Showing posts from category family planning.
-
VIDEO: José G. Rimon on Key Trends in Funding Family Planning
›October 29, 2009 // By Wilson Center Staff“The downward trend, in terms of donor funding for international family planning, since the middle of the 1990s to around 2006 has been reversed,” José Rimon II, senior program officer for global health policy and advocacy at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, told ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko following a discussion on the future of family planning at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
“There is a lot of scientific evidence that if we don’t revitalize the family planning/ reproductive health agenda, it will be very difficult to achieve the health Millennium Development Goals, especially in the area of reducing maternal mortality,” said Rimon. “Just by addressing the unmet need [for contraceptives] and the unintended pregnancies which result from it, you can reduce maternal mortality by 31 percent.”
Rimon said the Gates Foundation is working closely with donors and partner organizations to exchange information on strategy and funding priorities, which, he says, is “not happening in other issues, but it’s happening in the family planning and reproductive field.” -
If It Bleeds It Leads: Pop-Climate Hits the Blogosphere
›Population and climate change get short shrift in the media—that is, until Rush Limbaugh urges you to commit suicide. It’s a disturbing sign that this extremely complex topic only gets play when the knives come out. And as this summer’s health care circus demonstrates, the blogosphere is often more interested in covering the shouting than the issues at hand.
So what happened? At the Wilson Center last week, the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin (via Skype) mentioned a thought experiment he had put forward in a recent post on his blog: “Should you get credit — if we’re going to become carbon-centric — for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
Limbaugh, picking up on a post on CNS.com, a conservative online news outlet, said Revkin and “militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys.” The furor was reported by a number of news blogs, including NYT’s Paul Krugman, the Guardian, and Politico.
An earlier and more substantial account by Miller-McCune’s Emily Badger deftly hits the highlights, including some historical context from The Nation’s Emily Douglas. While earlier projections assumed population growth would decline following the dissemination of birth control in the West, “that assumption turned out to be false,” said Douglas, because women in developing countries have not received similar access to contraceptives.
Indeed, as Worldwatch Institute’s blog post on the event points out, “an estimated 200 million women who want to avoid pregnancy are risking it anyway because they have inadequate access to contraception and related reproductive health services.”
I’m disheartened that this kerfluffle follows a recent uptick in thoughtful coverage of the population-climate connection. At a standing-room-only panel (audio) on covering population and environment at the most recent SEJ conference, Baltimore Sun reporter Tim Wheeler (video) said that population “has those challenges of so, what do you do about it, how do you deal with it.” But he said it was reporters’ “constant challenge to continue to wrestle with these issues.”
Moving the wrestling match into the center ring is bringing a new focus to the debate, which could be useful, as Suzanne Petroni writes in the ECSP Report: “A careful discussion of the ways in which voluntary family planning can further individual rights, community development, and, to some extent, climate change mitigation, could increase awareness not only of the outsized contribution of developed nations to global emissions, but also of their appropriate role in the global community.”
As Revkin says at the end of his response to Limbaugh: “And of course there’s the reality that explosive population growth in certain places, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, could be blunted without a single draconian measure, many experts say, simply by providing access to family planning for millions of women who already want it, but can’t get it – whether or not someone gets a carbon credit in the process.”
Family planning advocates—who have long been wary of linking contraception to climate mitigation—would mostly agree with that statement, although they would phrase it a little differently. Better reproductive health care is “an end in itself,” with climate mitigation being the “side effect,” rather than the primary goal, Barbara Crossette writes in The Nation.
Population experts cautiously agree there is a link, but warn that quantifying it is not so simple. At a major conference of demographers in Marrakesh, researchers previewed forthcoming research described the potential for emissions “savings” brought by decreases in fertility.
In the near term, it doesn’t look likely that all this attention will lead to policy action at Copenhagen. Population Action International reports that while almost all of the least developed countries’ adaptation plans mention population as a factor which increases their vulnerability to climate change, only a few state that investing in family planning should part of their strategy.
