Daily report for 15 April 1994

3rd Session of the ICPD Preparatory Committee



A. Integrating population and development strategies:

In 3.1 (influence of demographic parameters), delegates acceptedthe Swiss, Norwegian and Secretariat references to the demographicparameters such as density, structure, growth and the nature andrate of migration. In 3.2 (population size increases), delegatesagreed to Honduras' reference to improvement in health as one ofthe factors contributing to population increases. In 3.3(sustainable production and consumption), delegates agreed to theUS reference to "optimizing ecologically sound resource use" and toUganda's reference to the achievement of an improved quality oflife for the population in the last sentence.

In 3.6 (strategy assessment), Colombia requested brackets around"environment" in the reference to development and environmentprogrammes, arguing that these programmes are subsumed under"sustainable development." The US objected, and bracketed otheraspects of sustainable development that were specificallymentioned. Colombia agreed to an unbracketed "environment," subjectto further revision. Delegates agreed to India's reference to "andpatterns of consumption and production consistent with sustainabledevelopment." 3.7 (governments mechanisms to address population)was accepted with the additional reference to governmentalresponsibility to create an "enabling environment" at all levels ofsociety. In 3.8 (education and information programmes), Indonesiasuggested adding "increased resource allocation" to the methodsthrough which political commitment is to be strengthened. The G-77suggested changing "building local capacity" to "national andlocal" capacity. Colombia said that 3.8 bis (balance betweenpopulation and natural resources) should be more action- oriented.In response, the US and Pakistan added a reference to efforts toreduce population growth rates and current patterns of productionand consumption. Delegates agreed to the EU proposal to uselanguage from Agenda 21 and Principle 8 of the Rio Declaration.

B. Population, Sustained Economic Growth and Poverty: In3.9 (basis for action), the US questioned the accuracy of thereference to 1 billion people living in poverty. The Secretariatresponded that the figure was accepted by the UN system as a bestapproximation. The delegates discussed the merger of 3.9 bis(development obstacles) with 3.12 (governance andinstitutions). The Russian Federation called for reference tocountries with economies in transition. India requested that 3.12refer to the macro- economic policies of developed countries. Somedeveloping countries objected to the reference to "governance" asone of the issues that influence the achievement of sustainabledevelopment. The EU insisted on its retention. Australia proposedlanguage that incorporated both 3.9 bis and 3.12, includingIndia's proposal. The consolidated text was agreed, subject toinclusion of the bracketed reference to governance.

The only change in 3.10 (poverty as the challenge to development)was the addition of the reference to 1/5 of the world's populationliving in poverty. 3.10 bis (population, poverty reductionand economic progress) was accepted with the US reference toimprovements in environmental protection and Norway's addition ofunsustainable consumption. In 3.11 (factors straining economies anddevelopment options), the G-77 proposed replacing the first twosentences with: "Sustained economic growth is essential toeradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development. Theeradication of poverty will contribute to slowing population growthand achieving early population stabilization." India requesteddeletion of the last sentence regarding the need for flexiblesocial and economic policies and replacement with a reference tothe need for sustained economic growth to accommodate populationpressures. The US and the EU opposed the G-77 and Indian proposals.

In 3.17 (gender inequities), Finland requested that the bracketed"economic" be replaced by "women's participation in allpolicy-making." Switzerland added reference to land ownership bywomen and their right to inherit property. The Secretariat addedwomen's access to productive resources. In 3.18 (priority to thedisadvantaged), delegates agreed to refer to disadvantaged membersof society, to be followed by an asterix, which would refer to thelist of the same 12 groups identified in Chapter XII (Technology,Research and Development). In 3.18 bis (food security), theG-77 suggested reference to both national and regional programmes,and the need to mention food security at the household level. In3.19 (job creation), the Philippines added the need to expand fairtrade. In 3.20 (socio-economic progress and poverty eradication),the EU suggested using agreed language from other internationalinstruments. Estonia, Croatia and the Russian Federation requestedreference to countries with economies in transition. The G-77accepted the language proposed by the EU, but with reference topreferential and concessional terms.


A. National Policies and Plans of Action: In 13.1 (basis foraction), Australia added the role of parliamentarians. The EU andthe US added reference to the important role of NGOs and theprivate sector as partners in national policies and programmes. In13.2(a) (Objectives--population concerns), Canada, opposed byBrazil, added reference to migration in the development ofinternational and national policies. Australia amended 13.2(b)(Objectives--programme implementation) to include reference to therole of parliamentarians. Switzerland wanted to restore an originalreference in 13.2(a) to the empowerment of women. Canada and theHoly See stated that the objectives would not have to include areference to migration as long as it is included an actionparagraph, such as 13.3 (policy implementation). Benin said thatthis reference was not necessary because Chapter X focuses onmigration issues. Peru and India preferred a reference to nationalmigration. The compromise was to simply refer to "migration."Delegates accepted language in 13.3, which added reference to theinvolvement of parliamentarians, locally elected authorities, theprivate sector, and NGOs, including womens' groups, to raiseawareness, formulate policies and to work to ensure adequate humanresources for implementation.

In 13.6(d) (Objectives--training), the US proposed a specificreference to women after "trained personnel." In 13.7(a) (humanresource development programmes), Senegal called for deletion ofgender perspectives. The US and Switzerland insisted on itsretention. The Holy See added reference to the employment of womenin decision-making. In (b), delegates added the qualifier of"nation-wide" in the reference to deployment of trained personnel.In (d), Switzerland called for a reference to pay equity. Senegalwithdrew her previous proposal to include reference to women'sunpaid work but called on the men of the world to grasp thisimportant concept. In (e), The Gambia called for emphasis onexperience-sharing. In (f), delegates agreed to change the lastsentence to refer to the inclusion of women and children. In 13.8(client-centred management information systems), Sweden and Norwayadded reference to "sexual and reproductive health." Algeriaobjected.



