As we move into a new year, Julian Nyamupachitu and Amalie Quevedo reflect on their key takeaways from ICFP for advancing disability inclusive SRHR.
The International Conference on Family Planning (ICFP) 2025 in Bogotá, Colombia, was a powerful reminder of why the global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) community must commit to approaches that genuinely leave no one behind. Hosted for the first time in Latin America under the theme “Equity Through Action: Advancing SRHR for All,” the conference provided space for critical conversations on strengthening inclusion, particularly for persons with disabilities whose needs and rights are often overlooked in mainstream SRHR programming.
Julian Nyamupachitu, Regional Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning Lead at Options and Amalie Quevedo, Inclusive SRHR Technical Advisor at Sightsavers, were able to join as part of the United Kingdom International Development (UKID) Women’s Integrated Sexual Health (WISH) 2 programme delegation from MSI Reproductive Choices and IPPF. Here they discuss their key reflections and insights from the conference.
It’s now a few months since you attended ICFP, what session or conversation still sticks in your mind?
Julian: I had the opportunity to participate in a deeply insightful session titled “SRHR for Persons with Disabilities”. This was moderated by Susan Sabano, a Programmes Officer and Disability Inclusion Advocate at CIVICUS Global Alliance. Susan has a disability herself and set an inclusive and engaging atmosphere. However, the statistics she presented showed how much we still need to do.
The voices of women with disabilities are often missing in family planning decisions. Many are stereotyped as asexual or assumed to have no interest in relationships, sexuality, or family life. As a result, individuals may use specific methods due to external pressure rather than personal agency. It’s key that this perception and treatment is countered through awareness raising activities and provider training that emphasises the diverse needs of persons with disabilities, including their rights to relationships, sexuality, bodily autonomy, and family life.
Amalie: One of the takeaways we were keen for participants at the conference to leave with is that embedding disability inclusion into programme structures from the outset can lead to measurable changes in who is reached. During our Sightsavers session, FCDO and MSI Reproductive Choices reflected on the WISH programme as a practical example of this. They described how disability inclusion was strengthened through formal partnerships with organisations with people with disabilities (OPDs), technical leadership from specialist organisations such as Leonard Cheshire and Sightsavers, and the secondment of disability inclusion staff directly into MSI teams. This combination of external technical expertise and internal positioning was highlighted as a key factor in embedding inclusion within programme delivery. They also shared that this approach contributed to an increase in the proportion of clients with disabilities reached within the programme from around 2.5 percent to 5.1 percent by the end of implementation, with a clear priority on reaching women and girls with disabilities.
You’ve both mentioned some practical examples of how programmers can drive forward change, including through their own structures and partnerships as well as technical assistance strategies. Are there any other tips you can share?
Julian: For me, another key message from the conference was how disability inclusive and respectful maternity care, grounded in effective communication, dignity, and safety, significantly improves experiences and outcomes for women with physical, sensory, or intellectual disabilities. Basic sign language skills, easy-read materials, and patient-centred communication are tools that need to be better integrated into the delivery of care. BUT disability inclusion requires adequate budgeting for accessibility. Other attendees I met with noted that in some cases transport must be provided because without it, individuals would be unable, or find it extremely difficult, to reach services at the health facilities or service centres. They also emphasised that some people require support assistants to accompany them or help manage their access needs. These costs need to be recognised and addressed to ensure meaningful inclusion.
Amalie: The only way we can achieve this is from moving from participation to power-sharing with OPDs, ensuring meaningful involvement throughout programme design, implementation and monitoring. We need to do better at strengthening how our interventions meet the needs of specific disability types and invest in initiatives that provide us with the needed disability-disaggregated data, equity-driven planning and accountability systems.
Were there any other initiatives outside of WISH 2 that struck you as leading the way in this area?
Julian: I had an interesting discussion with Lilian Muthoni Kivuti, Programme Manager and Co-Founder of Women Spaces Africa, a women-led disability organisation in Kenya. Like Amalie, Lilian emphasised that disability inclusion must start at the inception of a programme and not later. She highlighted that inclusion often fails when persons with disabilities are consulted too late, leading to ineffective solutions and a tendency to generalise all disabilities as the same. For example, ramps built without consulting wheelchair users may technically exist yet remain unusable.
Lilian provided an example of how she had worked on an SRHR guideline that sought to provide guidance specific to different disability types, titled Nyenzo za taarifa, elimu na mawasiliano kuhusu haki za ngono na uzazi kwa wasichana na wanawake wenye ulemavu wa macho walio katika umri wa uzazi (information, education, and communication materials on SRHR for girls and women with visual disabilities).
Amalie: Women Enabled International spoke about their work at the intersections of gender, disability and other forms of marginalisation, particularly for women and girls with disabilities. They highlighted recent work on legal capacity and decision-making, illustrating how the denial of legal capacity remains a major structural barrier to accessing SRHR for some of the most marginalised disability constituencies. This served as a reminder that improving service accessibility alone is not sufficient if legal and rights-based barriers remain unaddressed.
How can we ensure that we continue this type of learning and knowledge sharing outside of these conference venues?
Amalie: We know that learning platforms and shared evidence can strengthen inclusive SRHR practice over time. YIELD Hub shared how their learning hub convenes organisations around key youth-centred SRHR thematic priorities to exchange evidence and practice. They spoke about the potential to further strengthen how cross-cutting equity issues, including disability inclusion, could be reflected within these learning agendas in future, and about the importance of broad and representative participation in these spaces.
Julian: As ever, youth voices play a key role here. The conference showed examples from countries including Rwanda, Kenya, Nepal and Nigeria that illustrated how young persons with disabilities are driving local advocacy, shifting norms, and strengthening accountability. But, as with our points above, we must also understand that while youth can drive progress the evidence also shows that youth with disabilities face heightened vulnerability to violence, discrimination, and exclusion. While we must recognise their voice and contribution, we must not do so at the expense of ignoring their need for tailored interventions and supportive structures.
In a few words, what does this mean for you going forward on WISH 2?
Julian: Practically, for me as the Regional MERL Lead for Options, these insights underscored that disability inclusion is not optional, but instead the foundation of equitable, accountable, and dignified SRHR systems. As we move forward with the WISH 2 programme, it’s critical we continue with the work Amalie mentioned above; strengthening our structures, partnerships and budgeting systems to embed disability inclusion through the programme lifecycle and ensure power is shared.
Amalie: The discussions during the conference reinforced how disability inclusion and intersectionality must be understood not only in programme terms, but also through a legal and rights-based lens. Taken together, these examples we mention above illustrate that progress on disability-inclusive SRHR is being driven through a mix of structured partnerships, sustained technical support, legal advocacy, and shared learning spaces. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that while important gains have been made, continued effort is needed to deepen reach and ensure that those facing multiple layers of marginalisation are not left behind.
Relevant Links
Improving contraceptive choices and bodily autonomy for women and girls with disabilities | Blogs | Sightsavers