Population Action Blog

Chinese Foreign Aid: Can It Help the World's Women?

2008-08-14T20:52:04Z

All eyes turn to China this week, as it hosts the summer Olympics, but many look with deep suspicion. Many in the West - including the media, policymakers, and the general population - don't know how to approach such a massive country with an unfamiliar and non-democratic government, and economic growth that is unique in its scale, pace, and approach. Its economic success has drawn criticism (some fair, and some less so), and the press has attributed China's ascendance as a contributor to a number of current crises. The rise in food prices is often pinned on increased consumption by China and neighboring India, and high gas prices have been blamed on China's increased demand for energy which is in turn blamed for carbon emissions that cause climate change. ]]> An unrelentingly negative approach to China's policies and economic expansion is unhelpful, and sometimes hypocritical. It also risks alienating this important ally, as well as other emerging nations. Fareed Zakaria blogged on this "China Bashing" for the Washington Post, saying:

We have not pursued a foreign policy toward the world's newly rising powers that aims to create new and enduring relations with them, integrate them into existing structures of power and lay out new rules of the road to secure peace and prosperity. If the emerging countries grow strong outside the existing order, they will freelance and be unwilling to help build better structures for the future.

This missed opportunity also holds true for integrating rising powers (not just China, but India, Brazil, and many others) into the international donor community and working with them to help lift other countries out of poverty. Given the ongoing and increasing need for effectively deployed aid (particularly aid that benefits women and girls), it is critical for the donor community to engage China, including them and other emerging donors in lessons learned and policy making, as well as learning from China's experience. China is generous in its giving to developing countries, particularly African nations. While this is not new - China has been engaging in South-South collaboration with many Asian and African countries for decades - it has increased aid (alongside foreign investment), and in 2006 pledged over five billion dollars to African countries, in the form of loans, grants, debt relief, and professional training. China's contribution to women could come through the health sector. China has a long history of deploying medical teams to other developing countries, and supporting health infrastructure development, often through building hospitals. China also has its own remarkable history of improving maternal and child health, and reducing maternal mortality, and has made great strides in increasing access to education, particularly for girls, and promoting women's equality.

The new PAI research commentary, "New" Donors: A New Resource for Family Planning and Reproductive Health Financing?, explores the world of new donors, including China, how they can be engaged, and the possibility for them to supplement the inadequate funding now available for programs that support the empowerment, health, and very survival of women. Approaching these emerging donors does not mean overlooking major problems: there is truth to charges of China propping up bad governments through its aid, and to charges of internal human rights abuses, not to mention the violation of reproductive rights that is the one-child policy. Further, even though China's historic and per capita emissions pale in comparison to those of the US and European countries, its current emissions are helping to propel the world towards catastrophic climate change. However, these problems won't disappear without meaningful engagement with China. It is critical to harness the power of emerging donors to create a safer, healthier, and more unified world, after the torch goes out in Beijing, 2008.

Weighing the Evidence: Prioritizing Prevention in the Fight Ahead

2008-08-08T14:08:35Z

Does HIV/AIDS still require an exceptional response? That question framed the interactive discussion hosted by the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention at the International AIDS Conference.

Mitchell Warren (AVAC) launched the dialogue by quoting Richard Horton (The Lancet): "In 2031 will there still be UNAIDS? Will we still need UNAIDS? What would you do as the new Executive Director of UNAIDS?"

]]> Helene Gayle (CARE USA) reminded us that in 1995 the world was in emergency mode about HIV, but now we need a different approach. "What we need today is to look at HIV prevention as a marathon as opposed to a sprint."

"If I were Executive Director of UNAIDS... I wouldn't last very long," laughed Peter Figueroa (Jamaica's Ministry of Health). "... [M]uch more needs to be done... Prevention is not just a science, but an art." We must figure out how to bridge the gap between what people think is "morally right" and condoning evidence that they think is "morally wrong" - such as needle exchange or providing condoms to men in jail.

"What is wrong with the [HIV] response in the present moment?" Nonkosi Khumalo (Treatment Action Campaign) asked. She emphasized that the world must respond to the different needs of different places. "One size does not fit all." She then provoked her colleagues: "PEPFAR money is not responsive to women - who carry the brunt of HIV."

Vuyiseka Dubula (Treatment Action Campaign) added, "We must prioritize investments for women, especially evidence-based prevention. We will not have an HIV-free generation if we encourage things that don't work."

"If ever there was an idea that's not evidence-based, it's that better evidence leads to better policy," said Elizabeth Pisani, author of The Wisdom of Whores (see Jennifer Johnson's August 6th article). She prompted the audience to address ways to overcome the political barriers to using evidence.

Looking forward, the panelists hoped that women will take the lead, HIV will be treated as a development issue, and we will focus on prevention efforts where they are needed and effective.

This article originally appeared in Issue Thirteen of the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention newsletter and was published online by RH Reality Check.

Linking the Twin Pandemics: HIV and Gender-Based Violence

2008-08-06T17:28:33Z

In the session "Women's Rights Equals Women's Lives," at the International AIDS Conference, advocates and researchers came together to discuss the twin pandemics of gender-based violence (GBV) and HIV. Researchers Charlotte Watts from the London School of Hygiene and Claudia Garcia-Marcos of the World Health Organization, noted that while the body of evidence on direct biologic linkages between HIV and GBV is limited, the evidence we do have demonstrates an extremely strong correlation between the two. Not only does the evidence tell us that women who experience gender-based violence are more likely to be at risk for transmission of HIV, but we also know that many of the risk factors for gender based violence are the same as those for HIV -- including gender inequities, poverty, lack of financial independence and lack of education.

