XIII. NATIONAL ACTION
A. National Policies and Plans of Action: In 13.1 (basis for action), Canada supported Uganda's request for reference to both international and internal migration. India added reference to unsustainable production and consumption.
B. Programme Management and Human Resource Development: In 13.5 (basis for action), India proposed adding reference to capacity building.
XIV. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
A. Responsibilities of partners in development: India, supported by China, proposed a new sub-paragraph in 14.3 (objectives), which states that developed countries will adopt favorable macro-economic policies to promote sustained economic growth and development in developing countries. The EU objected. The US, supported by Sweden, Australia and the EU, added a new objective on human rights standards. India said that unless its new paragraph was accepted, it could not accept the US proposal. Both were bracketed. The Gambia proposed a new objective ensuring that UN assistance programmes are consistent with and supportive of national programmes. India proposed deleting 14.3 bis (capacity building and technology transfer) and replacing it with a new paragraph on the adoption of favorable macroeconomic policies. The EU, Canada and Australia said that this Conference cannot solve all development problems. Tuvalu, Estonia and Honduras proposed deleting the sentence that refers to local production of contraceptives. In 14.4 (funding for capacity building), the EU and the G-77 proposed alternative texts.
B. Towards a New Commitment to Funding Population and Development: In 14.6 (basis for action), the G-77 proposed new text requesting donors to increase assistance for population programmes from 2 to 4%. The EU bracketed these figures. In 14.7 (objectives), Algeria proposed deleting reference to countries with economies in transition and developing countries stricken by natural and manmade calamities. The EU, Belarus, the Russian Federation and Estonia supported retaining the former. Tuvalu supported retaining the latter. If these categories are retained, Brazil proposed adding reference to developing countries with high levels of unmet demand and India added reference to the most populous developing countries. India proposed a new sub-paragraph on new and additional resources. Algeria proposed reference to South-South cooperation.
In 14.8 (increased financial contributions), the G-77 proposed including reference to the target of 0.7% of GNP for ODA. Switzerland proposed devoting at least 20% of ODA funds to the social sectors. The EU reserved its position, pending consultations. In 14.8 ter (coordination of financing policies), the G-77 and the EU proposed new language. Estonia wanted to include reference to achieving population programmes in countries with economies in transition.
XI. POPULATION INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (IEC)
Sweden wanted to change the name of the chapter to "Population and Development Information...." In 11.1 (basis for action), Canada added reference to migration. The US added "gender and culturally sensitive population and development related IEC policies." In 11.2 (information, education and communication), the Philippines and Norway called for a reference to sustainable human development. Sweden called for greater public knowledge and commitment to be placed in a democratic setting. In 11.3 (effective IEC activities), the Philippines noted that schools and religious institutions are important vehicles for instilling gender and racial sensitivity. Honduras asked that parents and older relatives be included in groups that are influential in forming public opinion.
In 11.5 (objectives), Canada said (b) should include gender and racial sensitivity. India thought there was no reason to mention the latter. The US, supported by Sweden, Norway, Burundi and Malaysia, proposed a new objective to enhance the ability of couples and individuals to make informed reproductive choices. The Holy See made a counter proposal "to enhance the ability of women and men to have the same right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children." Sweden proposed deleting reference to families in (a). The Holy See, India, Morocco, Malaysia and Croatia disagreed.
In 11.6 (raising awareness on priority issues), the following issues were added to the list: gender equality (Finland); reproductive rights and unsustainable consumption and production (Sweden); responsible sexual behavior (EU); racism and xenophobia (US); and persons with disabilities (Morocco). In 11.11 (strengthening interpersonal communication skills), the EU wanted to delete reference to ethical values. Honduras, Morocco, Guatemala and the Holy See disagreed. This was bracketed for the Holy See. In 11.13 (entertainment media), the Philippines, supported by Tanzania and China, added soap operas to the list of media. Finland thought that this reference would call into question the seriousness of the UN, but the Secretariat assured delegates that soap operas have gained respectability in the literature on entertainment media. In 11.15 (education), the EU proposed deleting the phrase "while respecting the rights, responsibilities and values of parents." The Holy See, Guatemala and Honduras disagreed. Brazil proposed a compromise: "while respecting appropriate ethical standards." Several additions were made to the list of population and development issues. Colombia proposed deleting the list and referring instead to the issues considered by the Plan of Action.
III. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POPULATION, SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
C. Population, Sustained Economic Growth, Poverty Alleviation and Human Resource Development: The EU and the G-77 presented their consensus text. After several delegations made amendments, Brazil, Australia, Senegal, Colombia, Tuvalu and Canada suggested that the consensus text be adopted without further debate. Sweden offered to withdraw its amendments if other delegations would do the same. Morocco strongly supported the Chinese amendments. Delegates finally accepted the compromise suggested by the US, who said that Section C is part of a larger chapter and Section B addressed sustained economic growth.
[Return to start of article]