EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: PAMELA CHASEK ANILLA CHERIAN ANNE CHARLOTTE DE FONTAUBERT LANGSTON JAMES GOREE VI "KIMO" A DAILY REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT (ICPD) Vol. 6 No. 34 Thursday, 8 September 1994 ICPD HIGHLIGHTS WEDNESDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 1994 MAIN COMMITTEE PARAGRAPH 8.25: When the Chair, Nicolaas Biegman, reopened the debate on his text for paragraph 8.25, delegates took the floor to identify problems they had with the text. Slovakia, supported by Malta and El Salvador, expressed difficulty with the "need for abortion" and suggested it be replaced with "to address situations which cause women to have recourse to abortion." Malta suggested that the reference to unsafe abortion be retained if a footnote was attached, containing the WHO definition of unsafe abortions. Afghanistan, Tanzania, Indonesia and El Salvador asked that the reference to unsafe abortion be deleted. Several delegates said that abortion should be referred to as an "important" rather than "major" public health concern. The reference to "legal abortion" was one that also gave rise to heated debate. Malta expressed difficulties since a State cannot be expected to legalize something it considers illegal. Afghanistan, Guam and Honduras asked that reference to legal abortion be deleted. Guatemala said that to have legal abortion was tantamount to having legal robbery or legal rape. On the other hand, Zambia said that keeping the reference to legal abortion was their rock bottom position. Brazil offered compromise language by referring to "cases and circumstances where abortion is not penalized." Ecuador could not go along with the new draft and Argentina said that it should reflect on the fundamental right to life as a human right. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Cyprus, supported by Canada, highlighted some of the amendments he had made on pre- and post-abortion counselling that had not been taken into account. Canada said that if the text was open to comments by those countries who oppose abortion, the views of others should also be reflected. Cyprus suggested an amendment calling on national governments and relevant IGOs and NGOs to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion and to address women's health issues. Norway said that the text is carefully crafted and balanced. The Holy See said the text has taken into account ethical considerations and the sensitivities of others. CHAPTER IX -- POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, URBANIZATION AND INTERNAL MIGRATION: The Chair noted that the text in paragraph 9.9 had brackets around "the indigenous people[s]." Australia proposed addressing this later, since it is currently being examined in the parallel discussions on Principles. Likewise, paragraph 9.22, with the bracketed terms "reproductive health services and family planning," was not considered since it will be dealt with in Chapter VII. A considerable amount of time was spent discussing the bracketed text "[nationally and internationally]" in paragraph 9.25. The Chair initially announced that the delegation most interested in including these terms at PrepCom III has withdrawn its proposal, so the phrase could be deleted. Several alternative phrases were proposed. Brazil, supported by Canada, Guatemala, the US, Austria and others, proposed "at the national level with international cooperation." Colombia, supported by Argentina, sought to add to the Brazilian proposal, "for the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of state." Ethiopia, supported by Rwanda and others, stated that international cooperation should be at the request of the State. Haiti wanted to retain the phrase "international measures." India and Croatia wanted to delete the bracketed text, but Cyprus wanted to retain it. Austria added a reference to the UN Charter. The US suggested reference to relevant UN resolutions. Consensus was finally achieved and the text reads: "at the national level with international cooperation, as appropriate, in accordance with the UN Charter." CHAPTER X -- INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION: The first brackets appeared in paragraph 10.3, "to ensure the [human] rights of [individuals belonging to] minorities, and indigenous people are respected." Delegates made a variety of proposals before Algeria proposed language from a 1992 UN General Assembly Resolution: "to ensure that the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous people are respected." After further discussion, delegates agreed to accept this proposal. In paragraph 10.12, the "right to family reunification" was bracketed. Many G-77 delegates wanted to delete the brackets and recognize this right. Canada, Australia, Switzerland and the US commented that their commitment to the objective of family reunification is clear, however, their Governments retain the ability to define family and limit the number of family members. These countries also thought that family reunification is sufficiently covered in paragraph 