I encourage you to watch the webcast of the event and add your own (thoughtful) comments to the dialogue below. No suicide threats, please. -
Population’s Links to Climate Change
›“Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It?”—webcast live from the Wilson Center—will analyze the challenges facing science and environmental reporters as they prepare to cover what New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin calls “the story of our time.” Cosponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists and the International Reporting Project, the panel—including Dennis Dimick of National Geographic and the Nation’s Emily Douglas—will discuss the significant barriers to nuanced reporting, including stovepiped beats, the shrinking news hole, and old-fashioned squeamishness.
However, in the past month, there’s been a veritable baby boom of news coverage on climate change and population. Spurred by three high-profile reports—the study commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, research in the Bulletin of the WHO, and an editorial in the Lancet—the mainstream media and some key bloggers finally got some condoms in their climate change.
It’s gratifying to finally see this issue pop up in the media, almost a year to the day after the 2008 SEJ conference panel on population and climate change moderated by Constance Holden of Science that attracted a respectable (but not remarkable) audience of 40. The panelists decried the media’s relative silence on the impact of population growth and other demographic dynamics on environmental issues.
NPR’s Steve Curwood pointed out that while it’s “something we don’t talk about at all in America,” U.S. population growth increases emissions faster than developing-country population growth, due to our larger per capita consumption. A lone AP article, “Population growth contributes to emissions growth,” reported on the discussion.
In contrast, a population-climate panel at last week’s SEJ conference drew an overflow crowd of more than 100 people. Former SEJ President Tim Wheeler read off recent headlines demonstrating that the media does mention population. However, he noted that “most of the instances I cited are op-ed opinion pieces, not news coverage or feature stories.” In recent climate coverage, he said, “population gets mentioned as an undercurrent and afterthought; our attention intends to be on the immediate. And it has those challenges of so, what do you do about it, how do you deal with it.” But it is “our constant challenge to continue to wrestle with these issues.”
Here’s a short list of recent coverage:
Associated Press: “Birth control could help combat climate change”
Reuters: “Contraception vital in climate change fight -expert”
Bloomberg: “African Condom Shortage Said to Worsen Climate Impact”
Matt Yglesias: “Population and Climate Change”
The Nation: “Factoring People Into Climate Change”
Inter Press Service: “POPULATION: Where’s Family Planning on Climate Change Radar? Zofeen Ebrahim interviews noted social demographer KAREN HARDEE”
The New Republic’s The Vine: “Abortion: The Third Rail of Climate Policy?”
Treehugger.com: Contraception Five Times Less Expensive Than Low-Carbon Technology in Combating Climate Change
Washington Post: “When It Comes to Pollution, Less (Kids) May Be More”
Inter Press Service: “CLIMATE CHANGE: Rising Seas Demand Better Family Planning”
LA Times Booster Shots blog: “Can condoms combat climate change?”
-
Missives From Marrakech: Growing and Slowing, and a Letter From the King
›October 5, 2009 // By Gib Clarke
Here in Morocco, where I am attending the IUSSP conference on population, if you never went to elementary school or if you married at a young age, you are likely to have more children.
A Bangladeshi couple is more likely to have a third child if they have 0-1 sons, but a European couple is increasingly likely to prefer daughters because they take better care of their aging parents.
Globally, a forthcoming Harvard study shows that the “Reproductive Health Laws Index”—which includes the legal framework governing abortion, condoms, IUDs, and birth control pills—can predict fertility (more liberal laws = fewer children) and potentially increase female participation in the labor force.
Such causes of population growth are favorite topics for demographers and family planning experts here at the conference, and were quite well attended. However, perhaps due to the large number of European attendees, the panels on this popular topic were empty in comparison to those examining aging, fertility decline, and migration—issues at the forefront of European policymakers’ agendas.
A Message From His Majesty
“One of the characteristic features of our population policy stems from our firm belief that [its] impact … cannot be determined in isolation from economic, social, cultural and political factors,” wrote Morocco’s King Mohammed VI in a welcome letter delivered to the conference, which also discussed aging, climate change, food security,natural resource scarcity, the economic crisis, and growing levels of income inequality.
Morocco is taking steps to tackle this complicated set of problems. The government has launched a National Initiative for Human Development to fight poverty and social inequalities, and help Morocco meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). He also notes that the country’s “political and social reforms aimed at increasing the scope of democratic participation and ensuring the advancement of women.”
