• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • From the Wilson Center

    Setting Development Goals for Population Dynamics and Reproductive Rights

    January 30, 2013 By Carolyn Lamere

    “I’d like to start by stating emphatically that since addressing global inequality and inequity are our overall principles in revising the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], we must focus on health inequities to have a meaningful and lasting impact on human development,” said Beth Schlachter of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, speaking at the Wilson Center on January 9. “And for the most vulnerable – women and girls – that means we must focus on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” [Video Below]

    The Millennium Development Goals, which have been the dominant international development framework since their inception, expire in 2015. Schlachter was joined by John May of the Center for Global Development and Georgetown University, Kelly Castagnaro of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s Western Hemisphere Region, and Suzanne Ehlers of Population Action International to discuss how population and reproductive health should be incorporated into what comes next.

    Reproductive Health is Key

    Schlachter emphasized that it is impossible to support development without addressing sexual and reproductive health (SRH):

    Mortality and morbidity related to SRH, particularly for women and adolescent girls, are still unacceptably high in many regions of the world. These illnesses and deaths occur in the prime years of life, and have lifelong consequences for women and girls and their families who suffer the direct health and economic consequences. Poor SRH also have a negative impact on the overall health and viability of communities, with significant implications for sustainable development because of the lost opportunity for education, reduced labor productivity, and related changes to population size and structure.

    While changing population dynamics impact communities and countries, “individuals are at the heart of the post-2015 framework.” Schlachter said. “Whether we succeed or fail depends on our ability to empower people, particularly women and young people, to make decisions for themselves.”

    Schlachter described some of the potential options for incorporating reproductive health issues in future sustainable development goals, including creating a separate explicit reproductive health goal, incorporating reproductive health under an overall health goal, or integrating gender and reproductive health across a number of other goals. She urged advocates to make their case on these issues while the United States and others are still in the early phases about thinking about what comes next after the MDGs.

    Further, framing new development goals presents an “important opportunity” to educate experts in other sectors about population in general, she said. Since population will shape fields ranging from agriculture to education to water, it is crucial to begin emphasizing it now.

    “Global population in future years will be decided by the policies we adopt today,” Schlachter said. “It will matter a great deal whether we reach 9 billion in 2050 or if we reach 10 billion, and, of course, both options are still possible.”

    Population Challenges and Opportunities

    “Population issues are not over, but they are very, very different from what they were before,” said John May. He described the three different demographic categories: high fertility, transitioning fertility, and low fertility.

    High fertility countries, like Nigeria, have total fertility rates greater than four children per woman; 16 percent of the world lives in high fertility countries, he said, which are generally the least developed.

    Other countries, like Pakistan, are transitioning from high to low fertility. Their average fertility rates are between 2.1 and 4.0 children per woman; higher than replacement level, but lower than they once were.

    May noted that low fertility countries (less than 2.1 children per woman) are often overlooked, though they make up 46 percent of the world’s population, including the United States, China, Japan, and most of Europe. “These countries will face different problems,” he said, including aging and even depopulation for some. Some leaders of these countries do recognize the challenges that low fertility will bring. In his state of the nation address in December, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, said that “if the nation is not capable of preserving itself and reproducing, if it loses it vital bearings and ideals, then it doesn’t need foreign enemies – it will fall apart on its own.”

    May also cautioned that it is important to “acknowledge that there have been in the past abuses about family planning,” including coerced contraception or sterilization that took place around the world during the 1970s. But the conversation shifted after the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.

    “People were really concerned about human rights, about freedom of choice, etcetera. But also there was the realization that family planning was a necessary but not sufficient agent to bring change. I think it was kind of clear that family planning alone was not going to do the trick.”

    For the future, May pointed to inequality, poverty, urbanization, and migration as major challenges that future developmental goals will have to consider. And as the global population grows, each of these factors will become more challenging and more pressing. While the demographic dividend – the prospect of economic growth caused by a large proportion of a country’s population in the labor force – is an important opportunity, he noted that “you need sound economic policies to capture these demographic dividends, and the window of opportunity is limited in time.”

    Inequality, Youth, Ethnicity Common Barriers

    Kelly Castagnaro agreed that a focus on human rights has changed the international development agenda, and stressed that sexual and reproductive rights are “central” to this “broad and rights-based approach.”

    “We believe that when everyone has access to sexual and reproductive health, the right to bodily integrity, and control over all matters related to sexuality, sustainable development, health and gender equality will be achieved,” she said, speaking on behalf of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

    But, like May, Castagnaro said that “scandalous” income inequality in places like Latin America and the Caribbean makes access to sexual and reproductive health services difficult for the poorest women. Indigenous women in particular have less access to these critical services.

    Young people too can face barriers. Castagnaro described a 2006 law in Peru that criminalized sexual relations between adolescents; as a result, many young people were afraid to seek reproductive health services or prenatal care.

