A review of the positions of various environmental, development, and reproductive-health organisations, with regard to the global impact of human numbers, ecological sustainability and population policy.
Since the Rio Earth Summit on Environment and Development in 1992, a wide spectrum of organisations dealing with the issues of environmental protection, human welfare and justice, economic development, and population, have collaborated more closely. Their representatives have come together regularly in an organisation spearheaded by Jonathon Porritt, (Real World Coalition), and supporters have engaged in joint regional public meetings.
While such collaboration and any harmonisation of aims are welcome, the sensitivities or doctrines of a few of the organisations have created some taboo areas, where discussion (if there is any) is seen as fraught with dangers of illiberality. The most significant such area is population.
ECO (the Campaign for Political Ecology) and the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) stand almost alone now in the UK as organisations calling for population restraint and reduction, as part of any package of policies to reduce human impact on the ecosphere. ECO decided to try to discover how the taboo on discussing population issues had come about, how deep that taboo went and whether there was a large enough area of common ground between organisations that was worth identifying and endorsing, so that the "difficult" area of population could be discussed without polarising attitudes further.
This review uses a variety of sources. The position of Friends of the Earth is based on a face-to-face interview and correspondence, while the positions of other organisations have been extrapolated from their literature, in some cases expanded through correspondence. Thus it is not a work of rigorous research but a bringing together of the impressions that could be gained by supporters of the organisations, or by anyone, at both a superficial level or resulting from closer enquiry.
All the NGOs we are concerned with would probably agree that it is essential to reduce total world consumption and waste in order to reduce the total human impact on the natural environment that supports us. For most of them, present levels of human population are recognised as a contributory factor in the environmental crisis.
While some claim that most environmental damage is caused by high per capita consumption in affluent countries, others insist that the root of environmental destruction is poverty and inequity. Probably, if pushed, they would agree that both can be causes, that some low-income lifestyles are low-impact, and that high-tech lifestyles could be benign.
We can assume that amongst such NGOs there is overall support for democracy, justice, community development and employment in the context of sustainability planning. While some might say that environmental concerns must be central to policy-making with concern for human dignity, welfare and justice tempering this centrality, the majority might put the priorities the other way; either way the concerns are shared and there would, almost certainly, be agreement that any restraints imposed on people to meet ceilings on the use of resources must be borne equitably and with ameliorative measures for the most vulnerable. Everyone can see that when we talk of reducing overall consumption, there is little scope for reducing per capita consumption in poor countries, although there is scope for a reduction in the growth of numbers of consumers. It is generally agreed that in rich countries with profligate use of resources, there is great scope for reduction in per capita consumption (but rarely mentioned that there would be benefit in reducing the number of consumers). In both rich and poor countries there is much to be done through great improvements in technology, providing reasonable standards of living to consumers, but with significant reductions in resource use. (Some commentators like Amory Lovins claim four-fold reductions to be possible.)
Concern is shared, too, that every child that is born should have the best possible chance of a decent life in a loving community, and that women everywhere should be in control of their own fertility, with financial help provided to poorer countries to make family planning widely available. There is broad recognition that, in general, educational and employment opportunities for women are a strong factor in their use of contraception and the choice of smaller family size.
All these points may seem a little apple-pie-ish; but it is important to establish that organisations arguing for population stabilisation and reduction, or for environmental protection, share with the development organisations the concerns for social justice and humane behaviour. So far we have some common ground.
The differences in attitude occur in the following areas:
In the examples that follow, these differences are examined and commented on.
The position of ECO, the Campaign for Political Ecology, is unequivocal. Its manifesto identifies the three dimensions of the environmental crisis as Overpopulation, Overconsumption and Overdevelopment. Overpopulation is summarised as the "burden of sheer human numbers, in rich as well as poor countries". One of the key features of a programme of sustainable reconstruction would be "a stable population, its numbers well within the carrying capacity of the regions in which they live". In addition, a social system is advocated "in which individuals feel free and enjoy a satisfying quality of life within the conditions outlined above". ECO regrets the "populism which champions human needs but ignores the needs of other species". Its position is expanded in ECO Discussion Paper No. Two: Population and Carrying Capacity.