Like all leaders, Morocco’s will be measured not by his words—eloquent as these may be—but by his deeds and the country’s progress. Morocco has some work to do to reach the MDGs and other social and economic goals. -
VIDEO: Nicholas Kristof On Comprehensive Approaches to Family Planning
›October 2, 2009 // By Wilson Center Staff“Poor countries can’t begin to deal with food issues, with economic pressures, with conflict and shortages of water and grassland that may lead to social conflict, unless they begin to deal with population problems,” journalist Nicholas Kristof tells ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko in a video interview.
But “the single most effective contraceptive isn’t any kind of device,” Kristof says, “it’s girl’s education. And that has the most extraordinary impact on birthrates.” Unfortunately, this approach to family planning has “been neglected in the last 20 years.”
Empowering women and girls may be our best strategy for fighting poverty, claim Kristof and WuDunn in their new book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, which was launched at the Wilson Center.
Half the Sky tells the transformational stories of women and girls who are the “face of statistics” on four appalling realities: maternal mortality, sexual violence, and lack of education and economic opportunities. -
Missives From Marrakech: Enter the Environment
›October 2, 2009 // By Gib Clarke
“Contraception is the cheapest way to combat climate change,” read the headline of The Telegraph in mid-September, announcing the release of “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,”a study from the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) and the London School of Economics (LSE). Similar stories appeared in newspapers around the world.
Though there has been near-universal agreement that the OPT-LSE paper oversimplifies the link between demography and climate change, the buzz among the family planning and environment communities has continued during the IUSSP conference in Marrakech. Perhaps this is because demographers are not used to appearing in the press except when discussing census results. More likely it is the timing of the report, with the Copenhagen conference on climate change coming in December.The buzz hit a peak on Thursday at the IUSSP, with a plenary presentation examining the links. Wolfgang Lutz jumped right in, noting that it’s not as simple as the OPT-LSE study makes it. Population growth is important, but size is not the only thing that matters; other aspects such as age distribution, household structures, and levels of urbanization come into play as well.
In addition, between population size and climate change lie a number of intermediary factors, such as consumption levels, technology improvements, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Lutz argued that demography has a unique contribution to make to the climate discussion, for no other discipline understands the composition of different populations in different places both now and in the future. Therefore, demographers should explain how different groups will contribute to climate change, and how they will suffer the consequences, so that adaptive capacities can be strengthened and social programs can fill the gaps.
Leiwen Jiang described research conducted by some of the giants in climate and demography: National Center for Atmospheric Research, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, and Population Action International. Their work uses a “PET” model – Population, Environment, and Technology – which looks at how the PET elements impact four critical predictors of GHG emissions: consumption, energy use, labor, and savings. A forthcoming paper by this group will delineate the complete findings, including the potential for GHG “savings” brought by decreases in fertility and thus reduced population growth, as well as the added GHG due to future urbanization.
Susana Adamo took a step back to show the audience the view from 30,000 feet – literally, with maps demonstrating that population density is highest in areas most vulnerable to impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rises, droughts, floods, and other severe weather events.
Unfortunately, one of the stars of this research, Brian O’Neill, was unable to attend, due to health reasons. His research, to be published soon, is highly anticipated, and should add additional quantitative fuel to the fire.
Not Just Climate
Environmental links with population and demographic factors have also factored in other parts of this “demography” conference. A host of sessions, many organized by the Population-Environment Research Network, have explored linkages between population growth, migration, and urbanization on the demographic side; and deforestation, natural resource management, and environmental degradation on the environmental side. Questions concerning these and other environmental factors have surfaced at panels exclusively dedicated to other topics such as family planning. Some sessions examined how population and environment concerns can be jointly addressed.
It is encouraging to see demographers and reproductive health specialists taking climate and environmental factors so seriously. The response from the environmental community has been mixed, with some interest in population issues, but also some opposition from the climate community to including discussions of family planning in an already controversial topic. At a similarly large gathering of environmentalists and conservationists, the 2008 IUCN conference in Barcelona, only two sessions addressed health or population. So we have a long way to go progress to unite these communities of researchers and practitioners, and come together in a truly fruitful engagement.
Photo courtesy World Bank Photo Collection. -
Missives From Marrakech: 50 Years of Counting. And Counting.
