This report covers the findings of a research initiative commissioned by the Asia Pacific
Alliance for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (APA) to understand the data deficit faced
by SRHR advocates in the Asia Pacific region, and the role that civil society organisations (CSOs)
play in generating and utilizing evidence for sexual and reproductive rights (SRR) advocacy. In particular, APA was interested in four thematic areas that it deemed neglected in SRR advocacy; these were: 1) comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), 2) abortion, 3) sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC), and 4) pleasure.
In conceptualizing the research with the consultancy duo, APA agreed to a set of five inter-related questions. These research questions guided the initiative at all stages, including in data collection, data analysis and presentation of results.
1 What data are commonly used for advocacy in relation to CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and
pleasure? What data are available? And are these data adequate for advocates in Asia and the Pacific?
2 What type of information would advocates in the region want or need to feel better equipped for advocacy on these four issues? What else can and should be measured?
3 From the civil society perspective, what is the status of rights relating to CSE, abortion,
SOGIESC and pleasure in Asia and the Pacific? How does this differ for vulnerable/ marginalized groups?
4 What are the most important advocacy asks for these four issues nationally and regionally? What opportunities and challenges are there for this type of advocacy?
5 How will more and better data (and, specifically, data relating to the agreed
indicators) support this advocacy
The methodology for this initiative included a desk review, a survey for advocates across the Asia Pacific region, key expert interviews and APA member interviews. In addition, four APA member organisations were supported by the consultants to generate and analyse their own evidence in relation to one or more of the identified evidence ‘gaps.’
The findings highlight the dearth of data relating to CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and pleasure that is collected systematically in the region (and globally). According to advocates, the data that does exist does not provide sufficient insight into the inequalities faced by marginalized communities, nor does it expose the intersections of overlapping systems of disadvantage that compound violations of sexual and reproductive
rights. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, governments remain resistant to collecting more
and better evidence. In other words, evidence exists, but it only tells part of the story.
As a result of these large gaps in available evidence, the majority of respondents agreed that CSOs have a crucial role to play in generating more and better evidence, particularly in places where it is not generated by the government due to legal restrictions (e.g. related to the criminalization of certain identities or behaviours). Beyond needing evidence to highlight violations to governments and other duty-bearers, and efficacy of progressive laws and policies, CSO-generated evidence also has the potential to shift the narrative of sexual and reproductive rights (SRR) from one focused on structures and processes to one that addresses the lived experiences of marginalized and invisibilized communities or individuals across
the region.
|
|
