Population debate heats up

Aid

By Bill Morton

THE Australian government’s overseas aid funding for population programmes came under the spotlight once again last month with the release of an independent

‘lnquiry Report into Population and

Development’. The report examined the link between population growth and the economic growth and well-being of

developing countries.

In its 1993/94 budget the Australian government announced a trebling of funding for population programmes to the tune of $3O million for that year and $l3O million over four years. But in October last year the government at tracted criticism from international aid organisations when it froze part of the funding pending the outcome of the independent inquiry. The move was the result of a deal struck with Independent Senator Brian Harradine to win support for the budget. Harradine, who holds the balance of power in the senate, is a devout Catholic and is opposed to population control programmes.

Part of the budget allocation included an extra $2.5 million for family planning programmes in the South Pacific. Since the release last year of the first editions in the Pacific 2010 series, the issue of

population growth in the region has

become hotter than ever. These reports found that if present growth rates persist in the Pacific Islands, in 20 years time there will be a dramatic shortfall in the number of jobs available for those who need them. They also found that Pacific Island governments will have consider

able difficulty in properly educating its

citizens as well as in providing adequate services and infrastructure.

The Australian government’s decision last year to stall part of its funding for population programmes underlines how much clout one independent senator can wield in Australia’s parliamentary sys tem. More importantly it has ensured the debate on the relationship between the population and development is alive and well. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether slowing down popu lation growth assists development and

whether funding for family planning

programmes should be increased.

Australia’s Minister for Development Co-operation and Pacific Islands Affairs Gordon Bilney says the importance of

population and family planning pro

grammes to sustainable development cannot be overstated. He says family planning services benefit the lives and health of women and children and access

to family planning greatly reduces infant

and maternal mortality rates in develop

ing countries.

The Australian government’s aid arm,

Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, provides funding for population programmes in the South Pacific at a number of levels, including policy formulation, population educa tion, training for family planning service providers and programmes for marketing

contraceptives. Specific programmes in

clude Project Excel, a joint programme with the USA funded for $3.6 million over five years. The project aims to improve the quality and level of family planning services in Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu through the private and public sectors and through non-governmental organis ations.

Russell Rollason, executive director of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, says it is “extremely important” that the Australian government continues to pro vide support for family planning pro

'The crucial thing in the population and development argument is access to resources. If all the families in the world who wanted to plan their children had the means to do so, all population targets would be met/

grammes in the Pacific Islands. “Popu lation growth means governments are going to find it more difficult to provide basic services. Family planning pro grammes are needed which are non coercive, and which focus on education and provide basic resources for families.”

Rollason says the crucial thing in the

population and development argument

is access to resources. “If all the families in the world who wanted to plan their children had the means to do so, all population targets would be met.”

Harradine, however, remains highly critical of the Australian government’s aid funding for population activities in the Pacific Islands. He says the govern ment’s attitude is one of “cultural imperialism” and is “predicated on the assertion that there are too many Poly nesians and Melanesians”. He claims a proposal by the government involves

using Indonesian population control

operatives to train Pacific Islanders. He says Indonesian programmes have been coercive, and have operated on the basis of incentives including offering credit for villagers to become sterilised and for farm labourers to have vasectomies.

When compared to international con sensus on population and development, Harradine appears to represent a min ority view. In April at the final meeting before September’s International Con ference on Population and Development, 140 countries agreed to spend more money on population programmes.

Harradine’s own credibility came under a cloud last year when he suggested aid money could be better spent on milk biscuits for women in developing countries. He referred to the link between breast feeding and family spacing and claimed the milk biscuits enhanced the lactation process.

The findings of the ‘lndependent Inquiry into Population and Develop ment’ would also seem to confirm what the supporters of aid funding for popu lation programmes have been saying. It found that slowing population growth is advantageous to economic development, health, food availability, housing, pov erty, the environment and possibly education, and that effective family planning can reduce infant and maternal mortality. Bilney said the report supports his view that family planning pro grammes are an important part of Australia’s aid budget. Rollason said the report “provides conclusive evidence to support increased expenditure on family planning programmes”, and said the government should restore all suspended family planning funding.

Harradine, however, maintains a close reading of the report shows that “popu lation growth is not the problem many people think it is”. He claims the contributors to the report “conceded that poverty, environmental damage, educa tional inequalities, poor housing etc are caused by factors other than population growth per se”, and says an urgent assessment should be made of the costs and benefits of alternative policies in achieving development.

No matter what the outcome in Australia is of the squabbles about population and development, the issue will continue to be of vital importance for Pacific Island nations. It appears clear that family planning programmes can provide regional governments with one means of addressing the demands which growing populations place on precious resources. They also represent an oppor tunity for governments to enhance the health of women and children. And for the people of the region, the availability of family planning resources represents something the average Australian per haps takes for granted: the freedom of choice to decide whether or not to actually make use of them. □