International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Population Matters

Q1: Lessons from MDGs

The MDG process has been reasonably effective in channeling aid flows, and to a lesser extent recipient Government spending, towards the targets cited; but it has not increased total flows/spending on development; and probably helped to divert funding from the (late-appearing) MDG5b (universal access to family planning).

Q2: SDGs/DGs

(a)They should both be “Sustainable” DGs, for the simple reason that development which is not bio-physically sustainable is not real “Development”. The unresolved nature of the relationship between the S-G’s High- Level Panel and the UNGA Group was already apparent in Rio. Population Matters considers it very likely that, paradoxically, the UNGA Group will focus primarily on “development” (ie economic growth) in developing countries. We therefore recommend that the High-Level Panel should focus primarily on bio-physical sustainability, notably on the related issues of population stabilisation and resource-sufficiency evaluation and monitoring. 

(b)Population growth multiplies all environmental and resource problems—total human impact on the planet is by definition the average impact per person multiplied by the number of people, while natural resources per person is by definition total natural resources (rapidly diminishing, cf “The Race for What’s Left” by Michael Klare) divided by the number of people (cf Kofi Annan: “Population stabilisation should be a priority for sustainable development”. Key Recommendation GHF 2009). Running a world economy without monitoring resource-sufficiency has been aptly compared to flying an air-liner without a fuel gauge,

(c)The Panel should thus negotiate as much bio-physical sustainability as possible into the wording of the UNGA’s conclusions; and issue a separate report high-lighting all the areas where this has proved impossible. The Panel co-chairs seem more likely than the Group to feel able to address population and resource-depletion frankly. 

Q3: Coverage of Goals

All Goals should apply equally to developed and developing countries. It is particularly important that developed countries should be required to monitor and report on their resource-sufficiency. The fact that they need more sustainability and less growth is demonstrated by the (2012 Blue Planet Award-winning) Global Footprint Network (GFN). The attached Overshoot Index shows that all the developed countries except six (Canada, Australia, Russia, New Zealand, Sweden and Finland) are already ecologically overshot; and for instance, every additional Briton has the carbon footprint of 22 more Malawians. However it is equally important that developing countries, eg in the Sahel where rapidly increasing numbers of farmers and herdsmen are competing increasingly violently for rapidly diminishing amounts of soil, water and vegetation, should monitor both population and resources.

Q4: Process

(a)The process seems about right, once the relationship between the Panel and the UNGA Group has been clarified (cf Q2). The “right voices”, however, require equal numerical and political weight to be given to environmental science and development economics, correcting the Rio imbalance. The most “wrong” voice is easily identified as the Holy See, after its disgraceful performance in Rio, leading the campaign to reverse the gains of the 1990s in the fields of population policy, sexual and reproductive health and women’s rights. High priority for these is an essential element in development programmes on food, water, energy, soil, biodiversity, education, job-creation etc, which are otherwise “running to stand still” as populations rise. Population growth will certainly end at some point on a physically finite planet; and this can only occur either sooner by fewer births (contraception and gender equality, the humane way) or later by more deaths (famine, disease and war, the Darwinian way)—cf Maurice Strong, S-G of the first Rio Earth Summit: “Either we reduce the world’s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.” By campaigning against the former, the Holy See and its allies are in fact actively campaigning for the latter. So too, passively, are the many CSOs who still observe the damaging taboo on discussing population as a major environmental and developmental issue to be addressed. We strongly recommend a concerted effort to return the Holy See to its correct position as just another NGO with consultative status, like all the other faith groups.

(b)It is easier to see constraints than opportunities for global consensus. Most important are:

The refusal of most Governments, international agencies and CSOs to recognise population growth as a variable to be tackled, not just a “given” to be accommodated.

The refusal of any Government (except Bhutan) to contemplate ending unsustainable “growth” in consumption and moving towards a steady-state economy.

The increasing impotence of the USA in the face of the growing power: of corporations and the super-rich to veto forward movement economically; and of the religious right to block progress socially.

(c)The main opportunity is to establish resource-sufficiency evaluation as an essential tool in the new sustainability toolbox.

Q5: Targets

Some numerical targets are desirable; but focus will be lost if there are too many. There should be more targets aiming at absolute numbers and fewer on percentage change, since the latter ignores population growth, and can be achieved even when the position is actually worse (because a smaller percentage of a larger number can still be a larger number—cf level of malnutrition.

Q6: New Financing Mechanisms

We support supplementing current patterns of ODA with:

(a)an international financial transaction (“Tobin”) tax;

(b)funds released by the phasing out of perverse incentives/subsidies for environmentally damaging activity, notably of fossil fuels, soil-degrading and oil-intensive agriculture, industrial-scale fisheries, non-renewable forestry, and pro-natalist financial incentives.

Q7: Non-state actors

The private sector and recipient Goverments should be encouraged to confine themselves to investment capital, rather than loans (to incentivise them to ensure that assistance actually delivers development benefits). Advice should be made available to help developing country governments to drive appropriately rigorous bargains with multi-national corporations over profit-share, lease-length etc, notably over mining concessions (which inevitably reduce finite assets towards zero) and agricultural land-leases, where the “race for what’s left” applies most clearly. They and relevant CSOs should be educated in understanding the population problem, and encouraged to include a family planning element in their programmes. 

Q8: Timescale

15 years is about right, with major report-back every quincennium.

Q9: Specific goals

I attach an illustrative set of possible goals.

POPULATION GROWTH: POSSIBLE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Introduction: We recognize that some major trends affecting population growth are not amenable to numerical targeting, notably urbanization and migration. We also recognize the political infeasibility of agreeing all the goals/targets proposed below by universal consensus. It is therefore a maximal set of desiderata, or “best practice”, which we consider necessary to stabilize the global population by voluntary means at the lowest possible number, thus providing the best hope of averting a bio-physically induced discontinuity—a rapid rise in death rates accompanying ecological and economic failure. Endorsement of this list by a significant number of countries, and its dissemination as an Annex to the consensus Goals, would, however, have a beneficial demonstration effect, and promote wider debate.

Over-arching Recommendation: That Population stabilisation/reduction should be accepted as a cross-cutting factor, affecting the feasibility of attaining all the Sustainable Development Goals.

Possible Specific Goals/Targets:

(1)Non-coercive, rights-based population stabilization or reduction policies in place in all countries.

(2)Universal access to a full range of free or affordable family planning commodities and services, including voluntary sterilization.

(3)Reduction to 5 million women (from 220 million currently) with an “unmet need” for family planning—ie who wish to end or delay childbirth but are not using modern contraception.

(4)Reduction by 50% in the number of people in extreme poverty, through economic growth in the poorest countries, contraction and convergence between countries, and reduction of income inequality within countries.

(5)Reduction of family size preference in the poorest countries to 3 or lower.

(6)Reduction of global Total Fertility Rate to two or lower.

(7)Global trend towards a stable 2050 population of 8.5 billion or lower.

(8)Gender-equality policies and programmes in place in all countries.

(9)Universal full primary education for all children.

(10)Gender parity in secondary education.

(11)Universal sex and relationships education in secondary schools, with particular attention to family planning and including the implications of population growth.

(12)Legal and safe abortion on demand.

(13)Elimination of marriage under the age of 16.

(14)Gender parity in employment rates.

(15)Reduction in the number of unemployed and under-employed by more than population growth.

(16)End payments or other benefits related to the number of children except for reasons of health, education and targeted poverty alleviation.

(17)Research the costs and effectiveness of all the voluntary fertility-reduction incentive schemes initiated hitherto, and disseminate the results by 2018, showing what has and has not worked well, and why.

26 September 2012