While the risk of HIV from gender-based violence is often limited to a discussion of the risk of rape as a transmission factor, Watts stressed that there are many forms of gender based violence beyond rape, including perpetration by an intimate partner (spouse, boyfriend, etc.) rather than a stranger.

]]> Other panelists discussed the implications for GBV among specific populations, namely sex workers, people living with HIV/AIDS and men and boys. For sex workers, violence, not only from partners, but also perpetrated by the state, is a particular issue in HIV prevention, treatment and care. Policies that promote brothel raids and detention of sex workers contribute to violence and can cause sex workers to lose their homes, interrupt their ARV regimens and shatter any security they might have.

Panelists agreed that interventions to fight these two pandemics must be complex and long-term. Policymakers must remove laws that criminalize sex work or same-sex relationships and must work to change gender perceptions and increase accountability for the perpetration of violence. Part of this change in perceptions can be brought about through comprehensive sexuality education. Importantly, these interventions should not be limited to the HIV arena but should involve domestic violence, women's rights and other advocates.

This article originally appeared in Issue Eleven of the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention newsletter and was published online by RH Reality Check.

What Are the Sacred Cows of HIV Prevention?

2008-08-06T16:40:07Z

"We need to be clear that this is the best researched disease in history. We know what to do to prevent HIV infection, but we're not drawing a straight line between what we know and what we do," stated Elizabeth Pisani, author of The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS.

This session, sponsored by the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention, was a frank discussion among advocates, framed around Pisani's idea of the "sacred cows of HIV" (an analogy taken from drivers in India swerving to avoid cows in the road). What are the "sacred cows" standing in the way of progress in the fight against AIDS?

]]> Religious groups that advocate for policy based in ideology rather than evidence may be one. Or the AIDS industry itself, which has framed AIDS as "everybody's problem" in order to draw attention and funding, rather than focusing attention on the groups most at risk. The history of HIV/AIDS activism may be to blame, creating anti-testing and pro-treatment biases rather than a focus on prevention. There is also the assumption that people will make rational decisions about their health (e.g., using condoms and clean needles), when the evidence is that people are not rational aboutsex and drugs.

The group also discussed the need to strengthen health systems in general. Are poverty reduction, food security and women's empowerment issues also AIDS issues or should they be kept separate? As Pisani stated, "Why do we need HIV to fight against sexual violence?" Some liked the idea of using HIV as a catalyst for ensuring these basic human rights, but others thought the fundamentals of HIV prevention should be the focus.

This discussion is only one of many that are necessary to topple our "sacred cows" and promote HIV prevention based in scientific evidence.

This article originally appeared in Issue Eleven of the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention newsletter and was published online by RH Reality Check.

Selling Foreign Aid to an American Public of Pragmatic Realists

2008-08-04T17:23:58Z

Chris Henderson is PAI's summer 2008 Development Intern.

Attending Craig Lasher's presentation on modernizing U.S. Foreign Aid was yet another thought provoking PAI brown bag, adding to the cornucopia of great opportunities us interns have experienced during our short duration here. I want to revisit a topic that undermines the efforts Craig spoke of about modernizing foreign assistance, that Carlos Indacochea, a recent addition to PAI's research department, so eloquently brought to our attention. One of how to convince the American populous that foreign assistance should regain comprehensive support among both policy makers and those who elect them.

]]> Using the word sell hesitantly, risks commoditizing a foreign aid program that, as Craig put it "is out of date and fractured." But to a society that thrives off a consumer mentality, wrapped in a capitalistic dome with a pretentious glare, words like sell may work in favor of our cause. Both Carlos and Suzanna Dennis, a research associate with PAI, were on to something that uniquely defines American culture, juggling between an individualistic and communal lifestyle; foreign aid will not get the backing it needs merely because we are "doing good." It needs to deliver not only tangible results, but ones that benefit us. True altruism at its best. And what better results to show our public then ones rooted in National Security.

The discourse and evidence reporting on the links that Foreign Assistance programs focusing on poverty reduction, disease prevention and human rights have between National Security should not be an abstract one. This in fact embodies the work PAI has been conducting for over a decade and is gaining recent coverage by Presidential appointees and objective scholars alike. In a recent article about defense strategies in The Washington Post, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted, "The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development." If a Bush defense czar is succumbing to the importance of Foreign Aid, we are heading in a good direction. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, in his new book Common Wealth, after concluding how much more prone poor countries are to violence espoused that "we need to use development assistance to promote global stability." Craig mentioned today's foreign assistance program is a remnant of the Cold War, a successor to post-WWII programs like the Marshall Plan. But when General Marshall spoke at the time of U.S. efforts to rebuild Europe and Japan, he demanded that "the U.S. should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace."