In 9.2(a) (balanced spatial population distribution), Swedenrequested consideration of gender equity together with economic andsocial equity. In 9.2(b) (reduction of push factors), India,Malaysia and the Philippines requested deletion of environmentaldegradation, noting other factors that could be included as pushfactors. The US objected. In 9.3 (population distributionpolicies), the Pacific Island States, Malaysia and Indonesia calledfor deletion of pricing policies, while Botswana, Finland and Japansuggested equitable distribution of resources. In 9.4 (regionaldevelopment strategies), Australia, Malaysia, Finland, Japan andIndonesia said that language on the decentralization ofgovernmental administrative systems was too strong. In 9.5(alternatives to rural out-migration), Finland added "and access towater resources" after the phrase "support access to landownership." The EU, Switzerland, Japan and the Philippines deletedthe reference to migrants' wives.

In 9.11 (plight of urban poor), Malaysia called for child- carecenters. In 9.12 (financing infrastructure), Indonesia and thePacific Island States called for consideration of the specialinterests of the poorest sections of society. In 9.14(b) (endingforced migration), India and the Philippines modified "particularly`ethnic cleansing'," which they felt was too strong to read"including `ethnic cleansing'." In 9.15 (internal displacement),delegates agreed to the Russian Federation's reference tomechanisms for compensation to internally displaced people. In 9.16(education for the internally displaced), El Salvador and thePhilippines emphasized the inclusion of women. The US wanted todelete 9.18 (victims of ethnic cleansing), since it might underminethe Middle East peace process. Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Iran,Indonesia and Afghanistan insisted on its retention. The Holy Seesupported Palestine on the importance of 9.19 (policies consistentwith Geneva Convention).


A. Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health: There wasdisagreement on the definitions of "reproductive rights andhealth," "sexual rights and health," "fertility regulation," and"family planning," and how they are to be applied to couples orindividuals. The Holy See submitted its version of 7.1(reproductive and sexual rights) and 7.2 (reproductive and sexualhealth), which proposed alternative definitions for "sexual rights"and "sexual health." Jamaica, Cuba, the US, the Philippines andNorway endorsed the Secretariat's text and the need to includerespect for bodily integrity. Canada, the Pacific Island States,New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, Norway and Cuba endorsed the WHO'sdefinition of reproductive health. Malta supported the Holy See'stext since it refers to both men and women instead of individuals,without any reference to age. Pakistan, the US, Bangladesh and anapplauding NGO audience also endorsed the WHO's definition andemphasized the text's lack of reference to women's rights. Cameroonand Venezuela said that family planning must specifically excludeabortion. The Holy See expressed its willingness to find acompromise, as long as it excluded reference to abortion. The Chaircalled for a drafting group to revise 7.1 and 7.2.

In 7.3 (accessibility of family planning information and services),Indonesia and Nicaragua added religious diversity among thecriteria for meeting changing reproductive and sexual health needs.Malta and Ecuador called attention to the diversity of nationallegislation. Brazil emphasized respect for individual choice.Nicaragua opposed "full range of reproductive health" and suggested"appropriate range." The term "fertility regulation" generatedheated debate, with Nicaragua, Morocco, Malaysia, Benin, Hondurasand Argentina expressing concern that the term could implyabortion. They requested substitution of the term with "familyplanning," on the condition that it specifically exclude anyreference to abortion. Indonesia felt that both terms connoted theinclusion of abortion. Brazil, Mexico and Chile argued thatreproductive health is an over-arching concept that includes familyplanning and this should be reflected in the text. Sweden, Canada,the Philippines and New Zealand agreed and urged retention of theterm "fertility regulation" since it covers individuals and notjust couples. China and Afghanistan endorsed the right to informedand voluntary choice as long as it is exercised responsibly.


A. Primary health care and the health-care sector: In 8.5(life expectancy targets), India suggested that each nation shouldset its own targets, based on the individual country's level ofachievement. The Chair bracketed the specific targets. Delegatesagreed to Norway's request for a reference on the involvement ofthe financial community at the end of 8.7 bis (health careservices).

B. Child survival and health: In 8.12 (objectives),Bangladesh requested the addition of an objective on the promotionof breastfeeding. Delegates supported Canada's request tore-integrate the reference to the pattern of mortality of girlchildren. Delegates agreed to proposed Norwegian text as the basisfor a new action paragraph on breastfeeding, in light of the newobjective on that issue. The US requested that the paragraph bebracketed. In 8.14 (health services), Benin and others requested adefinition of safe motherhood. Honduras was concerned that theseprogrammes included abortion funding, but the Chair clarified thatsafe motherhood programmes cover health needs arising from abortioncomplications.


WORKING GROUP I: The Working Group will complete its secondreading of Chapter XIII (National Action) and XIV (InternationalCooperation) and then attempt to complete Chapter III(Interrelationships between Population, Sustained Economic Growthand Sustainable Development), assuming the completion of informalconsultations. An evening session is planned for tonight.

WORKING GROUP II: The Working Group will resume discussion of the safe motherhood issue and will commence Section C in ChapterVIII (Health, Morbidity and Mortality) this morning. The draftinggroup on sections 7.1 and 7.2 will meet this morning at 10:00 am inConference Room 9.


National governments
Negotiating blocs
European Union
Group of 77 and China
Non-state coalitions