Condom hole in the Papal vision?
From a British perspective, there's a certain irony in the fact that a clarion call for better access to family planning is published in a leading scientific journal on the same day that the Pope hits the streets of London.
Ìý
Rather it's a nod to discussions , as world leaders and their representatives gather to discuss first the and then , before getting down to the main tranche of the General Assembly.
The letter's authors - mainly from the public health field and led by Willard Cates of - argue that in straitened economic times, our global society needs to deploy all the cost-effective interventions it has in support of the MDGs, with only five years left until most of the targets are supposed to be met.
They argue that use of condoms enables women to delay childbirth until they are out of adolescence and space their babies, contributing to better maternal and child health.
They reduce the burden of HIV/AIDS and other STDs.
Girls can stay in school longer, leaving with more education under their belts and a correspondingly better chance of well-remunerated employment. And from the environmental point of view, the authors say:
"Family planning is a cost-effective way to preserve environmental resources. Yet women in regions facing challenges to environmental sustainability have limited access to family planning resources.
"Poor families in these areas must often resort to unsustainable agricultural practices to survive, which can increase the spread of infectious zoonoses and threaten vulnerable habitats."
In fact, they make a case that family planning can help achieve six of the eight MDGs, and do so very cost-effectively:
"Each dollar spent on family planning can save up to $31 in health-care, water, education, housing, and other costs."
As soon as the MDG summit is over, the UN's special day on biodiversity beginsÌý - commissioned by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, following .
And with habitat loss being the number one reason why biodiversity is in increasing trouble around the world, and population growth clearly linked to habitat loss, the same arguments could be made in respect of this issue - although I'm not sure if the economic calculation has been done.
The Roman Catholic church is often accused of undermining development through its strictures against condom use.
Ìý
The programme found that in parts of Africa, people believed these inaccurate statements - and acted upon them.
So yes, Roman Catholic dogma may be an obstruction to the wider use of family planning policies, but it is far from the only one.
The Bush administration banned its agencies from funding health projects overseas that promoted condoms; for reasons connected with Christianity, but not Catholicism.
Within the UN system, the greater bloc of developing countries is resistant to discussing curbs on population growth, which is viewed as a Western plot to lay the troubles of the world on the shoulders of the poor.
Yet the MDGs do specifically mention contraceptive use and condoms - not as goals, but as indicators of whether those goals are being met.
Part of Goal Five is "to achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health". The prevalence of contraceptive use is cited as an indicator of progress, and "unmet need for family planning" as an indicator of lack of progress.
One element of Goal Six is to "have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS" - and once again, the rate of condom use is cited as an indicator of progress.
The MDGs are being met in a patchy way. Overall, Asia (especially East Asia) is doing well on most and Africa not so well - unsurprising, you might argue, given the rapid economic growth in many Asian countries - but that hides many regional nuances.
But the fact that condoms and the wider notion of family planning feature so prominently in the MDGs is surely an indicator that opposition to their promotion is, gradually, being overcome.
Among professed Roman Catholics there are indications of the same trend. Almost three-quarters of Brazilians, for example, are Catholic. Yet studies show that a good deal more than 25% use condoms.
Willard Cates and his colleagues present reasons why the humble condom could be among the most effective tools in the economic development box.
Is it under-represented in environment discussions too? - one can only presume that very tall female models were used in the promotional material, with straplines about "loving the Amazon" - but is wanting to save the rainforest another reason why its government, and others, should be promoting their use - rubber selling, not rubber tapping?Ìý
Should environment groups be taking to the streets not with placards, but with free condoms? Should environment ministers come to climate conferences flaunt their country's rate of contraceptive use rather than its rate of penetration of solar photovoltaic technology?
A new outing for the Cold War mantra "Protect and Survive"?
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
Comments
or to comment.