NGLS Roundup 72, April 2001
SECOND PREPARATORY COMMITTEE SESSION FOR ISTANBUL+5
INTRODUCTION
From 6-8 June 2001 in New York, the UN General Assembly will be holding a special session to review and appraise implementation of the outcome of the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), which was held in 1996 in Istanbul (Turkey). This special session, referred to as Istanbul+5, will take stock of progress made in implementing the Habitat Agenda, the main outcome document Member States agreed to in 1996.
The Habitat Agenda contains a far-reaching programme of action to promote adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development, and to broaden popular participation and civic engagement. It adds significant political weight and visibility to the right to adequate housing, and gives strong emphasis to the role of local authorities and partnerships with civil society in implementing Member States' Habitat II commitments. Indeed, Habitat II and its preparatory process gave considerable scope for NGOs and local authorities to make substantive contributions to the Habitat Agenda, including active participation in Habitat II's inter-governmental drafting committee (see NGLS Roundup, September 1996).
The second substantive Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for Istanbul+5 was held on 19-23 February 2001 in Nairobi (Kenya) at the headquarters of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS-Habitat), the main UN agency responsible for supporting implementation of the Habitat Agenda.
The PrepCom meeting's tasks included: consideration of a draft report on the overall review and appraisal of implementation of the Habitat Agenda; negotiation of a draft political “Declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium;” and determination of organizational arrangements for the special session itself.
“BACKTRACKING” FROM HABITAT II?
For the 200 NGO representatives and 30 local authority representatives who attended the PrepCom, the meeting was mired by what many perceived as dramatic “backtracking” from Habitat II in terms of meaningful NGO and local authority participation. In an unexpected change from its policy position during the first PrepCom in May last year, the United States—joined by a few other countries—insisted that negotiations of the draft declaration be held mostly in private meetings, from which NGOs and local authorities (known as “Habitat partners”) would be excluded. As a result of difficulties in resolving this procedural issue, substantive negotiations were delayed for a good part of the session.
However, strong objections were raised by Habitat partners, PrepCom Chair Germŕn Garcia-Duran (Colombia) and the overwhelming majority of Member States, which were In favour of NGO participation “to keep the partnership spirit of Istanbul alive.” The issue was finally resolved but only in the afternoon of Thursday 22 February when an informal agreement was reached that unless Member States objected, the drafting committee meetings would be held in public sessions. In effect, NGOs and local authorities were allowed back in the drafting committee room as observers—but NGOs did not have the speaking rights they had enjoyed at the first PrepCom.
The main areas of contention on substance at the meeting included the status of adequate housing as a distinct internationally-recognized human right, and the role of family-support policies in human settlements development. Local authorities also expressed their disappointment at the reluctance among most Member States to discuss further a draft World Charter on Local Self-Government, which was expected to figure high on the second PrepCom's agenda (see NGLS Roundup 55). The African group also felt that many of its proposals regarding the international aid, debt and trading regimes were marginalized in the negotiations. These substantive issues mirror many of the main points of contention that had marked negotiations during the Habitat II process. A number of Member States and NGOs voiced their frustration at what they described as concerted attempts by some delegations to re-negotiate agreed text—as has happened during previous five-year reviews of UN conferences.
************************************************************************************
“In the village [in Tanzania] where I grew up, the traditional forms of social solidarity meant that the community tried to provide for everyone. I never saw anyone sleep under a tree. Nobody was excluded. But today, our cities and towns are full of street children and people living without adequate shelter and basic services. I am therefore personally committed to helping to make our human settlements inclusive. We must all try to improve the living conditions of the poor in our cities and human settlements.”
—Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Director, UNCHS (Habitat), at the opening plenary of the second PrepCom
************************************************************************************
STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HABITAT AGENDA
During the second PrepCom, many participants noted an overall deterioration in housing conditions since the 1996 Habitat II conference. In his address to the plenary Miloon Kothari, the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing said that “over the last decade, the right to adequate housing, as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living has been recognized as a cornerstone/fundamental human right in the UN human rights mechanism and in the Habitat Agenda. But the realization of the right remains far from a reality for the majority of the poor and the vulnerable throughout the world.” Mr. Kothari was appointed last year by the UN Commission on Human Rights. He said almost 100 million people across the world are living with no shelter, and the figure is increasing. Women constitute 70% of those living in absolute poverty.
