[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
can state as a plausible objective the target of achieving replacement fertility rates by the year
2000.
Over the past few years, U.S. government-funded population programs have played a
major role in arousing interest in family planning in many countries, and in launching and
accelerating the growth of national family planning programs. In most countries, there has been
an initial rapid growth in contraceptive "acceptors" up to perhaps 10% of fertile couples in a few
LDCs. The acceleration of previous trends of fertility decline is attributable, at least in part, to
family planning programs.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
However, there is growing appreciation that the problem is more long term and complex
than first appeared and that a short term burst of activity or moral fervour will not solve it. The
danger in this realization is that the U.S. might abandon its commitment to assisting in the
world's population problem, rather than facing up to it for the long-run difficult problem that it is.
From year to year we are learning more about what kind of fertility reduction is feasible
in differing LDC situations. Given the laws of compound growth, even comparatively small
reductions in fertility over the next decade will make a significant difference in total numbers by
the year 2000, and a far more significant one by the year 2050.
The proposed strategy calls for a coordinated approach to respond to the important U.S.
foreign policy interest in the influence of population growth on the world's political, economic
and ecological systems. What is unusual about population is that this foreign policy interest must
have a time horizon far beyond that of most other objectives. While there are strong short-run
reasons for population programs, because of such factors as food supply, pressures on social
service budgets, urban migration and social and political instability, the major impact of the
benefits - or avoidance of catastrophe - that could be accomplished by a strengthened U.S.
commitment in the population area will be felt less by those of us in the U.S. and other countries
today than by our children and grandchildren.
B. Key Country priorities in U.S. and Multilateral Population Assistance
One issue in any global population strategy is the degree of emphasis in allocation of
program resources among countries. The options available range from heavy concentration on a
few vital large countries to a geographically diverse program essentially involving all countries
willing to accept such assistance. All agencies believe the following policy provides the proper
overall balance.
In order to assist the development of major countries and to maximize progress toward
population stability, primary emphasis would be placed on the largest and fastest growing
developing countries where the imbalance between growing numbers and development potential
most seriously risks instability, unrest, and international tensions. These countries are: India,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, The Philippines, Thailand, Egypt,
Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. Out of a total 73.3 million worldwide average increase in
population from 1970-75 these countries contributed 34.3 million or 47%. This group of priority
countries includes some with virtually no government interest in family planning and others with
active government family planning programs which require and would welcome enlarged
technical and financial assistance. These countries should be given the highest priority within
AID's population program in terms of resource allocations and/or leadership efforts to encourage
action by other donors and organizations.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
However, other countries would not be ignored. AID would provide population
assistance and/ or undertake leadership efforts with respect to other, lower priority countries to
the extent that the availability of funds and staff permits, taking into account of such factors as:
long run U.S. political interests; impact of rapid population growth on its development potential;
the country's relative contribution to world population growth; its financial capacity to cope with
the problem; potential impact on domestic unrest and international frictions (which can apply to
small as well as large countries); its significance as a test or demonstration case; and
opportunities for expenditures that appear particularly cost-effective (e.g. it has been suggested
that there may be particularly cost-effective opportunities for supporting family planning to
reduce the lag between mortality and fertility declines in countries where death rates are still
declining rapidly); national commitment to an effective program.
For both the high priority countries and the lower priority ones to which funds and staff
permit aid, the form and content of our assistance or leadership efforts would vary from country
to country, depending on each nation's particular interests, needs, and receptivity to various forms
of assistance. For example, if these countries are receptive to U.S. assistance through bilateral or
central AID funding, we should provide such assistance at levels commensurate with the
recipient's capability to finance needed actions with its own funds, the contributions of other
donors and organizations, and the effectiveness with which funds can be used.
In countries where U.S. assistance is limited either by the nature of political or diplomatic
relations with those countries or by lack of strong government desire. In population reduction
programs, external technical and financial assistance (if desired by the countries) would have to
come from other donors and/or from private and international organizations, many of which
receive contributions from AID. The USG would, however, maintain an interest (e.g. through
Embassies) in such countries population problems and programs (if any) to reduce population
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]