    Civil society organizations have an important role to play in delivering services and monitoring the government, she said. In the case of the Peruvian adolescent sex law, civil society organizations successfully challenged the law in the high constitutional court. But often these groups “are given neither the resources nor the authority to carry out this work and hold governments accountable to the international agreements they signed and affirmed.” Greater investments in these types of organizations are needed to allow them to continue to play a vital role in the future.

    Development of a New Paradigm

    Each of the panelists spoke of the need to educate policymakers about the opportunities presented by demography, and the consequences of ignoring reproductive health.

    “I like the concept of public demography…where you really try to convey key messages to policy leaders, and you really have to convey them in a simple way,” said May.

    “So much of what we heard today only happens if we engage in partnership and collaboration and dialogue,” said Suzanne Ehlers. “It’s hard work if you actually do it well and you really act on what you learn from each other.”

    Some of this type of collaboration has already begun. “Around the world, the changing climate and lack of access to family planning affect so many people, in so many ways, that no one group of stakeholders can solve the challenges on their own,” writes Cat Lazaroff of Resource Media in a blog post about the event. “To succeed in turning the tide and creating a healthier and more prosperous future for communities everywhere, we must build broader constituencies that cross traditional boundaries of politics, issue silos, and even world views.”

    Though Schlachter remarked on the eventual inclusion of gender and health in the Rio+20 document agreed to last spring, she said “it’s clear that we can do better, and we should.”

    Now that new development frameworks are being drafted, it is important to emphasize sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, Schlachter said, because “lack of access to sexual and reproductive health care is one of the greatest moral, human rights, and development challenges of our time, and our world’s largest health inequity.”

    “The next few years will see the end of a series of international commitments, and the development of a new paradigm for global development,” said Castagnaro. “This presents us with the un-paralleled opportunity to secure a world of justice, choice, and wellbeing for all people, which will ultimately lead to a sustainable and just planet.”

    Event Resources:

    • John May’s Presentation
    • Photo Gallery
    • Video

    Sources: International Planned Parenthood Federation, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Time, UN Population Division.

    Photo Credit: USAID.

    Topics: development, family planning, featured, From the Wilson Center, gender, global health, livelihoods, MDGs, population, poverty, UN, video, youth
    • http://www.facebook.com/steven.salmony Steven Earl Salmony

      How can Development Goals be sensibly set when people do not understand how the human species has become a clear and present danger to future human well being and environmental health? Top-rank scientists with appropriate expertise could begin to help increase awareness and understanding within the human family if only they would tell the whole truth, according to the lights and best available science you possess, about human population dynamics, unbridled global human population growth and the multitude of ruinous impacts derived directly from overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species on the climate as well as the integrity of Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the children…… and coming generation, if there are any.

      Why not talk straight, in an intellectually honest way, about the manmade, artificially designed, soon to become patently unsustainable Economic Colossus we call the global economy as well as its many recognizably destructive impacts on future human well being and environmental health?

      The Economist —– Authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion.
      https://www.economist.com/user/3324281/comments

      Steven Earl Salmony
      AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
      established 2001
      Chapel Hill, NC
      http://www.panearth.org/

