ENB:06:20
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
WORKING GROUP I
III. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POPULATION, SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
On Thursday, the G-77/China and the EU proposed deleting or reformulating the final paragraphs in this section, however, other delegations wanted to make amendments. The US noted that consolidating these paragraphs into a reference to Agenda 21 was not preferable, since Agenda 21 is inadequate in the treatment of linkages between population and sustainable development.
C. Population, sustainable development and the environment: Finland asked governments to develop alternatives to using marginal lands. Switzerland suggested taxes to discourage resource waste. Australia added the concept of voluntary relocation schemes to move the poor from degraded to less fragile lands. Paraguay proposed a new paragraph on joint action on water basins. The US proposed a new paragraph on energy conservation.
D. Population, education and sustainable development: This new section, proposed by the EU, was distributed Friday morning. At the beginning of the afternoon, the Working Group began a paragraph-by- paragraph reading of this 10-paragraph text. Although some amendments were proposed, many delegates objected to this procedure because the text was only available in English. Furthermore, as the G-77 pointed out, other amendments have only been tabled and not discussed.
XIII. NATIONAL ACTION
A. National policies and plans of action: In 13.1 (basis for action), Canada requested that migration impacts be specified. Bolivia asked to include factors that limit the implementation of population programmes, including acknowledgement of the dearth of resources for implementing such programmes. In 13.2(a), Nigeria wanted to incorporate planning into all levels of policies and by all relevant groups. Switzerland proposed adding an objective establishing national programmes that empower women. In 13.3, Greece wanted to add "local communities" to governments as those who should formulate strategies. China objected to including "local government entities" in population programmes. In 13.4 (actions to monitor programmes), Senegal and C“te D'Ivoire called for governments to establish a plan of action in association with NGOs, the private sector, and the local community. Switzerland and Norway emphasized the importance of accountability in monitoring.
B. Programme management and training of programme personnel: Niue, on behalf of the Pacific Island States, urged strengthening references to capacity building in 13.5 (programme management). The EU mentioned the role of the private sector and NGOs in capacity building. Zambia and Sierra Leone argued that capacity building goes beyond training and requires the retention, motivation and participation of appropriately trained personnel. In 13.6(a) (improving population programmes), the EU and the US also wanted to improve the quality of national population programmes. Morocco wanted reference to the vulnerability of rural population programmes. Sweden proposed a new objective to involve beneficiaries in the management of population programmes. In 13.7(a) (human resource development), C“te D'Ivoire mentioned training and employment of women. India proposed deleting 13.7(c) (salary scales), since this should be left to the nations concerned. Niger, Mali and Peru proposed removing reference to the rationalization of salary scales. In 13.8 (management information systems), Mexico and Bolivia said priority should be more than just family planning activities. Mexico, the Holy See, Malaysia and Kenya suggested deleting the list of data requirements on expenditures, infrastructure, service accessibility, output and quality of services.
C. Resource mobilization and allocation: Many delegates had problems with this section. Switzerland, Sweden, the US and the EU questioned the methodology used in arriving at the costs of various population programmes. Bolivia pointed out that most of the paragraphs are not action-oriented. Zambia and Sierra Leone thought there was too much emphasis on reproductive health and family planning and not enough on migration and other issues. In spite of these overall concerns that may alter the section's scope, the Chair insisted on a paragraph-by-paragraph reading of 13.9 - 13.20.
XIV. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
A. Responsibilities of partners in development: In 14.2 (basis for action), the EU suggested that joint-ventures be added to the list of assistance needed to implement family-planning programmes. Croatia, Latvia, Hungary and Estonia called for the correct reference to countries with economies in transition. The Holy See and Honduras objected to the last sentence in 14.2 (local production of contraceptives). Bangladesh asked that the transfer of technology be on concessional terms.
In 14.3 (objectives), the G-77/China proposed an additional objective: "To improve and strengthen policy coordination at the international level." The EU added a different objective: To develop long-term joint programmes between recipient and donor countries. Bolivia suggested that an objective was to sensitize and inform donors and increase their assistance to population programmes.
In 14.4, the EU asked that national development plans take account of the role of technology cooperation as well as capacity-building and transfer of technology. Paraguay requested specification that the resources of international organizations be optimized and doubled by the year 2000 for population activities. The G-77/China suggested that the text specify that recipient governments should establish effective coordination mechanisms. Norway added a sentence calling for the international community to provide the enabling conditions to undertake coordination efforts. The US called on the donor agencies to coordinate activities.
B. Towards a new commitment to population funding: The Holy See suggested that the title of this section include development funding. In 14.7 (objectives), the G-77/China asked for international financial assistance for direct South-South cooperation. Paraguay called for a more balanced distribution of international financial assistance. Afghanistan specified that increased funds should be made available to developing countries stricken by natural and manmade calamities. Tuvalu, on behalf of the Pacific Island States, wanted 14.7(b) to specify that new assistance for population would not exclude other development projects. Norway and the G-77/China called on the developed nations to fulfill the goal of 0.7% GNP for ODA in 14.8. The EU, the US and Sweden requested that funding figures be bracketed.