ECO's view of I = P x C x T is that the three factors are multiplicative, so it is essential that all are addressed. Efficient Technology must be developed, but its benefits are ultimately constrained by physical reality, therefore sustainability depends absolutely on limits to both C and P.
For many years FoE took the line that it was the Western affluent world that caused most of the pollution and destruction of the environment. This approach was used when they wished to argue that population growth in poor countries was not a serious problem. But recently, in urging development in poor countries, the line is that it is Third World poverty which is the root cause of environmental destruction. They argue that, whereas affluence permits over-consumption, poverty forces unwise use of resources; thus the inequity issue is the most significant. And yet, the big push in their campaigning continues to be against wasteful consumption in our own economy, so we must conclude that they believe both maxims are true.
Population pressures are recognised as destructive in poorer countries and the strongly held view in many NGOs is that economic development is the key to reducing population growth. FoE still believes that "development is the best contraceptive" even though there is now accumulated evidence that the wide availability of contraception and government-led education, is the key. For instance, the Programme for Action of the UN Conference on Population and Development (1994, Cairo) gave the example of Bangladesh, "àwhich has not seen any significant improvement in per capita income over the last 15 years and, sadly, very little improvement in the education of women, (but where) average fertility has fallen dramatically. This has been achieved largely by virtue of a very clear, concerted, government-led policy to put contraception and contraceptive choice at the disposal of women." (Jonathon Porritt in a lecture to the J.S. Mill Institute, Oct. 1994)
The position adhered to by FoE is not unhelpful as long as programmes to bring contraception to women, even where there is no economic development, are also welcomed as benefiting both the women and the environment. However it would be worrying if FoE started to put more of its campaigning resources into Third-world development, on the basis of its shaky dogma. Further, while FoE cannot in all humanity, oppose development in poor countries, its role should be that of constantly pushing the development agencies, whether the World Bank or Oxfam, into ever stricter concepts of what is really ecologically sustainable development.
Of our own country, the Sustainability Research Officer of FoE, Duncan McClaren, says that he cannot at present think of any current UK environmental problems where P would be regarded by FoE as a factor and might be mentioned in campaigning. Yet in theoretical terms he agreed that environmental organisations should campaign on population issues if it was appropriate, and that they should refer to the P factor in their campaign material where it contributed to environmental impact and where it would help with a successful outcome to the campaign. While accepting that, in order to reduce the environmental impact of our lifestyles, a range of restraints might have to be imposed on people (democratically, of course), the question of population restraint (meaning some measures to nudge people gently in the direction of having fewer children) is seen as worrying. McClaren again: "I think this is closer to interfering with basic human rights than most restraints I would advocate, and not only is there a risk that population restraint (or population growth) be promoted in an illiberal way, there is a particular risk that those advocating population restraint be perceived as threatening human rights, and thus sending a very confused message to an already confused audience." Clearly there is a very great fear of seeming illiberal.
The thesis emerging from FoE with regard to sustainability and the carrying capacity of the earth, is that national boundaries are irrelevant and that each world citizen can claim his or her fair share from anywhere in the world. A UK citizen's fair share would have to be a fraction of what we each use at present, but FoE believes that technology and lifestyle changes could achieve this. The total consumption allowance in any one country would be population x fair share, irrespective of that country's ratio of population to area/natural resources. So McClaren can say, "If we deal with problems of inefficiency of technology and wasteful over-consumption, then the present numbers of British people could be sustainably supported by 'their share' of the world's resources. Therefore, I conclude that there is no problem of over-population in the UK." He adds, "To present 'over-population' as resulting where present population levels are ecologically unsustainable in present conditions effectively prejudices any rational analysis of the root causes of unsustainability by the choice of language."