      • Steven Earl Salmony

        Steven Earl SALMONY said: Dear hopeless,
        This is not a time to give up or give in. Likely your hopelessness is at least partially driven by the abject failure of so many self-proclaimed experts and other kno…wledgeable people to say out loud what they know to be true about the way the world we inhabit actually works as well as about the placement of human species within the natural order of living things. Not speaking out loudly, clearly and often regarding what is known to be true and real gives rise to the hopelessness so many feel and to the false idea that there is nothing we can do. Perhaps the silence of so many ‘plays the lead role’ when it comes to killing the world as we know it. Not speaking truth to the powerful is unethical, morally outrageous, intellectually dishonest and a preposterous failure of nerve. Never in the course of human events have human failings had such profound implications for the future of life on Earth.
        Steven Earl Salmony
        AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
        established 2001
        Chapel Hill, NC
        PS: I do not have to win or even believe I will win the human-induced struggle that is presented to all of us in order to speak openly, honestly and hopefully “the whole truth” about what could be real.
        Hopeless > stevenearlsalmony • 4 days ago
        What an eloquent description of the situation. The subject is taboo across all disciplines. No environmental orgs will touch it — even Zero Population Growth has disappeared. Talk about ignoring the gigantic elephant in the living room. What a bizarre species we are…and one that has limited time on the planet. Sadly we are taking many, many other species with us.
        stevenearlsalmony • 12 days ago
        What is true, real and somehow right can never be trivial. And yet ‘the brightest and best’ ignore, avoid and willfully refuse to examine, discuss and report on all as well as, perhaps, the best scientific research on the subject of human population dynamics. Knowledge of the population dynamics of the human species remains off limits, a taboo even among those in the newly established ‘Scientific Consensus on…Humanity…’, the relatively ‘ancient’ Royal Society, the modern American Academy for the Advancement of Science, other national academies of science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, demographers and economists everywhere. When and where are the self-proclaimed experts in population biology, other sciences and relevant disciplines going to openly acknowledge the uncontested scientific evidence of human population dynamics that appears to disclose simply and elegantly how human population dynamics is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species; how human population numbers appear as a function of an available food supply? How more food equals more people; less food equals less people; and no food, no people.
        Are the overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities of many too many people not the primary problem confronting humankind in our time? Scientists have been seeing what is happening during the past 70 years as human population numbers skyrocketed worldwide. Scientists have been regularly reporting this widely shared and consensually validated scientific knowledge. But that is not the end of the story. There is at least one other question to ask that calls out to us for an answer, a question that any reasonable and sensible person would ask, I suppose. And that question is, “Why is the human population on Earth exploding? Why?” The question is straightforward. Where are the scientists with knowledge concerning why the global human population is skyrocketing on our watch? They are electively mute.Their conscious and deliberate collusion makes it possible for silence to prevail over science. This cannot be construed as correct behavior, especially by top-rank scientists. In diametrical opposition to the evolution of science extant, uncontested research related to the question of ‘why’ has been ubiquitously avoided or denied by many too many of the very experts on human population matters who are in agreement about ‘what is happening’ regarding the unbridled colossal growth of the human population on Earth. If science of ‘why global human population numbers are exploding’ is willfully ignored, how is the human community ever to respond ably to emergent and convergent human-induced threats to future human well being and environmental health? How can we speak about the necessity for advances in science, for fidelity to scientific facts and truth, for the individual and collective will to go wheresoever the evidence leads while first class scientists with appropriate expertise deny scientific evidence of human population dynamics/overpopulation? For self-proclaimed experts to refuse to examine and share findings of scientific research regarding ‘why the human population is exploding’ has got to be overcome, fast. Such a breach of one’s duty to science & humanity is a personal and collective betrayal of both.
        stevenearlsalmony • 12 days ago
        http://planet3.org/2013/05/30/…
        Hope on Earth: A Conversation | MAHB
        mahb.stanford.edu
        Steven Earl Salmony A comment from a remarkably astute observer and friend…. Just to jump in to the discussion: Every so often this group hits the target. This amounts to an eloquent prologue for a undescribed action that should follow. But closer to a bulls eye would be something like a revolution.
        But now we hit a wall, a singularity moment, where we know something big and important has to happen, will happen — we don’t know or agree just what, or perhaps we know, but are afraid to describe the ruthless immensity of the purpose driven change needed. The horror is – we know huge changes loom — generally predictable but not specifics of time or event. We can influence so little. But we are unable to call for changes to mitigate the looming decimation.
        Our impact will be minute – we might mitigate global warming so slightly as to permit a select sample of multigenerational humanity to survive. Otherwise we are condemned to silently witnessing our demise – and by our silence, hastening it somewhat.
        I am struck by the descriptions of various revolutions – where historians note that no one caught up in them knows they are revolutions, nor knows what that means, or what must come next. They know only that change must come, and so pushed forward with a different way of doing things. Perhaps called revolutions by their success, otherwise they would be a failed loss. Now comes the great test of our civilization, whether it can change sufficiently to allow human survival. I don’t think pure wealth will suffice. Nor ruthless power. Although wealth and power will positively bias short term survival for some – unless it is so organized and refocused – it means little for the survival of the human species.
        Our planet is locked in to warming of 3° to 10° C no matter what we do about it. And the higher heating would assure violent extinction. The lower end merely great suffering and loss. We appear to be making choices that increase danger. It is a poor response to argue about the scientific validity of the projections. As if to see a house on fire, with far more fuel inside, instead of applying water, we try to exclaim and explain that it is not really aflame. Our house is next, and within, we don’t have enough denial left for facing that.
        We have describe it well, we are fully engaged in losing the first great battle – the battle of perception. Since the 1980s – where media consolidation completely dominated and controlled messages we receive – we have lost the battle for truth or even open minded perception. But our defeat has been painless, accompanied by growing affluence, we have been surviving against a real enemy that contains and controls our mass communication. Carbon commerce has built its own media empires, and now completely dominates.
        So now we are left to observe or witness – that our friendly media enemy has been promoting so much commerce that the real harms of overpopulation and climate change are side effects, collateral damage. Now the only hope is that mass media simply surrenders to the reality of the situation – and now must change completely to promote survival messages. All mass media turn around… like it did in WW2. Nothing will change until overwhelming message-making compels it. We can see the need, we can demand it, but until all mass media compels and promote fundamental changes, until then we are losing the battle to slow down our demise.
        It just does not seem very likely. Indeed it may be a losing battle. In which case all we can do is witness. “There are now more 22 year olds in America, than any other age.” They must decide to radically change in ways that amount to revolutions. All we can do is exhort behavior that encourages survival.
        Future, historians deciding our tumult was a revolution, means purposeful change would have succeeded. Whereas, extinction will be unrecognized, undescribed from within.
        Interesting times.
        Richard Pauli
        http://climatemanifesto.com/
        Climate Manifesto climatemanifesto.com
        climate manifesto political action for the future