10.13. Three compromises were proposed: Austria suggested "in accordance with national legislation," Guatemala suggested replacing "right" with "principle," and Brazil proposed "promote family reunification." Since neither the EU nor the G-77 were in a position to accept these compromises, the Chair suspended further discussion and asked interested delegations to work out a compromise. In paragraph 10.13 (rights of documented migrants), the word "age" was bracketed. At PrepCom III, the Philippines had asked for this word, since migration patterns are often discriminatory based on age, and Australia had insisted on the brackets. The Philippines suggested deleting "age" and adding a new phrase at the end of the sentence: "including the special needs of children and the elderly." This formulation was approved. In paragraph 10.20, the phrase "in accordance with international law" was bracketed, when referring to human rights protection. The US proposed, and Cuba amended, alternative text, which was accepted. It now reads: "in accordance with relevant international instruments." The brackets in paragraph 10.25 remain until agreement is reached on Chapter VII. CHAPTER XI -- EDUCATION, POPULATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: The Chair, Amb. Lionel Hurst (Antigua and Barbuda), indicated that the paragraphs that deal with fertility regulation and sexual and reproductive health would not be addressed until the issue is resolved in Chapter VII. The brackets were quickly removed in paragraph 11.2 after Canada suggested referring to respect for the cultural and religious backgrounds of migrants. On paragraph 11.4, the delegates had to choose between an original and an alternative draft. Uganda said that the new draft deals better with the interests of both developed and developing countries and the issue of rural-urban migration and the "brain drain." After an amendment proposed by Chile, which calls for a harmonious development of educational systems, was accepted, the alternative draft was adopted. The discussion then turned to paragraph 11.23, dealing with the use of entertainment programmes as a means to encourage public discussion of topics related to the implementation of the Programme of Action. There was lengthy debate on the point of knowing whether the use of such programmes should be "greater," "appropriate," "better," "effective," or "with greater effectiveness." Algeria, supported by the EU, Jamaica and Austria, asked whether this was really a substantial point and suggested that compromise language be adopted in order to move along. Delegates agreed on "greater and effective." CHAPTER XIII -- NATIONAL ACTION: The Chair pointed out that bracketed text in paragraphs 13.1, 13.9 (c), 13.10, 13.12, 13.13 and 13.14 (a) and (b) could be skipped, since they are pending discussion elsewhere. Delegates spent a long time deliberating on paragraph 13.15, which deals with estimates and allocation of programme costs that were bracketed. Many delegations commented on the figures and the components in brackets and several amendments were made. Debate revolved around whether these figures were estimates and, if so, whether these were workable estimates. There were amendments and amendments to amendments. The EU suggested an addition in the chapeau saying that these are indicative cost estimates of four components and are calculated in different ways by experts. Algeria and others asked whether the estimates had been carefully studied. The Secretariat reported that these were estimates related to the development of projections on family planning because that is where much of the research has been done with the assumption that these would be expanded into other services later. Guatemala wanted a heading earmarked for education and Chile wanted to include a focus on population education. Zimbabwe suggested removing the brackets and keeping the components. The US suggested some modifications to the EU amendment and also proposed deleting sub-paragraphs (a)-(d). The Chair pointed out that this latter proposal, which was similar to the Mexican one, would not be acceptable because it would in effect remove agreed-upon text. Norway recommended using rounded figures rather than detailed ones that gave the impression of being precise and added that the figures should reflect the shift from family planning to reproductive health. The EU, supported by the US, read a second amendment that was a modification of its original one. The US wanted to substitute in the text "in the order of" instead of "up to." The Chair suggested that the interested parties work out acceptable language for a footnote to be presented on Thursday and meet in order to discuss the figures. FRIENDS OF THE CHAIR The Friends of the Chair met twice on Wednesday to discuss Chapter II on Principles. Delegates based their discussions primarily on the G-77 text. While there appears to be a tentative agreement on most of the text, several principles and concepts are still somewhat contentious. These include: the definition of the right to development; the right of