Tod Preston's blog

At Long Last: Prominent Attention to Population

2008-10-01T08:00:00-04:00

In recent months, a growing chorus of prominent individuals has been sounding the alarm about an issue that has suffered from bewildering inattention in recent years: the negative impact of rapid global population growth on the health and well-being of our planet. Although rarely stated directly, implicit in these statements (highlighted below) is that more should be done to support voluntary family planning and basic reproductive health care for millions of poor women who lack it. Why? Because lack of family planning is a primary cause of the more than 60 million unintended pregnancies worldwide every year and the resulting yearly net increase in global population of 78 million people.

On Monday I attended an extraordinary presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars by Thomas Friedman about his new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded. As you might suspect from the catchy title, the book focuses on how "global warming, the stunning rise of middle classes all over the world, and rapid population growth have converged in a way that could make our planet dangerously unstable."

In recent months, Friedman has been joined in bringing attention to the role of population growth in such critical issues as poverty, climate change, hunger, and security by the Secretary General of the U.N., the director of the CIA, former President Bill Clinton, the leaders of the G-8, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the United States Senate.

Here are a few excerpts:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, "Global Action to Save Global Growth" -- Washington Post op-ed (July 3, 2008):

"[C]limate change and environmental degradation threaten the future of our planet. Growing populations and rising wealth place unprecedented stress on the earth's resources. Malthus is back in vogue. Everything seems suddenly in short supply: energy, clean air and fresh water, all that nourishes us and supports our modern ways of life."

Bill Clinton, Speech at the Slate 60 Conference (October 22, 2007):

"[T]he population of the world is supposed to go to nine billion by 2050. Nobody is going to talk about this in the election this year for either party, but I'm not running so I can say it. ...[I]t took us 150,000 years to go from one person to 6.5 billion, and we're going to nine billion in 43 years? Now just think about it. Think about the accelerating pace of change in the world. We're going to nine billion people. Almost all of those 2.5 billion people are going to be born in countries now unable to support the people who live there."

CIA Director Michael Hayden, Speech at Kansas State Univ. (April 30, 2008):

"In thinking about the future, one of the most important things that our analysts brought to--CIA analysts--brought to my attention was world demographics. Now I'm probably pointing at the obvious here, but let me point to some of the things that our analysts brought to my attention. Today, there are 6.7 billion people sharing the planet. By mid-century--by mid-century, the best estimates point to a world population of more than 9 billion. That's a 40 to 45 percent increase--striking enough--but most of that growth is almost certain to occur in countries least able to sustain it, and that will create a situation that will likely fuel instability and extremism--not just in those areas, but beyond them as well."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Speech at U.S. Global Leadership Campaign Tribute Dinner (July 15, 2008):

"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."

United States Senate, FY 2009 Annual Foreign Assistance Bill, Senate Report 110-425, p. 3 (July 18, 2008):

"[T]he stresses on woefully inadequate social services in many developing countries caused by high rates of population growth, which contribute to competition for limited resources, environmental degradation, malnutrition, poverty and conflict. Assisting countries in reducing rates of population growth to sustainable levels should be a priority of USAID."

For those of us who have lamented the declining support in recent years for international family planning programs - in part due to the lack of attention paid to the implications of rapid global population growth - these statements are very encouraging. But forty years since world leaders first proclaimed that individuals have a basic right to determine how many children to have and when to have them, some key questions remain:

Will this renewed attention to population issues result in greater funding and political support for international FP/RH programs?
Will we finally provide the resources necessary to ensure that all women, rich and poor, rural and urban, literate and illiterate can freely determine when and if to have a child?

We have a ways to go in reaching that goal. Modern contraceptives still remain out of reach for hundreds of millions of women in poor and developing nations because of issues such as availability and affordability. As a result, more than one-third of the 190 million pregnancies worldwide are unintended - a major driver of the addition of nearly 80 million people to our world each and every year.

This isn't rocket science. Couples around the world fundamentally want family planning - and it works. In addition to fostering slower, more sustainable population growth, it raises standards of living, improves maternal and child health, and reduces abortion.

Of course, in the end it's all about sex and the empowerment of women - two issues which a lot of officials would rather sweep under the rug and ignore. But the price of doing so is an increasingly high one. Just ask the "experts."

Congress Votes to Repeal Global Gag Rule

2007-09-07T10:20:19-04:00

In recent years there hasn't been much good news coming out of Washington on family planning and reproductive health issues. That's probably the understatement of the year. But today there is very good news to report because of yesterday evening's votes in the Senate.

Last night, despite President Bush's veto threat, the Senate passed the FY 2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (by a vote of 81-12) that includes significant provisions overturning destructive policies on family planning and HIV/AIDS. Thanks to the leadership and commitment of Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Senate bill not only includes the identical measures in the House-passed bill (H.R. 2764) -- exempting contraceptives from the Global Gag Rule and repealing the abstinence-only funding restrictions for HIV prevention programs -- it goes even further by repealing the Gag Rule entirely.

This repudiation of some of the most egregious and harmful aspects of U.S. international family planning and reproductive health policy marks a major -- and long overdue -- victory for sound public health. And to put it in historical perspective, the Senate vote today is the first time since the Gag Rule has been in force -- from 1984 to 1993 and again since 2001 -- that both the House and the Senate have passed legislation to repeal or modify the restriction. This is significant in light of the all-important showdown that looms with the White House over President Bush's threatened veto of the entire $34 billion foreign assistance bill over the Gag Rule provisions.

