ࡱ>    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyRoot Entry Fb^5zWordDocument CompObjnry factors. Discussant Donald Sawyer argued that population-environment research properly requires mastery of both fields, and that the papers presented point to the lack of such training. The range of research themes touched upon in papers and discussion llustrates the richness (or incoherence) of research on population dynamics and the environment. In one session alone (land use), topics and discussion ranged over the household determinants of land use, colonization, migration; moral ecology, political ecology, human ecology, human evolution, malaria vector behavior, epidemiology of malaria transmission. Models ranged from spatial analyses techniques and regression to philosophical introspection and new epistemological paradigms. This very diversity and abundance of disciplines, theories and concepts, however, seemed to lead to unease and differences of opinion during the session on how demographers and social scientists more generally can approach the task of researching what appear to be simplequestions: How do population dynamics affect the natural environment? How does environmental change affect human population dynamics? A fifth session on population and environment was actually a panel of speakers on the theme of Science-Policy Communication for Population IN Sustainable Development The panel, chaired by Wolfgang Lutz, is described in more detail below. The treatment of population by the Science- Policy Communication Panel speakers was more limited than during the substantive sessions, and commentators criticized the use of the vague phrase the population variable. Indeed, fertility and population growth (in its nexus with declining agricultural production, land degradation and poverty) seemed to receiv much more attention in presentations than the themes of urbanization, consumption, geographic distribution of populations, age composition, migration and disease ecology/health in relation to water, biodiversity, air, and climte - the themes raised during the substantive sections. By communicating to the Global Science Panel, the population-environment research community will likely be able to make a large contribution to advancing policy debates about the role of population in sustainable development elaboration of the phrase the population variable summarizing and interpreting findings from empirical research in the past decade, such as that presented at the IUSSP conference. On Friday and informal information session was held about the GLOBAL SCIENCE PANEL, and how activities will proceed over the next year. Wolfgang Lutz and Mahendra Shah, coordinators at IIASA of the Panel, explained its origins, composition and goals of the panel. The Population Environment Research Network as a project of IUSSP and IHDP, is well-situated to facilitate the efforts of the panel, and specifically to open up the process to the international research community. We will be requesting ideas and feedback to the panel at various stages of their work: a preliminary statement in September, a draft statement for the January PrepCon, the final statement in March 2002. For more information n the panel, GSP, housed at the website of IIASA visit www.iiasa.ac.at. In addition to the substantive panels and information sessions, the Population Environment Research Network had a large presence at the IUSSP, attending and making announcements during formal sessions, recording sessions to enable the digest of discussion found below, and hosting a social hour on Tuesday to let members meet each other and some of the people who run and advise the network. A permanent poster in the main exhibit hall reflected the Networks role as an IUSSP working group. About 50 new members from around the world have joined the network, and we expect many more in coming months. SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND COMMENTS Population Dynamics and Land Use. Session 67, Monday, August 21, Malcolm Potts (organizer, chair). Wolfgang Lutz, discussant. Richard Bilsborrow & Bill Pan: Population Change, land use, anܥe# .~,l,l (TUl Times New Roman Symbol ArialTimes New Roman Symbol GenevaTimes New Roman SymbolSummary of Population-Environment Presentations and Discussion at IUSSP XXIV 2001 The IUSSP XXIV Conference was held in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil August 19-24, 2001. For more information on the overall program and other sessions, visit the website . Overview of themes and events This document summarizes events, presentations, discussion and ideas that emerged from various sessions that took place at IUSSP meeting that pertain to population-environment research. These include the formal sessions on population dynamics and environmental change (plus their associated posters) and a Science-Policy Communication Special Panel on Population IN Sustainable Development. Related parallel sessions on urbanization and Brazilian demographic change are reviewed here. A special public information session about the Global Science Panel on Population and Environment was held Friday, and allowed IUSSP attendees to ask specific questions pertaining to this IUSSP/UNFPA/UNU sponsored panel preparing for Earth Summit 2 (watch the cyberseminar page and Whats New at http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org for more information). Finally, a Network-hosted social hour was organized to take advantage of the venue to allow Network members to meet the steering committee, advisory board and coordinators present at IUSSP to meet one another. Three formal population-environment sessions