XV. PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR: India and Iran did not think it was necessary to separate the profit-making and non-profit organizations in this chapter. Brazil stated that the relationship between governments and the non-governmental sector should be a "working relationship" rather than a "partnership," which implies equal sharing of responsibilities. Canada mentioned the role of immigration and refugee advocacy groups.
A. Local, national and international non-governmental organizations: In paragraph 15.3 (NGOs as a means of focusing local and national initiatives), the US wanted a sentence on NGOs as the voice of the people, but India disagreed. The Holy See wanted to add "migration" to the list of concerns addressed by NGOs. In 15.5 (relevance of NGOs to the action programme), Norway and the US said that NGO involvement must not mitigate governments' responsibility to provide reproductive health services. Mauritania, China, Sri Lanka, India and Brazil said that NGOs should "be consulted by" not "participate in" local, national and international decision-making bodies. In 15.6 (cooperation among NGOs), Switzerland said that NGOs should be held accountable for their actions.
In 15.7 (objective), India and Colombia wanted NGO activities to be centered at the programme level and not at the policy level -- the exclusive domain of governments. In 15.8 (enhancing the contribution of NGOs), the EU and Nigeria wanted to add that the political and organizational independence of NGOs must be respected. In 15.9 (financial and technical resources), India and Iran said that financial and technical resources should only be transferred to NGOs if requested. Senegal and Burundi pointed out that some developing countries cannot provide financial resources to NGOs. Vanuatu urged governments to include NGOs on national delegations at regional and international meetings.
B. The private sector: In 15.15, Cuba proposed that reproductive health services be provided on concessional terms. Zambia wanted these services in a "culturally acceptable" manner. In 15.16 (improving programming through dialogue), Colombia mentioned the private sector's responsibility to inform consumers.
III. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POPULATION, SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: The US wanted to change the title of the chapter to "Population and Sustainable Development," however, Egypt and Morocco argued that the chapter titles were agreed to at PrepCom II. Both Canada and the G-77/China proposed reorganizing the chapter.
A. Integrating population, economic and development strategies: Australia, Sweden and the EU each proposed new headings for this section. In 3.3 (sustainable development), the EU and Finland added transport, fisheries, tourism and infrastructure to the list of economic sectors. Australia, the EU and India wanted reference to poverty alleviation as a benefit of integrating population into environment and development strategies. The G-77/China suggested deleting the definition of sustainable development. Norway proposed using the Agenda 21 definition. Sweden proposed a new paragraph on the responsibility of countries to work towards a sustainable balance between population, natural resources utilization, and patterns of production and consumption.
B. Population, sustained economic growth, poverty alleviation and human resource development: The G-77/China proposed renaming this section "Integrating population, economic and development strategies." Sweden proposed "Poverty reduction and human resource development." The G-77/China tabled new text for paragraph 3.9 on economic obstacles to improving the quality of life. The EU preferred the existing text, which has more of a social than an economic focus. In 3.10 (poverty), the G-77/China stressed the relationship between poverty, population and economic growth. Australia wanted to ensure that eliminating poverty requires ecologically sustainable and sustained economic growth. New Zealand added a sentence mentioning that indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by poverty. Norway suggested that "family planning services" be referred to as "reproductive health services." Switzerland mentioned that poverty is exacerbated by environmental degradation.
The G-77/China requested that 3.12 (governance) be deleted. Switzerland proposed reorienting government expenditure from the military to the social sector. The EU and Sweden thought 3.14 (slowing population growth) was not action-oriented and should be deleted or placed among the objectives. New Zealand proposed a new paragraph on support for the elderly. In 3.17, the G-77/China wanted to delete reference to "reducing pressures for large families." Sweden proposed a new paragraph, which said sustainable development can be achieved if governments are transparent and curb corruption.
C. Population, sustainable development and the environment: The G-77/China wanted to change the title to "Population and environment," and reduce the number of paragraphs in this section from thirteen to three. The EU had similar thoughts. Both groups described Agenda 21 as a comprehensive response to major environmental challenges. A number of other delegates wanted to make changes on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis so the Chair continued collecting amendments through paragraph 3.25.
[Return to start of article]