Population was once a taboo subject. With the global population set to rise to over 9.7 billion by 2050, population growth and the resulting pressure on the environment is now recognised as a key conservation issue. Removing barriers to family planning must be an integral part of conservation policy, writes David Johnson, Chief Executive, Margaret Pyke Trust, with the Population & Sustainability Network
Rural communities in developing nations often depend most directly on natural resources, yet endure the poorest health services.
Photo: David Humaní / Photoshare
One side effect of running an organisation with population in the name is that every week or so a friend will send me an article or video about population. Almost invariably there is mention of population being a “taboo” topic, or “the elephant in the room”. This is in spite of the fact that I can’t honestly recall ever speaking to a conservationist who disagreed that global population is a critical conservation issue, or was shy to say so. There is no taboo.
Given the United Nations projects that the global population will rise from 7.6 billion today to over 9.7 billion by 2050, this is hardly surprising. But there is something glib about merely stating the challenge. What needs to happen is that we move to consider the actions which form part of the effective response.
Evidence-based conservation has become standard practice. This includes the systematic assessment of information when designing conservation projects and determining policy. There is also a growing understanding of the need for cross-sector collaboration. So to move on from the mythical elephant in the room, the first step is to consider relevant health data.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) did exactly that in their 2015 joint report “Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review”. They acknowledge that population growth places increased demands on healthcare systems and can greatly increase pressures on natural resources. Most importantly, they acknowledge that population growth could be moderated by greater investments in family planning programmes.
An increasing number of conservation organisations are considering evidence of how small improvements in family planning impact long-term population size and environmental pressures
They also explain that greater investment in the education of girls and women and improved access to and awareness of contraception would “not only improve human health and well-being directly, it would also help slow and reverse trends among countries with the highest projected growth rates and concomitant pressures on ecosystems”.
Remote barrio in Central Luzon, Philippines. Investing in education and reproductive health can help to improve human health and slow population growth rates.
Photo: Jaime S. Singlador / Photoshare
In reaching their conclusions the CBD, UNEP and WHO relied on fertility and other reproductive health data. In the health sector that is elementary. It needs to become standard in conservation too. At the Trust I lead, we are working with an increasing number of conservation organisations which are considering not only population data, but also the evidence of how small improvements in family planning have significant changes on fertility rates, and consequently long-term population size and environmental pressures.
At the national policy level, there is often acceptance that population is a key conservation challenge. Nigeria’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), for instance, highlights high population growth as the first cause of biodiversity loss. Tanzania’s NBSAP states, “Human activities due to rapidly growing population have been one of the major causes of habitat loss and degradation resulting into biodiversity decline in Tanzania.” Nigeria and Tanzania are not alone in making such statements. Many developing nations, with relatively poor healthcare provision and higher fertility rates as a result, make this connection in their NBSAPs.
Poor rural communities often depend most directly on natural resources for their livelihoods, food, water, shelter and cultural practices. When localised human pressures on ecosystems exceed critical tipping points, both community health and environmental health suffer. Poor rural communities in developing nations also face the greatest barriers to the use of and access to reproductive health services.
This is why these areas are such a focus for health advocates. Barriers to family planning prevent women from choosing freely when and whether to have children, threaten family health, create challenges for girls who want to complete their education, and lead to higher levels of fertility and more rapid rates of population growth. These are issues which also directly impact on conservation, and there is often an overlap in areas with the greatest need for better reproductive health services and for conservation. Supporting policy developments that will improve reproductive health services is therefore something conservation organisations should consider including in their strategic priorities.
When localised human pressures on ecosystems exceed critical tipping points, both community health and environmental health suffer.
Conservation organisations can’t provide clinical services. Similarly, family planning nurses can’t implement conservation activities. But this does not mean family planning should be seen as solely a health issue. Conservationists are familiar with overlapping concerns. For example, we are confident to promote renewable energy as part of the response to the environmental threats of climate change, or to advocate for better public transport to improve air quality. These are not merely “energy” or “transport” issues. Conservation organisations do not need to run windfarms or provide train services to promote them as relevant to the environment.
Barriers to family planning increase pressures on ecosystems as well as families. Therefore, as a sector, we should find it as easy to promote universal access to family planning as we do renewable energy. After all, the Sustainable Development Goals call for both.
The Margaret Pyke Trust supports family planning services in places such as Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.