were organized around population dynamics and the environment at local and global levels and on land use research. A fourth parallel session organized by the Brazilian Demography Association also included population-environment papers which are accessible online. In addition, owing to the large volume of submissions, many posters accompanied the paper sessions. The sessions were well-attended, stimulated debate and raised familiar concerns about the nature of and methods for population-environment research, which will likely continue for years. The organization of the sessions alone was itself a source of debate: what is local? what is global? Some of the confusion arose because papers on land use were included in global research session, while a conceptual / empistemological paper was grouped with empirical models of deforestation. Brian ONeill clarified that global research is that which deals with phenomena that are truly global in nature, such as climate change, as well as with research which has universal elements, that are important around the world (such as car use and sea level rise) rather than being specific to a particular locality. Furthermore, research papers reflect a wide range of settings and concerns from around the world and at many scales, from Amazon deforestation to Los Angeles sea level rise to Nepali biodiversity conservation to Hungarian air pollution and health to African desertification. These led to disparate focus on migration streams, household strategies, tenure systems, community resource management strategies, car use by cohort, and population/environment knowledge. Quantitative models and empirical research dominated sessions, punctuated by epistemological challenge to demography and an ethnographic approach. One paper (Liewan) is based on the classic and often contested IPAT model; another (Greenberg and Greene) directly criticizes that model. (This in part is a straw man argument, since so much research in the social sciences in particular has moved beyond IPAT and narrow focus on Malthus-- but even in these sessions IPAT it is still with us.) Wolfgang Lutz --discussant in the land use session-- challenged researchers to be more explicit about and to model population and environment dynamics and variables, rather than focus on intermediad the environment in the Ecuadorian Amazon; Marcia Caldes de Castro and Burt Singer: Malaria foci and colonization processes on the Amazon frontier: new evidence from a spatial analysis and GIS approach Brian Greenberg & Meg Green: Beyond the Malthusian Legacy: A demographic approach to social ecology; Charles Wood & Robert Walker): Land Titles, Tenure Security and Resource Use among Small Farmers in Amazonia Of the four papers in the session, three are quite similar and share a common quantitative, field survey approach to linking human populations and environmental outcomes. Three focus on human drivers of Amazonian deforestation, providing a nicely coherent example of current research and data availability on the topic of frontier colonization, human welfare and land use (as the environmental outcome related to deforestation). The fourt paper by Greenberg & Green deals only nominally with land use; it is more a critique of and challenge to conventional demographic approaches to thinking about the environment. Pan & Bilsborrow, based on analysis of 1999 survey data on colonists in Ecuadors amazon, a hot spot of bioloical diversity, highight the complex factors working at the household level, while reporting on major demographic and environmental changes in the region. Since 1990, population increased >50%; plot size and area in forest on a farm has decreased. Fragmentation of farms and off-farm employment are phenomena associated with increasing density of settlement in this once-frontier area. Among many policy implications include a need for attention to the determinants of continued migration to the frontier. Wood & Walker question the theory of secure land rights as leading to better environmental management. Analysis of a survey of titled and untitled colonists in Brazils Amazon tests this longstanding assumption; regression models show that titled farmers actually clear more forest. Title per se thus has ambiguous environmental implications. Given that many institutions are invested in large land titling programs (i.e., the World Bank in Petens Guatemala), they may well be on the wrong track (in terms of conservation -- admittedly, land titling is valuable for other reasons) Caldas de Castro & Singer presented evidence for a spatial model of risk of malaria among colonists in the Amazon. They ask: Does space matter? In the understanding of risk. They use Local indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) statistics (developed by Getis and Ord: see the paper for more information) to identify malaria foci (plots with elevated risk of malarial infection) in Machadinho, Rondonia . Geographically weighted regression was used in Spatial Multivariate Analysis on each plot to identify malaria clusters and reveal spatial patterns. Implications: they suggest the modification of surveillance systems and diversification of control strategies to be more efficient in the allocation of resources. Starting from a moral economy standpoint, the authors of the fourth conceptual paper (Brian Greenberg and Meg Green) proceed to suggest that demographers consider a moral ecology approach when thinking about population and environment relationships. Environment is not simply a set of resources for human consumption. We need a less anthropocentric concept viewing humans as part of a complex ecosystem. IPAT