Maybe it is acceptable to use our U.S. security objectives as a means to promote foreign aid, as long as we do the homework required to convince the public of this link. Granted, a link of indirect causality is but by no means a stretch. It remains unfortunate however that being simply humanitarian is no longer good enough. When a football coach asks the offensive lineman to put on 50 lbs in the off season he doesn't mention that it will benefit the quarterback, or the whole team for that matter, but instead how much fun he will have eating indiscriminately. Maybe an analogy of poor comparison, but one that still triggers human rationality, the same mode of thought that demands ulterior justification for selfless acts such as foreign aid.

PEPFAR's Unconscionable Conscience Clause

2008-08-04T17:14:35Z

Within the next few weeks, the President will sign the Tom Lantos and Henry J Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 into law. This reauthorization will extend the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for another five years and provide unprecedented levels of funding to fight the global AIDS pandemic.

Unfortunately, the passage of the Reauthorization Act is bittersweet as it not only fails to address the ideological policies of the 2003 Global AIDS Leadership Act, but in many cases has even expanded their impact. One of these ideological policies is the so-called "conscience clause," which allows organizations who have a moral or religious objection to opt-out of providing services to which they may object. In the 2003 Act, the clause was limited to objections over HIV prevention or treatment programs, thereby allowing faith-based and other organizations to promote the A(abstinence) and B (be-faithful) of ABC, without fear of retribution or loss of funds for not providing the comprehensive information needed to prevent sexual transmission of HIV.

]]> The 2008 bill expands this provision to include "care" as an activity that an organization may refuse to provide based on a moral or religious objection. This will allow organizations who receive U.S. funds to deny services to those whose behavior, identity, religion, or other attributes may be deemed objectionable. In essence, it codifies discrimination and in U.S. law and perpetuates stigma against people living with HIV/AIDS as an acceptable norm.

Money is sorely needed to fight the pandemic- but our experiences with PEPFAR over the past five years have shown us that money alone is not enough. This is particularly true when funding is restricted by ideological policies and by provisions that have the potential to erase three decades of efforts to eliminate the stigma and discrimination faced by people living with HIV/AIDS. Without addressing these problems, we have fallen short in our moral and fiscal responsibility to use PEPFAR funding to prevent as many infections as possible. The United States must use its leadership to support effective (evidence-based) HIV/AIDS services and prevention that will both save lives and, one day, end these pandemics.

This article originally appeared in Issue Nine of the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention newsletter and was published online by RH Reality Check.

Saving Women's Lives

2008-07-30T19:26:25Z

Katie Bolton is PAI's summer 2008 Social Networking Intern.

Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) president Eleanor Smeal wants women to get angry. "It's a pattern... Family planning is being cut," she declared Thursday morning at the FMF's Intern Hill Briefing, "Saving Women's Lives: The Importance of Funding for Reproductive Healthcare." And she's right. The Bush administration has systematically reduced women's access to birth control, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, and pre- and post-natal care both domestically and internationally since coming into power. USAID funds for reproductive health have been dramatically reduced. Birth control prices skyrocketed for students and low-income women in 2007. Nineteen million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide each year, and 68,000 women die following their unsafe abortion. In the past seven years, there have been more than 175 votes in Congress that have chipped away at our right to basic reproductive health services.]]> Smeal was joined at the briefing by Katy Vedlitz of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Crystal Lander of the Center for Development and Population Activities, and PAI's own Craig Lasher, as well as Reps. Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). Each speaker highlighted a different area that family planning funds help; taken all together, it was a striking picture of the callousness and disdain this administration feels towards women.

Craig Lasher, PAI's Senior Policy Analyst, was the most optimistic of the group. With last week's proposed increases to family planning funds in both the House and the Senate, Craig thinks we may have turned a corner. He spoke positively of the work done by USAID and UNFPA, though he pointed out that USAID funding is down 40 percent from its peak in 1995, and that the US has withheld UNFPA funding for the past seven years. All this good done despite being underfunded; I wonder what USAID and UNFPA could do if they had the millions that have been denied to them!

During her brief remarks, Crystal Lander focused on how broad a category "family planning" really is, and the nuances of the Global Gag Rule. She feels the current administration did not make reproductive health a priority, and so women have suffered. However, I would argue that family planning was a huge priority, just in a different direction. Lander herself pointed out that Bush's first action as President was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule, which quickly slashed funding to many international reproductive health organizations. Since then, the administration has kept rolling back access to family planning resources worldwide.

Katy Vedlitz of Planned Parenthood addressed domestic attacks on family planning, specifically women's access to affordable birth control. 2007 legislation eliminated the charitable discount pharmacists used to provide to colleges and universities, plus some 400 clinics across the country. As prices jumped from $5-10 per pack to $40-50, use of oral contraceptives decreased among students and low-income women. "Birth control is basic healthcare!" Vedlitz insisted, but frankly, she was preaching to the choir on that one. She was, after all, in a room full of young, mostly female, interns who had probably felt this price change keenly. Unfortunately, PPFA's campaign to restore affordable birth control may have to wait for a new administration to see real change. In fact, if the rumors that a Bush regulation would redefine "abortion" to include contraceptives are true, things are going to get worse before they get better.