The Senate 53-41 vote in favor of an amendment to repeal the Gag Rule, sponsored by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Snowe (R-ME), is a victory for the tens of millions of poor women overseas who have been victimized by the Gag Rule and lack basic reproductive health care such as contraceptives. It's a powerful recognition of the Gag Rule's devastating impact on family planning programs.

Because of the Gag Rule, dozens of family planning providers in poor, developing nations have lost U.S. funding and technical assistance, forcing them to scale back services, lay off staff, and even close their clinics altogether. Adding to this harm, contraceptive donations from the U.S. government have been stopped to 20 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East since the Global Gag Rule was reinstated in 2001. Leading indigenous family planning providers in several other countries have also stopped receiving contraceptives from the U.S. Watch PAI's compelling documentary "Access Denied: U.S. Family Planning Restrictions in Zambia" for an example of the immense harm caused by the Gag Rule.

These draconian impacts come on top of major reductions in funding for international family planning and reproductive health in recent years. Since 1995, U.S. funding for these programs has fallen more than $100 million -- a whopping 41 percent reduction when adjusted for inflation -- despite a growing demand for reproductive health care in the developing world. It's worth noting that the number of women of reproductive age in the developing world alone has increased by approximately 275 million women since 1995.

By voting to repeal the Gag Rule and rigid, ineffective abstinence HIV funding mandates, Congress has restored some desperately needed common sense to U.S. FP/RH programs. Not incidentally, they're programs that the vast majority of the American people overwhelmingly support.

So, Mr. President, let's talk about that veto threat of yours.....

Environmental Sustainability, Women and Health

2007-04-19T07:05:00-04:00

Global warming (aka climate change) is arguably the greatest environmental challenge our planet has faced in modern history. Fortunately, as we mark the 37th Earth Day this month, we can take some degree of satisfaction in the fact that—at long last—policymakers and the public are waking up to the reality of the problem.

According to a recent survey from the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, more than 80% of Americans now say that global warming is a serious problem. With the exception of a handful of largely disgraced global warming skeptics, including "Senator"—I use that term loosely—Jim Inhofe (R-OK), it's no longer in vogue to dismiss global warming as pseudo-science or scare tactics by environmentalists.

So now that there seems to be a consensus that global warming does exist, the question is what can we do about it?

Reducing CO2 emissions and promoting alternative fuels are just a couple of the measures that are needed to tackle global warming. But another important part of the solution is addressing gender inequality, particularly in terms of reproductive health, in the developing world.

The interconnections between environmental sustainability and the status of women and their health are significant. One of the most eloquent proponents of these linkages is none other than former Vice President Gore.

For more than two decades, Mr. Gore has talked about the critical role that rapid population growth has played in degrading the Earth's resources and fostering global warming. Because of this, he has consistently cited voluntary family planning, along with girls' education and other empowerment-related programs, as part of any solution to the global environmental crisis.

In his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, Mr. Gore wrote that "No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilizing human population" and recommended that family planning supplies be made "ubiquitously available" as a key strategy to curb population growth.

Unfortunately, the continuing jihad against family planning (FP) programs by conservative officials and activists has resulted in far less progress than should be expected in making FP supplies "ubiquitiously available."

Today more than 200 million women in poor, developing nations wish to delay or end childbearing but lack access to contraceptives (PDF). In places such as Ethiopia, Haiti, and Pakistan more than one-third of married couples have this "unmet need" for contraceptives. This deprivation of basic reproductive rights—which often leads to larger than desired family size—takes a heavy toll on women and society as a whole.

Consider a few statistics. Since Mr. Gore published Earth in the Balance 15 years ago, world population has increased by 1.2 billion, the equivalent of adding four United States or nearly one China in population. Since the first Earth Day celebration in 1970, world population has grown from 3.7 billion to 6.6 billion.

The world is currently adding 6.3 million people every month and is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050. Believe it or not, these updated projections assume declining birth rates in the developing world. If birth rates remain static, the planet could easily add 5 billion people in the next 43 years.

These statistics should give pause to anyone who cares about the health of our planet—not to mention the health and well-being of women. Despite the best efforts of family planning/reproductive health opponents and—yes—even some proponents in our community, the two are inextricably linked.

A 2005 documentary produced by PAI called "Finding Balance: Forests and Family Planning in Madagascar" really crystallizes these linkages for me. The short video profiles Voahary Salama, a local organization whose innovative approach to conservation provides women in remote rural areas with the health services they so desperately desire in order to choose how many children to bring into this world.

But rather than supporting more efforts like Voahary Salama—programs that empower and improve women's lives and help ease population pressures on the environment—U.S. funding for voluntary family planning programs has been cut more than 35% (adjusted for inflation) since 1995. And the President's budget for next year recommends cutting them an additional 25% (PDF).

Something Mr. Gore wrote back in 1992 speaks uncannily to the situation today: "... in the face of this clear challenge, the United States is—unbelievably—reducing its commitment to world population programs, essentially because President Bush depends upon a political coalition that includes a tiny minority who strongly oppose contraception..."

It's time for this injustice to end. The lives of women and the future of our planet are at stake.