According to Mr. Kothari's report (E/CN.4/2001/51) to the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights released during the PrepCom, about 600 million urban dwellers in developing countries live in overcrowded and poor quality housing. They have inadequate access to water, sanitation, drainage and garbage collection, which continuously puts their health and lives at risk. The situation is comparable for over one billion persons living in rural areas. Rapid urbanization, particularly in South East Asia and Africa, exacerbates the situation. Mr. Kothari described this as “a mirror image of growing rural poverty.” However, homelessness is not a phenomenon exclusive to developing countries; it exists in the United States at the rate of 1.5 to 2.5 people per 1,000 according to the report, and between four and 12 per 1,000 in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Similar trends are reflected in the draft report (HS/C/PC.2/2) on the overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda, which was prepared by UNCHS Executive Director Anna Tibaijuka on the basis of national reports from over 80 countries and the output of five regional preparatory meetings. Among trends emerging from the report is clear evidence that globalization has lead to an increase in urban poverty and has exacerbated the problems of human settlements in towns and villages. In many regions, recent progress has been severely hampered by increases in natural and human-made disasters, particularly regional wars and conflicts. In terms of emerging priorities, the report says international commitment in the field of human settlements development is weakening.
At a press conference on 23 February, a representative of the Group of 77 developing countries (G-77) acknowledged that the state of human settlements in developing countries had deteriorated. “We have not had as much success as we had hoped,” he said, “and despite diverse interests, the spirit of Istanbul encourages us to do much more than we have done so far.”
POLITICAL DECLARATION
Against this backdrop, Member States worked on the main expected outcome of the special session, a political declaration entitled “Declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium.” They had before them an initial draft (HS/C/PC.2/3) that was prepared by the UNCHS secretariat in close consultation with Member States and on the basis of an expert meeting held in Sweden in November 2000. The final draft text (HS/C/PC.2/8) resulting from the second PrepCom, which will be submitted to the special session for further consideration, is divided into four sections. These are renewing the commitments from Habitat II; welcoming progress in implementing the Habitat Agenda; recognizing gaps and obstacles; and undertaking further actions.
The text stresses that “the decisions we will make now will have far-reaching consequences. We note with great concern that one out of four of the world's urban population is living below the poverty line. In many cities, confronted with rapid growth, environmental problems and slow pace of economic development, it has not been possible to meet the challenges of generating sufficient employment, providing adequate housing and meeting the basic needs of citizens.” Given that half the world's inhabitants still lives in rural settlements, it also recognizes that “while addressing urban poverty, it is also essential to eradicate rural poverty and to improve the living conditions, as well as to create employment and educational opportunities in rural settlements and small and medium-sized cities and towns in rural areas.”
The text identifies widespread poverty as “the core obstacle” and notes “with concern that one of the basic obstacles to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda is the discrepancy between commitments made in Istanbul and the political will to fulfill them.” It notes that “the majority of people living in poverty still lack legal security of tenure for their dwellings, while others lack even basic shelter.” It further acknowledges that “the gaps in shelter and urban policies have limited the opportunities for participation and partnership and have made it difficult to convert best practices into good policies.” In particular, it says that “we are...deeply concerned that many women still do not participate fully on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, while at the same time suffering to a greater extent the effects of poverty.”
Concerning resource mobilization, the text recognizes that “governments have the primary responsibility for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda, [although] international support is likewise essential.” In this regard, it says, “We regret that international cooperation in shelter and human settlements development has not been enhanced significantly since 1996, which is a growing cause of concern.”
The text recognizes that “the consequences of these gaps and obstacles are serious: for the the first time in human history a majority of the world's six billion people will live in cities. Many people have experienced a deterioration, not an improvement, in their living environment. The gaps and obstacles encountered in the past five years have slowed down global progress towards sustainable human settlements development. It is essential that actions are taken to ensure that the Habitat Agenda is now translated into policy and into practice in every country.”