Ellie Smeal was the last panelist to speak, and she took the most impassioned stance of all the speakers. She condemned the "unnecessary suffering" inflicted on women, and boiled the discussion down to the almighty dollar. In a privatized health care system, producers can earn huge profits on a product produced cheaply, like oral contraceptives. An overlarge population creates a surplus of laborers willing to work for lower wages, increasing the profits of manufacturers. Smeal accused the government of allowing supply and demand to trump the better interests of American women. Like any curious feminist, she asked why. Why do Republicans keep cutting family planning money? Why don't the Democrats restore those cuts? Why are women's lives less valuable than "a couple fighter planes" in an unpopular war?

This list of offenses feels overwhelming when taken in all at once. It felt even more pressing for me, as I've been reading Katha Pollitt's collection of columns, Virginity or Death! As the title suggests, many of these pieces discuss the war on women's reproductive rights. Katha? Ellie? I'm angry.

I've said a lot, and still managed not to explain why this matters to PAI. Watch "Abstaining From Reality" or "Access Denied" on PAI's YouTube channel. The films reveal the limitations of these misguided policies in Zambia, Uganda and Kenya, but we know that many other countries share the same problems. Current administration policies fail to meet the needs of millions of men and women around the world, and women suffer. Although PAI doesn't accept government funds, we do advocate for individual access to family planning methods and reproductive health. But if the organizations we work with are consistently underfunded, our mission is seriously compromised. It's time to make a difference.

Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention

2008-07-17T21:01:38Z

PAI is a founding member of the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention.

As the eyes of the public health community turn toward Mexico City, Mexico, for the XVII International AIDS Conference, HIV prevention will once again take center stage.

The Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention--composed of more than 50 nongovernmental organizations and their international partners meeting throughout the conference--is eager to learn from new prevention research, incorporating a breadth of biomedical, behavioral, and social interventions. The caucus was created for the specific purpose of promoting HIV prevention supported by sound science at the International AIDS Conference.

]]> The caucus will monitor the use of evidence in HIV prevention programs and policies, report on HIV prevention-related conference proceedings to a wide audience, and alert the community when ideology, prejudice, or opinion interfere with evidence-based approaches to reducing the further spread of HIV and AIDS.

Because ideology and politics have become part of the current HIV prevention landscape, the caucus will be outspoken in defense of prevention strategies based on evidence.

Please join Population Action International and countless other Caucus member organizations in promoting scientific evidence as a critical element of HIV prevention worldwide.

The caucus will be reporting from the International AIDS Conference in a daily newsletter, as well as blogs at RH Reality Check and AIDS2008.com.

For more information about the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention, please visit www.hiv-prevention.org

More Leaders Agree: Population is a Critical Humanitarian Issue

2008-07-16T19:33:56Z

Several PAI staff attended the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign annual Tribute Dinner yesterday evening, where Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was honored for his "leadership in support of the U.S. International Affairs Budget." Surprisingly, in his remarks, Secretary Gates mentioned population as an important factor in countries' stability (emphasis mine):

We also know that over the next 20 years certain pressures – population, resource, energy, climate, economic, and environmental – could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability. We face now, and will inevitably face in the future, rising powers discontented with the international status quo, possessing new wealth and ambition, and seeking new and more powerful weapons. But, overall, looking ahead, I believe the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs – much less the aspirations – of their people.

]]> Audubon Society. On World Population Day, July 11th, he wrote an editorial emphasizing population's role in climate change:

But in most discussions of the global warming challenge, the issue of human population growth is conspicuously absent, even though the growth of the human family over the next generation and beyond will be a critical factor in determining the magnitude of the problem and our ability to respond.

Mr. Flicker then points to voluntary family planning, education for girls, and economic opportunities for women as proven ways to reduce population and make communities -- and the world -- healthier.

We applaud Secretary Gates and John Flicker for addressing these important issues.

For more information about population, development, security, and family planning, please check out The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters for a Safer, More Equitable World.

For more information on population and climate change, read PAI's series on RH Reality Check or more entries on PAI's Blog.

World Population Day Congressional Briefing

2008-07-15T16:23:25Z

PAI's U.S. Government Relations Team wrote this report.

On Thursday, July 10, PAI and a coalition of more than a dozen partner organizations, including the United Nations Foundation, the Centre for Development & Population Activities (CEDPA), the Communications Consortium Media Center, the Global Health Council, and the Sierra Club, joined with family planning champions Representatives Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO) to host a congressional briefing commemorating the 21st annual World Population Day. This year’s World Population Day theme of “Plan Your Family: Plan Your Future,” highlighted the 40th anniversary of world leaders first declaring that individuals have a basic human right to freely and responsibly determine how many children to have and when to have them.

The congressional briefing, attended by over 60 advocates and congressional staff, featured remarks by Rep. McCollum, a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that funds use foreign assistance; Rep. Carnahan, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Margaret Neuse, the former Director of USAID’s Office of Population & Reproductive Health; and CEDPA field partners Asih Puji Rahayu (Foundation for Mother and Child Health in Jakarta, Indonesia) and Marilyn Peri (Community Based Health Care in Papua New Guinea). Moderated by PAI’s Vice President for Government Relations, Tod Preston, the forum provided a timely opportunity for panelists and guests to highlight the need for increasing U.S. funding for international family planning and reproductive health.
]]> Focus on Family Health Worldwide Act, which would significantly increase U.S. investments in family planning programs.

