Daily report for 6 September 1994

MAIN COMMITTEE

Main Committee Vice Chair Nicolaas Biegman chaired the day'sdiscussions on Chapters VII and VIII.

CHAPTER VIII -- HEALTH, MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY: Biegmanopened discussion on paragraph 8.25 (abortion) and urged delegatesto move swiftly on this issue to show the world and the media thatthis Conference is not about abortion, but population. He addedthat the media has highlighted the issue of abortion because it canbe grasped by the public, is easy to write about and is a veryemotional matter. The purpose here, he said, is not to delve on theethical or moral dimensions of the question but, rather, toconcentrate on the medical aspects of unsafe abortion. Delegatesaddressed most of their comments on the alternative version ofparagraph 8.25, which was originally proposed by the EU at PrepComIII.

Over 85 delegations took the floor to comment on this paragraph,and their views were quite divergent. Three general positionsemerged. Norway opened the debate by saying that his delegation'sposition had been to keep the original version of paragraph 8.25,but that he would listen carefully to what the other delegates hadto say before electing to support the new version or to uphold theearlier draft. Many other delegates, including South Africa,Canada, Finland, the US, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoniaand Estonia said that they preferred the original 8.25, but wouldagree to the new one in order to reach consensus. Among those whoindicated support for the alternative paragraph 8.25 were the EU,Australia, Japan, Paraguay, C“te d'Ivoire, the Philippines, BurkinaFaso, Brazil, India, Cape Verde, Malawi, Mali, Bolivia, Panama,Austria, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Mexico, Malaysia, Costa Rica,China, Liberia, Kenya, Peru, Solomon Islands (on behalf of thePacific Island States), Papua New Guinea, Niger, Vietnam, Tunisia,Tanzania, Cyprus, Nepal, Chad, Colombia, Venezuela, Senegal, Guineaand Guinea-Bissau. Some of these delegates suggested minormodifications in terminology.

Substantive amendments to the alternative paragraph 8.25 weresuggested by several delegations. Barbados tabled an amendedversion, which said that Governments should not have recourse topunitive measures and access to reliable health care servicesshould be provided. This amendment was supported by the CaribbeanStates, Benin, Zambia, Canada, the US, Nigeria, Swaziland, Kenya,Bangladesh and others. Suriname, on behalf of the Caribbean States,indicated that the amendment would be withdrawn if there wasconsensus on the alternative draft for paragraph 8.25.

Pakistan suggested opening the paragraph by stating that in no caseshould abortion be promoted as a family planning method and to urgeGovernments, IGOs and NGOs to work for the reduction of theincidence of abortion through expanded and improved family planningservices. He suggested deleting the last two sentences ofalternative paragraph 8.25. This amendment was supported by Iran,Malaysia, Indonesia and Egypt.

Zimbabwe suggested that the last sentence of the original 8.25,which deals with post-abortion counseling, education and familyplanning, be retained in the alternative draft. This position wassupported by a number of countries, including Cyprus, Zambia,Zaire, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Vietnam.

Ecuador rejected the new draft altogether, arguing that, inessence, it still favored and granted a stamp of approval toabortion. The Chair noted that neither this paragraph nor the wholetext is in favor of abortion, however, illegal abortions arecarried out and this is a medical problem that must be faced. TheHoly See said that it could only accept the alternative draft as abasis for reaching consensus, but that it still had a problem withendorsing a situation with which it, and other delegations, stillhave fundamental difficulties. Malta accepted alternative 8.25 asa basis for discussion, but had reservations regarding the terms"safe" versus "unsafe" abortion and wanted to delete the lastsentence. The latter point was supported by Honduras and Argentina.El Salvador, supported by Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic,suggested removing the qualifiers before the term "abortion" andreplacing "legal" with "permitted or allowed." The EU reportedthat, after consultations, it could accept the amendment made byZimbabwe.

CHAPTER 7 -- REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS [SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVEHEALTH] AND FAMILY PLANNING: The Chair announced that he wouldstart with paragraph 7.1, which gives the definition ofreproductive rights and reproductive health. If the Committee couldreach agreement on the brackets around the term "fertilityregulation," numerous other brackets could be removed from thetext.

The EU announced a new proposal so the sentence would read:"Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women tobe informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable andacceptable methods of fertility regulation, noting that theformulation and implementation of population policies, includingthose on reproductive health, is the sovereign right of eachnation, consistent with national laws and in conformity withinternational human rights standards, and which methods are oftheir choice...." South Africa supported the EU and added thatreference to human rights should appear earlier in the text. The USsupported the EU, but thought the amendment would be better placedat the beginning of the paragraph.

Jamaica, supported by The Gambia and Suriname, made a similarproposal, which would insert the following after "fertilityregulation" -- "with due regard for local laws and practices and inaccordance with human rights and ethical standards." Brazil, Turkeyand Canada said they could accept either the EU's or Jamaica'sproposal. Pakistan and Iran said they could support either the EUor Jamaica, but requested that reference be made to religiousbeliefs, after the reference to national laws. While they preferredthe use of the term "family planning," they could live with"fertility regulation." Peru agreed with the latter point.

The Philippines argued that "fertility regulation" should bereplaced by "family planning." Benin supported this and added thatthe term "reproductive health," as translated into French, does notmake any sense. The Dominican Republic, Libya, Honduras, Argentina,Peru, the Holy See and Malta also supported the Philippines.

