Daily report for 19 May 1993

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS OF THE WHOLE (ICW)

The ICW met all day yesterday and was able to complete discussionon the Secretariat's non-papers on goals and clusters.

Cluster 4: [Population Distribution,] Internal and InternationalMigration: Delegates made only a few comments on Part A,"Population distribution and internal migration." Colombia, Moroccoand the Philippines stressed the need to focus on and to stemrural-urban migration. Switzerland, Malaysia and the ILO supportedthe Secretariat's reference to decentralization as a means ofmanaging urban development. The ILO and Australia stressed the needto maintain a balance between urban and rural development.

The section on international migration generated much morediscussion. Canada and Australia stressed the importance ofclarifying the difference between voluntary and forced migration inthe document. Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Australia and the RussianFederation stated that there is a need to examine migration that iscaused by lack of economic opportunities and the necessity of jobcreation in the countries of origin. Australia and Argentinaspecifically mentioned the relationship between agriculturalsubsidies and migration. Brazil commented that the text is "timid"and does not stress the causes of the present massive flows ofundocumented migrants from poorer countries to richer countries.

Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, France and Austria suggested that theSecretariat should incorporate recommendations from the EuropeanPopulation Conference on the issue of international migration.Likewise, Mali stated that the relevant recommendations from theDakar Conference should also be incorporated.

Switzerland, the Holy See, Morocco and France stressed the need toaddress the issues of integration, multiculturalism, and racism aswell as the need to safeguard the human rights of migrants. The USand Brazil mentioned the problems associated with illegal andundocumented migrants. Argentina commented on the need for anexchange of information between countries that receive immigrantsas well as countries that suffer from considerable migratory flows.

Argentina, the Philippines and Ecuador all referred to thefinancial impact of repatriation and the loss of income sent hometo family members from migrant workers. To help alleviate the"brain drain," the Philippines encouraged the creation of aprogramme whereby a country receiving migrants could promise thecountry of origin some sort of a compensatory measure, such as theexchange of scholars, transfer of technology, or a temporaryrepatriation with guaranteed return so the professionals couldshare their knowledge with others in their native country.

In the section on strategies, delegates made the followingrecommendations: the first strategy should also include reducingpressures for South-South migration (Malaysia, Canada andAustralia); the fourth strategy should include protecting the rightto seek asylum (Canada and Australia); and the seventh strategyshould include providing adequate assistance to refugees, includingwomen, children and aged parents (Canada, Australia and Poland).

Cluster 5: Resource allocation, resource mobilization, the roleof governments and other sectors: A number of common themesemerged during the discussion of this cluster. India, the G-77,Brazil and the Women's Caucus agreed that increased attentionshould be given to population activities at the national level.There was also agreement that national social sector expendituresshould rise by 20-30%. Iran pointed out that targets for socialspending should take into account the varying capacities ofindividual countries, especially those in the South. Many countriessuch as the US, the UK and Canada called for greater partnershipbetween governments and NGOs in the implementation of populationactivities. The UK suggested that the final document should commitan increased flow of resources to NGOs. Several countries alsohighlighted the need for increased expenditures in family planningand reproductive health in general. While some governments fund thehealth sector in very broad terms, reproductive health often doesnot appear in national budgets. As a result, this makes itdifficult to assess what is being spent in this area. Numerousdeveloping countries, including the G-77 and Iran, called on theinternational community to clarify its commitments to populationfunding. Sweden, in particular, called on the industrializedcountries to do more in this regard, but also suggested thatregional funding figures would be more realistic than globalfunding targets. Countries, such as Morocco expressed hope thatmilitary expenditures, in part, could be redirected to coverpopulation activities. This was echoed by the Women's Caucus, whoadded that increased sources of funding could be mobilized byreform of structural adjustment programmes and debt relief. Canadapointed out that it does not target its ODA to specific programmesor sectors.

Several countries questioned the appropriateness of the AmsterdamDeclaration as the basis for determining global population fundingtargets. The Holy See noted that the Amsterdam Declaration was onlysigned by 79 countries, and as such, did not reflect aninternational consensus.

Additional issues: The Chair provided delegations with theopportunity to raise issues not covered by the five clusters.Canada and Norway mentioned the need to strengthen reference todata collection and analysis by incorporating recommendations fromthe relevant expert group meetings. Norway also called for theincorporation of substantive and operational research on fertilitychanges and life-saving measures. Canada also mentioned the need toreflect the needs and contributions of indigenous peoples, whereverappropriate.

Goals for 2015: All delegations supported the general ideaof setting targets in the Cairo document. A number of delegationssuggested that the 20-year time frame, as suggested by theSecretary-General, is not the only one that should be considered.Brazil, for example, suggested that a time frame of 10 years may bemore appropriate. The G-77 suggested that intermediate reviewsevery five years could be carried out to assess whether the goalsare realistic or not. A number of delegations, including the G-77,the Holy See, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Malaysia mentionedthe need for both qualitative and quantitative goals. Pakistan,Sweden, the G-77, Uganda, Burundi and Zaire all pointed out thattargets should be either regional or country-specific. Mention wasalso made of the importance of avoiding the notion of coercion inthe setting of population goals. Delegates also suggested that theSecretariat consider related goals that have been articulated inother UN fora.