Rep. Carnahan, who traveled with PAI to Ethiopia in February, stressed the importance of family planning and empowering women to global security and development and urged greater bipartisan cooperation in support of these programs. Rep. Carnahan is the sponsor of the Ensuring Access to Contraceptives Act, which would double U.S. funding for contraceptive donations overseas and exempt contraceptives from the destructive Global Gag Rule.

The other guest panelists, Margaret Neuse, Marilyn Peri, and Asih Puji Rahayu, underscored that record numbers of women and families still lack family planning options and highlighted the need for U.S. policymakers to reverse a decade of underinvestment in successful family planning programs. Ms. Neuse stated that over the last forty years USAID has identified proven “keys to effective and sustainable planning programs”: political commitment, key country-level group support, providing a range of FP methods through different service deliveries, adequate and sustained funding, and enhancing community understanding of the benefits of FP.

To reduce the levels of unmet need, USAID partners with groups like CEDPA’s field partners in Indonesia and in Papua New Guinea that help enhance community understanding of the benefits of family planning. “Our experience shows that improving family health is best achieved when you focus on the entire family,” remarked Asih Puji Rahayu. “By adding family planning programs, they could better provide for their existing children.” In both countries, these organizations implement innovative outreach techniques to men and local religious leaders, while also scaling up their comprehensive family planning services in order to reduce high maternal death rates.

Despite an increase of over 300 million women of reproductive age in the developing world since 1995, U.S. government investments in family planning programs in this same time period have declined by $300 million (40%) when accounting for inflation. Had it not been for family planning supporters in Congress, including Reps. McCollum and Carnahan, this decline in funding would have been far greater due to severe cuts recommended by the Bush Administration. This decade of underinvestment in family planning has led, according to Margaret Neuse, funding shortfalls that contribute to the continued high numbers of married couples lacking contraception in many poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. She pointed out, for example, that the U.S. only provides a total of $8 million for family planning programs in 15 countries in West Africa with high unmet need.

As Marilyn Peri stated, “we still have hope” that the last half-century of family planning successes will soon be replicated for the millions of families still lacking access to contraception. Increased political and financial commitment from the U.S. will be essential to achieving this goal. Margaret Neuse summed it up best: “adequate and consistent funding” from the U.S. is essential.

Photo 1: PAI’s Vice President for Government Relations, Tod Preston, introduces family planning champions Representatives Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO).

Photo 2: Margaret Neuse, former Director of USAID’s Office of Population & Reproductive Health, speaks at the briefing along with Asih Puji Rahayu (Foundation for Mother and Child Health in Jakarta, Indonesia) and Marilyn Peri (Community Based Health Care in Papua New Guinea).

Facebook, MySpace, Change.org -- Oh My!

2008-07-14T13:00:10Z

Katie Bolton is PAI's summer 2008 Social Networking Intern.

Have you been wondering when PAI would join the social networking world? Well, wait no longer – PAI now has an expanded online presence on Facebook, MySpace, and Change.org! These profiles, in addition to our YouTube channel, will allow our supporters to interact and organize among themselves, make donations, and tell their friends about the important work PAI does. You can view all of our profiles, even if you're not a member of the social network. If you're a member, add us! If you're not yet, we hope you'll take a look at our profiles and consider signing up to support PAI.

First, stop by our Facebook fan page. You can become a fan of PAI here, share the page with your friends, write on our wall or start a discussion on the boards. We've uploaded photos of our activities around the world and video of our documentaries, including the award-winning "Finding Balance," for your perusal. If you've installed the Causes application, you can also join our cause, "Support International Family Planning!" The PAI blog is also posted on the fan page. You might never want to leave.
]]> we're there too! Become a friend of PAI on MySpace, and leave us HTML comments on the profile or individual blog entries. Get bulletins from PAI, make a donation, or support our Cause. Keep your eyes out for new additions, including badges to post to your own profile.

And what about the activists' social network? We've updated the PAI profile on Change.org. Support our fundraising projects, commit to various “changes”, and write a testimonial about why you support PAI. You might even want to create your own project or “change” and choose PAI as the beneficiary.

If you haven't seen our YouTube channel, head over there to watch our documentaries, leave a comment, and subscribe to the channel. Look for more activity there in the coming months!

This is just the beginning. We already have more than 35 Facebook fans in the first week, and almost 20 after just one day on MySpace! We can't wait to use these new tools to connect with our supporters and hear from them more directly than ever. Why are you still here?! Make PAI a part of your online networks -- we can't wait to hear from you!

Taking On Population and Climate Change

2008-07-08T16:58:48Z

Carolyn Vogel is PAI's Vice President of Programs.

Examining linkages between population and climate change through many different frames leads to important research and policy questions -- and it also allows the reproductive health community to discuss these linkages in a productive and positive way. If we leave the debate unframed, and the research questions unanswered, we leave space for harmful discourse and inaccurate facts to take center stage. The following series of blog posts, written by staff at Population Action International, will look at population and climate change from different angles, and provide an initial review of some of the broad frames.

Dr. Karen Hardee raises many of the difficult ethical issues that arise when population and climate change are linked. She examines these linkages from a women's rights and empowerment frame. She encourages people, both those comfortable and uncomfortable with the linkage between population and climate change, to discuss the issue in order to come up with the best solutions and avoid mistakes of the past.

