Disability Negotiations Daily Summary Volume 2, #8 June 25, 2003

Morning session

Commenced: 12:30

Suspended: 13:00

Reconvened: 13:15

Adjourned: 13:17

Closed informal consultations continued throughout the majority of the morning session hours. Following these, at 12:08 it was announced that the open informal consultations would begin at 12:30, when the text incorporated from informal consultations should be available to the delegates and NGOs.

At 12:56, the Ambassador from the Philippines thanked everyone for their patience. He announced to a full room of delegates that the Chair had requested he facilitate further draft decision discussions on this meeting, as a result of yesterday's fruitful progress in informal consultations. The present plan was to continue work on that basis and come up with improved text incorporating many of the observations made by states and NGOs. The new draft text was in the process of being printed, and a revised projection of availability within ten to fifteen minutes of this announcement was made. Delegates were asked to stay if possible to obtain these copies. This would allow for delegate consideration during the lunch hour, before reconvening for the afternoon session. Plans are to receive general comments on this text once the session reconvenes at 3:00 this afternoon. The meeting was suspended for a few minutes, to briefly continue after copies of the text were received. The "second reading" of the paper will occur this afternoon.

At 1:15 pm, it was announced that the one-page revised draft decision document copies were being made available at the back of Conference Room 4, and that delegates and NGOs could obtain copies for their perusal over lunch, and the meeting would reconvene at 3:00 to discuss this text. The meeting was adjourned.

Afternoon Session

Commenced: 3:18 PM

Adjourned: 4:54 PM

The Vice Chair of the Bureau, Philippines, chaired an open, informal meeting in which delegations commented on the text of the June 25th Revised Draft Decision (RDD25).

Introduction (Textual Changes)

The European Union, Mexico and New Zealand presented the RDD25 which incorporated many of the comments suggested from the previous session. The Acting Chair briefly enumerated the resulting changes, clarifications and additions in the latest draft decision [bracketed text remains to be debated]:

Paragraph 1: specific reference to the role of the Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) as having 'negotiation' status; the addition of language that the Working Group (WG) "shall also take into account proposals submitted in advance of the first meeting" of the WG;

Paragraph 2: provides 2 alternatives on geographical representation of the WG [equally divided between regional groups or equitable geographical representation?] and describes composition [25 states, and 12 NGOs];

Paragraph 3 (erroneously numbered '4'): refers to the Voluntary Fund?no changes;

Paragraph 4 (erroneously numbered '3'): specifies that the WG will meet intersessionally for two meetings, of five working days each;

Paragraph 5 (erroneously numbered '4'): [includes changes noting that the outcome of the WG's work on a 'draft text' will be presented to the AHC, and should "to the fullest extent possible" be presented in accessible formats, and adds 3 months before the AHC's Third Session as the deadline for circulation as a U.N. document];

Paragraph 6 (erroneously numbered '5'): "requests" the Secretary General's support.

Procedural Issues

Composition and Selection of the Working Group

Thailand surmised that national human rights institutions should be included so that the Convention receives expertise and attention from the human rights perspective. Morocco also called for the mentioning of the national human rights organizations in the revised text. The Republic of Korea asked whether the human rights institutions should be considered a separate category of representatives in the working group and asked about the precedence and practice of them participating within the UN system. The Irish Human Rights Commission spoke on behalf of all national human rights institutions and asked for an amendment to paragraph 2 so that national human rights institutions were also represented. The representative specified that they did not wish for their inclusion to take away from the representation of NGOs but asked that they be included as well because otherwise they would be the only participants in the Committee not represented in the working group.

States also specifically highlighted their support for one of two alternatives on state representation in paragraph 2. Malaysia, Chile (though the delegation said it was "flexible on this"); Greece and Brazil supported an equal division between regional geographic groups. Thailand supported selection based on the principle of equitable geographical representation by the regional groups because "Asia is a large region with 2/3 of PWD." Indonesia echoed Thailand's view. Morocco, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Iran, Colombia, Nepal, Uganda, Costa Rica, India and the Republic of Korea (though they asked for clarification on how this principle would work with 25 representatives) also supported the second alternative. Pakistan highlighted that the differences within geographical regions must also be taken into account and that representation should be based on the number of countries within a region. China asked for clarification on these two options, specifically how the principle of equitable distribution be reflected in the selection of the 25 representatives of governments, because "some regions have more members than others."

Some states were open to the idea of having a broader working group that would be comprised of more than 25 member states, such as Japan. Colombia favored an open ended structure and India and China indicated they supported this notion if they decided not to have a working group. Nepal was open to the idea of an open ended working group because it ensured the broadest participation of member states and "took into account the complexity of problems we are dealing with." Malaysia also supported the proposal that the composition of the drafting group be fully representative of the 191 member states, but cautioned that it might be "too cumbersome." Chile was opposed to an open ended group comprised of all member states and called such a notion "unthinkable" because "we would never have a first draft."

Many states also highlighted the role of NGOs in the working group in their comments. Jamaica said it was "heartened" to see that NGO representation was increased from 7 to 12 in the new draft. Morocco called for equitable distribution of the NGO representatives, especially from the "South" or the developing world; this notion was echoed by Jamaica, Uganda, Jordan, Brazil, Iran, and Colombia. Pakistan said although it thought the working group would benefit from the contributions of civil society and NGOs, especially those that are PWD, it was "not happy to see that the participation of NGOs has gone from 7 to 12" and that the state representation has stayed at 25 because the "proportion is not right."

