Asset 1

Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI) 2020 launched                    111,75 Think Tanks across the world ranked in different categories.                SDPI is ranked 90th among “Top Think Tanks Worldwide (non-US)”.           SDPI stands 11th among Top Think Tanks in South & South East Asia & the Pacific (excluding India).            SDPI notches 33rd position in “Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by A Think Tank” category.                SDPI remains 42nd in “Best Quality Assurance and Integrity Policies and Procedure” category.              SDPI stands 49th in “Think Tank to Watch in 2020”.            SDPI gets 52nd position among “Best Independent Think Tanks”.                           SDPI becomes 63rd in “Best Advocacy Campaign” category.                   SDPI secures 60th position in “Best Institutional Collaboration Involving Two or More Think Tanks” category.                       SDPI obtains 64th position in “Best Use of Media (Print & Electronic)” category.               SDPI gains 66th position in “Top Environment Policy Tink Tanks” category.                SDPI achieves 76th position in “Think Tanks With Best External Relations/Public Engagement Program” category.                    SDPI notches 99th position in “Top Social Policy Think Tanks”.            SDPI wins 140th position among “Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks”.               SDPI is placed among special non-ranked category of Think Tanks – “Best Policy and Institutional Response to COVID-19”.                                            Owing to COVID-19 outbreak, SDPI staff is working from home from 9am to 5pm five days a week. All our staff members are available on phone, email and/or any other digital/electronic modes of communication during our usual official hours. You can also find all our work related to COVID-19 in orange entries in our publications section below.    The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) is pleased to announce its Twenty-third Sustainable Development Conference (SDC) from 14 – 17 December 2020 in Islamabad, Pakistan. The overarching theme of this year’s Conference is Sustainable Development in the Times of COVID-19. Read more…       FOOD SECIRITY DASHBOARD: On 4th Nov, SDPI has shared the first prototype of Food Security Dashboard with Dr Moeed Yousaf, the Special Assistant to Prime Minister on  National Security and Economic Outreach in the presence of stakeholders, including Ministry of National Food Security and Research. Provincial and district authorities attended the event in person or through zoom. The dashboard will help the government monitor and regulate the supply chain of essential food commodities.

Number of Downlaods: 28

Published Date: Dec 15, 1993

Population and EnvironmentDraft Chapter for the ICPD Pakistan Country Report (P-16)



The Population of Pakistan grew from 32.7 million in 1947 to an estimated 115 million in 1992. The population growth rate varied between 2.4 percent in 1950’s to above 3 percent in 1970s and 80s and now being estimated around 2.9 percent for the early 1990s. This rapid growth rate made Pakistan the eighth most populous country in the world. With the addition of 3.6 million children every year, population is estimated to cross 170 million line by the turn of this century.

With falling population growth rates in a number of developing countries of Asia, Pakistan in particular is noted where no demographic transition could be witnessed. The unabated increase worries Pakistan’s policy makers and programme managers and is fully reflected in all recent five year plans including the Long Term Population Welfare Plan 1993-98. All population related policies, planning and programmes consider rapid population growth as the cause of increased poverty, unattained developmental objectives, and detracting of productive investment. Furthermore, coupled with illiteracy and low female labour force participation, women in Pakistan are argued to be deprived of alternate sources of self esteem and social status except for reproducing large number of children, particularly males. Reduction in human misery and breaking the cycle of poverty and low health, family planning programmes have been perused with major emphasis on contraceptive use and introduction of small family norm. The overall perception of population growth in these contexts is that of source of all ills. The most sought political support for population programmes by donor agencies, too, gave a similar impression that focused more on its consequences for capital formation, employment generation and the consequences for capital formation, employment generation and the capacity for the government to purvey social services. In contrast, population growth, at local level is conceived more in terms of health of mother and the children while complaints about inaccessibility of basic necessities and growing pressures and strains on their survival are more prominent.

The family planning programme was organised in urban areas in early 1950s and remained predominantly urban ever since. The programme has always been supply oriented but among other reasons it could provide adequate coverage to no more than 25 percent of needy urban women and to only 5 percent of rural women. The failure of the national programme to achieve population goals lie in its chequered history of administrative controls, financial allocations and multiple approaches besides its over centralised and top-bottom bureaucratic methodology of programme execution. The vulnerability of our family planning programme depending on foreign assistance also posed serious threat to subjugate the programme in accordance with the donor’s requirements. Withdrawal of foreign assistance to family planning could imply a serious jolt to programme related to integrating woman in development process, female education and health, etc. Increased availability of contraceptive methods has been achieved over the years but has maintained low accessibility to it. The variance reflects lack of innovativeness and adaptability of the programme to accommodate a variety of situations. Bali Declaration 1992 on Population and Sustainable Development seeks encouragement and wider community participation in programme planning and implementation. In this regard, examples of community oriented programmes including Orangi Pilot Project (Karachi), Idara e Kissan (Patoki), Community Based Distribution Programme (FPAP), etc. reveal tremendous potential and promise in the expansion of the programme in rural areas. The significant difference between these and official family planning programme lies in its integrated approach that considers woman as partner in development and attends to her immediate needs first. One may also argue about the quality of service that either makes or breaks new entrants to a programme. Its absence from the government based service outlets has been recognised as a major factor curtailing its progress. Unfortunately, slow accomplishment in achieving higher contraceptive use rate to lower fertility levels may be treated as a blow to the advocates of population control who had dehumanised the whole family building process into target demographic rates. The isolation of family planning from family well being issues especially those of women to raise overall quality of life are pointed out in all forums to be taken seriously in programme formulation and implementation.