Daily report for 8 April 1994

3rd Session of the ICPD Preparatory Committee



On Thursday, the G-77/China and the EU proposed deleting orreformulating the final paragraphs in this section, however, otherdelegations wanted to make amendments. The US noted thatconsolidating these paragraphs into a reference to Agenda 21 wasnot preferable, since Agenda 21 is inadequate in the treatment oflinkages between population and sustainable development.

C. Population, sustainable development and the environment:Finland asked governments to develop alternatives to using marginallands. Switzerland suggested taxes to discourage resource waste.Australia added the concept of voluntary relocation schemes to movethe poor from degraded to less fragile lands. Paraguay proposed anew paragraph on joint action on water basins. The US proposed anew paragraph on energy conservation.

D. Population, education and sustainable development: Thisnew section, proposed by the EU, was distributed Friday morning. Atthe beginning of the afternoon, the Working Group began aparagraph-by- paragraph reading of this 10-paragraph text. Althoughsome amendments were proposed, many delegates objected to thisprocedure because the text was only available in English.Furthermore, as the G-77 pointed out, other amendments have onlybeen tabled and not discussed.


A. National policies and plans of action: In 13.1 (basis foraction), Canada requested that migration impacts be specified.Bolivia asked to include factors that limit the implementation ofpopulation programmes, including acknowledgement of the dearth ofresources for implementing such programmes. In 13.2(a), Nigeriawanted to incorporate planning into all levels of policies and byall relevant groups. Switzerland proposed adding an objectiveestablishing national programmes that empower women. In 13.3,Greece wanted to add "local communities" to governments as thosewho 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 calledfor governments to establish a plan of action in association withNGOs, the private sector, and the local community. Switzerland andNorway emphasized the importance of accountability in monitoring.

B. Programme management and training of programme personnel:Niue, on behalf of the Pacific Island States, urged strengtheningreferences to capacity building in 13.5 (programme management). TheEU mentioned the role of the private sector and NGOs in capacitybuilding. Zambia and Sierra Leone argued that capacity buildinggoes beyond training and requires the retention, motivation andparticipation of appropriately trained personnel. In 13.6(a)(improving population programmes), the EU and the US also wanted toimprove the quality of national population programmes. Moroccowanted reference to the vulnerability of rural populationprogrammes. Sweden proposed a new objective to involvebeneficiaries in the management of population programmes. In13.7(a) (human resource development), C“te D'Ivoire mentionedtraining and employment of women. India proposed deleting 13.7(c)(salary scales), since this should be left to the nationsconcerned. Niger, Mali and Peru proposed removing reference to therationalization of salary scales. In 13.8 (management informationsystems), Mexico and Bolivia said priority should be more than justfamily planning activities. Mexico, the Holy See, Malaysia andKenya suggested deleting the list of data requirements onexpenditures, infrastructure, service accessibility, output andquality of services.

C. Resource mobilization and allocation: Many delegates hadproblems with this section. Switzerland, Sweden, the US and the EUquestioned the methodology used in arriving at the costs of variouspopulation programmes. Bolivia pointed out that most of theparagraphs are not action-oriented. Zambia and Sierra Leone thoughtthere was too much emphasis on reproductive health and familyplanning and not enough on migration and other issues. In spite ofthese overall concerns that may alter the section's scope, theChair insisted on a paragraph-by-paragraph reading of 13.9 - 13.20.


A. Responsibilities of partners in development: In 14.2 (basisfor action), the EU suggested that joint-ventures be added to thelist of assistance needed to implement family-planning programmes.Croatia, Latvia, Hungary and Estonia called for the correctreference to countries with economies in transition. The Holy Seeand Honduras objected to the last sentence in 14.2 (localproduction of contraceptives). Bangladesh asked that the transferof technology be on concessional terms.

In 14.3 (objectives), the G-77/China proposed an additionalobjective: "To improve and strengthen policy coordination at theinternational level." The EU added a different objective: Todevelop long-term joint programmes between recipient and donorcountries. Bolivia suggested that an objective was to sensitize andinform donors and increase their assistance to populationprogrammes.

In 14.4, the EU asked that national development plans take accountof the role of technology cooperation as well as capacity-buildingand transfer of technology. Paraguay requested specification thatthe resources of international organizations be optimized anddoubled by the year 2000 for population activities. The G-77/Chinasuggested that the text specify that recipient governments shouldestablish effective coordination mechanisms. Norway added asentence calling for the international community to provide theenabling conditions to undertake coordination efforts. The UScalled on the donor agencies to coordinate activities.

B. Towards a new commitment to population funding: The HolySee suggested that the title of this section include developmentfunding. In 14.7 (objectives), the G-77/China asked forinternational financial assistance for direct South-Southcooperation. Paraguay called for a more balanced distribution ofinternational financial assistance. Afghanistan specified thatincreased funds should be made available to developing countriesstricken by natural and manmade calamities. Tuvalu, on behalf ofthe Pacific Island States, wanted 14.7(b) to specify that newassistance for population would not exclude other developmentprojects. Norway and the G-77/China called on the developed nationsto fulfill the goal of 0.7% GNP for ODA in 14.8. The EU, the US andSweden requested that funding figures be bracketed.