and Malthusian approaches were targets of particular criticism by the authors. Wolfgang Lutz as discussant argued for the need to make explicit the population dynamics and enviornmental dynamics, and the links between them. These papers, he claim, lack that explicit focus, and tend to focus more on the middle ground, rather than clearly specifying the relevant population dynamics, environmental dynamics, and intermediary factors. Questions from the audience challenge the Amazon researchers to scale up their micro level research on households: Brian ONeill (Brown) asks: which variables still matter looking at the larger region? Don Sawyer (Brazil) noted that the research presentations further confirms his opinion that interdisciplinary skills within a single person are needed, in order to adequately examine both population and environmental dynamics. Lutz counters that argument: no one can be truly skilled in, say, both demography and hydrology. Instead, teams of researchers are needed. S08 Demographic dynamics and environmental change at the local level Chair: Daniel Hogan Discussant:Donald Sawyer J. Mayone Stycos: American Public Opinion on Population Size and Growth. Alexia Prskawetz, Jiang Leiwen, Brian C. O'Neill: Demographic composition and projections of car use in Austriam (presented by Leiwin) Attila Molnr, Anna Pldy, Aln Pinter: tude comparative de la morbidit de la population adulte des localits avec une differente pollution d'air Sudesh Nangia: Population and Environment Interface in the Great Himalayan National Park Joe Stykos: The main theme of the research was that opinion surveys are limited by two basic factors: Population knowledge is rarely assessed in surveys Questionnaires are confined to opinions of National / World-wide population and ignore smaller regional/local units To correct for these shortcomings, Stykos drew a sample from (upstate) New York and surveyed men and women on questions of local, state, national, and world population. One of the most interesting findings was the range of answers provided to some questions: 1 in 10 people could not or did not answer questions on population size (community, national or world) 40% of pople said US population was <30 million or >30 billion More knowledge was associated with education, political activity, and male gender. Some of the comments received include the proposal to include questions on willingness to pay (as in environmental surveys), and questions on the definition of my local vs. your local. A question was raised about whether demographic beliefs translated into effects on individual behavior - Stykos responded by saying that no direct data was examined, but empirical evidence from qualitative surveys in China show that some of these desires exist, therefore under certain contextual assumptions we would get (or see) na efect on individual behavior. Jiang Leiwin et al. This paper draws upon the differences between population and HH projections while simultaneously integrating potential important policy implications for the Kyoto accords and air pollution caused by automobiles. The primary questions: What are the best demographic characteristics to project car use in Austria (or in general) What demographic characteristics will change the most and to what levels (at the HH level)? Given above, which characteristics are most important to model projections of car use? Findings: Female headed HH owned fewer cars and drove less. Changes in population size and composition have had strong effects on changes in car use Projections showed single and 2-family HHs have the biggest increase in population to 2040, which translates into a huge overall increase in car prevalence Comments: Population aging is driving the rise and fall of car use / ownership Mehodological issue: This is a cohort effect since the authors are looking at problem only cross-sectionally and not longitudinally. Authors need to deal with the cohort effect. Authors do not make or present economic analyses, contextual presentations, or international comparisons to put perspective on their findings. Attila Molnr, Anna Pldy, Aln Pinter. tude comparative de la morbidit de la population adulte des localits avec une differente pollution d'air. The main purpose of the paper was to measure disease prevalence, morbidity and mortality in different regions of Hungary that have differences in hygenic practices. Some of the comments included: Causality is not addressed; Population not dealt with in a demographic sense; only 1 control group was used. Sudesh Nangia. () Main points: Want to link Biodiversity with SES development at the local level with community participation Implemented a micro-development plan aimed at creating programs at the micro leve such as animal husbandry, soil fertility, and plant nursuries. The limits of the study included low participation, incomplete implementation of the micro-plans, and competition among people in markets. Results of the study showed that people had decreased access to park, resource use was not decreased, rehabilitation package was insufficient, alternative forest resources were not supplied, and there was a loss of resources and livelihood in general for the locals Comments / Questions: What are the recommendations for the future? If land availability were not restricted, what would be the vision of the park? What are the perceptions / interactions and opinions of the people toward the local NGOs? Responses: Need to look at history and examine how everything evolved. Might want to use locals as watchdogs. There is a desire to preserve the traditional relationship between people and the