The concept and policy framework for active ageing turns twenty next year. Will this anniversary be an occasion to celebrate the achievements of international actions on ageing? Or will it become just another occasion to reflect on “uneven progress” in advancing towards a society for all ages – a goal set also twenty years ago by the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing? At least today, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the latter scenario seems the most plausible.
The concept and practices of active ageing were formulated by the WHO in 2002 as a contribution to the Second World Assembly on Ageing and its major outcome, the Madrid Plan of Action. Since its introduction to the wider international discourse in 2002, the concept and policy framework for active ageing has gained global recognition and has quickly become the central focus of national policy on ageing in many countries around the world. In Europe, active ageing quickly gained political prominence in connection with the 2012 European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations. Since the European Year, active ageing has become a central content of policies for adjusting to population change and ageing in the European Union. Active ageing has also been embraced as the basis for the implementation of the Madrid Plan of Action across the entire region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, with its 56 member states from North America, Europe, Central Asia and Western Asia.
Several European countries have developed their national policies on active ageing, among them Bulgaria, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. In 2020, the Russian Federation introduced a draft Concept of Active Longevity Policy. Different countries have chosen different names for their national strategic documents on ageing, such as positive ageing, but have incorporated active ageing approaches into their policies. Among these countries are the Czech Republic, Ireland, and New Zealand. In addition to Europe and other demographically and economically advanced regions, active ageing has become the ideology and content of the social and economic policies of a number of developing countries, including demographically “young” countries, such as Cambodia.
The appeal of active ageing is that it uniquely combines the humanitarian, or individual, aspects of ageing with developmental, or population, aspects of ageing. According to the 2002 WHO document, the policy for active ageing is destined to ensure the health and dignity (independence) of people as they age. At the same time, it promotes the participation of older individuals in society, including the economic participation of older workers. European Commission has enthusiastically embraced an economic, or “productivist”, approach of active ageing: the Europe 2020 strategy emphasizes the need of “promoting a healthy and active ageing population to allow for social cohesion and higher productivity”. Such enthusiasm is well justified by the demographic situation in many EU countries, which are already experiencing or bound to experience in the near future the “demographic deficit” (Harper, 2014) manifested in the reduction of the “economically productive” segment of the population owing to population ageing and population decline, since both can no longer be compensated by immigration.
The popularity of active ageing policy stems from its promises, first, to help overcome the obstacles of individual and population ageing, and, second, to harness the potential of longevity for sustainable development. This potential in the form of the dividend of healthy longevity, or the second demographic dividend, has been a major enticement of active ageing: hypothetically the indefinite availability of longevity dividend holds the opportunity of continued development of societies throughout the later stages of their demographic transition.
And then coronavirus hit. The new reality brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the life of individuals and societies as a whole. Various aspects of individual and societal lives have been affected, including public policies, and active ageing policy has been among them. All three dimensions of active ageing policy are threatened: health, dignity and participation.
The impact of COVID-19 on the health of older persons is already well documented, discussed and even incorporated into policy responses to the crisis. Older persons are the most obvious victims of pandemic and containment measures. The tragic numbers of direct loss of lives from COVID-19 are clearly dominated by older persons. Complications of chronic non-communicable diseases triggered by COVID-19 or related to limited access to health care inevitably increase the toll of indirect victims of coronavirus. Another evolving threat is the poorly understood sequel of an acute viral infection. Inappropriate measures of enforced isolation or self-isolation have significantly limited opportunities for pursuing the healthy and active lifestyles advocated by the active ageing paradigm, thus diminishing individual efforts of disease prevention and rehabilitation.
The dignity and independence of older persons have also got into a state of disorder. Interrupted social contacts have been poorly compensated for older persons by digital opportunities thus leading to increased loneliness and psychological stress among older people. Measures of containing the pandemic, such as confinement and restrictions of movements and contacts, have reduced family support and professional social care.
Opportunities for any form of participation of older persons in society have become fragile during total or partial isolation and enforced social distancing. Inactivity and widespread unemployment have reduced the chances of older workers to stay at work or find a new job. Various forms of ageism, from domestic violence proliferated during lockdowns to age-based triage of COVID patients in health care institutions, have exacerbated the victimisation of older members of society.
In general, the pandemic has intensified the tension between policy approaches to individual ageing and population ageing, which has manifested itself in a conflict between the immediate task of saving individual lives and public demand to revive the economy (Harper, 2020). Indeed, “the political debate about how to tackle the pandemic has often placed health and the economy in opposition” (Horton, 2021).