Dr. Leiwen Jiang approaches the issue from a demographic perspective, highlighting our need to understand the extent to which increasing population size, age structure and urbanization affects climate change. Research on demographic variables and their relationship to climate change show that population does indeed matter. Moreover, increases in population size, whether through migration or fertility, in regions vulnerable to the effects of climate change (such as coastal areas) mean more total people at risk.

]]> There are many questions to explore. Does population growth in high carbon emitting countries such as the United States matter to climate change? How do the age structure, migration patterns and urbanization of a country affect energy consumption? Does demographic change, such as movement towards a mature age structure, increase a society's resilience to climate change?

Malea Hoepf Young discusses the impact of climate change on women. From a gender perspective, women will suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change. In their effort to adapt to severe weather, water scarcity, food insecurity and other consequences of changes in the climate, women and girls suffer increased workloads and as a result poor families often pull girls out of school. At home caring for young children and the elderly, women and girls are much more likely to die in severe weather events, unable or unaware of where to seek shelter.

While the demographic frame to the issue is still being explored through research and analysis, the gender frame is an area in which Population Action International has been able to apply what we know about women and development to the population and climate debate. For example, we know that women are powerful agents of change. While they are more vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change, they are also better positioned to help communities adapt to these changes.

There is very little research on what development activities will most contribute to increasing people's resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change. However, we know that family planning is critical to the health and well-being of a family -- including their economic stability. Therefore, family planning could also be an important contributor to resilience.

At the family level, the benefits of family planning on health and economic well-being are well documented. Is a woman who can time and space her childbearing better able, through better health and opportunity, to adapt to negative effects wrought by climate change? Smaller families tend to be healthier families, and women who use family planning have greater economic opportunities, increased control over all aspects of their lives and are thus likely to be more resilient to environmental, economic and human health challenges.

Will meeting women's expressed need for good reproductive health care better enable them to participate in the stewardship of the environment and improved agricultural production?

Slowing population growth through voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs is an essential part of long-term efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as an important component of programs that aim to help vulnerable communities to adapt to climate change. It is also a cost-effective way to improve the health and well-being of individuals around the world. Couples deserve universal access to family planning and reproductive health, provided in a way that respects their rights to determine how many children they have and when. That will help people and countries and, hopefully, the planet.

Originally published at RH Reality Check.

Should We Be Talking About Population and Climate Change?

2008-07-08T16:48:30Z

Karen Hardee is PAI's Vice President of Research.

Discussions of global climate change and environmental degradation are putting "population" back in the spotlight. Population stabilization has been noted by respected climate researchers, such as Brian O'Neill and PAI's Leiwen Jiang, as a potential strategy in the race to keep carbon in check (although more research is needed to determine how much it might contribute). Clearly, consumption and emissions in the West are the major contributors to global warming, but how important is population to climate change in the short and long term? Does it make any difference to the atmosphere if the world's population is six, nine or 12 billion people?

Work by Brian, Leiwen and other colleagues shows that the relationship between population and climate change is complex and that age structure, household composition and urbanization are important demographic factors, in addition to population size. Within this complexity, members of our field (broadly defined as those working on family planning, reproductive health and sexual and reproductive health and rights) are discussing the pros and cons of engaging in the discussion on population and climate change.

In her work on developing a justice framework for addressing population and environment issues, Laurie Mazur, who is currently editing a book titled Population, Justice and the Environmental Challenge, has noted that some colleagues, "even those concerned about the carrying capacity of the planet - want to silence the talk about population and the environment, for fear of what it might unleash." She called the space between the reproductive health and rights and environmental movements "something of a demilitarized zone."

]]> International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo towards programming based on a rights framework rather than on a demographic rationale. This group worries about tendencies towards coercion in setting population targets. In an online discussion of population and climate change conducted by the webBulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Betsy Hartmann, director of Hampshire College's Population and Development Program, argued that "when population control is the objective, the quality of [family planning] service suffers and coercive methods often override freedom of choice." But Suzanne Petroni, Program Officer at the Summit Foundation, who also cautions about making the population-climate change connection, notes that "we must engage the discussion, if only to prevent a return to the days of coerced sterilizations, forced abortions and two-child per family mandates."

And others say that acknowledging the link between population and climate, and the role family planning can play, won't automatically lead to coercive policies. In the Atomic Scientists discussion, John Guillebaud, emeritus professor at University College, London, and Martin Desvaux, trustee of the Optimum Population Trust in Britain, wrote that this argument "perpetuates some infamous myths about people who have a qualitative concern about human population... [including] that being concerned about population leads intrinsically to coercion."

This latter group argues that voluntary family planning is critical to meeting the needs of millions of women (PDF) who express the desire to space or limit pregnancy and yet are not using contraception. Meeting this need for contraception at the individual level, by providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health (a goal set in Cairo), will ultimately have a positive effect on population stabilization. Fred Meyerson, assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island, in the same online discussion, emphatically states that "stopping emissions growth and climate change will be unattainable without universal effective [family planning] programs and population stabilization..." but adds that "There is agreement..about the need to provide FP/RH...and related education to everyone on the planet in a non-coercive way."

As someone who has been involved in population, family planning, reproductive health and sexual reproductive health and rights work for over two decades, I am in the "let's talk about it" camp. We are the ones who know the history of our field and understand that Cairo reaffirmed the need for voluntary, rights-based sexual and reproductive health services, including, but not limited to, family planning.