Malaysia largely supported the EU's proposal, but also wanted toreplace "fertility regulation" with "family planning."

Nigeria insisted that abortion is not considered part of fertilityregulation and that family planning is a broader term. The WHOcommented that, according to its working definition, familyplanning is one of the methods of fertility regulation, which alsoincludes delaying childbearing, the use of contraception, treatmentof infertility, interruption of unwanted pregnancies andbreastfeeding.

Swaziland, Latvia and China supported keeping the text as is. CostaRica proposed "fertility regulation or family planning, inaccordance with the sovereign right of each State."

Indonesia preferred the Philippines proposal, but could agree tothe EU proposal if two amendments were made.

In the title of the chapter, South Africa and Latvia preferred theuse of sexual and reproductive health. Iran supported deleting thephrase "sexual health."

After a break of over an hour, the Chair apologized to the morethan 24 delegations on the speakers' list and made a new proposal.He said that the concept of fertility regulation originally wasplaced in the text because the PrepCom had asked the WHO for itsdefinition of reproductive rights, which includes this term. If thePrepCom had drawn up its own definition of reproductive health,different language might have been used. Therefore, the Chairproposed that the phrase read: "...means and methods of theirchoice to do so..." and delete all reference to fertilityregulation or family planning. Benin supported this proposal, ifreference to conformity with national legislation and religiousbeliefs was incorporated into the text.

CHAIR'S PROPOSAL FOR PARAGRAPH 8.25: The Chair thenpostponed further discussion of his proposal for paragraph 7.1 anddropped another "bombshell" in the form of a new text for paragraph8.25. He distributed the text and gave delegates time to reviewand, hopefully, accept it. The text reads:

"In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of familyplanning. All Governments and relevant inter- governmental andnon-governmental organizations are urged to strengthen theircommitment to women's health, to deal with the health impact ofunsafe abortion as a major public health concern and to reduce therecourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planningservices. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have readyaccess to reliable information and compassionate counselling.Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highestpriority and all attempts should be made to eliminate the need forabortion. In circumstances in which abortion is legal, suchabortion should be safe. Any measures or changes related toabortion within the health system can only be determined at thenational or local level according to the national legislativeprocess. In all cases women should have access to quality servicesfor the management of complications arising from abortion.Post-abortion counselling, education and family planning servicesshould be offered promptly which will also help to avoid repeatabortions."

The Chair asked countries to comment. Pakistan, Norway, Benin,Barbados (on behalf of the Caribbean Group), Sweden, Iran,Bangladesh, the US, Germany (on behalf of the EU) and Zimbabweindicated various reservations about the proposal but were willingto accept it in the spirit of compromise. The Holy See stated thatwhile the text was much improved, they were not prepared to acceptit and found the phrase, "In circumstances in which abortion islegal," difficult. There were cries of "no" throughout the room.The Chair suggested replacing "legal" with "permitted," but theHoly See asked to postpone further discussion. Benin took the floorand said that this is an international conference and no delegationshould prevent others from speaking freely. Delegates respondedwith applause. The Chair announced that there was no point incontinuing at this stage and adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Main Committee Chair Fred Sai convened a "Friends of the Chair"meeting Tuesday afternoon at 12:15 where delegates discussed thePreamble. Delegates have apparently agreed to delete paragraphs 1.9- 1.16, as proposed by both the G-77 and the EU on Monday. Onedelegation, however, wanted to retain the reference to migration inparagraph 1.15. Another delegation proposed language on humanrights. The two paragraphs proposed by the G-77 on Monday,(mobilization of resources and the differentiation ofresponsibilities in carrying out the Programme of Action) were notdiscussed, since some delegations needed time for furtherconsultations. Nevertheless, delegates appeared pleased that in onehour the Friends of the Chair could produce the elements for a newtext, which can now serve as the basis for further negotiations.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: This morning's speakers list includes: Italy,Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Tonga, Hungary, Slovenia, Fiji, Panama,Mali, Bangladesh, Paraguay, Cuba, the Director-General of theUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization, and theSecretary-General of the Fourth Conference on Women. The afternoonspeakers are expected to be: Federated States of Micronesia, Egypt,Bolivia, Thailand, Sweden, Holy See, Benin, Burkina Faso,Nicaragua, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Palestine, United NationsUniversity, Economic Commission for Africa, Food and AgricultureOrganization, the Chair of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Working Group onIndigenous Populations, Organization of African Unity, PopulationAction International, Population Council and the Center forDevelopment and Population Activities.

MAIN COMMITTEE: The Main Committee is expected to begin withconsideration of the Chair's compromise text for paragraph 8.25. Ifconsensus cannot be reached on this text in approximately 20minutes, the discussion will be tabled until later in the week.Otherwise, the Committee is expected to keep to the schedule agreedto on Monday: Chapters 9 (Population distribution, urbanization andinternal migration) and 10 (International migration) in the morningand Chapters 11 (Population, development and education), 13(National action), 14 (International cooperation) and 16 (Follow-upto the Conference) in the afternoon.

The Chair's proposal for paragraph 7.1 will probably not beaddressed until Thursday. Look for a revised draft text of ChapterI (Preamble) to be circulated by the Chair during the course of theday. Also look for an announcement about another meeting of theFriends of the Chair to discuss Chapter II (Principles).