Not everyone will find this idea easy to grasp, but those who do will see a very large gulf opening between FoE and the organisations arguing for national population reduction targets alongside technology change, to meet national (and cumulatively international) environmental impact reductions.
FoE seems to have the goal of continually jacking up efficiencies of resource use and restraints on per capita consumption, and indeed choice of lifestyle, in order to meet sustainability targets, whatever the population - as if numbers of offspring were something about which we have no choice, or on which we should not seek to come to a collective choice. McClaren insists, "Regarding high density, if we can meet quality of life goals better in denser settlements (which the evidence seems to suggest is the case), then we can support higher overall populations, as the ratio of productive to non-productive land remains higher - even after accounting for protection of biodiversity. This does not mean that high-density nations are therefore necessarily desirable, merely that they may still be sustainable."
It is worth quoting again from the previously mentioned address by Jonathon Porritt (former director of FoE, and still their special advisor): "It seems to me that it is absolutely demonstrable that there are too many people in the UK....You have to be a brave man or woman to argue that, in order to deal properly with these issues (of the natural world, quality of life) we need a population policy in this country and that we ought to be seeking to persuade politicians of every party that such a policy is the only realistic way to produce fundamental solutions to some of the underlying problems."
It can be clearly seen that FoE's present position on population has moved a very great distance from the views of its former director. In addition, it may be that the position taken by certain officers of the organisation is not supported by the grass-roots. At several national conferences of FoE, motions from the regions urging the Board to take a stronger line on population have been overwhelmingly carried, but then - apart from a briefing document and then a major research paper - have been sidelined by the officers.
Population does not figure anywhere in their campaign literature. In correspondence they assert that eliminating poverty naturally lowers the birthrate - a contentious maxim and not applicable to countries like Israel or Canada with wealth but persistent high growth rates. They also feel that the population issue is inappropriate to Greenpeace's campaigning strengths.
Promotional literature from WWF enlists support from people who care about the natural world, about loss of species, despoliation of countryside etc. It assumes that the kind of people who recycle their paper and glass, who buy "organically-produced" food, and try to reduce their energy consumption will be the kind of people who will naturally wish to support WWF. Significantly a recent widely distributed WWF questionnaire does not ask respondents if their choice of family size has been determined at all by concern for the need to leave space on the planet for a great variety of non-human species. This may simply mean that WWF's fund-raising department deems it wiser to ignore the P factor. However, WWF is one of the organisations that produce People and the Planet - along with IPPF, IUCN and UNFPA. The magazine carries many articles about population problems and projects, so clearly WWF is concerned about the interaction of human growth-rates and wildlife destruction.
The GP in its early years had a clear position on the necessity of curbing population growth. In a manifesto of the late eighties it suggested that a reduction in the UK's population to 30 million would be a major contributing factor in reducing overall impact on the environment.
Not surprisingly the press made hay over this idea, lambasting the Party as anti-people. In the years following, the leadership took a more socially concerned line and population reduction was mentioned less and less in Party literature, although the Population Working Group stuck to its guns. In 1997 however, the editor of Green World (the party magazine) took a very strong line, putting the limiting of human numbers central to policies for ecological sustainability. Quite a few members reacted rancorously, an indication that there is no unity of view on this issue across the organisation.
No in-depth exchange of views has taken place with Population Concern, but clues to its position can be inferred from its literature.
When it was set up in the early seventies, its purpose was to raise funds to spread family planning means and advice world-wide, in the face of the mounting environmental crisis as human numbers took off exponentially. Its literature abounded with compelling reasons why people should choose to have fewer children - for the sake of everyone's welfare, and the well-being of the planet on which we all depend.
