1. The International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) was founded in Paris in 1928 and now represents tens of thousands of civil society organisations (CSOs) in more than 80 countries throughout the world. During the last three years, ICSW has conducted global, regional and national forums on WSSD implementation which have been attended by many thousands of CSO representatives from almost 100 different countries. ICSW statements about progress and priorities for WSSD implementation are influenced heavily by the views expressed by CSOs at those forums.

2. This statement to the intersessional meeting comments on the following matters: Prepcom's request for reports (L.7/Rev.1); the Prepcom Chairman's Working Draft (L5/Rev.1); the NGO participation in the Special Session in Geneva next year.

Reports from the UN System (L.7/Rev.1)

3. ICSW welcomes progress made since the May Prepcom meeting in finalising the document (L.7) which requests submission of reports by the UN secretariat and other intergovernmental organisations. However, we greatly regret the failure to adopt our proposal at the Prepcom that small, independent and expert panels, rather than large intergovernmental organisations, should be established to make some of these reports. We believe that such an approach would have improved the prospects of obtaining reports which frankly recognise the problems and recommend responses which are sufficiently bold, specific and uncompromised.

Chairman's Working Draft (L.5/Rev.1)

4. ICSW appreciates the efforts of the Chairman to achieve an appropriate draft. However, they have been hampered severely by the apparent lack of interest by most governments, especially of developed countries, in making or supporting specific recommendations for effective action to implement the Copenhagen agreements.

5. ICSW was deeply disappointed with the outcome of the Prepcom meeting in May this year. Very few further specific initiatives were proposed by governments, despite the excellent list of possibilities which had been prepared by the secretariat (A/AC.253/7). Instead, most of the government proposals were vague statements adding nothing of substance to the words already agreed in Copenhagen. Even many of these statements were opposed by governments seeking to retreat from the Copenhagen agreements.

6. Accordingly, ICSW urges the Prepcom at its intersessional to remove sections of the current draft which add nothing to the Copenhagen agreement but divert time and attention from negotiating specific decisions to implement action at the international level. (This applies, for example, to paras 29, 32, 48-52.)

7. Some proposals in the draft, however, do identify useful directions for further action, especially in response to weaknesses exposed by the international financial crisis which arose in 1997. These proposals relate to:

• developing a UN statement of standards for social policy (para 5);
  
• improving transparency, competence and stability in international financial markets (eg, paras 8 and 19);
  
• adopting a target of 2015 for halving the number of people in extreme poverty (para 28);
  
• strengthening the effectiveness, equity and efficiency of taxation systems (eg, paras 31, 87, 89, 91, 92);
  
• observing the ILO declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (para 36);
  
• improving debt relief (para 90);
  
• strengthening regional and South-South cooperation (eg, paras 96 and 99);
  
• strengthening ECOSOC and its interaction with the Bretton Woods institutions (eg, para 97).

8. ICSW believes that these proposals should be refined during the intersessional meeting to include more specific and effective measures. Some options for doing so were identified in our opening statement to the May Prepcom meeting. We note with great regret that many of the potentially beneficial parts of the Chairman's draft appear to be opposed by the European Union, the United States or both.

Participation by civil society

9. ICSW strongly supports the proposal that some representatives of accredited civil society organisations should be invited to address a plenary session of the General Assembly Special session in Geneva. We call on all governments to support this approach.

10. We note with regret, however, that most of the powerful governments which propose such invitations to civil society representatives are also amongst the strongest opponents of measures which civil society statements to Prepcom regard as being of crucial importance to the fight against poverty. This applies especially to measures relating to international financial markets and other aspects of economic policy. Allowing representatives to make brief, formal addresses in Geneva is no substitute for responding constructively to what they say.

Conclusion

11. The May Prepcom meeting failed to acknowledge sufficiently the gravity of poverty and hardship around the world and to support adequate action to address these problems. Most governments appeared to lack high-level commitment to an effective Prepcom and Special Session. Few of them advanced specific and appropriate proposals for action, and many of the most powerful governments opposed important actions which were proposed.

12. The intersessional meeting must focus more tightly on specific, vigorous action, especially at the international level. Governments from developed countries, in particular, should adopt a principled and constructive approach towards the needs of those countries and people which are in greatest hardship. Many of the appropriate directions for action were outlined to the May meeting in the Prepcom secretariat's paper and in civil society statements such as those by ICSW (see attachments).