Some states asked for clarification of the modalities of NGO participation in the working group. India asked for clarification on modalities, Switzerland asked how the 12 NGOs would be selected, and what would happen if more than 12 submitted proposals to be included. China asked if only accredited NGOs were going to be represented. Iran cautioned about the "invention of something new within the framework of the UN" and questioned if a working group composed of NGOs and states side-by-side had ever been seen before; he also had difficulty with giving NGOs the same status as member states especially if the working group "entailed negotiation", but reiterated that the working group should benefit from the "assistance and expertise" of NGOs. Malaysia echoed the concern of inventing new procedures for working groups in the UN as did Indonesia, though both highlighted that NGOs should be included. Nepal said that there was no question of the role of NGOs in this process but said that we "should not deviate from the practices of the UN."

Some states made general comments about the composition of the working group. Israel proposed that the working group might be more effective if it was subdivided into smaller groups and also called for the group to include representatives from all disabilities including those who had cognitive and psychological disabilities.

Timeline

Many states addressed timeline issues with regard to the contributions of states that would come after this Committee meeting but before the first meeting of the working group. Morocco, Venezuela, Colombia, Malaysia, and Chile specifically addressed this concern.

Morocco wanted clarification on the duration of the working group and asked if two five-day meetings would be enough for the group to come up with a text that would serve as the basis for the next Committee meeting. Uganda also expressed concern that two five-day meetings might not be adequate. Venezuela asked for specific dates for the meeting as did Jordan. Israel asked for clarification of the timetable for the two inter-sessional meetings as did Brazil.

Deadlines for nominations of names to the working group was also considered by Venezuela, India (with regard to accreditation deadlines for NGOs), and Republic of Korea.

The delegates also discussed how the Chairman of the working group should be nominated. Israel suggested that the Chair be nominated by the Bureau in advance of the first meeting of the working group. Chile echoed the need to appoint a Chair.

Colombia noted the importance of having intermittent regional conferences to discuss the progress of the working group.

Some states emphasized the need to move forward now and address the new draft resolution in greater detail rather than just providing general comments. Brazil proposed a move to a paragraph by paragraph consideration of the text for a more expeditious process. Cuba echoed this view.

Other Issues

Some delegations made substantive comments on particular textual components. Thailand asked for further clarification on the source of funding and the grounds for deciding who can participate in receiving funding, especially as to developing countries. Morocco asked that the mandate of the WG be specified in paragraph 1 so that there is no confusion between the mandate of the AHC and the mandate of the WG. Iran noted that the WG has a power, "or at least an implied power of negotiation" which it viewed as problematic given NGO participation. Pakistan noted that WG mandate is not clearly specified because the shape of the outcome document is unclear (compilation text or 'selection' of best proposals and if a 'selection', how would that be made?), and thus it would like the paragraph reformulated to determine the extent of the WG responsibilities. India concurred that Pakistan's "modalities" point becomes extremely important in light of the fact that paragraph 1 clearly mentions that the outcome of the WG's work is to be a negotiating text.

Cuba made a general comment that the RDD25 could still be improved by the addition of some nuances. Uganda noted that the possibility of assistance by experts was not mentioned, and that the "timely manner" language is not very definitive.

The European Union noted that their Draft Resolution is still on the table, though it is shorter than it was in the beginning, and that it would be provided as soon as possible. Costa Rica noted that the delegates were told yesterday to look at the RDD in light of a resolution to be had today, and that the resolution would have certain dates listed.

Other Statements (NGOs; Acting Chair's Intermittent Replies) & Conclusion

The Disability Caucus expressed that adequate representation of PWD on WG is a prerequisite for the WG to be considered legitimate. Thanks were given to the Thailand delegation for proposing the inclusion of 12 NGOs and to all delegations supporting the Thai proposal. Assurance was given that 12 slots could be filled, 7 by international disability organizations, and 5 by regional organizations. The delegates were reminded that Rule 18 of the Standard Rules specifically states the right of international disability organizations to participate in U.N. processes that concern disabled peoples, and were told that it is "vital to update" Resolution 57/229.

The Acting Chair made intermittent replies to the comments of various delegates. One recurring reply was that many specifics can only be answered as we go along (e.g., calendar dates). In response to the question on the resolution, he said that first we need a decision on the decision, but that delegations are working on one, a resolution could be had tomorrow if the Committee could finish the Draft Decision this afternoon. In terms of the possible event of a representation formula, he mused that there are already procedures in place. In response to questions on paragraph 2, he explained that the two bracketed phrases represent two options, and the idea is to see which one can generate consensus. The Acting Chair encouraged delegations to propose specific language so that the Draft Decision could be ready as soon as possible.

In closing, the Acting Chair announced an invitation to all interested delegations to informal informals to be held in Room D to discuss the "specific language" of the RDD25.

The Disability Negotiations Daily Summaries are published by the Landmine Survivors Network, a US based international organization with amputee support networks in 6 mine affected / developing countries. Reporters include Jagdish Chander, Margaret Holt, Jennifer Perry, Marshall Traster and Zahabia Adamaly (editor) The Summaries are posted on line by noon the following day at www.rightsforall.org and www.worldenable.net and translated into Spanish, French (Handicap International), and Japanese (Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities). For questions, write to Zahabiaadamaly@hotmail.com