It was always evident that if only contraception could be easily obtained by millions of women, so that unwanted (by the women at any rate) pregnancies could be avoided, then population growth rates could probably be halved, not to mention the huge benefits to women and the reduction of much suffering. The issue of the wanted pregnancies in excess of those needed to replace a population was a matter that was discussed as a further goal, and the need for education and motivation was emphasised.
But the political climate has changed. The rise of feminism, perhaps, has decreed that society cannot be seen to be pressurising women to act in any way against the personal choice of the individual woman. Organisations that provided "family planning" now talk of providing "reproductive healthcare".
Population Concern, one would think, cannot escape from the need to have a position on population choices, given its title. Indeed it does suggest in its literature that population trends and environmental impacts are alarming. A recent fund-raising leaflet states:
It would then follow that PC might urge its supporters to donate to the cause of providing both family planning services world-wide and education programmes to promote smaller family size. But the leaflet goes on to give a commitment to "help people throughout the world to make their own choices on the timing and size of their family". On first reading this sits very oddly with the fears inherent in the quoted facts. In practice, wherever women are provided with the means of controlling the number of their pregnancies, they will (with few exceptions) choose to have fewer than they would otherwise have had. In most parts of the world, especially the poorer parts, this is massively important for women's health, for avoiding much misery and suffering, even for survival. The benefits of providing women with this choice cannot be overestimated. But in some countries it is not enough. Old customs, and religious and social pressures exert a great influence on women and encourage hostile attitudes on the part of men towards contraception. Thus, in Bangladesh, government-led education and motivational programmes were necessary to change people's attitudes from the desire for large families, or from the belief that this gives status and security, so that their "choices" were in line with targets deemed vital for avoiding environmental and economic catastrophe.
The USA is quoted in PC's material as having an immense problem of waste-creation and disposal. It can be argued that this is entirely a problem of technology, of preferred life styles, of retail irresponsibility and of flawed economic accountancy. But even with huge adjustments in recycling, packaging re-use and design-for-longevity, the waste heaps (and there will always be a significant amount of unavoidable waste) will increase, because in the USA the population is increasing. At one end of the spectrum there are immigrant people with little education who see a land of plenty and can see no reason at all to restrict their numbers of offspring (immigrants account for 50% of the natural increase). At the other end there is a large class of well-off people who can see no possible problem in preferring to have 3, 4 or 5 children. The expense of each child is easily borne, including the cost of nannies and other childcare where both parents have professional careers. In neither case is the national desirability or otherwise of such choices considered by the individuals, since the US government is totally silent on the question of growing numbers of citizens and their impact on US life and environment.
Population Concern must surely have a view on how it might help to influence such child-bearing choices in favour of reduced numbers. But its response is fairly guarded: "Our education programme in the UK provides specialist information for A-level students who are studying population as part of their course. Any student using this material in his or her course could not fail to understand the demographic trends of recent times. These matters are also discussed in detail at our Youth Conferences each year........Population Concern is still very much concerned about human numbers but we try to approach it from as sympathetic a viewpoint as possible." Past experience of the Youth Conferences is that they put across a tremendously strong message - brilliantly done - about the destructive impact of population growth.
It must be added that David Bellamy is PC's president, and few people are more outspoken on the issue of the impact of human numbers. One of their vice-presidents is Sir Crispin Tickell who, in 1996 in a series of lectures on Radio 4, made a near despairing case for urgently halting population growth, linking it with the need to address world poverty. The Duke of Edinburgh is its patron and last year at the relaunch of the charity he said that the degradation of the natural environment is not to be "put down to either an act of God or to the irresponsibility of industrial and commercial managers....but first and foremost to human population numbers and to human demands for natural resources". It thus seems odd that the organisation is so coy about these issues in its appeal publications.
"In an article entitled 'Environment is a Human Issue' in Earth Times, the Secretary General of IPPF, Ingmar Brueggemen, advocates sound family planning in order to ensure a balance between population and sustainable resources. In order for family planning to succeed, women must be empowered through education and equality of status which would additionally help to reduce global poverty. The combination would not only reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but would also be a deciding factor in the long-term for environmental stability, she says."