In a section in the text on “Undertaking Further Actions” Member States pledge to accelerate their efforts to ensure full and effective implementation of the Habitat Agenda. Determined to give “new momentum” to their efforts to improve human settlements conditions, they agreed to a range of further initiatives for achieving this. These include:
-- promote upgrading of slums and regularization of squatter settlements, in conjunction with the aims of the Cities
Without Slums initiative, to make a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by
2020 (see Go Between 79);
-- promote greater security of tenure and enable better access to information and good practices, including
awareness of legal rights;
-- build capacities and networks to enable all partners to play an effective role in shelter and human settlements
development, including through decentralization and participatory urban management, with a pledge to
strengthen the institutions and legal frameworks that assist and enable broad-based participation in decision
making and implementation;
-- intensify efforts for ensuring transparent, responsible, accountable, just, effective and efficient governance of
cities and other human settlements;
-- undertake legislative and administrative reforms needed to support the efforts of people, individually and
collectively, to produce affordable shelter, adopt proactive planning of land supply, promote the efficient
functioning of land markets and administration, eradicate legal and social barriers to the equal and equitable
access to land, and ensure that equal rights of women and men to land and property are protected under the
law;
-- facilitate access of all people, particularly the poor and vulnerable groups, to information on housing legislation
including any legal rights and to remedies where these laws are violated;
-- promote more determined action against urban crime and violence, particularly violence against women, children and the elderly;
-- promote access to safe drinking water for all and facilitate the provision of basic infrastructure and urban
services;
-- recognize that those living in poverty “are in fact rich in innovative faculties” and therefore encourage
governments and national and international financial institutions to strengthen the institutional frameworks by
which it would be possible to extend micro-credit to those living in poverty, particularly women, without
collateral or security; and
-- commit to enhanced international cooperation mechanisms to support post-conflict and post-disaster countries
with special emphasis on provision of shelter and other basic services, particularly to vulnerable groups, refugees
and internally displaced persons, as well as facilitate restoring security of tenure and property rights.
AREAS OF CONTENTION
The above initiatives were adopted by consensus at the end of the PrepCom. However, a number of other proposals became persistent points of contention, and where no compromise was possible, were either dropped from the final draft text or left in square brackets to signal disagreement.
The Human Right to Adequate Housing
A representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reminded delegates during the plenary that in the Habitat Agenda, governments reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring full and progressive realization of all human rights, including the right to adequate housing. He said that “the real challenge is actually delivering on these commitments. Adopting a rights-based approach can assist in this process by bringing a participatory, empowering and non-discriminatory paradigm based on universal inalienable human rights.”
Mr. Kothari noted that unclear and conflicting state obligations—such as debt, trade and investment policies, versus human rights commitments—are significant impediments to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. There was a need for clarity, he said, and for states to adhere to existing human rights obligations including the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right. “Adopting rights-based approaches to human settlement development,” he added, “would clarify the obligations, duties and actions by all partners in the development process, thereby raising the level of accountability and better empowering the intended beneficiaries of development. To make the Declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium truly meaningful, and to ensure the effective implementation of the Habitat Agenda and follow-up to Istanbul+5, human rights and a rights-based approach need to be placed in the centre of the Istanbul+5 as its guiding principle.”
However, the draft declaration adopted at the close of the PrepCom makes scant reference to human rights and the right to adequate housing. The language in the initial draft beginning with the phrase “We reaffirm our commitment...to: first, ensure the full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing” was deleted. Similarly, reference in paragraph five of the initial draft to a United Nations Housing Rights Programme (UNHRP), to be developed jointly by OHCHR and UNCHS, does not appear in the final draft text. Moreover in the Committee of the Whole, which was dealing with organizational matters for the special session, a proposal to include the right to adequate housing as one of the sub-themes of the thematic committee (see below) was not included in the final decision on the matter.
Many observers said the United States delegation played a leading role in weakening or seeking deletion of language referring to the right to adequate housing. At an NGO press conference on 23 February, a representative of the Habitat International Coalition (HIC) argued that the United States' opposition to substantive contributions of NGOs in the drafting committee—including contributions from experts in international human rights law—was part of a “systematic effort to eviscerate the human rights content of the draft declaration and is part of a wider strategy to roll back international legal norms, particularly in the area of economic, social and cultural rights.”
However, such concerns were not limited to that one government. At an earlier plenary session, the HIC representative had also warned of the “contagious” effect on other governments of the denial of existing norms and guidelines on implementation of the right to adequate housing and on forced evictions. He said he had monitored intergovernmental discussions at the 18th session of Commission on Human Settlements held in Nairobi the week preceding the PrepCom. He noted that rejection of norms and guidelines also came in some cases from ratifying state Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. “This even includes states in which these norms are part of their domestic laws,” the representative added.
Family-Related Policies
Another substantive area of contention concerned the family, which had been subject to strenuous negotiations during the Habitat II process. A number of delegations including the United States, Poland, the Holy See, Iran and some other developing countries made several proposals to introduce new language on the family. There were no references to the family in the initial draft declaration. The proponents of references to family-support policies identified the breakdown of the family as one of the main causes of some major problems to be discussed at the special session. This included the feminization of poverty and the growing number of street children in cities in developing countries. Those reluctant to reopen discussions on the family said they were concerned that some of the proposals could (intentionally or not) reinforce gender inequalities within the family, and/or encourage further discrimination against female-headed households. According to the Huairou Commission, a global coalition of grassroots women's networks and associations, female-headed households account for an important and growing proportion of households in developed and developing countries. Moreover, in many social and cultural settings they are not recognized as “families” in their own right.