environment while simultaneously protecting the resources. NGOs are considered favorably due to their role in protecting people. NGOs should increase their role in participation at the local level. S09 Population and environment - Global. Chair: Brian O'Neill; Discussant: Vinod Mishra. Van Arsdol, Maurice D. et al. Local population impacts and mitigation of sea level rise. Meyerson, Frederick Human population density, deforestation and protected areas management: A multi-scale analysis of central america, Guatemala, and the Maya Biosphere Reserve Knerr, Beatrice. Interactions between desertification and population movements Shi, Anqing. Population Growth on Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Angela Constable presented the paper by Van Arsdol et al. () The authors examined and reported effects and potential future scenarios of sea level rise (SLR) resulting from global warming using quantitative and qualitative methods from demography, sociology, environmental and physical geography, and political policy impacts. SLR causes beach erosion, storm sewage increases, beach retreat, and eventually increases in human morbidity and mortality, while 50% of world population lives within 50 miles of shore. A comparison of California and Maine shore populations and SLR effects on the coastline (examined demographics, SES, env & phy. geograpy, and political policies) indicate massive coastal deterioration in both states, as both have a high percentage of their population living on coast (CA>80%, ME>70%). Both have experienced rapid coastal erosion in the past 10 years. It is difficult to predict and measure future/past policies because most past policies have yet to be fully implemented (i.e. they are ignored). Possible policy solutions include: preventing coastal development, moving populations away from shore; beach renourishment. Many politicians do not think about SLR because of the long term nature of the problem. Comments from the disussants and audience question the sampling methodology, which might have introduced bias. How can we convince policy makers to make changes? Fred Meyerson explored the relationship between population density and forest loss at multiple scales, using the Maya Biosphere Reserve as a case study, with the aim of evaluating population and conservation policies. Findings: Population density shows high correlation with forest loss at all scales: 1960-1989, an increase of 10 ppl/sq km = decrease of 50% of forest). The Main point: conservation strategies have not worked well, forest cover has decreased rapidly - mostly changing to pasture. With the cost of family planning ranging from $20-30 per year per couple, the cost of avoiding a birth approximately $200 vs. The loss of 4-7 Ha of forest per person -- we MIGHT say a lot of forest could be saved based on a small investment in family planning. Vinod Mishra, the discussant, questioned the lack of attention to other possible causes of deforestation (e.g. illegal logging). Longitudinal analysis is needed to deal with causality. Dan Hogan argued that the study conclusions do not do justice to FP programs; we also need to look at ecological zones and areas meeting requirements for preservation. Beatrice Knerr (paper and contact information online at ) examined selected case studies that identify a vicious circle between desertification and population movements in Africa: 250 million people in 110 countries affected directly by desertification; 1 billion are at risk. Arid countries have high population growth rates and are at high risk of human-induced desertification. The common hypothesis is that population movements decrease the discrepancy between economic carrying capacity and population density, so that the major cause of temporary migration patterns is the permanent interaction migrants and his family or HH in the source region Circular labor migration is modeled within the framework of traditional family strategies, looking at the adaptation of traditional strategies (pastoralism - regular, seasonal, and circular labor migration, and how households adapt to modern sector development and external aid (i.e. if men work for months away from home and women/children stay - this can lead to increases in natural resource depletion). The final conclusion: the author rejects the hypothesis that population movements contribute to permanent effects of desertification. Questions from the audience: How do living conditions reflect or interact with problems between desertification and migration? We need to consider land degradation as well. Anqing Shis paper () examined the I=PAT equation to see how population growth and density effect carbon emissions. A fixed effects model was used with CO2 emissions as the dependent variable, GDP, population, trade and other variables as the independents. The sample included 93 countries from 1975-1996. The model fit was the natural log of the I=PAT equation and the AIC statistic was used to assess which model was best. The author concluded that population growth does not have a one-to-one impact on emissions, but rather a more linear relationship with a steeper slope (i.e. more population creates more emissions loss a a greater rate than a 1-1 increase). Questions and comments focused on the model: the U-Shape relationship in the model was significant but not included in the final model. The P/E relationship is curvilinear so a quadtratic term for population is suggested. What would happen at different levels of aggregation? Many muticollinearities exist, cluster analysis is needed. Brian O'Neill ended with the comment that we need to bridge the gap between