We should also remember that the Cairo Programme of Action was generated at the Conference on Population and Development and that we have win-win language from the Programme of Action:

"...recognizing that the ultimate goal is the improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations, the objective is to facilitate the demographic transition as soon as possible in countries where there is an imbalance between demographic rates and social, economic and environmental goals, while respecting human rights." (Emphasis mine.)

This is language that nearly 180 countries signed on to in Cairo in 1994.

If we don't stay in the discussion on population and climate change and insist on family planning and reproductive health programs that respect individual rights, what solutions might emerge from people who are unaware about what can happen when population policies and programs are driven purely by demographic targets?

Originally published at RH Reality Check.

Combating Global Warming Brings Population Back to the Agenda

2008-07-08T16:25:47Z

Leiwen Jiang is PAI's Senior Demographer.

Two landmark conferences of the 1990s really seemed to get the links between human population and the environment. The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development noted that "human beings are the centre of concern for sustainable development." Building on this two years later, the Cairo Programme of Action included the objective "to reduce both unsustainable consumption and production patterns as well as negative impacts of demographic factors on the environment in order to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

But in the following years, population started to fall off the map. In 2002, after several preparatory meetings for the Johannesburg Summit (the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development), population as a key component of sustainable development was still absent from the agenda. As a response, Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and 34 other distinguished scientists from various disciplines and regions organized the Global Science Panel on Population and Environment, calling for population to be included at the core of the agenda. Though the panel successfully got the message out, participating governments eventually decided to leave population out of the negotiation process.

Population was at the center of public discussion, many national policies, and almost all international conferences and agreements from the late 1950's to the early 1990's. The sudden shift away from this issue was unexpected for many people, and just as population, family planning, and reproductive health were left out of the Millennium Development Goals, population has been largely absent from the response to climate change, potentially the greatest environmental threat we have ever faced.

]]> Population has been overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which sets the gold standard in climate research. Its 1995 report devoted only a few pages to the role of population in this 2,000 page document; the companion summary for policymakers did not even mention population. Population was also forgotten in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions and reducing the threat of global climate change.

John Bongaarts, a leading demographer at the Population Council, and Brian O'Neill, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argue that three common misconceptions can explain why population has been pushed to the fringe: the beliefs that (1) the real problem is consumption, not population; (2) not much can be done about population, and (3) strengthening population policies leads to coercion.

Emphasizing the issue of consumption rightly points out the importance of curbing rich countries' consumption of fossil fuel in combating climate change. However, population growth in both developed and developing nations is expected to play a very important role in global greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. In a paper published in Population and Development Review, Fred Meyerson, assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island, writes:

[For developed countries,] per capita carbon emissions have stabilized or even decreased in the last two decades. This means that emission increases in the developed world are now primarily driven by population growth.

Richard York, a professor at the University of Oregon, has also found that

[developed] nations with higher expected population growth rates negotiated higher carbon targets (in global GHGs emission treaties) than other nations and were ultimately less likely to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Population matters to climate change, in both developed and developing countries, for different reasons and to different extent. It is not only because of total population size and fertility, but also because of other demographic trends, particularly aging in the developed nations and urbanization in the developing world. First, even though it is more important in the developing world, change of total population size still plays a significant role in climate change in developed countries where fertility rate reached or declined to below the replacement level, due to population momentum and net immigration.

Second, in the developed world, the more important demographic trend relevant to climate change is the changes in population age structure. Michael Dalton, economist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and his co-authors have shown that future changes of population age structure -- the comparative size of specific age groups relative to the population as a whole -- under a scenario of low fertility, will drive U.S. carbon emissions down by 40 percent by the end of the century. This effect, under certain circumstances, would be even more significant than technological advancements. While this does not imply that population growth is more important than other factors for climate change, it surely illustrates that demographic factors do affect environmental consequences and the feasibility of social choices.

While it is important to be vigilant against them, coercive population policies are highly criticized by the global community. Voluntary family planning programs, on the other hand, have produced multiple benefits for society and the environment. High quality voluntary services, along with efforts to improve female education and promote gender equity, have already helped individuals achieve their reproductive preferences and reduce the population size of less developed countries by half a billion.

Recently, population issues have gradually regained the spotlight -- probably partially due to the pressing issue of global warming (the top 11 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 13 years), the increasing impact from emerging economies' energy consumption (especially highly-populated countries such as China and India), and the global food crisis.

The IPCC has been looking to population more as well. Its Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, calls for greater focus on population dynamics in future research, and the organization has founded a consortium to develop new demographic and socioeconomic scenarios to help improve our understanding of how demographic trends (such as aging, urbanization and changes in household structure) will interact with economic growth and technological improvement to determine the global climate future.

It is indisputable that economic development, improved standard of living and energy poverty alleviation are necessary to improve the lives of the global poor. Even though the poor still account for a very small amount of overall GHGs emissions (disproportionately less than their population share), rapid economic development is taking place in much of the developing world. The proportion of global emissions originating in the developing world is growing as well, and is anticipated to overtake that of the more developed nations in the next one or two decades.

To fight global warming, international, collective actions are needed -- including financial support and technological transfer to developing countries. It is acknowledged that rapid implementation of multiple strategies is needed to curb global warming -- the international community is working on multiple clean and energy efficient technologies, carbon capture and storage, and prevention of deforestation, among many others.