individuals and couples to decide on the number and spacing of their children; human rights; and Principle 8 (sexual and reproductive health care). The Chair is expected to table a new draft of both the Preamble and the Principles when the Group meets on Thursday afternoon. CONSULTATIONS ON PARAGRAPH 8.25 A small working group, chaired by Pakistan, was established to negotiate a compromise on paragraph 8.25. The group, which met late Wednesday afternoon and into the evening, included: Iran, Egypt, the US, Norway, Indonesia, the EU, the Russian Federation, Barbados, South Africa, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, Benin and Malta. This group is expected to produce a consensus text that can be accepted by the Main Committee (with reservations, if necessary) on Friday. IN THE CORRIDORS Although the motivations were mixed, there was general frustration in the corridors on Wednesday. Many delegates who did not support the Chair's compromise text on paragraph 8.25 -- and who are generally opposed to abortion -- complained that they were not invited to participate in the Chair's consultations on Tuesday that developed this text. Those who were willing to accept the Chair's text, and put the debate on abortion behind them, were not pleased to see that the Chair had apparently let an emerging consensus slip through his fingers. Some NGOs and delegates are afraid that the result of this new set of consultations will be so weak that the important issues of empowerment of women and women's reproductive rights will also be compromised. Some delegates criticized the new working group as exclusive rather than transparent. There was also doubt that the group could produce a text that could be accepted by the Main Committee. As passions continue to run high, look for intense lobbying to continue throughout the day on Thursday. THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY PLENARY: This morning the Plenary will hear statements by representatives of: Israel, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Ukraine, Zambia, Iran, Malta, Namibia, Cameroon, the Asian Development Bank, Switzerland, Portugal, International Food Policy Research Institute, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, and the Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics. Afternoon speakers are expected to include: International Fund for Agricultural Development, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Suriname, Economic Commission for Europe, the Netherlands, Mongolia, Assembly's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the Council of Europe, Egypt, African Development Bank, Mozambique, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Cook Islands, Eritrea, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Federation of Settlements and Neighborhoods, International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, The Population Institute, Union of Concerned Scientists, American Association for Retired Persons, International Panel on Population and Development, Asian Forum of Parliamentarians for Population and Development, Centro de Investigaciones Sociales y Estudios de la Mujer, National Audubon Society, World Council of Churches and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. MAIN COMMITTEE: The Committee will resume its discussion of the remaining bracketed text in Chapter XIII (National Action), and will then move on to Chapter XIV (International Cooperation) and as many of the other chapters as possible. Chapters VII and VIII will not be discussed until Friday. FRIENDS OF THE CHAIR: The Friends of the Chair are expected to meet at 5:00 pm today to discuss the Chair's revised texts for the preamble and the principles. CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE: The Credentials Committee will hold its first meeting at 9:00 am in Mycerinos Hall C. Earth Negotiations Bulletin (c) is written and edited by Pamela Chasek , Anilla Cherian , Charlotte de Fontaubert (acvdf@chopin.udel.edu), Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" (kimo@iisd.org), with French translation by Mongi Gadhoum. Funding for this volume of the Bulletin has been provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd@web.apc.org), the Pew Charitable Trusts through the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Agence de Coope'ration Culturelle et Technique (ACCT). The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses and, during the Conference, at +20-2-2470077, ext. 4067 and by fax at +20-2-4180761. IISD can be contacted by phone at +1-204-958-7700, by fax at +1-204-958-7710 or at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 0Y4, Canada. The opinions expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Electronic versions of the ENB can be found on the gopher at and in searchable hyptertext through the Linkages WWW-server at on the Internet. This volume of the Bulletin is uploaded into the APC conferences and . The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks, the POPIN gopher and the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to .