modeling at different scales. Authors contact information is online. SUMMARY PARALLEL PAPERS In the session on the Demography of Sub-Saharan Africa, Wolfgang Lutz presented the paper (y W. Lutz, Scherbov, Paulina Makinwa-Adebusoye & G. Reniers) entitled Modeling Population-Environment-Development-Agriculture Interactions for Science Policy Communication and Advocacy in Africa: the PEDA model. The full paper is online at . Makinwa-Adebusoye was a panelist on the Wednesday Science-Policy Communication Special Science Panel (summarized below), and she focused on the use of this model by the Economic Commission of Africa to communicate the impacts of the inter-relationships of population growth, resource use and agriculture to policy-makers. The Brazilian Demography Association sessions included a number of papers and posters about urban growth and spatial dynamics, migration, agriculture, and other population dynamics and their effects on the urban environment, housing, water resources, forests and other resources. Malaria and its relationship to Amazon deforestation, vulnerability, tourism. Papers and/or abstracts will soon be accesible online. Demographic Dynamics and Environmental Change in Brazil by Daniel Hogan. The Growth of Alternative Agriculture and the Paper of the Associations of Organic Agriculture: an Option of Income Generation for the Small Producer by Adalberto Mantovani Martiniano de Azevedo Population, Health and Land Use: Evaluation of the Occurrence of Malaria in a Region of the Brazilian Amazon. Alisson Flvio Barbieri Population and Environment: Searching for a Geographic Approach. Fabiano Biudes Vulnerability and Risk Situations of Vulnerable Groups Exposed to Occupational and Environmental Risks in the Brazilian Context. Marcelo Firpo de Souza Porto Urban Environment, Tourism and Socio-Environmental Impacts: Contradictions between Economic and Sustainable Development. Marcelo Viana Ramos Methodology Purpose to the Social - Economic Characterization by the Built Space Analysis, Using Geoprocessing. Ren Antnio Novaes Jnior and Sandra Maria Fonseca Costa Space and Population in the Favelas of So Paulo. Suzana Pasternak Taschner Urbanization sessions organized by the IUSSP Working Group on Urbanisation included several papers with important ramifications for the study of population-environemnt dynamics, because the urban-rural distinction (or continuum) is a primary category and because of the rise of urban areas worldwide with enormous implications for environmental change and resource demands. More refined measures will likely yield more discriminating categories for research and understanding of urbanization. Hugo Graeme, Anthony Champion & Alfredo Lattes presented the key background paper: New Conceptualisation of Settlement for Demography: Beyond the Rural/Urban Dichotomy. In session S42 Urbanisation: The Challenge of New Forms of Urban Growth. In a related session, S83 Urbanization: Urban Population Dynamics. (Chaired by Anthony Champion) Zlotnik Hania and Buettner Thomas presented The components of urban growth revisited ; Montgomery Mark spoke on Urban population dynamics in the developing world (not yet online); Ram Bhagat presented Urbanization in India - a demographic reappraisal and Bill Frey Immigration's impact on urbanization in developed countries - a United States case study SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PANEL (SP1) Science Policy Communication Panel: Population In Sustainable Development Special Panel 1 IUSSP XXIV 2001 Wednesday August 22, 2001, 16.15-18.15, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil Following are excerpts from the full presentation by panelists and commentators during this session. Wolfgang Lutz introduced panelists and provided a context for the panel, the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, the Cairo +5 Conference, the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development and the upcoming Earth Summit 2002. The science statement issued by the IUSSP Council laid out the intention to strengthen and improve international Science-Policy Communication Hoping to make an important 3rd force, i.e. distinct from NGOs and the government. The world summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002 (the Earth Summit) is more than just Rio + 10, since Rio was about environment. It will focus on Sustainable Development more broadly, putting human development at the core. Johannesburg is the place to consider the role of the pop variable in sustainable development. Nafis Sadik, ex-director of the UNFPA: I agree that UN conferences are politicalbut the image of their being based on the best science is not the case. In reproductive health, for example, it is not best science but best advocacy...We need to build a bridge between Agenda 21 and the Cairo 94 Conference we need to adopt a more holistic approach to addressing population, poverty and environment linkages.The poorest people pollute, use resources just to survive. While high rates of urbanization in countries ill-prepared for it will lead to over-intensive resource use, pressure on eco-systems, demand for social services and pollution control. It is fair to say that poor degrade their natural resource base mainly for their survival, while the rich sometimes do so for unnecessary luxury and wasteful consumption. I have been listening to a lot of discussion of Population and environment ... my conclusion is that most discussions are uni-dimensional: Reduce the number of people, or improve tech. But [they do not tell us] how to do it. What is lacking is more integrated conceptual framework which integrates