This chapter contains three sections: national policies and plans of action; programme management and human resource development; and resource mobilization and allocation. The latter proved to be the most contentious section. As at PrepCom III, delegates questioned and challenged the Secretariat on the methodology used to derive the cost figures in paragraph 13.15, which deals with estimates and allocation of programme costs for four major components of basic reproductive health services: family planning, basic reproductive health services, sexually transmitted disease/HIV/AIDS prevention, and basic research, data and population and development policy analysis. After a lengthy debate in the Main Committee, interested delegates met and worked out a compromise. The chapeau now includes the following: "These are indicative cost estimates prepared by experts based on experience to date of the four components referred to above. These estimates should be reviewed and updated on the basis of the comprehensive approach reflected in paragraph 13.14 of this Programme of Action, particularly with respect to the costs of implementing reproductive health service delivery."
In paragraph 13.16, it was agreed at PrepCom III that up to two thirds of the costs will continue to be met by the countries themselves. The phrase "and up to one third from external sources," however, remained in brackets. After various attempts at amending the phrase, delegates agreed on "in the order of one third from external sources."
In paragraph 13.23, Senegal, supported by Zimbabwe, Mali and others, proposed an amendment where Governments would devote at least 20% of public sector expenditures to the social sectors, and 20% of official development assistance, stressing poverty eradication. Algeria noted that the G-77 did not have a position on this concept -- known as the 20/20 Initiative -- pending the outcome of discussions at the forthcoming World Summit for Social Development. Sweden highlighted its commitment to social development assistance, but pointed out that adoption of the 20/20 Initiative would require increased understanding. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported by Japan and others, preferred to use the phrase "an increased proportion" rather than endorsing the 20/20 Initiative. Delegates finally reached a compromise, which was part of a package deal with paragraph 14.11: "In this regard, Governments are urged to devote an increased proportion of public sector expenditures to the social sectors, as well as an increased proportion of official development assistance...."
[Return to start of article]