- Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
- Independent – Albay
- 04 February 2013
- 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
“The historic RH law is not only a statute that will protect and promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights of Filipinos and enhance maternal and infant health. It is also a calamity-risk reduction strategy and a climate change mitigation and adaptation policy.”
This was underscored by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman in his keynote address during the forum Establishing the Links Between RH, Population and Climate Change sponsored by the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) and Population Action International.
The nexus among population, reproductive health and climate change are empirically given as they are well-established and validated.
“Throughout the long years of campaigning for the enactment of the RH law, I have always maintained that the absence of a comprehensive and national policy on RH also contributed to the level of devastation and impact of climate change on the lives of people”, Lagman added.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity”.
This definition truly demonstrates the link between population and climate change.
The following are the relevant impacts of the RH law on population in relation to calamity-risk reduction and management:
1. Upholding the basic human right to reproductive self-determination wherein couples and women are empowered to freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of their children, thus mitigating the population growth rate.
2. Enabling couples and women to fulfill their fertility goals. Studies have shown that the gap between wanted and actual fertility rates is alarmingly high in women in the poorest quintile. According to the 2006 Family Planning Survey, an average of 44% of pregnancies in the poorest 10% of Filipino women are unwanted.
3. Increasing the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR). Again, the FPS 2006 reveals that contraceptive use remains extremely low among poor women whose families are at greatest risk during disasters. Among the poorest 20% of women, over 50% do not use any form of family planning because of lack of information and access to services and commodities.
4. Decreasing teenage pregnancies as a result of age and development-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education. Despite the drop in teen marriages, teenage pregnancies in the country have increased by 65% over a 10-year period from 2000-2010 according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Plan Philippines. Teenage pregnancy in the Philippines is among the highest in the world.
5. Decreasing migration as fewer children exert less pressure on parents to seek the elusive “greener pasture” in urban centers.
6. Generating more savings from lesser government intervention and expenditure for pregnancy and maternity-related health services which savings can be channeled to climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and facilities.
Lagman emphasized that the RH law is much more than just a family planning statute. “It is truly an effective development tool that will simultaneously aid government in addressing problems relating to population, reproductive health and climate change,” he said.
According to the Albay solon, addressing climate change and putting a halt to the deterioration of the environment need not be costly and must not be limited to investments in green technologies.
He maintained that “since a huge population and calamities are fatal partners, the mitigation of the population growth rate as a logical consequence of promoting universal access to reproductive health and family planning, will enhance the Philippines’ positive response to climate change mitigation and adaptation.”
He cited a paper published by the London School of Economics (LSE) in August 2009 entitled Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning: A Cost/Benefit Analysis which asserted categorically that “family planning is considerably cheaper than many low carbon technologies” and that “family planning is a cost effective tool in reducing carbon emissions.”
The paper emphasized that spending a mere $7.00 in family planning will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one ton compared to spending $51.00, $24.00, and $13.00 on solar energy, wind energy and deforestation programs, respectively, to similarly reduce carbon emissions.
“Truly, lesser emitters mean lesser emissions,” Lagman said.