The “compromise package” that was adopted at the end of the PrepCom, after lengthy informal consultations, was the inclusion of three paragraphs from the Habitat Agenda in the draft declaration. Paragraph 31 reaffirms that the family is the basic unit of society and should be strengthened, and notes that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist. Paragraph 40(k) refers to a poverty eradication strategy encouraging policies designed to meet housing needs of families. Paragraph 119(e) calls for the promotion of changes in attitudes, structures, policies, laws and other practices related to gender in order to eliminate obstacles to human dignity and equality in family and society.
Other contentious issues that are still pending further negotiations include:
-- text on further measures that would lead to durable solutions to the external debt of developing countries;
-- text related to the donor community's commitment to meet the agreed target of 0.7% of gross national product
for overall official development assistance, including sub-targets earmarked for the least developed countries;
-- the establishment of a “world solidarity fund for poverty eradication” (albeit this proposal has already been
accepted at the June 2000 five-year review of the World Summit for Social Development);
-- a European Union proposal to establish an intergovernmental forum to deliberate on guiding principles of local
self-government in relation to national legislative reforms for effective decentralization policies;
-- text related to the elimination of all inequalities with respect to women's security of tenure and their individual
rights to own and inherit property; and
-- text related to “good governance.”
ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SPECIAL SESSION
It is expected that the General Assembly special session will complete drafting of the political declaration. Whether negotiators will limit themselves to resolving bracketed text, or also introduce/reintroduce new language, remains to be seen. The special session is a three-day meeting so the scope for detailed substantive negotiations is limited.
NGO Participation
For NGOs that are not in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and not accredited to Habitat II, the deadline for applications for accreditation to the special session has already elapsed. All accredited NGOs wishing to attend should have notified the UNCHS secretariat of the name(s) of their representative(s) by 15 May 2001 (see contacts below).
There will be six plenary meetings during the special session. With the exception of the first and final plenary meetings, the last two speaking slots of each meeting may be reserved for Habitat partners. At each of the meetings where partners can speak, there will be one slot for local authorities and one for NGOs (thus a total of four NGO slots). Even though the opportunity for NGOs to address the plenary of the General Assembly has become an established practice in the most recent five-year reviews of UN conferences, particularly Beijing+5 and Copenhagen+5, this issue had to be voted on at the end of the PrepCom. Forty-five delegations voted in favour and seven abstained. The United States joined Iran and China in voting against this decision.
It was also decided that NGOs and other partners could make statements in the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole and in the thematic committee.
Thematic Committee
In an innovative decision to structure discussions among the various Habitat Agenda partners at the special session, the General Assembly decided to establish a thematic committee. Its purpose, further defined by the PrepCom in the following words, is to “tell the important story” of the development of human settlements since 1996 and “guide the quest for solutions and progress that will benefit all of the world's citizens [through the presentations and dialogues they will stimulate]….How do we create, nurture and build on the partnerships that are needed to implement the Habitat Agenda at the local, national and international levels? By the end of the session, participants should feel that they have a practical basis on which to move forward with their own initiatives and link with others in order to share knowledge and experience, and initiate action.”
The UNCHS secretariat has been entrusted, in consultation with Member States, to select presentations at the thematic committee on the basis of submissions made by governments and accredited Habitat partners. The main themes are adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world. Sub-themes include: shelter, social development and eradication of poverty, geographically balanced settlement structures, environmental management, economic development, governance, financing for urban development, and city development strategies. “Cross-cutting elements” include: participation, partnership and cooperation at and between all levels; poverty eradication; gender equality; inclusion of disadvantaged groups; scaling up local practices; and sharing knowledge and learning.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
At the end of the second PrepCom, many governments expressed their satisfaction with the fact that they had completed their tasks despite considerable delays at the outset over the question of the participation of NGOs and local authorities. Ms. Tibaijuka told a press conference on 23 February that “despite the intensive negotiations and positioning over the week, as we come to the end, there is a clear demonstration of convergence.”
