THE United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) now has a shortfall of US$76 M, which represents an almost seven percent decline in its 2016 Budget. This funding was provided by the United States Government as part of shared global responsibility in the work of population management.  The new move, according to the organisation’s data, will adversely impact access to contraceptives, safe abortions, and reduction in maternal deaths. In 2016, that US$76M helped in providing 800,000 persons access to contraceptives, prevented approximately 100, 000 unsafe abortions and 10, 000 maternal deaths around the world.

The justification for the withdrawal of funding given by the Donald Trump administration was the invocation of a 1985 law,which it says prohibits U.S. funding to institutions that participate in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation, though China, which the law was intended to target, does not benefit from UNFPA. The 1979 One-Child Policy which was a measure of China’s population management was deemed a human rights violation and attracted condemnation worldwide.  In October 2015 the policy was reversed, allowing couples to have two children.

There is correlation between health, family planning and growth. Where persons are deprived access to reproductive choices and family-planning education — and these affect particularly those from the lower socio-economic rung — such carries consequences for the family and society.  Unplanned population growth not only puts pressure on the family who may feel the only way to deal with it is through unsafe abortions,  but it places at risk the mother’s health and brings pressure on  social services, such as  education, housing and public health.

Governments in lesser developed societies that cannot keep pace with its population growth vis-a- vis its developmental programmes, means that persons will fall into poverty and those already there will find it more difficult to climb out.

The inability of the state to provide public education consistent with universally acceptable standards of physical environment, resources, and teacher-to- students’ ratio, is compromised. When the private school system seeks to fill the gap in such environments, it allows for exploitation and in some cases the building of two societies within a society. This brings with it new stratifications that can threaten universal enforcement and respect for the laws of the land.

Where there are housing crises, such create slums and antecedent social problems such as crimes, insanitary environments, and the spread of infectious diseases. An overloaded healthcare system will not be able to respond favourably to these challenges. What this further suggests is that there would be reduction in the quality of health and longevity, impacting production and productivity needed for societal development.

The withdrawal of US$76M also earlier saw US$9.5 billion withdrawn from funding to international organisations engaged in HIV/AIDS, malaria, child health and maternal health. At the beginning of the month, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) which supports pilot developmental projects, announced that the U.S., which is its major backer, will not renew its contribution.

Withdrawal of funding will also impact the source of withdrawal, as more persons will flee their countries to settle in the one considered better and having the capacity to provide better services and quality of life. Persons will seek and pursue entry, and such efforts will not be contained or held in check by the possibility of facing deportation. The receiving country will also — especially in the so-called sanctuary cities and states — be required to provide services such as infant and childcare to the mothers and the babies born there.

One of the principal reasons developed countries provide financial support to international organisations, in areas such as health and development, has to do with recognition of the stabilising impact it can have on the recipient’s economy and population as well as theirs. To lose sight of this is to lose sight of the essence that informs global financial aid and support.

Countries such as ours that depend on international institutions for grants and loans to augment our developmental programmes will be affected by these withdrawals. Reacting to this requires of us finding innovative ways and new avenues to ensure the continuity of programmes that relied on support from agencies such as the IDB and United Nations programmes.  The new reality may require national conversations aimed at developing a response to the inevitable threat that faces the nation’s development and the people’s well-being.