coordination and SustainableDevelopment (DPCSD) were “parachuted in” to assist the Secretariat in Istanbul.

Procedural errors certainly dogged the process. Among their documents delegations founda compilation of their proposals left over from PrepCom III. Since it was released as anofficial document, the Chair and Secretariat had to remain faithful to these proposals,which tied their hands when they attempted to draft compromise amendments. Some ofthe heat could also have been taken off the negotiations at an early stage by inserting clearreaffirmations of previous UN Conference commitments into the Preamble.

Ultimately, however, negotiating strategies and sharply contrasting positions ofgovernments were decisive. In a now familiar pattern at UN conferences, delegationstreated the first days of negotiations like a PrepCom — refusing pleas from the Chairs toaccelerate their deliberations. Timing, of course, is part of the negotiating process. Forexample, negotiation strategies on the future of the UN Commission for HumanSettlements and UNCHS slowed the pace of the negotiations on all related issues. The G-77/China stated that they were prepared to discuss this issue at PrepCom II, but talks didnot take place. At PrepCom III, delegates did not reach the relevant section of the textuntil the final days, and the G-77/China and EU’s positions were so far apart thatnegotiations on a single text proved nearly impossible. Once a compromise was reached inIstanbul, it had a spill-over effect on other issues, but it was not until the final days of theConference.

DEFINING ISSUES

RIGHT TO HOUSING: The “right to adequate housing” emerged as one of themost contentious issues at PrepCom III. The relatively quick and easy resolution of thisissue, brokered by a member of the Canadian delegation, momentarily lifted spirits — andprovided commentators with their much-needed focus issue for the Conference. Theconsensus that emerged was a compromise between those delegations that preferred toincorporate the right to housing within the broader right to an adequate standard of livingand those who wanted to explicitly specify the right to housing as a distinct andindependent right. While generally depicted as a compromise, the resulting agreement hasbeen claimed as a significant victory by housing rights advocates.

The “right to adequate housing” is reaffirmed in each section of the document, but isqualified by references to the right as one element of the right to an adequate standard ofliving and to its “progressive realization.” Governments are not held responsible forproviding housing to all citizens, as some delegations feared, but the agreement obligesthem to enable people to obtain shelter and strengthens their responsibility in the sheltersector by laying out specific policies to be undertaken. What is innovative about theagreement is language affirming protection from discrimination in the housing sector, legalsecurity of tenure and equal access to land.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE: The issue of reproductive health care wasnot as easily resolved. Delegations grappled with the issue until the final hours of HabitatII. Some delegations sought to reinforce the importance of women’s access toreproductive health care services, as affirmed in Cairo and strengthened in Beijing. Thoseseeking to retain the reference in the Habitat Agenda claim that women’s reproductivehealth is inextricably linked to the health of human settlements. Other delegations, whoargued that reproductive health care does not belong in a conference addressing humansettlements problems, preferred language from Cairo, which has a weaker human rightsframework than the language from Beijing and stipulates that implementation is to beconsistent with national laws, development priorities and various religious and culturalparticularities. Beijing language includes a similar stipulation regarding implementation butalso states that regardless of these differences, it is the duty of States to promote allhuman rights and fundamental freedoms. The final version of the Habitat Agenda retainsthese stronger references to human rights and the duty and responsibility of States toprotect them, and is viewed as a victory by reproductive health care advocates.

INSTITUTIONAL FOLLOW-UP: In discussions on the fate of the Commissionon Human Settlements and UNCHS the G-77/ China sought strong reassurances that theCentre would not suffer a fate similar to UNEP, which has waned in clout and cash sinceRio. Throughout the negotiations, they pointed to the Centre’s critical role in achievingHabitat II’s goals and argued for a broader mandate and more resources. Developedcountries were reluctant to include any language on further commitments. They steadfastlyinsisted that the mandates of both the Commission and the Centre would not be alteredhere and peppered the text with qualified commitments. The US and the EU refused toinclude a reference to the Centre’s Executive Director post, noting that the Conferenceshould not delve into such detail. Some observers attribute this position to the Centre’spast problems of unclear leadership and funding problems. Others note that the positionstaken on the Centre merely reflect much larger problems over the widening rift inresources between developed and developing countries and the erosion of faith intraditional development assistance.

