Sexual and reproductive health and rights in the evolving post-2015 agenda: perspectives from key players from multilateral and related agencies in 2013

Abstract

This paper reports the views of participants from key multilaterals and related agencies in the evolving global negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda on the strategic location of sexual and reproductive health and rights. The research was carried out in June and July 2013, following the release of the report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, and comprised 40 semi-structured interviews with 57 participants and two e-mail respondents. All respondents were responsible for the post-2015 health and development agenda, or the post-2015 agenda more broadly, within their organisations. The interviews provide an insight into the intention to ensure that sexual and reproductive health and rights are integrated into the post-2015 trajectory by key players who sit at the interface of UN and Member State interaction. They reveal both an awareness of the shortcomings of the Millennium Development Goal process and its impact on advocacy for sexual and reproductive health and rights in early post-2015 engagement, as well as the vulnerability of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the remaining phases of post-2015 negotiations. Recent events bear these concerns out. Ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights are included in the final post-2015 outcome document in the time remaining for negotiations, will be anything but a "doddle".

Rights Language in the Sustainable Development Agenda: Has Right to Health Discourse and Norms Shaped Health Goals?

“…The inclusion of sexual and reproductive health rights in the HLP Report may reflect the success of a longer-standing advocacy campaign to mobilize support in first the MDGs and then SDGs. 11,12 This inclusion foreshadows how important social advocacy will be in fomenting political support for the right to health in global health policy arenas, an insight bolstered by the comparably greater inclusion of this right in reports with more civil society and academic participation.…”

“…10 Sexual and reproductive health illustrates the potential impact of a disjuncture with rights: despite global recognition of these rights in the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development and the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action, conservative opposition saw women's health rights reduced to a maternal mortality goal in the MDGs, 11 with a formal reproductive health target only added in 2007 after a significant advocacy effort. 12 While the right to health is increasingly referenced in SDG debates, its usage varies and it is not always clear whether and how rhetorical references are related to proposed health goals. In this paper, we attempt to assess whether and how right to health language is related to the health goals proposed in reports.…”

“Everywhere but not specifically somewhere”: a qualitative study on why the right to health is not explicit in the post-2015 negotiations

“…Participants were from a total of 31 agencies: 17 multilaterals, four academic institutes, three foundations, three non-government organisations (NGOs), two government agencies, and two development banks (Table 1 ). Broad questions were asked on the emergent post-2015 health and development goals (for a detailed outline of the pre-designed question guide, see Brolan and Hill [ 20 ]). Interviews were recorded and transcribed, with participant’s written permission (and verbal consent in some instances).…”

“…Interviews were recorded and transcribed, with participant’s written permission (and verbal consent in some instances). Further detail on the sensitive nature of the interview process, and ensuring anonymity of the interviewees, is given in Brolan and Hill [ 20 ]. Otherwise, NVIVO 9 qualitative analysis software was used to assist coding.…”

Countdown for health to the post‐2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals

“…In recent intergovernmental negotiations, language that called for protection of human rights “without discrimination” was opposed because of perceived covert links to sexual orientation and gender identity. Our interviewees shared the apprehension that in the debates about economic and environmental matters implicit in the post‐2015 negotiations, sexual and reproductive health and rights may become vulnerable in critical trade‐offs 5 …”