Adjustment to ageing is central to the Madrid Plan of Action. However, overcoming the COVID-19 crisis and post crisis uncertainties will require more decisive actions in the area of ageing: rethinking, not just reviving the ongoing and often futile policy measures. The new reality calls for rejecting business as usual in finding solutions for challenges and opportunities of ageing.
Policy on ageing is not the only candidate for revision. The global overarching document, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, will actually require meticulous attention to ensure that its ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets are attainable. By some estimates, as of to date two-thirds of the SDGs are unlikely to be met (Naidoo & Fisher, 2020).
There were several calls during the pandemic for a revision of the SDGs; the following appeal by Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in 2014-2020, is one of the most justified:
“The coronavirus has merely lifted the lid off the pre-existing pandemic of poverty. Covid-19 arrived in a world where poverty, extreme inequality and disregard for human life are thriving, and in which legal and economic policies are designed to create and sustain wealth for the powerful, but not end poverty. (SDGs)… are clearly not going to be met without drastic recalibration. The SDG framework places immense and mistaken faith in growth and the private sector, rather than envisioning states as the key agents of change and embracing policies that will redistribute wealth and address precarity.” (Alston, 2020)
Instead of insisting on achieving all the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets, a few paramount, clear and realistic priorities can be selected and persistently pursued (Naidoo & Fisher, 2020). Such selective and persistent implementation can also be chosen for policy actions on ageing.
The twentieth anniversary of the active ageing framework next year will coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the Second World Assembly on Ageing and the implementation of the Madrid Plan of Action on Ageing. In 2022, the final stage of the fourth review and appraisal of the implementation of the Madrid Plan will be conducted at the regional and global levels. This will provide an opportunity for a thoughtful reshuffle and re-launch of international action on ageing in the wake of the pandemic. Future reshuffles must be well thought out and justified. Before embarking on revisions and amendments, an analysis of progress and failures must be undertaken. This should include a detailed and complete picture of the impact of the pandemic on individual lives in all age groups. Data disaggregated by age, as well as by sex, ethnicity and social and economic status should form the basis for the analysis and revision of international and national actions on ageing. This learning opportunity can be converted into an opportunity for evidence-informed implementation of the Madrid Plan of Action with a policy for active ageing, modified to reflect the pandemic and post-pandemic reality, at its core. Business as usual with annoying mantras and calls to “redouble the efforts” will be counterproductive and “more of the same” can only lead to the traditional depressing acknowledgement of uneven progress – a euphemism for failure.
Bulgaria (2012). National Concept for Promotion of Active Ageing (2012-2030).
Cambodia (2017). National Ageing Policy 2017-2030. To Further Improve Well-Being of Older Persons of Cambodian People. https://cambodia.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/NAP%202017-2030_%20Final_English-Printed.pdf
Czech Republic (2014). National Action Plan for Positive Ageing for the Period 2013-2017.
European Commission (2010). 2012 to be the European Year for Active Ageing.
European Commission (2010). EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Harper, S. (2014). Economic and social implications of aging societies. Science 346: (6209), pp. 587-591.
Harper, S. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic and Older Adults: Institutionalised Ageism or Pragmatic Policy? Journal of Population Ageing, 13: 419-425.
Horton, R. (2021). COVID-19 and the convergence of nations. Lancet, 397, February 6, 2021.
Ireland (2014). National Positive Ageing Strategy.
Malta (2014). National Strategic Policy for for Active Ageing – Malta 2014-2020.
Naidoo, R. & Fisher, B. (2020). Reset Sustainable Development Goals for a pandemic world, Nature, 6 July 2020.
New Zealand (2001). Positive Ageing Strategy.
Philip Alston (2020). Covid-19 has revealed a pre-existing pandemic of poverty that benefits the rich, The Guardian, 11 Jul 2020.
Romania (2014). The Government adopted the National Strategy to promote active ageing.
Russian Federation (2020). The Concept of Active Ageing Longevity Policy. Scientific and methodological report of the Higher School of Economics, Moscow (in Russian).
Slovakia (2017). Report on the follow-up to the Regional Implementation Strategy (RIS) of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) in the Slovak Republic.
Slovenia (2018). Active Ageing Strategy.
Ukraine (2018). Government Portal.
United Nations (2002). Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing. Madrid, 8-12 April 2002.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012). 2012 Vienna Ministerial Declaration (ECE/AC.30/2012/3).
World Health Organization (2002). Active Ageing – A Policy Framework. A contribution of the World Health Organization to the Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, Spain, April 2002. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.