›September 29, 2009 // By Gib Clarke
Demographers often get a bad rap for being boring. There’s a saying that demography is all about sex—but the details aren’t as much fun. To find out, I’m in Marrakech, Morocco, reporting on the biennial gathering of number crunchers, the 26th conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP). After the first day, I have only 4 days, 86 panels, 327 presentations, 5,340 PowerPoint slides, and 426 poster presentations left to go.
To most of you, this may not seem exciting. But it is terrifically important. For example, at a panel on maternal health, the presenters offered easier, more accurate, and less expensive ways to collect maternal mortality data, which led to a discussion of strategies for meeting MDG 5 and for improving maternal and infant health throughout the world. Similar panels addressed the challenges facing scientists and programmers working on issues as disparate as water, migration, and the effect of armed conflict on children.
For its 50th Anniversary, IUSSP also indulged in a bit of navel-gazing. Wolfgang Lutz called for more research on predictions and more policy recommendations—what he dubbed the “Demographers’ Transition” (an inside joke, to be sure). Ndola Prata’s “Opportunity Model” (developed jointly with Malcolm Potts and Martha Campbell), argues that use of contraceptives may increase simply if they are more available. Borrowing from marketing theory and such examples as remote controls and Post-It notes, the model generated quite an uproar. A UNFPA-hosted plenary on “After Cairo” closed the day with a strategic discussion about future population, family planning, reproductive health, and development strategies.
A Visit to the Hospital
At the Ibn Zohr Hospital’s crisis center in Marrakech, victims of sexual, physical, and psychological violence are treated and counseled free of charge. Though only founded in 2006, the clinic has defied expectations by helping hundreds of women and children each year, thanks in large part to an effective referral network comprising NGOs, media (especially radio), the police, hospitals, and health professionals. “Listening centers,” local outposts offering basic education on health and rights, are responsible for 56 percent of all referrals.
Ibn Zohr’s services are funded by the Moroccan government and UNFPA. Data has been collected since service delivery began, and shows that the overwhelming type of abuse suffered by women is physical (86 percent), while children under 15 report a mix of sexual (40 percent) and physical (43 percent) abuse, with more sexual abuse occurring among boys than girls.
Other IUSSP site visits included a rural reproductive health clinic, a center for abandoned children, and a house for female students. Too often, site visits are far away from the conference and before or after the main events, costing attendees extra time and money. Instead, the IUSSP site visits are here in Marrakech, where even the most experienced practitioners can learn more about Morocco’s unique blend of modernization and religious and cultural conservatism. These trips are truly unique and invaluable learning opportunities—organizers of similar conferences take note.
Gib Clarke reported from Marrakech, Morocco.
Photo courtesy flickr user DavidDennisPhotos. -
Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation Bert Koenders on the Future of Family Planning
›September 22, 2009 // By Gib Clarke“I think everybody…will agree that family planning is one of the biggest success stories of development cooperation. I also consider the paradigm shift in this field from top-down family planning (FP) to programs of reproductive health (RH) and rights for couples and individuals adopted in Cairo in 1994 to be a success story,” said Bert Koenders, the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, in a statement prepared for a roundtable discussion at the Wilson Center on future strategies in FP and RH.
Looking beyond the successes of the past, Koenders identifies a series of opportunities and challenges facing the RH community. He cites as the first opportunity the potential to “join forces” with the United States to meet Millennium Development Goal #5 (which focuses on maternal, sexual, and reproductive health, and family planning). He calls MDG 5 “the mother of all MDGs” and says that if it is not met, “then the other MDGs will not be attained either. It is smart economics to invest in MDG 5.” Other opportunities include public-private partnerships and the “growing awareness” in developed and developing countries alike.
The challenges, however, are significant. Youth, he notes, account for half of the world’s population and face barriers in access to reproductive health information and commodities. To overcome these barriers, we must first identify what adolescents and unmarried women and couples need, and recognize their rights to the same quality services as older and married women and couples. Koenders also says there is a growing opposition in many parts of the world to sexual and reproductive health and rights, and that programs must address this in order to be successful.
The roundtable discussion, to be held on September 22 at the Wilson Center, features Musimbi Kanyoro of the Packard Foundation, José “Oying” Rimon of the Gates Foundation, and Scott Radloff of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
