There are Opportunities to increase Family planning use in Uganda

Increased use of family planning in Uganda would lead to large improvements in the health of the mothers and the children, the status of women, and economic development. For these reasons, we should ensure family planning services are available to all who need them. In the International conference on Family planning that was held in Kampala in November of 2009, Uganda like other countries committed to this cause.It is now almost 3 years since the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) results were released. However one big question lingers in my mind. Are the research results being used for programming purposes?
Uganda is one of the few countries in the “modern” world where on average a woman still gives birth to about 7 children in her child bearing years (from the time she is 15 to 49 years). Need to mention that this is an average- meaning there are those who bear less but more importantly those bearing more than even 8 children. For decades now, we have failed to bring down the rates, we have failed to increase uptake of modern contraception. Only about 18 percent of married women are using a modern method of family planning. Noteworthy is that there are 41 percent of married women who prefer to avoid pregnancy but are not using any method of family planning. Their demand for either spacing or limiting births is clearly unmet. These present are a problem but more positively an opportunity for increasing the contraceptive uptake in this country.
Ugandan women generally prefer to use injectables (e.g Depo provera) as a method to space and limit child births. Half of the women (aged 15 to 49 years) who intend to use a family planning method in the future say they prefer injectables while already 10 percent of married women are actually using injectables to plan their families, making this by far the most widely acceptable method of contraception. Discontinuation rates are also lowest for injectables compared to other methods of FP. It is thus a method that is more sustainable for users than the rest whose discontinuation rates in the first year of use are much higher.
Much as there are efforts to promote contraceptive use, we need to use the evidence from such research surveys and tailor methods to specific categories of people. A supply of family planning commodities is not enough if many women (couples) are not aware where exactly to locate these commodities. We need to find communication avenues that reach the grass root women. From evidence in the UDHS, more than two thirds of women had not heard or seen a Family planning message on radio, newspaper, TV or video in a year. Do we need to also go on and use
The other opportunity for Uganda is that the women who have not heard births actually want to have only 4 children in their lifetime. The question however is: will they have only four? Probably not, so long as the gap between demand and actual use of contraception is not bridged. But opportunities exist. We don’t need to squander them. We can actually together bring down the fertility rate and have healthier manageable families. And a lot can be done based on evidence from research findings

The World is Backtracking on Climate Change Targets

The World is Backtracking on Climate Change Targets

It started like a promising step in the right direction post the Copenhagen 2009 Climate change conference when a political accord to keep the Earth's average temperature from rising no more than 1.3 degrees C above today's average was agreed on. Now the countries have started to back track on the targets that they themselves set for action on climate change. For example, China- which is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gas has dragged its feet. After the January 31^st pledge submissions, China insists that the emission cuts are not binding to the business owners. They will be voluntary. This, you and I can attest is one step towards failure in meeting China ’s target of reducing carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent on 2005 levels. Not many owners of major national pollutants (in China ) will commit to this if it is voluntary like the government says.

Now, only 55 countries, including the EU, China and USA have met the January 31^st deadline to submit pledges to the UN for cutting greenhouse emissions. This is less than half of all the countries that committed to the 2009 Copenhagen political accord. The 55 that have committed though together contribute about 78% of the world’s greenhouse emissions. The question is; will these pledges be met by action as we go along? Or they are just pledges like many we have seen in the past on other global issues that rarely come to pass. For the record, these individual countries and blocks like the EU all seem to hinge meeting their targets to other countries doing the same or more. The EU for example will only increase its target to 30 per cent on 1990 levels if the other countries show more urge in their commitments. This literary means no country or block wants to commit fully to their own reduction as it halts returns from industrialisation. Not to mention that the business communities in each of these countries will continue to put their governments on pressure not to commit to targets that will certainly impact on their own profitability. The US senate is already debating in this line of thought. There is an element of selfishness in every nation. No one nation wants to lead by example in such aspects as it impacts on their economies. The economic competition in the world seems to be playing a part in this. Heavy investments are needed to have clean efficient energy and have industries cut back on the gasses they currently remit. This literary means less profitability on the part of the private industries, thus the national governments have to hedge by providing incentives or directly cash investments. The US or EU will not do this when they see China continuing in almost the present direction because this in a sense means economic strength for China at the expense of the two power blocks.

The UN is already voicing its concerns that the targets set are certainly not enough to help reverse effects of global warming. These pledges, its projected will still see global temperatures rise up to 3 degrees C, levels that are dangerous for the world. The less developed regions like sub-Saharan Africa with meagre resources will certainly suffer the brunt, witnessing massive rises in climate change migrants and clashes over limited natural resources like water and fertile land as droughts escalate.

It is more likely that by the end of the year 2010 in the Mexico City climate change conference, there will be less progress beyond mere pledges. It is time for more action. BUT who is responsible?