PSN is delighted to announce that Karen Newman is taking over coordination of the Network from Catherine Budgett-Meakin from the beginning of May, 2008.
Karen worked for IPPF from 1982 till 2003, focusing in the later part of that time on policy and governance issues, with a special responsibility for sexual and reproductive health and rights. She was one of the main architects of the IPPF Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights.
Since 2003 she has carried out a range of consultancy work, including assignments for DFID, WHO, UNFPA, Interact Worldwide, Amnesty International and IPPF Arab World, East and South East Asia and Western Hemisphere Regions. Her breadth of experience in terms of subject area and regional knowledge will be of considerable value.
More staff developments
PSN is also delighted to announce that Louise Carver has been appointed to help develop our communications strategy. Louise has been working with us for some time but now we are able to formally consolidate the appointment.
Catherine Budgett-Meakin will continue to work actively alongside the new team.
In a special addition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Population and Climate change, Martin Desvaux and PSN Board member John Guillebaud discuss the issue of peak oil.
Population and consumption: not an either-or
Joe Chamie calls targeting unintended fertility a "delay tactic" that hinders the immediate pursuit of reducing resource consumption. Again, we want to reiterate that we don't view this as an either-or proposition. Instead, to avoid catastrophic climate change, we believe that the international community should pursue the methods that Fred Meyerson describes below to reverse population growth and ways in which to reduce resource consumption.Diminishing oil reserves
The time we have available to achieve both of these goals is key. As stated previously, the United Nations currently projects (pdf) that world population will reach about 9 billion by 2050. Meanwhile, David Rutledge at the California Institute of Technology recently looked at projections for the depletion of conventional oil, gas, and coal reserves based on the application of M. King Hubbert's technique for determining peak oil and estimated that, by 2076, 90 percent of these reserves will be gone.
This is a much shorter timescale than previously believed--especially for coal, where mainstream predictions had indicated up to a 250-year supply. Rutledge's projections for coal production take into account new assessments of the recoverability of coal reserves, which may not be as accessible as once thought, and it's possible that earlier coal forecasts were based on current usage rates and didn't factor in acceleration from population growth and increased affluence. Several countries have already severely downgraded their reserves: In 2004, Germany, the largest coal producer in the European Union, reduced its estimated black coal reserves by 99 percent and its brown coal reserves by 80 percent.Rising energy costs and scarcity
Aside from the devastating climate effects of burning all our fossil fuel, if demographers and Rutledge are correct, in less than 70 years, humankind will number 9 billion and energy will be scarce and expensive. Assuming that current growth in renewables and nuclear energy could provide 60 percent of the current world energy needs by 2075, Rutledge lays out the stark challenge facing humankind: Cut energy demand to 40 percent less than it is today and reduce global population to around 5 billion. We think this population target is still too high, given that Routledge doesn't take into account attrition in agriculture and land availability by that time.Family planning must be prioritised
Because nearly one-half of the world's population is under the age of 25, placing them in the midst or still ahead of their childbearing years, reversing population growth cannot be achieved before 2050. Only a catastrophic die-off could make it happen sooner. The alternative is Fred's top-tier prioritization of voluntary family planning, plus education and media outreach now. Further delay means that we must contend with nearly a billion extra humans to feed and clothe every decade.Developing countries deserve a better deal
It's all very well and good to say, as Joe does, that in Africa, "per-capita emissions are already so low that lower birthrates would not make a noticeable dent in total global emissions." But this implies tolerating an appalling status quo: Who among us doesn't passionately want to see the poorest people of the world escape their unacceptable poverty? It's not difficult to understand that one less person born into poverty is one less person who needs to be helped out of poverty--a development process that cannot occur without increased energy consumption and (in the medium term) more carbon-dioxide emissions per person.
The data we gave in our first post showed that in 2003, Africa had a per-capita ecological footprint of 1.1 global hectares (gha) against an available bio-capacity of 1.3 gha per person. In other words, more than a 17.6-percent increase in Africa's population will make it impossible for even underdeveloped states to sustain their current populations due to space, energy, and (especially) water constraints. As Africa doesn't have the same buffer of wealth as the developed countries possessed when they crossed the line of unsustainability, that process will have a much harsher impact on Africans. One of us (John Guillebaud) was born and brought up in Burundi and Rwanda, and from recent visits, he knows firsthand how many sub-Saharan African countries are already on the verge of demographic entrapment. Once the environmental carrying capacity is grossly exceeded, the only likely outcomes are starvation, disease, inter-ethnic violence and genocide, migration (and to where?), and/or dependence on aid from the international community.
In a special addition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Population and Climate change, Frederick A. B. Meyerson argues that the are many reasons why increasing access to voluntary family planning should be a top international priority.
Family planning protects climate and human wellbeing
There is agreement in our discussion about the need to provide family planning, reproductive health services, and related education to everyone on the planet in a non-coercive way.
There's also general agreement that doing so would reduce unintended births, slow population growth, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping with climate change mitigation and adaptation. One difference is that several of us, myself included, feel that stopping emissions growth and climate change will be unattainable without universal, effective family planning programs and population stabilization.
The international community should restore the goal of universal access to family planning as a top-tier priority, to protect both the climate and human wellbeing. How can we satisfy current unmet need for contraception and reproductive health services? It is a matter of both political will and money.
About 200 million women in developing countries would like to prevent or delay pregnancy but can't because they lack access to effective contraception. Reaching and helping these women and their partners is critical for climate and human development policy. A consensus of population and health care scientists and organizations estimates that developed nations would need to donate $5 billion per year (almost ten times the current levels) to reach these women with family planning services. (See " Family Planning and Reproductive Health: The Link to Environmental Preservation" [PDF] for more). While this is a significant amount, it's small in comparison to other expenditures. For instance, the United States spends more than $5 billion on the Iraq war every two weeks, and the same amount on Medicare programs every few days.
Looking to the United States
The United States should take the lead. The largest and most effective international family planning program in history was pioneered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the 1960s. The United States continues to be the largest donor globally to international family planning efforts. However, since the 1980's, decay in funding levels, quality of programs, and political support-along with inflation--has caused the U.S. international family planning programs to fall behind in constant dollar terms and in relation to the needs of a global population growing by more than 75 million people per year.
If the United States were to increase its assistance for population programs by $1 billion annually, and other donor countries contributed their share, it should be possible to satisfy the global unmet need for family planning within five years. As a result, the population growth rate could be reduced by about 30 percent, with a similar decrease in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Much of the technical knowledge about family planning resides in U.S. institutions (nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and universities), and U.S. political and technical leaders could quickly revitalize this field. The United States could work closely with the U.N. Population Fund; the World Bank; European organizations, and other donor countries; as well as NGOs such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,Pathfinder, and the Population Council to quickly and strongly push forward on international family planning. Past efforts have shown how effective noncoercive programs can be, even in extremely poor countries such as Bangladesh and Kenya; and these programs have many other social and developmental benefits.
Developed countries, beginning with the United States, also need to improve their reproductive health services and education. For instance, the United States should be able to lower its unintended pregnancy rate from nearly 50 percent to around 20 percent, the current rate in several European countries, as discussed in my earlier comments. If the Netherlands can do it, the United States can, too. Decreasing unintended pregnancy rates in America would slow population growth and greenhouse gas emissions.
Universal access to family planning is no panacea, nor is it sufficient on its own to achieve population stabilization. We should discuss population education and media programs that affect the demand for services and their effectiveness in subsequent rounds of this debate. But lowering unintended fertility is the necessary first step toward population stability-and the climate mitigation and adaptation benefits that come with it.
SOURCE: PSN & Bertelsmann Stiftung
A major report published this month by the Bertelsmann Foundation, a German research institute, polled the opinions of 9000 respondents in United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, UK, France, India and Brazil. Rapid population growth was one of the issues highlighted as a key concern by the opinion poll on world power.
A worldwide poll
The Bertelsmann Stiftung study seeks to reveal popular perceptions of global discourse and ideas concerning "Who Rules the World", as the Foundation put it in the title of the report.
Within the discussions that examine the perceived global super powers of today and the future, the respondents positioned overpopulation as the fourth most serious threat faced by the world today, following climate change, terrorism and poverty.
Which global threats predominate in people's views vary from country to country. The concerns about overpopulation and poverty were recorded to be higher in India, while Russians cite the dangers of war, the Chinese resource scarcity and the French religious fundamentalism.
The researchers spearheading this report say that they want to measure current perceptions in global power politics but also to assess how the public foresees the near future and its most pressing issues.
PSN welcomes the report
PSN acknowledges the critical importance of the views of civil society and welcomes this report which cites overpopulation as a major global concern.
Further information is available on the Bertelsmann Foundation website.
Over the last few months PSN, in collaboration with LSHTM, have held a series of Population Forums, which concluded today with a high profile event at the Houses of Parliament in London.
Background to the forums
Wider participation by media, NGO representatives and the general public in the population debate is regarded as essential since there is overwhelming evidence that rapid population growth poses substantial challenges to the attainment of the MDGs.
Yet population has been virtually ignored by policy-makers for the past decade.
Since the term 'population' became increasingly tarnished by the brush of 'coercion' and 'control' during the 1980s it has remained politically sensitive. The link between poverty and population growth has been downplayed and financial and political support for population stabilisation has diminished.
Population is now beginning to re-emerge in the media and into political discourse, most recently in relation to climate change issues.
Culminating in the Population Forums, Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) were eager to build on this growing interest and increase dialogue between policy, action (NGOs) and academic research on the topic of the population factor, about which many have remained silent for so long.The Population Forums
Each of the five forums was chaired by a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, with contributions from two distinguished speakers, and concluding remarks from a third speaker.
Topics addressed by the forums included:
The final Population Forum The Unfinished Agenda – from Research to Policy Action was held on January 30th 2007 at the Houses of Parliament in London.