A. Primary health care and the health-care sector: Kenya,Benin and Chile suggested adding morbidity to the title. In 8.3(a)(objective), the Solomon Islands, on behalf of the Pacific IslandStates, asked to recognize the cultural and religious diversity ofcountries. In 8.5 (target life expectancy), New Zealand andAustralia asked to include indigenous peoples. In 8.6 (role ofwomen in family care), Bolivia and the EU emphasized the sharedresponsibility of men. Canada, the Holy See, the EU and the SolomonIslands objected to requiring fees for services, since itdiscriminates against the most needy. In 8.7 (publicparticipation), the Philippines and Bangladesh emphasized thesignificance of breast feeding education. The Holy See emphasizedthe importance of care for AIDS victims. In 8.8(environmentally-related health hazards), Nepal asked for qualityindicators to measure maternal and child health. The CentralAfrican Republic asked to add a paragraph on traditional methods ofdisease prevention used by women.

B. Infant and child mortality: In 8.12(a) (objective),Bolivia, Egypt and Morocco asked for reference to ethnically- andregionally-based differential rates of child mortality. In 8.12(b)(objective), Nicaragua asked to recognize the right of the unbornchild. Bangladesh added an additional objective on the promotion ofbreast feeding. In 8.14 (list of health hazards to women andchildren), India and Egypt asked to add multiple pregnancies, earlybirthing and HIV.

C. Maternal morbidity and mortality: In 8.17 (on policytargets), Norway asked to address the causes of maternal mortality,and India found the deadlines and targets unrealistic. In 8.20(nutritional needs of pregnant women), Australia added nutritionaleducation on indigenous food. In 8.21 (safe abortion), Canada andAustralia expressed concern about the wording, which may implyexclusivity of safe abortion to victims of rape and incest. The US,Turkey, Botswana, Jamaica and Nepal asked for clarity on the roleof governments and NGOs in reducing abortion. Bolivia and Argentinamentioned that access to safe abortion should be governed bynational legislation. Benin suggested deletion of the paragraphaddressing governments' roles in delivering safe abortion. Nigersaid that abortion is only a public health issue, so far as thehealth of the mother is concerned. Venezuela and Malta said thatthe right to life is inviolable. Central American countries calledfor education for responsible sex and called for adoption insteadof abortion.

D. HIV infection and AIDS: In 8.25 (objective), Pakistan andthe US asked for support for the families of AIDS victims. The EUcalled for measures against discrimination. In 8.27 (familyplanning and HIV prevention), the US focused on changing malesexual behavior, since men use condoms. Senegal said that condomsshould complement other contraceptives. In 8.28 (role of governmentand other organizations), Pakistan asked to involve religiousleaders. Indonesia added the need to involve the family and thecommunity. In 8.29 (availability of condoms), Switzerland andZimbabwe stressed condoms for women. Cameroon de-emphasized condomsand supported behavioral change. The EU and Canada emphasized theneed to make condoms available and affordable. Norway emphasizedthe need for innovative ways of marketing condoms. The Holy See,Sierra Leone and Nicaragua supported abstinence for singleindividuals and monogamous relationships for couples.


A. Population distribution and sustainable development: In 9.3(objectives), Finland called for regional strategies. Mexico agreedand objected to the concept of rural/urban dichotomy. In 9.4(strategies against rural exodus), the Holy See emphasized laborintensive technologies for rural employment. Australia mentionedtrade policies that harm the export of rural agricultural products.In 9.5 (alternatives to rural migration), Cameroon stressedagrarian reform. Fiji, on behalf of the Pacific Island States,emphasized the role of governments in making rural areas moreattractive to private sector investment. Niger and Ethiopia askedfor a paragraph on the status of nomadic groups. In 9.6 (indigenousrights), the US asked for clarification on traditional rights.

B. Population growth in large urban agglomerations: In 9.9(reducing urban bias), Morocco and Pakistan asked for moredevelopment efforts in small- and medium-size cities. In 9.10(government role in urban development), many stressed theimportance of safety. Fiji emphasized education and sanitation forurban squatters, and Lesotho and Norway referred to the needs ofstreet children.

C. Internally displaced persons: In 9.14 (objective),Afghanistan, the US and Canada stressed women, children, elderly,and victims of rape. In 9.15 (causes of displacement), Iranincluded natural disasters. The Russian Federation called forreparations for war victims. Pakistan, Canada and Afghanistan askedfor international assistance for displaced peoples.


WORKING GROUP I: Working Group I will consider Chapter XI(Population, information, education and communication) thismorning. At 3:00 pm there will be a brief informal discussion withthe Secretariat on the methodology used to arrive at the levels ofresources needed to finance population programmes, as cited inChapter XIII. Following this discussion, the Working Group willconsider Chapter XVI (Follow-up to the Conference). Look for arevised Chair's text on Chapter XII (Technology, research anddevelopment) and an announcement from the Chair on the programme ofwork for the rest of the week.

WORKING GROUP II: The Working Group will not meet thismorning to give the G-77 the opportunity to prepare a commonposition on Chapter X (International migration). At 3:00 pm,Working Group II will discuss Chapter X. Look for an announcementfrom the Chair on the programme of work for the rest of the week.

CROSS-REFERENCE DOCUMENT: The ICPD Secretariat has prepareda document that cross-references the Draft ICPD Programme of Action, the 1974 World Population Plan of Action and the MexicoCity Conference Recommendations. This document was prepared inresponse to requests from delegates that the Secretariat highlightwhat is the "value added" of the Cairo document. It is availablefrom the document counter in Conference Room 1.


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