population size, as well as distribution, age/sex composition, economic levels, etc. and links them to food, water, health, education, etc. Rather than theoretical advice, perhaps we need case study advice [as I suggested in the Netherlands meeting of the Global Science Panel) which will give practical demonstration of population trends and socioeconomic interventions [and their] different outcomes. Developing countries that suffer most from environment problems and have the least resources, must have a greater voiceThe scientific community can provide the voice. If [we do not act now] we will miss a terrible opportunity. Mahendra Shah, environmental scientist in the field of agriculture, has published with Maurice Strong on agriculture and was involved in drafting Rio Declaration, also worked with WB, UN, now at IIASA. At present, co-coordinator of Global Science Panel (with Wolfgang Lutz). [Our] purpose is to connect between science and policy. If you talk to scientists, and ask: is your work policy relevant? The answer is always YES. If you ask policy-makers: is science serving your needs? The answer is: I dont understand what the science is giving us. For science to be policy relevant: Think about the needs of policy-makers. They need alternative sets of outcomes, with assumptions and certainties [in order to make a decision]. In any international negotiation, the developed countries come armed fully whereas developing countries come with less information. Any negotiation between the less informed and better informed will be difficult. [In the past 10 years] a new word, knowledge, [has become popular] In 1985, we had a thousand websites, grown to over 20 million websites now; 50% of people in the US use internet vs. percent in Africa.Knowledge drives policy action, and people must be at the core [for sustainable development]. The Green Revolution was successful in many ways, but because we did not take account of demography, we failed to put the small farmer at the core. The same with genetic engineering: the corporations are working with large farmers but the real need is with the small farmers. [On climate change] the knowledge is there, it is a question of identifying what will climate change do to my country and taking a position on that. The connection between science and policy is critical, to get there we need to create partnerships of confidence and utility. Foremost, people must be at the core. The challenge to demographers is to work with ecologists, economists and others. Without that we will go another 20 yearswithout making progress in sustainable development. Carmen Mir, the grand dame of demography in Latin America We are here to examine a new approach: the contributions that scientific knowledge on demographic and environmental factors can make to the field of population and related policies, including those aimed at achieving sustainable development. The scientific reflections and deliberations by the Union and its members, and the eventual communication to scientists of other disciplines, and society at large should be of considerable value to Johannesburg 2002 conference on environment. We have to examine where the different regions of the world stand on population growth, urban growth, age/sec composition and environmental conditions. Latin America [as an example] has been favored in last 50 years with a growing concern for population and its standing as scientific disciplinerarely [however] does the knowledge can benefit professionals, policy-makersThe demographic transition is proceeding rapidly in LA, with significant changes in fertility, mortality and population growth. (Only 1 country, Cuba, will experience negative growth.); in century the region as a whole will reach replacement level population. But it is not population growth that is the problem but age structureyet these [issues] are not dealt with by population policy. Sexuality, womens empowermentreceive far less attention. Latin America is far from a process of sustainability, [with growing] poverty and unemployment. The GSP has to face that challenge ... Virginia Tonniati, Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sustainable Development with its economic and ethical dimensions became a national priority when it surpassed the government sphere and became part of the citizens agenda. In Brazil, [we have seen a] decline in the average growth rate: we have 170 million in 2000, but the 1993 projections expected 5 million morethe impact of successful economic policies-technology, modernization, wide access to information These brought significant changes in the population profile. [Since 1994] A more stable macro economic environment, plus education, health, job creation programs has led to reduction in the number living in poverty from 41.7% in 93 to 32.7 percent in 98. Our rural pop, about 18% of population, has higher poverty rate than in cities . This led to land reform subprograms that supplement land distribution: cultivation techniques, orientation on soil, water and land sustainable use. One innovative aspect to be commended in the governments sustainable development strategy in rural areas is the clear gender perspectiveThe ICPD plan of action has another element: the unsustainable consumption and negative impacts on resources leading to social inequities. Recall in Agenda 21, the standards of living are high in many areas, but the basic needs of many are not met The UN CED (Rio 1992) provided a framework for engagement at high levels. Commitments for international cooperation were made by industrial countries in favor of the developing to help them implement agenda 