The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in September 1994 was the "greatest show on earth" in relation to population: It was the most influential instrument of international advocacy for population issues ever. It brought to the forefront the critical part that population plays in development and no doubt convinced leaders of its importance. But the road from Cairo to the cities, towns and villages of the Pacific island countries is long and tortuous, with many diversions.
Have the messages of the ICPD reached the peoples of the Pacific (the ICPD called for a "people-centred" approach)? In the second year since ICPD, has the interest in and commitment to national and individual population issues been sustained? How have Government and non-Government programmes changed since ICPD? What should we be doing in terms of population advocacy--keeping the spirit of ICPD alive?
Firstly, leaders at the highest level and opinion leaders at the community level, including church leaders, need to be alerted to the relationship between population and development - i.e., population and the quality of life of the people, which, ultimately, is the raison d'etre of "development". While for many leaders "economic development", e.g., through tourism, industrialization, etc. (leading to improved quality of life through employment, health, education etc.) may be their main focus, it cannot be accomplished without a balanced population. Any gains made economically could be nullified by the greater demands of an increasing population, just to maintain existing conditions, much less improving quality.
What ICPD has done internationally may be done in every country through a "NCPD" - a National Conference on Population and Development in which the leaders should participate. Several countries have done this, although the highest leaders have been absent, unfortunately.
Secondly, national leaders should have a vision for their country in which population is a vital part. Rather than the usual "population policy" perhaps this vision can be called "Population and the National Dream", and should explore the population scenarios necessary to make that dream a reality, as well as those which might turn the dream into a nightmare.
They must also make that dream known to the people. One national leader several years ago had a dream of "self reliance" and he recognized the importance of population in that dream, which resulted in the renaming of the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Health and Family Planning. When leaders lead, even bureaucracies follow.
Furthermore, the leaders should alert their people to the major population/development issues facing their countries and advocate interventions, whether raising funds for population activities, promoting reproductive health and family planning, educating girls, or mandating population education in schools. It is their responsibility as leaders. Such pronouncements will show the commitment of the leaders. And when leaders speak, people listen.
Thirdly, leaders should stress the important role each individual citizen plays--the importance of responsibility and commitment to address the population-related problems which affect the common future of their society and the quality of life of their children. Ultimately, any "programme of action" depends on individual behaviour : individual action for the good of all, the good of the nation, a corollary to the saying, "Think Globally; Act Locally".
Fourthly, special emphasis in population advocacy, information, education and communication (PAIEC) should be given to youth, especially regarding their reproductive health. They are capable of grasping the critical importance of their reproductive health for their own future and the future of the society of which they are a part and which they will shape. Hence, priority should be given to PAIEC programmes and activities for youth, in-school and out-of-school. They should be targets of, and subsequently be advocates for population programmes. The potential for mobilizing youth to address population issues in the Pacific has been untapped.
Many of the Pacific island countries did not need the ICPD to tell them they have serious population-related problems. Leaders knew about them, but interventions to address these problems were left to the different Government sectors and were often unfocussed and uncoordinated, and articulation to the people was neglected due to the culturally sensitive nature of some issues, like family planning and sexuality education.
But to realize the national dream, there needs to be national (not sectoral) efforts or programmes, with each unit and sector, both Government and Non-Government, including the churches, working in concert with each other, to produce an integrated, coordinated, focussed programme covering the nation.
ICPD has legitimized internationally issues like reproductive health, and hence, the time for national advocacy is now. Procrastination will only compound the problems--for example, the population of a country growing at 2.5% per year will double in 28 years if that growth rate continues. For many Pacific island countries: what will this mean ? The future quality of life of nations will depend on what we do today. We can't wait. The spirit of the ICPD must be kept alive.
by Allan Kondo, CST Adviser on Population Education