Photo: Ron Van Oers / CC
Some conservation and reproductive health organisations have already successfully joined forces. There is a growing movement of community-based Population, Health and Environment programmes which take a holistic approach to interconnected issues of poor health, family planning needs, food insecurity, poverty, and unsustainable use of natural resources. Project data shows this approach leads to greater uptake of family planning, better health and gender relations, and increased support for and participation in conservation activities by local communities. Such a multisector approach can also be more cost-effective, and generate more sustainable results.
Projects linking conservation and reproductive health reveal greater uptake of family planning, better health and gender relations, and increased support for and participation in conservation activities by local communities.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change affirmed in a 2014 report that family planning can play a role in reducing climate change vulnerability and is a potential adaptation strategy. The book Drawdown: the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming, details the top 100 solutions that have the greatest potential to reduce emissions or sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Educating girls ranks sixth and family planning ranks seventh. The integration of family planning into conservation and climate change thinking has begun; we need this to become the norm.
The Margaret Pyke Trust has, from its inception, been at the forefront of developments in contraception. In the 1960s that meant opening and running what soon became the world’s busiest family planning clinic. Today, the Trust is likely the only IUCN Member to have 50 years’ family planning expertise. One of our strategic priorities is working with conservation organisations in developing countries to integrate family planning into conservation programmes. We do this because we believe all girls and women have the right to choose freely whether and when to have children, and how many. We also do this because we question whether many traditional conservation projects can have long term sustainable results if they don’t.
Boromo, Burkina Faso. Family planning has a role to play in reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts
Photo: Ollivier Girard / CIFOR
On World Population Day in July 2019 we will be promoting the growing collective of visionary conservation organisations which are integrating family planning into their conservation activities by making appropriate partnerships, or supporting policy changes which will make this easier. The Trust is keen to work with other IUCN Members, as well as other conservation organisations worldwide, who understand that it is time we stopped talking about population growth and started to take action to remove barriers to family planning as an integral part of conservation policy.
David Johnson is Chief Executive Officer of the Margaret Pyke Trust, an IUCN Member organisation. In this role he leads the Trust’s work to change conservation policy to recognise the importance of removing barriers to family planning, for both human and environmental health. David is also a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Specialist Group on Gender, and the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Crane Specialist Group.
Thank you, David Johnson, for writing about human population! We humans are the biggest threat to wildlife. I would like to invite you to read my blog www.population-matters.org (the hyphen is obligatory or you will end up in England). It is a collection of the monthly essays I write on aspects of population for the Durango (Colorado) Herald--the only regular newspaper column focusing on aspects of population. Better still, if you would like to receive these essays every month, subscribe by contacting me at:
richard@population-matters.org.
Richard
You mentioned how important girls education is. It is even ranked higher than family planning by Drawdown. Yet, while you mention girls education, there is no talk about how to go about it.
Child marriage is one of the biggest factors stopping girls from getting an education. Girls who go to school are less likely to be married as a child. A woman with 12 years of schooling has 4-5 fewer children than women with little or no school.
In remote areas in Tanzania, the fertility rate is high, maybe 6.0 children per woman. It is usually in these remote areas that people don't speak the national language. In Tanzania only 10% of the population have Swahili as their native language. In the Tanzanian school system, a child must know Swahili in primary grades, and then know English in secondary grades. Only 10% of Tanzanian students get into high school because they fail the national exam.
A few years ago, in our project area, the community started a preschool where children learned Swahili and numeracy. This was a simple sticks and mud building that had fallen apart when we came on the scene. We started sending some girls to a secondary school that caught them up in English, and we bought the primary children school uniforms. Attendance went up.
The percentage of girls going to school from our project village rose from 38% in 2015 to 47% in 2016, 50% in 2017, and 82% in 2018, due to our emphasis on education and women’s empowerment, school uniforms and sending girl role models to English Boarding schools.
In addition, the percent of married girls under age 18 in our area dropped from 55% in 2015 to 50% in 2016, 44% in 2017, and 31% in 2018.
The incredible thing is that we found that we only had to raise $39/year to educate one preschool or primary school girl! This cost is over what the government already supplies.
Opinions expressed in posts featured on the Crossroads blog and in related comments are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect opinions of IUCN or a consensus of its Member organisations.
IUCN reserves the right to remove links added by commenters that are deemed inappropriate or unrelated to blog posts.
Comments