21. Unfortunately, actual levels of cooperation have not been high. On the other hand we applaud Kofi Annans global health fund to combat HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria. It is reinvigorating to acknowledge the international communities willingness to work toward common welfare. The Brazilian government has offered its experience with its HIV/AIDS combat program. The 10 year review of the Rio Conference, together with Cairo + 5 special sessions, should open new avenues for the discussion of the complex relation between population, environment and sustainable development. New and innovative actions are likely to be identified; countries should renew [their] political will and solidarity Paulina Makinwa-Adebusoye. Demographer, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) [My] emphasis is on 3 main trends [that affect the African continent]: Rapid population growth, the deteriorating environment and natural resource base, and unsustainable agricultural practices. Together these are responsible for deteriorating living conditions. In 1997 the ECA created a special division to deal with this: the Food Security and Sustainable Development Division. The message: we need to integrate population and environment concerns into development planning. ECA forged partnership with IIASA, and developed a computer simulation model to emphasize to policy-makers that these factors are vitally linked (see the paper at ) It has not been straightforward. Many countries did not make the link. Before the ECA population division, a major task was to convince African states that population issues are development issues. We worked with many players. All the efforts did pay off [at a major conference] where for first time, [African leaders] set quantitative targets. Lately, as a result of UN conferences (Rio, Cairo, Food Summit, etc.) the ECA had to shift focus. Right now, it is engaged in trying to achieve Goal 7 to prepare national strategies for sustainable development by year 2005, with the end of reducing loss of resources by 2015. The discussion is particularly germane to Africa where most of the natural resource base is being rapidly depleted. Climate change is expected to have severe impacts on Africa [despite the countries contributing little to the process]. Thus, the new division is bringing to the attention of leaders the interactions of these 3 continental trends. Their combined effect causes a downward spiral in living conditions. We need a more holistic development plan that can take into account population and environment variables The audience was invited by Wolfgang Lutz to submit questions or comments to the speakers on the main topic: the challenge of preparing for the upcoming Johannesburg Conference on Sustainable Development. For demographers, there are relationships between population and sustainable development, but we dont know exactly what they are. How should we communicate the little that we know from the scientific arena to the political community? (Questions are not necessarily in the order in which they were asked but are organized by theme and response) John Hopcraft wondered: Who are the members of the GSP, how were chosen? Lutz replied that members are some 25 pop scientists, IUSSP members, nominated by UNU or IIASA, or academic scholars. The 1st meeting held the 16th of July at NIDI in the Netherlands, discussed work program? (More information can be found at www.iiasa.ac.at). Between now and a science conference in March 2001, intensive email communication between the members will produce the first drafts, aiming for a 15 page summary statement by March . In the process of reaching convergence to such a statement, the Population Environment Research Network will have a role, since very tentative first drafts will be exposed to public scrutiny through the Cyberseminar series. The GSP will have a presence at Prepcom 2 in January, as well as 3 & 4. More fundamentally, Hopcraft questioned the frequent and casual use of the phrase: the population variable? It is an awkward term, a phraseology which jars Shah addressed this question about the population variable. It is very important to get input beyond the 25 members, in the next 3-6 months, before January Prepcom 2. It is not just about fertility, mortality.. but also rural/urban residence, education If you have any suggestions, please communicate. (Please participate in the October 2001 Cyberseminar hosted by A US demographer wondered about the role of demographers when we talk about sustainable development -- it seems an engineering problem, a way of finding environmentally sound techniques. What is the role of demographers? Just to provide inputs into the models? Are we faced with an engineering problem that we are afraid to address (due to ethical issues from the past)? This gets back to: What is the population variable? The statements seem vague on that: what exactly are we trying to do: bring down high fertility, which is already dropping? What about migration, what is our role? Mortalityhow do all these things play together? Carmen Miro suggested that demographers do more than just provide input to models, but participate in the engineering process. They are involved in knowledge communication and training which are a basis for decision-making. Tonniati responds: Nature is unequal and unjust so UN sponsored conferences must see the vulnerability of those who need a commitment from us for better living From the audience, Stan Becker questioned the appropriateness of projections for several high fertility countries in Africa (Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali) which