Changing the SRHR Narrative in the Asia Pacific
Civil Society Organization (CSO) generated evidence has the potential to shift the narrative of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), from one that is predominantly focused on structures and processes to one that addresses the lived experiences of marginalized and overlooked communities and individuals across the region.
Introduction and Methodology
This research was undertaken to shed light into the deficit of data in relation to four priority sexual and reproductive health and rights issues: comprehensive sexuality education (CSE); abortion; sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC); and sexual pleasure.
A mixed methodology was used to inform the results, with the objectives of understanding the data deficit and how it affects SRHR advocacy in the region; and to learn how CSOs generate evidence, advocate with and for evidence. Methods employed were
Findings
The findings highlight a lack of data relating to CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and pleasure collected systematically not just in the region but also globally. It further shows that CSOs have a crucial role to play in generating not just more but better depth and quality of evidence, to highlight violations, and measure efficacy of laws and policies implemented by governments and other duty-bearers.
What evidence is missing?
Governments’ focus on structure and process indicators and a reliance on quantitative data, leaves the crucial questions relating to the lived experiences of those affected by laws, policies and regulations largely unanswered. The existing evidence does not encompass the experiences of individuals, in particular, those that are ‘invisibilized’ by the state.
The research highlights advocates’ need for more testimonies, case studies and research that centre on lived realities, particularly of groups that are marginalized or vulnerable. More disaggregated data is needed along with locally-rooted evidence—which they believe is more persuasive with policy-makers and implementers.
What evidence is available?
Much of the data that exists and is used by CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and pleasure advocates relates to legality. Many CSOs are utilizing evidence generated at global and regional level by research institutions and UN agencies. Advocates are using:
-
CSE. Evidence relating to curriculum content, teacher training, and budget allocations is useful for advocacy.
-
Abortion. Access to services (particularly for marginalized groups such as sex workers and young people), health providers’ knowledge of legal indications, and transparency of the laws are amongst the evidence used most by advocates.
-
SOGIESC. Violence against LGBTIQ+ individuals, existence of SOGIESC-sensitive health care services and prevalence of HIV.
-
Pleasure. Evidence relating to integration into CSE and training of sex educators is being used in the region.
Conclusions
- Advocates in Asia Pacific need more and higher-quality evidence relating to CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and pleasure to be effective.
- Available evidence often hides the way that people experience the systems and processes of the government and duty bearers, and invisibilizes marginalized communities.
- Civil society organisations are well-placed to generate evidence at the community level, which would fill the gaps in the available evidence.
- Experiential evidence that centres the lived realities of individuals and communities is needed in order to fully understand how and whether human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, and in specific sexual and reproductive rights.
- Governments and civil society can play complementary roles, recognizing the value added of the evidence generated by both.
There is a lack of data relating to CSE, abortion, SOGIESC and pleasure collected systematically in the region. According to advocates, existing evidence does not provide sufficient insight into the inequalities faced by marginalized communities, and it does not expose the intersections of overlapping systems of disadvantage and discrimination that compound violations of sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Case Studies
4 APA members were supported to generate and analyze their own evidence as a ‘mini -pilot’ project, to illustrate how CSOs can and do generate evidence in relation to neglected areas of sexual and reproductive rights