Some countries suggested the inclusion of additional goals. Forexample, the US proposed goals regarding the unequal treatment ofboys and girls; maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion; andteenage pregnancy. The Holy See suggested goals to deal withsocio-economic development; ageing and the elderly; human resourcedevelopment; and job creation.

SUB-GROUP ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CAIRO DOCUMENT

At the Tuesday evening session, Colombia, on behalf of the G-77,responded to the various country proposals regarding the structureof the Cairo document. Colombia also stressed that discussionsshould focus on PC/11 and asked the Secretariat if cost estimatescould be provided for each area, as in Agenda 21. The Chair, TaunoK„„ria of Finland, was requested to synthesize the proposals intoa Chair's non-paper. The Secretariat suggested that discussionsconcentrate on structure and process but that substantivediscussions should be left for the ICW. The Secretariat also addedthat it required clear guidance from the group. Colombia respondedthat the process of drafting should be discussed at a later stage.

At Wednesday's meeting of the sub-group, the Chair introduced hisnon-paper on the proposed outline of the Cairo document. Theoutline contained headings for the preamble, the principles, andthe choices and responsibilities section with its fourteenchapters. The Chair noted that he was not able to accommodate theviews of all delegations, particularly those who had proposedsignificant re-grouping of the headings in PC/11. The Chair statedthat he had opted not to create a separate chapter on the family.Instead, the family issue could be incorporated in a sub-titleunder Chapter III, Population Growth and Structure. He alsosuggested that the family issue could be addressed in theprinciples section. Colombia, on behalf of the G-77, supported theChair's draft but suggested that Chapter III should be reworkedinto a chapter on "Family well-being." He also reiterated the ideaof formatting the chapters in a manner similar to Agenda 21.

Sweden proposed the reorganization of the chapters as presented inthe non-paper into six areas and stressed the need to coordinateinput between this sub-group and the ICW. Morocco suggested asub-heading for women and girls in rural areas and referred to thediscussions in the ICW on migration. The UK, later supported byDenmark on behalf of the EC, raised the concern that decisions onthe chapter headings could not be made until there was resolutionon the principles and the fundamental concerns. Palestine suggestedthat the sub-heading on migration be changed to include the issueof "forced migration." Malaysia stated that the issue of maternalmortality and morbidity should be given more emphasis. Switzerlandsaid that the sub-headings should take into consideration thediscussions in both Plenary and the ICW, and that any restructuringof Chapter III should be done carefully. France hoped that therewould be consensus on the guiding principles, otherwise thisdocument would be difficult to implement. He added that the conceptof the family as a moving unit must be taken into account. Denmarksuggested consolidating the last four chapters into a new heading,"Partnerships in Population." Iran supported Malaysia in itssuggestion to change the title of the last chapter to "CommunityPartnership."

The Chair suggested that he may prepare three documents: a revisedChair's non-paper with a re-working of just the main headings; aChair's summary of the discussion in this sub-group on thesub-headings; and a paper outlining the general approach to betaken in the organization of each chapter. His suggestion wasgenerally supported by the group. David Payton, of the ICPDSecretariat, reminded the group that they were not negotiating thedocument for Cairo but rather providing guidance to theSecretariat. He said that the first draft of the document should beready for review by the 48th Session of the General Assembly andthat there would be regular informal consultations during theintersessional period.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: The Plenary will meet at 3:00 pm in Conference Room2. Discussion will begin on Agenda Item 6: Draft rules of procedurefor the Conference (E/CONF.84/PC/2/Rev.1). If time permits, thePlenary may also address Agenda Item 7: Draft provisional agendafor the third session of the Preparatory Committee.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS OF THE WHOLE (ICW): The ICW willconvene at 10:00 am in Conference Room 3. It is expected that thegroup will address the following outstanding issues: the preambleof the Cairo Document; the fundamental concerns and issues(sometimes referred to as the principles); and the G-77 draftresolution on preparations for the International Conference onPopulation and Development. This latter document, originallyintroduced in Plenary as document L.7, has been the subject ofinformal consultations among interested governments during the pastweek.

SUB-GROUP ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CAIRO DOCUMENT: This groupwill meet at 10:00 am in Conference Room 6. The Chair should havetwo documents ready for discussion: his revised non-paper with the"skeleton" main headings and a non-paper on the general approach tobe taken in each of the chapters.

NGO ACTIVITIES: The Women's Caucus will meet in Conference Room 6 at 9:00 am. Both the Latin American/Caribbean NGOs and theAsia and Pacific Island NGOs will meet in Conference Room D at12:30 pm, followed by the Southern NGO Forum at 2:00 pm. The AfricaGroup of NGOs will meet in Conference Room D at 5:00 pm. Dr. Saiwill give a final briefing at 6:00 pm in Conference Room 2,followed by the NGO Panel Session on "AIDS and STDs".