INNOVATIONS IN THE HABITAT AGENDA: The Habitat Agenda contains anumber of policy innovations. These include references to the elimination of sexualexploitation of young women and children; gender-disaggregated data collection; leadpoisoning prevention; measures to take account of the social and environmental impact ofpolicies; a strong commitment to economic empowerment of women, including referencesto the right to inheritance and flexible collateral conditions for credit; and the affirmationof the right to an adequate standard of living for all people and their families.Environmentalists were pleased with the language on environmental justice andenvironmental health and a reaffirmation of the Beijing call for control and regulation ofmultinational corporations and an appeal to the private sector to invest in communities.

The International Facilitating Group (IFG) brought together approximately 40 majorgroups, regional groups and caucuses to organize the NGO Forum and facilitate input intothe Conference. The IFG was effective and worked well with the Secretariat andSecretary-General Wally N’Dow. A little bit of NGO history was made — and aremarkable precedent established — when a compilation of NGO amendments to the draftHabitat Agenda was circulated to delegations in Istanbul as an official conferencedocument. The organizers believe they stretched the limits of participation beyond anyprevious UN conference.

INTERNATIONAL FACILITATING GROUP AND NGO PARTICIPATION

The International Facilitating Group (IFG) brought together approximately 40 majorgroups, regional groups and caucuses to organize the NGO Forum and facilitate input intothe Conference. The IFG was effective and worked well with the Secretariat andSecretary-General Wally N’Dow. A little bit of NGO history was made — and aremarkable precedent established — when a compilation of NGO amendments to the draftHabitat Agenda was circulated to delegations in Istanbul as an official conferencedocument. The organizers believe they stretched the limits of participation beyond anyprevious UN conference.

CONCLUSION

Habitat II will fold neatly into the global policy agenda articulated and launched during thecycle of UN conferences dealing with children, the environment, human rights, populationand development, social development and women. For example, the Habitat Agenda takesup and integrates environmental (UNCED) and population issues (ICPD) in the specificcontext of urbanization. In Under-Secretary-General Nitin Desai’s words: “The HabitatAgenda forces us to address issues on an integrated and local basis, something which is alogical development of many ideas which surfaced earlier."

The Agenda, accompanied by a commitment to local implementation, gives a timelymomentum to the anticipated new phase in the UN’s engagement with its emerging globalconstituencies (local authorities, women’s movements, community-based organizations,business and trade unions) as the international community grapples to respond to theambivalent twins of globalization and trade liberalization. Habitat II represents the lateststage in the UN’s project to re-define the traditional security agenda in the knowledge thatthe emerging insecurities posed by environmental, social and economic problems coincidewith the causes of unsustainability.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR AFTER HABITAT II

ECOSOC: The Economic and Social Council will meet in New York from 24June - 26 July 1996.

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The United Nations General Assembly willconsider the report from Habitat II at its fifty-first session, which begins in New York inSeptember 1996. The Second Committee has jurisdiction over human settlements and willlikely consider the report of the Conference in late October or November.

CSD-5 AND THE 1997 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERALASSEMBLY: The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will devoteits intersessional working group meeting, scheduled for 24 February - 7 March 1997, topreparations for the UNGA Special Session for an overall review and appraisal of theimplementation of Agenda 21. The fifth session of the Commission is scheduled for 7-25April 1997 in New York. The Special Session is expected to convene from 9-13 June1997. For more information contact: Andrey Vasiliev, Division for SustainableDevelopment, tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: vasilyev@un.org.

THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS: The Commission onHuman Settlements will hold it next session in April/May 1997. For more informationcontact the UNCHS, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254-2-621234/62 4265, Fax:+254-2-62 4265, e-mail: habitat@unep.no.