However, at a closing NGO press conference NGO representatives expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the turn of events. They disclaimed “any ownership of the outcome of this Prepcom,” and described the “exclusionary efforts” by some governments as a “breach of long-established procedures that gave meaning to the spirit of partnership at Istanbul.” Most NGOs attending the PrepCom had earlier endorsed a statement by HIC to an ad hoc session of the plenary on 21 February, convened at the request of the PrepCom chair in order to hear the views of NGOs on the draft declaration. The statement notes that “there is an anti-democratic and regressive trend on the part of some governments to foreclose NGO input and turn back the hands of time.” It further states that “the exclusion of NGOs has broader implications and sets a dangerous precedent that contradicts the goals and spirit of the UN, and contradicts the Secretary-General's vigorous promotion of partnerships in the work of the United Nations.”
Another group of NGOs focusing on issues related to family values and opposed to abortion formally distanced themselves from these statements. They issued their own statement entitled “NGOs Support US Government Delegation.” It notes that “the US delegation both requested and received input from NGOs—from all persuasions,” and that closure of NGO observation of private meetings is not unusual at the UN.
It is possible, according to some observers, that Istanbul+5 NGO constituencies have higher expectations because of the unprecedented scope for participation they enjoyed in the Habitat II process. Since NGOs were closely involved in the drafting and implementation of the Habitat Agenda, in their view it would be logical to be associated to the same extent in the official assessment five years later. This opinion was shared by many government delegations from developed and developing countries. In fact, representatives of the European Union, Norway and Canada insisted that their expression of disappointment with the decision to keep the drafting group meetings primarily private be placed on the record.
At a European Union briefing with NGOs on 21 February, one ambassador expressed her frustration with what she described as time wasted on procedural issues “when we should be negotiating substance, and for which we need your expertise and grassroots experience.” One government delegate suggested this may be reflective of a “collision of cultures within the UN system” between that of relative openness and participation prevailing in bodies such as the ECOSOC functional commissions, and what he described as the much more restrictive practices and rules of other bodies such as the General Assembly, Security Council and Bretton Woods Institutions. In response to arguments that the rules of procedure of the General Assembly (not those of UN conferences) apply to the special session, NGOs urged governments not to “hide behind the rules.” Whether or not to allow NGOs in a meeting, they said, is ultimately a political decision and not a legal absolute.
NGO representatives concluded their closing press conference by expressing appreciation for the support and constructive positions of what they described as “responsible” governments regarding “serious” implementation of the commitments taken in Istanbul five years ago. “We acknowledge the governments that have always stood for transparency and participatory processes both at Istanbul and at this PrepCom,” they said, “and we look forward to practical partnership with them regarding the coming Istanbul+5 special session.” They suggested that the most effective and practical aspects of the special session would take place in the parallel events, and called on NGOs and civil society organizations to prepare and disseminate their national and thematic parallel reports during the special session.
CONTACTS
UN Centre on Human Settlements (Habitat)
Seyda Turkmemetogullari, NGO Liaison Officer, Resource Mobilization and External Affairs, Programme Support Division, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS-Habitat), PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya, telephone +254-2/624 327, fax +254-2/624 175, e-mail <turkmems@unchs.org>, website (www.unchs.org).
Some NGO Contacts
NGO Committee on Human Settlements, Commonwealth Human Ecology Council, 520 East 81st Street, New York NY 10028-7035, United States, telephone +1-212/988 0620, fax +1-212/963 8721, e-mail <townsendn@un.org>.
Habitat International Coalition (HIC), c/o Mazingira Institute, PO Box 14550, Nairobi, Kenya, telephone +254-2/443229, fax +254-2/444643, e-mail <mazinst@mitsuminet.com>.
Shelter Forum, PO Box 39493, Nairobi, Kenya, telephone +254-2/713540, fax +254-2/710083, e-mail <shelter@shelterforum.or.ke>.
Youth For Habitat International Network Secretariat, Sisli Belediyesi Binasi 12 Kat, Esentepe, Istanbul, Turkey, telephone +90-212/272 1212, fax +90-212/272 4596, e-mail <youthforhab@turk.net>, website (www.youthforhab.org.tr).
Youth for Unity & Voluntary Action (YUVA), 53/2, Nare Park Mun. School Parel, Mumbai 400012, India, e-mail <yuva@vsnl.com>.
Huairou Commission, c/o Sports Women and Administrators International (SWAI), New York NY 11211, United States, telephone +1-718/388 8915, fax +1-718/388 0285, e-mail <huairou@aol.com>.
The list of all accredited NGOs to Istanbul+5 is available on the partners link of the UNCHS website (www.unchs.org).
This edition of NGLS Roundup was prepared by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS). The NGLS Roundup is produced for NGOs and others interested in the institutions, policies and activities of the UN system and is not an official record.