UNFPA uses deceptive numbers to promote UN-style family planning

By | November 11, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 11 (C-Fam) In a new report, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) claims that greater investment in contraceptives brings social and economic benefits.  A closer look at the data raises doubts.

Ending “unmet need” for family planning is one of UNFPA’s three “transformative results.”  The other two are ending preventable maternal mortality and ending harmful practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation.

UNFPA often equates “unmet need” to lack of access to contraceptives.  This is misleading, as only about 5% of women with a so-called “need” say they lack access.  “Unmet need” also does not reflect actual demand. Indeed, one of its leading concerns among women who reject UN-style family planning are the health risks and side effects of such contraceptive methods.  Other women cite religious opposition.

In its new analysis, UNFPA looks at family planning and maternal health together, arguing that their effects are “synergistic.”  They claim that investing $79 billion in both will result in a benefit of $660 billion.

Providing the full range of maternal and child health care for pregnant women does cost more than giving them contraceptives.  UNFPA argues that increasing contraceptive use will reduce maternal and child health care expenses.  They also say it will reduce newborn and child deaths by preventing pregnancies.

However, most maternal and child deaths occur in the developing world, and greater investments are needed to make birth safer.  Redirecting funds toward contraceptives would not accomplish this.

To justify its claims, UNFPA relies on the “Lives Saved Tool,” a complicated and questionable analysis.  It works this way. UNFPA counts the years the woman might live if she survives childbirth. UNFPA also counts the projected lifetime of the child, too. But then, the report argues that infant deaths and stillbirths would be prevented with contraception. You cannot count the lifetime of a child whose conception was blocked in the first place.

UNFPA also considers the economic gains from women’s participation in the workforce.  They argue this would be increased both by surviving childbirth and by avoiding getting pregnant.  However, they do not consider the economic impact of children never being born, and never entering the workforce, due to increased contraceptive use.  Even as births fall below replacement levels, including in developing regions, growing economies need workers.

Yet none of the predictions in UNFPA’s analysis can come true unless “unmet need” is entirely eliminated, which is the agency’s explicit target.  One footnote acknowledges that this will require additional demand-side interventions including those targeting social and gender norms.”

UNFPA’s goal is not to satisfy a demand, but to create one that does not exist.

The “Lives Saved Tool” has been used to make the case for contraceptive investments in other instances.  The United States Agency for International Development used it to lay out a plan for maternal and child health interventions in its 2014 “Acting on the Call” report.  That analysis anticipated that two thirds of maternal lives would be saved by preventing pregnancy in the first place.  As for child “lives saved,” one third would be through “demographic impact.”  In other words, they would never be conceived due to contraception, and therefore would not suffer early deaths.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter