Environment, Poverty and Security in Today's World: What's Population Got to Do With it?

It is clear that population is a key contributing factor to many of the world's issues. The difficulty is trying to determine to what extent and exactly how to manage the issues related to population. The models and conceptual frameworks that have included population as an important variable have provided some theoretical lenses and approaches to addressing this link and have also established the relation of population dynamics in context by recognizing the impact of other variables such as technological developments, the role of poverty/affluence, cultural factors, policies/politics, etc. These approaches don't always provide concrete programmatic or policy directions to allow population to be addressed in a practical way. A number of projects and policies in a variety of countries are experimenting with integrated approaches - linking coastal resource management with population management policies and food security programs for example - in order to test practical ways to address these links.

It is no doubt that addressing population stabilization is a difficult issue. Some of the benefits are short-term such as the advancement for women when they delay childbearing and are able to invest in educating themselves and increasing their potential economic contributions. Many of the benefits are longer term, and may not show absolute changes in population size and impacts on natural resources for a generation or more. Some policymakers may be reluctant to address these longer-term issues that don't reap immediate benefits in short-term political timeframes. In addition, there are sensitivities around population issues because they are tied to questions of cultural norms, sexuality, individual choices, etc. So these issues can be politically charged. It becomes important for constituents to help governments and policymakers recognize the benefits of addressing population stabilization. We should also recognize that some countries - in Europe for example - are looking to increase their population because of declining numbers. These countries may need to promote growth in order to secure their tax base, support social security systems, or to shore up their military. With these policies, there must be a balance between population growth and levels of consumption.

You raise very good questions with regard to poverty versus affluence and links to consumption. Poverty may promote environmental degradation in a variety of ways. Poor rural familites are more likely to support themselves with subsistence slash-and-burn agriculture, use forest produces as fuel, fodder, and building materials, and live in ecologically fragile zones. These factors have come to the fore recently in the United States and internationally with a number of natural disasters whose impacts on the poor have been intensified by such factors. On the other hand, wealth bring greater environmental management opportunities and challenges. As socieities grow wealthier, some environmental problems - like access to water and sanitation - are expected to improve, while others - like the generation of solid waste and greenhouse gases - get worse. Wealthy societies generally consume more. In a number of countries small projects are working to address these poverty-wealth-consumption issues in an integrated manner and by reaching out and involving the poor. These projects share a number of characteristics that are generally recommended for poverty alleviation programs. Such factors include supporting greater equitable involvement of men and women in projects; mobilizing communities to develop their own strategies to address critical livelihood, environmental and population concerns; capitalizing on economies of scale for beneficiaries that allow local governing bodies and programs to build off of each other; and providing lessons learned for others to use and refine for replication of such efforts. Have a look at a short article on this issue on the Population Reference Bureau's website at www.prb.org. The article is entitled "A New Way to Address Poverty Alleviation."

I think that it is very important for governments to be able to track key census data - this is often served by government registries, national censuses, hospital records, etc. Tracking immigration data is notably more difficult and prone to problems, particular given missclassification (issues such as multicitizenship status, illegal movement, transnational lifestyles), ease of movement (the fluidity of borders, numerous possibilities for transportation, etc), as well as other issues. It is particularly around immigration issues, particularly since 911 and in the context of security concerns, where I have seen examples of governments (in the European Community and the United States for example) where there are discussions around this issue and actual tests using various biometric registration methods for visa applicants and travelers. These include fingerprinting, iris scanning, and digital photos. There are still debates about standard procedures and how these procedures could be applied in different country contexts given resource constraints. So there is a clear implementation concern. Other objections have revolved around an individual's right to democracy and freedom and the use to which governments might put such information and whether it might lead to unfair profiling of individuals of particular ethnic or coutnry origins. So this is clearly a potentially difficult policy whose pros and cons must be carefully weighed; whose application must be fair, legal, transparent and standardized; and whose implementation must be balanced with the fundamental tenets of democracy.

My sense that it is difficult to generalize on policy prescriptions and program applications. There are clear principles that work or goals that we should aspire to. some of these include:
- investing in improving access to and the quality of reproductive health services will help reduce the levels of maternal and child deaths in developing countries
- investing in girls and young women provides long term environmental, social and economic dividends
- family planing programs and education/evidence-based information dissemination help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and can contribute to more healthy behaviors
- addressing population factors are an effective way to address environmental factors because they can bring advantages to family planning efforts, bringing greater participation of men, and positive changes in the community perception of women and in women's self-perception when they have access to and control of money and credit
- family planning also benefits when it is packaged with the quickly perceived effects of health interventions, such as immunization and improved water quality
- approaches used to implement population programs and environmental initiatives can provide economies of scale for others issues tied to the security of a population such as livelihood opportunities, economic development and disaster mitigation

The challenge is to think about at which scale should these policies work and where to best invest efforts and funding. My belief is that we should simultaneously implement programs and policies that address these issues with different targets and goals at the appropriate level of intervention looking at national, meso, and micro scales - policies that would allocate resources, set guidelines, could be implemented at the national level; other problems may be best addressed through a set of common parameters such as through an ecosystem-based approach (issues such as water tied to flows, water basins, watersheds, for example), and others may be more localized and best addressed at mico levels (such as village, communities, administrative departments, etc). Now some of this also depends on the context and on funding allocations - some countries will have more decentralized systems that would lend themselves more to having a quicker impact at a local level. It is possible, however, to have inexpensive community mobilization programs that provide significant program results within one to two years. For example, the Champion Community approach in Madagascar, which is based on locally defined needs and encourages competition among communities, mobilized strong community participation in 10 sites to achieve clearly defined, multisectoral targets within a one-year period. For many of these programs, the inclusion of a microcredit component seems to encourage even stronger community involvement and may increase impacts at the community level. "Stringent laws" as you call them, may appear to have short terms results on the surface, but they do not necessarily address the root causes of these problems and create additional unforeseen problems (such as parents' sex selectivity for their offspring, increase in unsafe abortions, etc). The principles of voluntarism, citizen involvement, government accountability, equity in programming, adequate governance, citizen redress to legal measures in cases of abuse of internationally accepted human rights, etc are all important considerations.

The questions of indigenous peoples, land and fertility are related to power, accountability, management of information and profit.

One well known current example of displacement is the $25 billion Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China is currently being documented. The dam will span more than two kilometers across one of the world's longest rivers. Its construction will probably result in the displacement of more than 1 million people. This displacement has been marked by corruption, human rights violations and resettlement difficulties. Many of the displaced are living under poor conditions with no recourse to address outstanding problems with compensation or resettlement. These displacements bring to the fore questions such as access to accurate information about the impacts of such projects, the need for environmental impact assessments that have strong social, gender and indigenous impact components, "adequate" compensation, long-term and meaningful resettlement, and the re-establishment of disrupted social systems.

As you mention, many native peoples with more environmentally friendly practices are displaced by larger infrastucture projects that may negatively impact the environment.

Similar concerns have been raised about external groups moving into areas of where indigenous populations reside and "imposing" fertility reduction goals on these communities. I, myself, have not seen explicit examples of coersive fertility limitation. In my experience, however, conservation organizations, poverty alleviation programs and community development groups will work together with reproductive health organizations to assure the availability of family planning and related health services in remote communities where indigenous populations may live.

Some have proposed hypotheses about the reasons for high fertility in the areas of high indigenous populations such as the lowland neotropics. They suggest that indigenous women in this region seek large families for historical, political and other social reasons. But such hypothesis requires further documentation and testing.

A major problem in these remote areas is that reproductive health services are not available unless someone — often non-governmental organizations, alone or in partnership — makes special efforts to make them so.

There are many perceived benefits to providing reproductive health services in remote areas. Among these is the likelihood of greater contraceptive prevalence in communities where family planning services have heretofore not been available. Higher contraceptive prevalence tends to reduce the frequency of unintended pregnancy. Where such pregnancies are a factor in high fertility, contraception tends to bring down total fertility rates. Modern contraception also allows women to delay, space and time their pregnancies as they see fit, which tends to reduce the number of high-risk pregnancies. These effects have been shown, in repeated studies, to lower the rate of both maternal and infant mortality. In addition, family size and child spacing have later implications on the health, nutrition and educational attainment of children. If you're interested in this further have a look at the article at the end of this post.

There are a variety of "watchdog" groups that do a good job of monitoring the cases of indigenous peoples and advocating for their rights - on both environmental and social issues. Some of these efforts are even recogized by prestigious awards such as the Goldman fund. These efforts are small and underfunded, however, and need more support. Particularly as many of these indigenous populations live in areas of high biodiversity.

In addition, the World Resources Institute in Washington DC oversees a very good governance program called the Access Initiative (see: www.wri.org) that works with citizen groups to ensure that there is a provision of information about environmental projects, that that information is accurate, that the public is able to participate in the formulation of such projects and that there are methods of redress when for such populations.

Article for reference:
Engleman, Robert, Jason Bremner, Roger-Mark De Souza and Kathleen Mogelgaard. “Indigenous Population, Fertility and Reproductive Intentions in the Lowland Neotropics: A Response to McSweeney.” Conservation Biology 20 (4). Malden, MA: Blackwell. August 2006.

Good observation Joanna! It's clear that international family planning must be a priority - providing access to voluntary family planning methods and safe reproductive health care are key elements in a strategy to dealing with population challenges. Research highlights that such interventions increase women's contributions to the family and to the economy while increasing their health and well-being. It's sometimes difficult for government to work on these issues as they can be politically sensitive given their associations with individual choice, sexuality, and traditional roles and responsibilites of women. Those of us who work on this issue also are careful of the term "overpopulation" - what does that mean exactly? How subjective is it? Who sets the limits? According to what criteria? Are these criteria scientifically established? To what level of credibility? We generally recognize the importance of voluntary access to services.

Over the next 30 years, urban populations are expected to expand, while rural populations hold steady or decline worldwide. According to the UN, the percentage of people living in urban areas is projected to increase from 47 percent to 60 percent worldwide by 2030. While the flow from rural to urban areas has been a dominant trend, especially in Latin America, people also move from one rural area to another, especially when drought, famine, or political events push agricultural workers off their land.

I often think about urban issues when I consider whether these links are good or bad for the environment and human well-being. The answer is neither straightforward nor simple. A population shift toward urban areas means that a larger share of people will have access to health care, education, and other services; living standards are likely to improve. Greater population densities will enable more communities to capitalize on economies of scale, for example, by investing in more efficient and cost-effective water management. And concentrating population within an urban area can preserve adjacent natural habitat, assuming that urban sprawl is contained.

At the same time, dense urban populations may produce more waste than the environment can absorb, leading to significant air and water pollution and a greater incidence of infectious and parasitic diseases. Cities often develop near fragile coastal areas or rivers or adjacent to fertile agricultural land. Rapid urban growth often takes over farmland, destroys wildlife habitats, and threatens sensitive ecosystems and inshore fisheries. Urban populations generally use more water for domestic and industrial purposes than rural populations. In Jordan, for example, the rapid growth of Amman and Zarqa has led to the gradual depletion of a major underground water reserve, reducing water availability for farmers and desiccating an internationally important wetland.

Urban slums in the countries that I've visited (and in the developing country where I'm from) really bring these issues together. I see manifestations of insecurity at the individual level (poor young men, no access to meaningful livelihoods, living in dirty environments) being mobilized for criminal activities within these areas. So it's clear that these links are important - and the degree to which we can develop integrated responses to such issues will help us make improvements in these situations.

Public/community/local participation in the process of designing and implementing of these programs will go a long way in addressing some of these concerns. A long history of this kind of impact is also related to policies associated with strong conservation/preservation goals to the exclusion of people. So called buffer zones and no take zones also allow for certain areas to be fully protected, and allow for areas of interaction between the needs of humans for survival and daily living and for conservation goals. Unfortunately, a lot of the marginalized peoples are in rural areas, and their modes of livelihood are not necessarily the most harmful. In some instances their livestyles (for example crazing cattle) may have adverse impacts on the very resources that sustain them. I think the key question here is to design management plans that recogize both human and environmental needs, involve communities and humanely address resettlement if needed. See my comments on the earlier post about resettlement.

The Population Bomb is a good read and serves as one of those reference texts for anyone working in this field. Indeed, over the past several decades, scientists have developed a number of models to study the interactions among population, health, and the environment. These models cannot fully predict whether or when population growth and human activities will be constrained by shortages in food, water, and other resources, but they have helped scientists explore the role of population in environmental degradation, and have contributed to discussions of carrying capacity and sustainable development.

One of these is the Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows and her colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their model examined five variables: population, food, industrialization, nonrenewable resources, and pollution. In all the scenarios of future population and economic growth, population and industrialization surged upward and then fell sharply, a pattern the authors described as “overshoot and collapse.”

The Limits to Growth model provoked a storm of criticism. Folks argued that human innovation and resourcefulness would improve the technology of food production, resource recycling, fertility reduction, and pollution control enough to avoid “overshoot and collapse” and produce steady sustainable growth in population, food, and industrial output per person.

The “overshoot and collapse” notion has been largely replaced, at least at the global level, by forecasts of more gradual environmental deterioration over a longer period of time; the most severe degradation would be limited to specific regions.

Of course, a very well known model from the 1970s, developed by Paul Ehrlich and J.P. Holdren, is the I=PAT formula. I is the environmental impact (such as pollution), P is population size, A is affluence (usually expressed as average gross domestic product per capita), and T is technology (a measure of efficiency, for example, of energy use).

I = PAT formula has been criticized for a number of reasons. Some critics point out that different factors contribute to different environmental impacts. Factors contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer, for example, are not the same as the factors contributing to deforestation or biodiversity loss. The I = PAT equation suggests that the three variables (P, A, and T) operate independently, yet these factors may interact with one another. And by reducing these relationships to a simple one-way negative relationship, the model ignores some important features such as the role of institutions, culture, or social systems in mediating human impact on the environment. In addition, the P in the framework typically stands for the number of persons in a population. But households are also significant units of consumption; the number, size, and composition of households are important considerations in looking at consumption levels.

Go to PRB's webpage at www.prb.org and have a look at this publication for references and more info:

De Souza, Roger-Mark, John S. Williams and Frederick A.B. Meyerson. “Critical Links: Population, Health and the Environment.” Population Bulletin 58 (3). Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. 2003.

See earlier post on the Population Bomb for information on the I=PAT index and criticsms of it and how it has been used.

Other indexes and relationships are:

models that include population dynamics - these have been developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, based in Austria. Their models incorporate variables such as educational levels and policies that affect population and environment relationships. The first series of models focused on population-development-environment interactions in Botswana, Cape Verde, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, and the Yucatán Peninsula. These studies examined traditional population characteristics, including age, sex, and education levels, as well as other variables appropriate to the local context: Labor force participation in Mauritius, or HIV status in Botswana, Mozambique, and Namibia are examples.

More recently, IIASA has collaborated with the UN Economic Commission for Africa to develop an interactive simulation model demonstrating the medium- to long-term impacts of alternative policies (including policies on HIV/AIDS) on the food security status of the population. This model, called population, environment, development, and
agriculture (PEDA), focuses on the interactions between changes in population size and distribution, natural resource degradation, agricultural production, and food security.

Other models have focused on specific ecosystems. One such model, SAVANNA, was developed jointly by Colorado State University and the International Livestock Research Institute to help land-use planners create long-term plans for savannas, arid grassland ecosystems where wildlife, humans, and domestic livestock coexist.

Another series of models have been examining threats to species linked to human activity. Population viability analysis (PVA) models have been developed to look at extinction risks of threatened species. The Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has used the VORTEX model to predict the extinction of species, including the black panther and orangutan.

You could get a quick overview of these models and references (for additional details) from our website at www.prb.org and look at:

De Souza, Roger-Mark, John S. Williams and Frederick A.B. Meyerson. “Critical Links: Population, Health and the Environment.” Population Bulletin 58 (3). Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. 2003.

Ruben:

I'm not sure what part of the population you're refering to when you talk of "primitives" - so sorry - I'm not quite sure how to answer your question!

I would have said that a decade ago it would have been very difficult for population focused organizations like mine to address these issues. Today, I say that it has become easier, but that now it is just "difficult" versus "very difficult." Part of that change has been a greater recognition in scholarship about the importance of these links. There is more interdisciplinary work that addresses these issues, but researchers receive relatively little funding to do that work. Those population organizations that work on programs in various countries are starting to recognize the need to think about these issues more concretely and strategically because the communities where they work are saying that these links matter. Funding continues to be a challenge. We need to better document why these links are important and to find ways to effectively communicate that importance to policymakers and funding agencies.

There are a few colleges and universities that do teach classes that explore these links - such as the University of Colorado at Boulder - as this field emerges, more research is being done, models and conceptual frameworks are being developed and recognized, and the course materials are being developed to be taught across various disciplines, I hope to see more courses using these materials. We recently developed a case of teaching case studies to be used at the college level on these issues. Have a look at them at www.prb.org - the case studies are called "Strategies for sustainable development: case studies of Community-based Population, health and environment projects." These include goals and teaching materials. In addition, we have a number of lesson plans on our educator page at the PRB website that provide goals, teaching standards and materials for use in the classroom.

I believe that in today's world these issues are more salient than ever because of globalization, porous borders, the transboundary nature of environmental issues and impacts and global televisibility (the ability to quickly and easily see images of life in other places). This coupled with cultural messages and consumption levels make it imperative to develop integrated approaches to development challenges. But there is no cookie cutter, one size fits all approach, we must do this in the context of localized development planning and involvement, taking into account local capabilities and resources.

There are many quantitative measures that look at children's physical and neurological development. The key is to address these development issues from a more holistic perspective taking into account qualitative measures about children's well-being ranging from levels of happiness and contentment and the impacts of such variables on children's development. Some of these measures with regards to perception and behavior are closely associated with the natural environment - the thought being that healthy children need healthy environments also.

Population growth is one factor that impacts the environment - population growth increases the pressure on and demand for natural resources, and increases the levels of waste that are produced (and that could be harmful). Population growth interacts with other factors including culture, policies, levels of poverty/affluence, etc to have an impact. Vulnerabilites to environmental health impacts also are conditioned by the amount of elderly or very young in a population. There is a draw on financial resources when these folks fall sick. In addition, there is loss of productivity when the population of working age falls ill from a dirty environment.

Migration is notoriously difficult to manage. The UN agencies have been focusing their efforts on how to harness migration for development and have even put in place some return migration schemes to permit qualified migrants to make contributions to their land of origin. Questions of human rights violations, human trafficking, freedom of movement, illegal migration, political refugees and multiple citizen status make this all the more difficult. One answer is certainly to manage these processes in the context of a recognition of fundamental human rights and the rights of refugees. There is also a need for international organizations to work closely with non governmental organizations who very often could serve as a bridge to migrating/displaced populations and could serve intermediaries.

A few key interventions have been proven to work:
- Provide voluntary family planning and reproductive health services and information
- develop comprehensive development policies that link population, health, environment and economic policies
- focus on education of girls and women because this often leads to delayed childbearing and birth spacing and allows women to make more economic contributions to the country

I agree that blaming population growth for all of our social problems is not the way to go. I do feel, however, that population dyanmics - and here I include growth, distribution and the make up of the population - ie. number of elderly, young, men, women, socioeconmic status - are important contributing factors that exacerbate other variables. There are a number of fundamental issues around poverty, equity, economic growth, consumption levels that must be examined. But to examine those without looking at the impacts of population dynamics is to miss an important element and, in some cases, to doom those efforts to fail. Many programs addressing poverty issues tied to natural resources, for example, have failed because they didn't address the ways in which women use natural resources in those communities. In some cases there are even legal barriers. And levels of consumption and pro-economic growth policies (particularly with regard to extractive industries) could have adverse impacts in countries of low population growth.

Unabated use of fossil fuel, particularly in the developed countries that you mention, is very important and must be addressed. Developed countries must adhere, respect, contribute to, and support international accords on these issues. I believe that population is a multiplies the effects of other factors that increase that fossial fuel use. Industry, policy and public/citizen pressure are also key. These international agreements set standards, enable us to hold ourselves accountable and provide guidance on the direction we need to take.

Environmental pressures have been known to induce population movements especially in remote areas where populations rely very heavily on natural resources for subsistence. Consider the example of a country like Haiti - a friend of mine likes to say "the largest export used to be people, now it's topsoil" - the individual insecurity at being able to meet individual needs adds to collective dispair and may contribute to civil unrest. There are other links also - many people flock to the coasts - we now talk about urban coasts - for fishing, industry, recreation, employment, tourism, etc. These pressures from people moving into these areas make them more vulnerable and fragile and often destroy natural buffers that provide some security against harsh weather and storms. Also, when there is overfishing and overharvesting in these areas, it may contribute to food insecurity. So there are a number of links at various levels.

Comparing ambitions and perceptions of the poor vs the rich is a very interesting exercise - even within countries. I coordinated a study about 8 years ago that looked at household transportation use and urban air pollution, also examining the health impacts. We used quantitative and qualitative data and interviewed policymakers and urban dwellers. The urban dwellers were divided according to socieconomic variables. We found that overall, on this issue, the rich within the countries were more polluting and felt that the governments were the ones to act. The poorer segments were less polluting (less access to the most polluting cars in this case) and believed that they could do more to act themselves to remdy the situation. They recognized the role of governments, but focused on individual action and community action. Both the wealthy and poor had similar aspirations though in terms of healthy lives, education for their children, etc. And this study looked at the United States, Mexico, Thailand and Mali. So some interesting similiarities across those different cultural contexts.

I don't know if one necessarily controls the other - I believe that it is more of an interaction and there are instances where the links are more direct (with regard to water and sanitation for example). The greater question for me is, in a specific context, given local conditions, what could we (policymakers, program managers, community leaders and members, researchers, funders) do to alleviate the pressures and address some of the key concerns. In some instances it might be a population intervention, in others it may be a technological solution.

Future policy action should recognize these links. Provide incentives for industries to be more creative and less polluting. Put in place regulations but allow for creativity and innovation in meeting the stipulations of those regulations. Use evidence to guide policy. Promote behavior change re consumption use and demands on natural resources. Educate the young about the interactions of these issues.

I'll share with you the same answer that I gave one of the earlier posts that asked this question:

Future policy action should recognize these links. Provide incentives for industries to be more creative and less polluting. Put in place regulations but allow for creativity and innovation in meeting the stipulations of those regulations. Use evidence to guide policy. Promote behavior change re consumption use and demands on natural resources. Educate the young about the interactions of these issues.