already have trouble feeding themselves now, where water is scarce. Will fertility decline, or will mortality rise as we fear? To what extent are the scenarios you project that may be more realistic than UN? Comments of speaker Mahendrah Shah raise the issue: who has the power? While the comments of Paulina M-A were derided as the same we have been hearing.a list problems as if not interacting From the audience Hania Zlotnick provided a reflection on Stan Becker an others comment on UN projections: they show a big change in exactly those countries mentioned, the few countries in which there are NO signs of fertility decline. These are some of the poorest countries. More optimistic projections of decline in fertility are not likely, so new projections use a different, slower decline in fertility. This is the same experience as the ECA model, where the estimates of population were unrealistically low, so we had to sound the bell of alarm in these countries Gita Sen recalled the last time there was a science policy statement from IUSSP - just before Hague in prep for ICPD +5 what lessons emerged from that exercise? It seems that while policy statement got distributed widely, it had very little impact on what policy makers were debating, actually did, with it or with issues. How can one have impact, and what is the nature of that impact. Second, think about the process by which the statement gets finalized, in particular in relation to population and sustainable development - there is so much disagreement about the fundamentals This is the end of excerpts of presentations and comments at the Wednesday, August 22, 2001 Special Science-Policy Communication Panel: Population in Sustainable Development. To continue discussion of many of the issues raised here (population variables, the contributions of demographers to sustainable development processes) join the October-November 2001 Cyberseminar at . ============================================================== .l%QUVWvUV|}þ}xsnid_Y U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac     ! ' ( 7 8 @ A    8 9 N O U V þ}xsnid_Z ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!V p q r CDEuv567 =>efþ}xsnid_Z ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!<=TUĿ~ytoje`[ ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac]a ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac! !"#} ~ !!!!>!?!@!b!c!!Ŀzuoid_ZU ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac]a ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!!!!!!!+","-"."/"X""""""4#5#6#7#V####%%%%&&&#&ſzupkfa\V U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac V]ac ]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac #&a&b&y(z({((((((#)$)))))))=*>*****-------- .½zupkfa\V U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac! .4/5/?/@//////00f0g0m0n0000-1.16171i1j1(3)3*3+3,303p3q33þ}xsmha[V ]ac U]ac UV]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!3333333o4p455\5]5^5j55555l6m6p7q77788j8k8l8:::Ŀ|wrmhc^Y ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac U]ac U]ac ::;;;;;;P<Q<<<<<<<<=======(>)>>>j?k?l??@4A5A6A½|vpjd_ZU ]ac ]ac ]ac V]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac!6AFA~AAAAAAA}B~BC CDDDFFFFFFFFFFFFFJGKGLGMG|xtoje`[V]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]c]c]bc]c]bc U]bc U]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]acU]^abc U]ac MGGGGHOHPHQHRHHHHHHHHH IINJNKNXNRRRRSSiUjU6X7X8Xzrlgb]XS ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]acU]^abc U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac U]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc]bc 8XBXCXDXLXXXXXX\\\\\]]]]]?]e]]]7^8^V^^____þ}wqje`[V ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac__paqarasaaaaaaaYbbbbbb c c c cNc\c]c^c_ccccccxdzupjd_ZU ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac xdddddd8e9e:e;eWe^emeeeeeeeeffffg\hmhnhhhh8iiþxsnid_YR ]^abc ]abc ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]abc ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac V]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac i jvjjjjjjjjjkkkLkMkNknkokkkklll$l`mammmmmýzuoje`[VQ ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac U]ac ]ac ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]abc ]^abc ]abcmmm^n_ngnhn~nnnnooIoJoKoLoMoXotouoooooqq$q%qqqrrrþ|wrmhc^Y ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!rrssGsHspsqsHtItvv6v7v8v9vGvLwMwNw*x+x0x1x]x^x9y:y^y_yyyyyþ|wrmhc^Y ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!yy|z|||~~~#~(~)~A~B~S~T~ԀՀLM89:;݄ބ׆؆½{wsokgc_[]c]c]c]c]c]c]c]c]c]c]c ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac]c]c ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac#njȌɌЏőƑPQRwxy–=?SU½|wrmhc^Y ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac ]ac ]ac U]ac ]ac]c]c]c]c]c]c]c"IJKrs()klmמ؞OPþ{vqlgb]X ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!PQdefgh'()*+<=TUjkldeþ}xsnid_Z ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac!ާߧ2acde] ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]^abc ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac ]ac.VW  q r DE67!!!! !?!@!c!!!,""5###&&z({(**--//00)3*3+3,33333p45^555m6q7ki`WUhhhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhhq778k8l8::;;;Q<<<}tkihhhhhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh <<====)>>iD$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh>k?l?5A6AAAA~B CDa<$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh$ 4hhh DFFFFFKGGPHHHHJNKNRRjU7X8X\\]]__qaab c c]ccd9eeeejjjjkNkokkkllLoMouo8v9vMwNw~~T~Հ9ȌɌQRxy–KlmPQgh*+kklde.U.l~K@Normala "A@"Default Paragraph Font@ FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69q