On Population and Perplexity

I am perplexed. I’ve spent the day in meeting rooms with interesting, intelligent, motivated people in Airlie Center, a lovely resort an hour or so out of Washington, DC, in the Virginia countryside. We were concerned about and trying to address the issue of gender and REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). [The plus sign (+) in REDD+ refers to the additional social and environmental issues that global actors have decided must also be addressed.] The people assembled were all either very experienced in topics of relevance, or actively engaged in such topics. The discussion was lively and stimulating. Many excellent ideas were put forth by the participants for consideration by USAID (the convener) and by other participants.

As the afternoon wore on, and our plenary discussion turned to brainstorming, stimulated by earlier thematic conclusions from small group discussions, I remembered a topic that had not yet been addressed and I put it forward: I noted the links between population growth/density and deforestation/degradation in many areas, on the one hand; I emphasized the advantages to women of access to birth control, on the other. I have published analyses showing the educational, health, income generation, status, and agricultural productivity gains that can accrue to women when greater proportions of their energies are released from childbearing and childcare responsibilities. I suggested that women were closely linked to population issues, and that this would be a productive avenue for involving women in REDD+ efforts. I also stressed the importance of responding to felt needs, to addressing such concerns carefully and diplomatically, in ways that were consistent with local realities, and only with women’s consent. I saw some serious head nodding in agreement as I spoke, from some participants (usually an indicator of agreement).

Yet the facilitator did not add my suggestion to the flip chart, as had been done with other suggestions; it was not registered as an intervention.

I recalled another similar instance. I was at a meeting of COHAB (Cooperation on Health and Biodiversity) in Ireland a few years back. It was organized in a similar fashion, with small group discussions, later expanded in plenary. In my small group, the issue of population came up as an important issue related to COHAB’s mandate. In this context, several people made interventions related to its importance. Yet the small group facilitator did not record the interventions; and the rapporteur did not convey them to the next plenary session. I find it difficult to speak up in a large group, but I ‘girded my loins’ and raised my hand to add the population topic to the list being compiled at the front of the room. Again several others supported my intervention and it was added on the flipchart.

Yet when I saw the written summary of our conclusions, population issues had again disappeared! I was able, by following each step of the proceedings in this case, to get them reinstated. But everyone seemed to want the issue to ‘just go away’.

In another meeting, of IUCN in Bangkok, a few years earlier, a scientist had just given a damning presentation about the state of the world’s biodiversity, without mentioning anything about global population growth. It seemed obvious to me that population growth was a crucial element in the deterioration of the environment — not everywhere, but in many contexts. I raised the issue—again, requiring more courage than I prefer to muster. The speaker disdainfully disregarded my suggestion, stating that studies had shown that population growth did not result in biodiversity loss [a serious over-generalization]. In the plenary setting, there was no opportunity for me to argue my case; and no one else spoke up publicly.

Instead several people came up to me privately, to express their agreement, even to congratulate me on my courage in bringing it up publicly!

At the Center for International Forestry Research, I tried for several years to get the institution to incorporate such concerns into our portfolio. But one Director General was convinced that human creativity could solve any problems that emerged from population growth. The next DG also opposed such an effort, despite her interest in encouraging gender equity. She considered it too much of a political hot potato.

I have learned over the years that mentioning human population growth as a problem subject to human intervention is effectively taboo in natural resource-related scientific and policy circles. Many scholars, conservationists, and development experts agree privately that population growth is a problem, that the earth’s capacity is not limitless, that our quality of life has already been adversely affected by the number of human beings on earth (food and fuel shortages, conflict, climate change, etc.). I neither suggest that population is solely responsible nor that it is equally important everywhere. There are even places suffering from loss of population. I also understand and agree with the equally serious need to reduce consumption in the West. My points are and have been, rather, that

• ·      we need to examine population issues carefully, addressing the problems identified;
• ·      such issues have significant implications for people and their environments;
• ·      they represent an obvious entry point for involving women more effectively in many political, management and economic spheres; and finally
• ·      they represent an opportunity in efforts to enhance gender equity.

I remain perplexed, feeling that many intelligent people are hiding their heads in the sand, ignoring abundant evidence before us—particularly when there are such obvious advantages for the environment and for women’s lives in addressing the issue head-on and proactively. I will continue to try to overcome my cowardly feelings, and speak up, despite the taboos exemplified above against bringing up the subject, in many of my social and professional circles.