It is important that the scientific community also consider population factors -- in all their complexity -- in climate change research. Moreover, the sexual and reproductive health community needs to be aware of and engaged on this issue -- to add their expertise, and to ensure that these issues get back on the agenda, where they belong.

Originally published at RH Reality Check.

Global Climate Change: What Does it Mean for the World’s Women?

2008-07-08T16:15:40Z

Malea Hoepf Young is a Research Associate at PAI.

It's apparent from recent news that climate change is finally getting the attention it deserves, even if the United States is still dragging its heels on addressing the issue. But even that may change -- a recent poll commissioned by the Presidential Climate Action Project found that 66 percent of American adults want the next president to take strong action on climate change. Many think of this in terms of reducing consumption and greening our energy. But what about the other side of climate change? People -- particularly women and poor people -- will bear the brunt of a changing climate.

Climate change is causing more severe and more frequent storms and drought, resulting in changes in timing and amount of rainfall that damage agricultural production. Added to other environmental degradation, such as deforestation, erosion, and desertification, these changes have significant impacts on the health and livelihoods of people around the world. This particularly affects poor countries, where, ironically, people emit the least per capita, but pay the highest price for the emissions of wealthy, high-emitting countries.

]]> For example, the average Ethiopian emits 200 times less carbon each year than the average American. Yet Ethiopia is expected to experience more severe impacts, including major changes in temperature, water availability, and malaria zones in upcoming years, with few resources to adapt.

The severity of climate change impacts on the poor keep compounding: the poor are often more dependent on the environment for their livelihoods, in the form of small scale agriculture and herding, which can be severely influenced by drought or flooding. Moreover, poor families often have less to fall back on in the event of a climate-related event -- both in terms of financial savings to rebuild their lives, and human capital, including education that would allow them to pursue livelihoods less dependent on the environment.

Just as climate change unequally impacts wealthy and low income countries, as well as the rich and poor within countries, it is also unequal in terms of gender. Emerging evidence shows that women and girls will experience even greater inequality through the impacts of climate change. We already know that women suffer disproportionately in nearly all disasters: elderly women died at higher rates than older men in the European heat wave in 2003, women vastly outnumbered men in tsunami deaths in 2004, women outnumbered men in cyclone deaths in Bangladesh, and the list goes on. A study of 4,605 natural disasters found that disasters shortened women's life expectancy significantly more than men's (encouragingly, this association was reduced where women's status is more equal). Many women are made vulnerable by their lack of access to sources of emergency information, as well as their lack of decision-making power in disaster prevention and preparedness programs; they are also often excluded from disaster recovery operations and from planning at the national level.

The unequal impact on women is not only evident in major disaster events- - it also affects everyday life and opportunities. In many low-income countries, women already work more hours each day than men (a study in rural Cameroon found that women work more than 64 hours a week, compared to men's 31 hours). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that women produce 60-80 percent of food grown in the developing world -- often small scale crops critical to their family's sustenance. Women and girls are responsible for collecting and carrying water -- a time consuming and physically demanding task in places where wells are not easily accessible. In some places, this work takes hours each day, and as communities cope with the effects of changes in climate, demands on women's time and workloads are likely to increase.

To compensate for increased demands on their time, poor families may pull girls out of school, if they were are able to attend at all. The stresses of a changing climate are being added to the many risks already facing women in developing countries, undermining the critical role that women play in the health and well-being of their families, the social cohesion of their communities, and the preservation of their fields, forests, and waterways.

As climate change has unfolded around the world, many governments and development organizations have begun to develop strategies to adapt to the effects of climate change which include a wide variety of approaches, from "climate-proofing" infrastructure to developing drought resistant crops. Some adaptation programs also address underlying factors for vulnerability to climate change, such as poverty and ill health. The UN estimates that $86 billion in new funding will be needed by 2016 to help the world's poor cope with the stresses of climate change. However, contributions to climate adaptation funding mechanisms have so far been relatively small and the funding mechanisms slow.

Important questions that arise are: when that money is in place, what kinds of projects will qualify as adaptation, how will the funds be spent, and how will women's needs be addressed? Already, there is an overall lack of attention to the needs of women in low-income countries, and an even greater lack of women's participation in climate talks on adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate change through reductions in emissions.

To assess adaptation strategies, we must look at what makes people vulnerable to climate change impacts, or their ability to cope with change without experiencing declines in living standards. Important factors are income level and income inequality, as well as health and human capacity - including education - of a population, in addition to the quality of the natural environment, such as available water and quality of land.

Interestingly, many of these benefits also accrue when women are able to attain good reproductive health. Women's reproductive health, including their ability to space and time births, as well as maternal morbidity and mortality, have important impacts on the health of women and their children. In many cases they also affect children's education and family well-being, particularly among poor families.

The huge scope of climate change requires multiple strategies to prevent its worst effects and stave off reversals in hard won advancements in human health and development around the world. It is troubling that this comes at a time when international financial support for voluntary family planning and reproductive health are declining. The world needs more women-centered research and strategies for climate change adaptation, and the world's large emitters must shoulder the responsibility for their impacts on the world's poorest populations in order to see a world that is more equitable, healthy, able to prevent catastrophic climate change, and to adapt to its impacts.

Originally published at RH Reality Check.