IX. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, URBANIZATION AND INTERNAL MIGRATION
In 9.2(a) (balanced spatial population distribution), Sweden requested consideration of gender equity together with economic and social equity. In 9.2(b) (reduction of push factors), India, Malaysia and the Philippines requested deletion of environmental degradation, noting other factors that could be included as push factors. The US objected. In 9.3 (population distribution policies), the Pacific Island States, Malaysia and Indonesia called for deletion of pricing policies, while Botswana, Finland and Japan suggested equitable distribution of resources. In 9.4 (regional development strategies), Australia, Malaysia, Finland, Japan and Indonesia said that language on the decentralization of governmental administrative systems was too strong. In 9.5 (alternatives to rural out-migration), Finland added "and access to water resources" after the phrase "support access to land ownership." The EU, Switzerland, Japan and the Philippines deleted the reference to migrants' wives.
In 9.11 (plight of urban poor), Malaysia called for child- care centers. In 9.12 (financing infrastructure), Indonesia and the Pacific Island States called for consideration of the special interests of the poorest sections of society. In 9.14(b) (ending forced 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 to mechanisms for compensation to internally displaced people. In 9.16 (education for the internally displaced), El Salvador and the Philippines emphasized the inclusion of women. The US wanted to delete 9.18 (victims of ethnic cleansing), since it might undermine the Middle East peace process. Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Iran, Indonesia and Afghanistan insisted on its retention. The Holy See supported Palestine on the importance of 9.19 (policies consistent with Geneva Convention).
VII. REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING
A. Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health: There was disagreement on the definitions of "reproductive rights and health," "sexual rights and health," "fertility regulation," and "family planning," and how they are to be applied to couples or individuals. The Holy See submitted its version of 7.1 (reproductive and sexual rights) and 7.2 (reproductive and sexual health), which proposed alternative definitions for "sexual rights" and "sexual health." Jamaica, Cuba, the US, the Philippines and Norway endorsed the Secretariat's text and the need to include respect for bodily integrity. Canada, the Pacific Island States, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, Norway and Cuba endorsed the WHO's definition of reproductive health. Malta supported the Holy See's text since it refers to both men and women instead of individuals, without any reference to age. Pakistan, the US, Bangladesh and an applauding NGO audience also endorsed the WHO's definition and emphasized the text's lack of reference to women's rights. Cameroon and Venezuela said that family planning must specifically exclude abortion. The Holy See expressed its willingness to find a compromise, as long as it excluded reference to abortion. The Chair called 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 the criteria for meeting changing reproductive and sexual health needs. Malta and Ecuador called attention to the diversity of national legislation. Brazil emphasized respect for individual choice. Nicaragua opposed "full range of reproductive health" and suggested "appropriate range." The term "fertility regulation" generated heated debate, with Nicaragua, Morocco, Malaysia, Benin, Honduras and Argentina expressing concern that the term could imply abortion. They requested substitution of the term with "family planning," on the condition that it specifically exclude any reference to abortion. Indonesia felt that both terms connoted the inclusion of abortion. Brazil, Mexico and Chile argued that reproductive health is an over-arching concept that includes family planning and this should be reflected in the text. Sweden, Canada, the Philippines and New Zealand agreed and urged retention of the term "fertility regulation" since it covers individuals and not just couples. China and Afghanistan endorsed the right to informed and voluntary choice as long as it is exercised responsibly.
VIII. HEALTH, MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY
A. Primary health care and the health-care sector: In 8.5 (life expectancy targets), India suggested that each nation should set its own targets, based on the individual country's level of achievement. The Chair bracketed the specific targets. Delegates agreed to Norway's request for a reference on the involvement of the financial community at the end of 8.7 bis (health care services).
B. Child survival and health: In 8.12 (objectives), Bangladesh requested the addition of an objective on the promotion of breastfeeding. Delegates supported Canada's request to re-integrate the reference to the pattern of mortality of girl children. Delegates agreed to proposed Norwegian text as the basis for a new action paragraph on breastfeeding, in light of the new objective on that issue. The US requested that the paragraph be bracketed. In 8.14 (health services), Benin and others requested a definition of safe motherhood. Honduras was concerned that these programmes included abortion funding, but the Chair clarified that safe motherhood programmes cover health needs arising from abortion complications.
[Return to start of article]