This passage appeared in the IPPF News File. Also reported was a Drama Competition, organised by the Family Planning Association of Pakistan, "...with the aim of creating awareness of the growing population and the urgent need to advocate for a small family norm among young people".
Thus it is clear that IPPF is not simply about co-ordinating contraceptive services: it recognises the links with environmental and development goals. Yet there are no indications that, as its umbrella organisation, it is encouraging the Family Planning Association in the UK, for example, to have a higher profile urging procreational restraint.
This reproductive health care organisation provides a possible explanation for the low-key approach; they find that it is far more effective just to get on with the job of providing services to try to meet ever-present need, than to engage in any motivational work, or in time-consuming debate on ethics, or environment (with all the inherent possibilities of hostile opposition from certain groups). What these organisations do is of immense value, and it is entirely consonant with the work of environmental and development organisations. But the "deeper" green groups, such as ECO, would like them to be more obviously active in motivating people to limit their families to replacement (or below), rather than just planning them. It is possible that reproductive health organisations feel that such a message might get in the way of their services being accepted and trusted by people; since acceptance is crucial, this is a position we have to respect.
The general problem for reproductive health organisations is that funding is declining, with governments reducing their allocations to UN bodies dealing with population. Their perception may be that they have to be very cautious in any of their publicity; however, it could be argued that only when some prestigious bodies in the environment and development fields speak urgently and clearly on the need to control human numbers will increased funding be forthcoming.
In 1965 the Sunday Mirror headline announced: "OXFAM BOMBSHELL - Funds to be used to aid birth-control". At the time, no UN agencies were working in this field and only Sweden gave aid for the purpose. By 1974 Oxfam was allocating 2% of its total grants expenditure on family planning projects.
An Oxfam booklet published in the mid-seventies was entitled "Already Too Many". It stated "...our commitment to development must be coupled with urgent support for a policy of Zero Population Growth. This is the writing on the wall."
Now, Oxfam's appeal adverts and direct mailings never mention the issue of population or family planning. There is clearly a fear that such mention could unleash a hostile reaction. Yet when pressed they will provide literature which shows clearly that Oxfam continues to give great support to family planning programmes; they spend 15% of the annual overseas budget on health care and health education, "of which family planning is a significant part". They are careful to add "Oxfam is particularly concerned that the uptake of family planning services be voluntary; experience has shown that coercive birth control programmes are often unsuccessful and counter-productive". That view must surely be respected. Yet it raises the issue of what constitutes coercion; in China, the one-child policy (which may well have saved a whole generation of Chinese from starvation and poverty) left it up to people to take their own measures to conform with this edict. However, the West constantly regards the policy as a great offence against human rights.
Perhaps rightly, Oxfam concentrates on helping to meet the needs of an estimated 100 million women in the developing world who would use contraceptives if they could get them - a need reflected in the 50-70 million abortions carried out each year.
OPT (founded in 1991) addresses the question, "If the world and its regions are overpopulated, what population sizes would be about right?" It defines optimum population as "àone which is most likely to produce a good and sustainable quality of life for its inhabitants without adversely affecting the quality of life either of people who live in other countries or of people who will live in future times." When pressed, OPT defended the use of the word "inhabitants", meaning humans, by affirming that a sustainable quality of life included a rich diversity and abundance of non-human species.
OPT believes that the only way to achieve a significant long-term reduction in consumption is by combining a reduction in consumption per person with a reduction in the number of people doing the consuming. It argues that it makes more sense to try and slow down population growth in countries with high per capita consumption than in countries with low per capita consumption. The former should do this out of enlightened self-interest - reducing their environmental impact on the world as a whole and improving their own quality of life. OPT reports on and contributes to the work of international scientists engaged in attempts to define the numbers of humans that could be sustained, without damage to the environment, at given standards of living - an immensely complex task. The crucial message from OPT is that nations have a choice - either to have more people at a lower standard of living, or fewer people at a good standard of living. What is denied to citizens in most countries at present is the opportunity to make such a collective choice.