    • stevenearlsalmony

      Too many bodies? The return and disavowal of the population question

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2012.730268#tabModule

      Abstract
      During the 1960s and early 1970s population growth was regarded as an urgent environmental issue. Since then the topic has fallen into abeyance. Despite continuing demographic expansion and anxieties about a range of socio-ecological problems – from the stresses of high-density urban living to climate change, water, energy and food insecurity and loss of biodiversity – there is currently scant consideration of the benefits of population stabilisation or decline. Indeed, the problematisation of population numbers is widely disavowed or regarded with profound suspicion. Why have we become so reluctant to ask whether we are too many or to countenance policies that might discourage further growth? I identify five discourses – population-shaming, population-scepticism, population-declinism, population-decomposing and population-fatalism – that foreclose public debate and subject them to critical analysis. I end by eliciting signs of a hesitant revival of the population question alongside the enduring potency of silencing discourses.

      Main article
      In 1950 world population had recently exceeded 2.5 billion. By 1990 it had doubled and by 2020 it will have tripled. October 2011 marked one among numerous demographic milestones on this expansive journey as the 7 billion threshold was crossed. This is in line with conclusions to the United Nations’ 2010 revision that ‘world population is expected to keep rising during the 21st century’, albeit more slowly during the latter part. It projects some 9.3 billion of us by 2050 and over 10 billion by the century’s end (United Nations 2010). Such an ongoing increase surely conveys an alarming story to anyone concerned about environmental sustainability and social wellbeing. Or does it? I ask why concerns about population growth and over-population have virtually disappeared from the political agenda of developed countries, especially, since the mid-1970s. Have they simply forgotten about, even resolved, the issue? Or is it rather, as my analysis suggests, that problematising it has been foreclosed? For despite periodic eruptions of concern among democratic publics, members of the policy community have been noticeably reluctant to address these anxieties. Even among critical theorists and Greens, scant attention has been paid to the topic over recent decades. Indeed, it is noticeable that insofar as population numbers are mooted as a contributor to socio-ecological problems – from environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity to food and water insecurity or deteriorating wellbeing – pre-emptive dismissals swiftly follow.
      The analysis that follows identifies five categories of silencing discourse: population-shaming; population-scepticism; population-declinism; population-decomposing and population-fatalism. These are analytic distinctions. In practice the discourses overlap or work in conjunction, the most obvious factor they share being antipathy to the Malthusian equation between population growth and resource shortages. But these are not merely analytic categories; they are also profoundly political. Each has a distinctive genealogy in terms of its ideological and professional investments, the political interests it serves and the narratives in which it is embedded……..

    • stevenearlsalmony

      Notice the consciously ignored and deliberately unexamined ecological science of human population dynamics/overpopulation. In this instance science and humanity are failed by the very scientists who are thought to be faithfully dedicated to going wherever the evidence leads them, to discovering the way the world we inhabit actually works as well as the most accurate ‘placement’ of the human species within the natural order of living things, and to reporting objectively what is found to be results of inquiry. Recognize that virtually all scientific manuscripts are reviewed by two knowledgeable scientists with appropriate expertise who are expected to judge the validity of the research and report their findings. Not uncommon are the perfidious occasions when intellectual dishonesty and lack of moral courage lead referees and journal editors consciously to reject apparently unforeseen and unfortunately unwelcome research…evidence that is on the one hand irrefutable and on the other hand unbelievable. Understand the profound implications of this failure of scientists and other self-proclaimed experts to accept responsibilities to science and to perform duties in behalf of humankind and life as we know it. The body of scientific knowledge is not built up, scientists in other fields of inquiry are denied the breakthrough, and the human community is not allowed to see what could somehow be true and given the opportunity to act accordingly. New science is willfully denied. How can the human species be expected to adapt efficiently and effectively to the world in which we live when the reality of it is not seen?
      http://www.panearth.org/

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: "Feminism materializes through investment in human capital and caregiving sectors of the economy...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: People who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy are often the ones who benefit from it. So please, say...
  • Water desalination pipes A Tale of Two Coastlines: Desalination in China and California
    Dr S Sundaramoorthy: It is all fine as theory. What about the energy cost? Arabian Gulf has the money from its own oil....

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000