OPT (and ECO) belong to an international grouping of such organisations, called EPOC (European Pherology Organisations' Confederation) whose mission is "More Humanity with Fewer Humans".
Set up in 1979 it aims to raise awareness and encourage discussion in both Houses of Parliament of population trends and related issues. It published in 1994 an "NGO Review" summarising NGO attitudes to the population issue. (The main findings appear in OPT's magazine "Better World" of Jan. 1995, and provide interesting comparisons with this paper.) It concluded "Existing agencies which put direct family planning provision at or near the top of their agenda need to be supported by increased government funding".
A picture emerges of a range of organisations concerned with human survival and ecological well-being, that admit population to be a factor in the environmental crisis but, for a variety of reasons, avoid it or downplay it, in almost every public communication. The reasons may be ideological (urging population reduction could be illiberal, or seen as illiberal), or analytical (poverty or flawed technology are seen as much more important targets), or pragmatic (just get on with the work and don't invite controversy). However, ECO insists that we humans must see ourselves - our numbers and our wants - as a major part of the problem, and address the population factor equally alongside the technology, lifestyle and justice issues.
"The struggle to build an ecologically sustainable order must come first, otherwise all other worthwhile goals are doomed. Development, be it social or economic, must be subordinated to the overriding priority of protecting the health and integrity of the Earth's life-giving ecosystems." (ECO Manifesto)
This ecocentric view might be thought "inhumane" by most of the organisations reviewed. However, the objective of putting the Earth at the centre is ultimately compatible with a human-centred view because it would allow the human species to survive with dignity and health. ECO believes that this can only be achieved by the three-pronged strategy of population reduction, per-capita consumption reduction and efficient technology. Other organisations find it more comfortable to believe that all can be put right by redistribution of wealth and through sweeping changes in technology and lifestyles. However, the degree to which each life would have to be restricted in choices about almost every facet of life, if zero-impact is to be achieved in a context of continuing increase of numbers, is rarely discussed.
To quote Jonathon Porritt again: "...well-meaning progressives and liberals in countries like Britain end up in bed with some deeply illiberal tendencies - precisely because they think that addressing the issue of population is somehow inherently illiberal. To me, not dealing with population problems in the world today is the essence of lack of care and the essence of illiberalism because, if we do not deal with them now and use the policies which have been seen to succeed in many countries, we will all end up living in a world in which some of the choices available to us now will progressively be eroded."
There is no doubt that all the organisations reviewed in this paper are doing tremendously important work, relieving human misery, laying the foundations for wiser citizenship, and challenging practices which destroy ecosystems. But ECO believes that the soft-pedalling of the population issue by the environment and development organisations, and by the reproductive health organisations, in the debate about sustainability is ultimately damaging to humanity's future prospects. It is a kind of self-delusion. In placing all the blame on flawed technology and processes, or on political mismanagement, individuals are entirely excused from any responsibility for adding to the Earth's desperate burden through their procreative choices. Having said that, ECO recognises that if too much emphasis is placed on the importance of human reproductive decisions in the environmental crisis, then the giant industrial concerns might rub their hands in glee, feeling that they are let off the hook, and able to put the "blame" on individuals.
The problem in urgently calling for population issues to be recognised and included in environmental and development campaigning is that one is perceived as being obsessed by the issue to the exclusion of the other, very valid, components of the problem, such as poor technology and careless consumption. ECO's strident voice on this matter is forced upon it by the near silence - or even scorn - of other organisations.
The paper entitled Population and Carrying Capacity, an ECO Discussion paper, provides an introduction to this subject.
ECO Publications
ECO Home Page
Copyright © The Campaign for Political Ecology, October 1997
This page last updated: 16-March-2003