ITIHAS ACADEMYDHAKA, BANGLADESH
13th International Seminar, 17 February, 2017
Development, Population and Environment: Status and Impact on
Society in Developing country
Dr. Ananta Kumar Biswas
Asst. Professor, Dept. of Sociology
The University of Burdwan
West Bengal, India
Key Words: Compound growth, Externality, Sustainable development
Abstract: Compound growth in population and in particular, production and consumption have
some environmental outcomes such as climate change, air and water pollution, deforestation, loss
of habitat and biodiversity, soil erosion, per capita decline in food availability, shrinking of water
supplies, and social differences in the distribution of environmental goods and bad.
In order to address environmental outcomes generated by compounding growth in population,
consumption and production we need to take close scrutiny about the relationships among
development, population and environment. This paper attempts to examine how current method
of cultivation in agriculture is able to feed their growing population without any externalities to
the society or in sustainable manner.
Introduction: Since independence, India has been adopting mega development projects such as
big dams, heavy industries, petrochemicals and thermal power plants etc., for achieving Western
standard in economic matters, but such development could enhance neither an equitable nor a just
society. The very process of development has done massive exploitation of abandoned natural
resources such as land, water, minerals, forests etc. It is fact that development model undoubtedly
1
helped the country to achieve something noble in economics and political realms; however this
process has generated wider socio-economic problems, inequality, poverty, pollution etc, across
time and space. In this context, we can review the vicious circle of poverty, population and
pollution in developing world.
Current population explosion in India and its deleterious effects on life of the people have been
widely recognised. Although, population can be considered as wealth in achieving equity and
efficiency, provided good education, health and democratic environment could nurture the
population to fit such an achievement. Population is a per-requisite to development only to the
extent that a society requires more man power to carry out its developmental activities. A huge
population can be a blessing only if it can be made productive, literate and healthy. But in India, it
is argued that, ‘excess manpower is a liability to development’ 1. Therefore, we have to tackle our
huge population problem for thinking to make our society sustainable.
The rate of world population growth is however falling today. The peak came in the early
1960s, when the world population was growing at an annual rate of 2.2 percent. By 2011, the rate
had fallen to 1.08 percent. Although the growth rate has declined, the size of new increments to
the world’s population is still higher than it was in 1960s. Today’s slower growth rate is applied to
a bigger population, so the world’s average annual population increased dramatically. But more
than 90 percent of world’s current population growth is taking place in poor countries. Such
growth in rich and middle-income countries is either slow or in the negative. In over thirty
countries, including Japan, South Africa and most of the former European Bloc countries, the
population growth rate as of 2010 is zero or below. In fifty nine countries, however, population
growth is running at two percent or more per year. And these have happened in all countries with
high poverty rates and low levels of human development. Ethiopia has the seventh fastest growth
rate of 3.2 percent per year with a current population of 88 million. If this growth rate doesn’t
change, in a hundred year Ethiopia would have a population of about 2.2 billion, larger than any
2
country today. India has a current population of about 1.2 billion, but India’s growth rate is much
lower than Ethiopia. Bangladesh has a current population of about 0.16 billion but with annual
changes in population is 1.2 percentages which is equivalent to India’s annual changes in
population. As far as we concern Bangladesh’s population composition in age we find that more
than sixty percent population falls within the age group of 15-64 which has much implication for
country’s future development thinking. However, there need proper plan for utilizing these huge
human resources and work force for country’s actual development. It is needless to say that
education, health and democratic environment are the prerequisites for such a plan. China has 1.3
billion people, the world’s largest population today, but it now has a fairly low annual growth rate
of 0.49 percent, due to the country’s severe population policies2.
Recent fall in growth is attributable not to only fertility decline in some case but to increase in
warfare, to high rates of AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa and to sharp decline in life
expectancy in the former Eastern bloc due to economic dislocation 3. In spite of such growth rate
fall in some cases, demographers predict that world population would be 9.2 billion in 2050, with
the world growing at about 41 million people a year. Neo-Malthusians also worry about such a
scenario of world population. Because, even a constant population may still have an increasing
appetite for materials resources on the one hand, and increases in population come on top of
accelerating per capita consumption and production, on the other hand. And even if world
population eventually stabilizes, environmental impacts may continue to compound because of our
growing appetite for resources. This has been leading, some argue to a general condition of
underproduction and lessening overall carrying capacity of the world, a very undesirable situation
termed as ‘Overshoot’ by William Catton 4. But it is fact that, population control alone does not
make any guarantee for achieving sustainable society, contrarily, over production and over
consumption in western countries may reduced the chances of achieving the cherished goal of
sustainability.
3
The implication of compounding growth in population, production and consumption need to be
considered carefully. It is stated, at least theoretically, that growth in consumption, production and
population does not necessarily degrade the environment. In fact, population growth itself has no
environmental consequences at all. Any environmental impact depends on what is being
consumed and what is being produced by these increased number of people and on how they go
about consuming and producing. Improved technology and social organization could possibly
compensate for potential impacts and even leave the environment in better shape than it was to
begin with. However, rapid population growth generates serious environment and health problems
in countries like Bangladesh and India.
Boserup5 argued that whereas population density may provide the incentive to intensity in
production, rapid population growth may overwhelm the economic and social resources that are
essential to intensification .The following are some consequences of rapid population growth.
1) Governments and Local communities fail to provide a burgeoning population with education,
healthcare, poverty relief and infrastructure development or improvement like roads and irrigation.
2) Rapid population growth also leads to a population with a high percentage of children requiring
schooling and care giving and thus competing for scarce funds and adult labour.
3) In poor countries rapid population pronounce in yielding low funds to invest in new roads, public
transport, sewage lines, clean water supplies, school buildings, hospitals, phone lines and power
generation.
4) In poor countries rapid increasing population does not have enough money to attract much
private investment to provide basic amenities of the society.
5) People of poor countries with rapid population growth easily indulge in corruption to maintain
their income as against their low pay as a government officials and others.
4
6) Corruption intensity occurred in the infrastructural development and environmental offenders
avoid environmental regulation through payoffs to officials.
7) Rapid population growth in poor countries result in serious health problems and children,
women as well as elderly person of these countries are obvious victims of diseases and health
problems.
8) Rapid population growth generates health, housing, sanitation, clean air, water problems and
other environmental consequences.
9) More population concentration surrounding industry in poor countries with rapid population
growth caused health problems due to air and water pollution as well as land degradation.
10) Flood, heavy rain, cyclone, drought and earth quake in poor countries with rapid population
growth like Bangladesh, and others result in heavy causalities to people and poor people of these
countries have to live in high degree of risk and vulnerability which may forced them migrate
elsewhere as ‘environmental refugee’6
Classical Malthusianism provides us insights in understanding the relationships among poverty /
affluences, population and environment but these are under critical scrutiny in many ways. Anti-
Malthusians also argue that population is the ‘ultimate resources’. That is, the solution to resource
scarcity is actually to increase population. A prominent proponent of anti-Malthusian, Julian
Simon7argued that a larger number of people means more brain power and labour to work out
technological solution to scarcity. When confronted with scarcity, we apply our collective brain
power and find out new resources of formerly scarce one and new technologies for extracting
them. In some case, new technology will allow us to substitute different materials for ones that
have become scarce, what Simon called the principle of ‘substitutability’8.
5
But Simon’s argument that more people means more brainpower to work out problems is rather
dubious. It is clearly by now that the sheer size of a society does not make it innovative.
Innovativeness depends not merely on number of people but on their quality including social
circumstances like equitable distribution of resources, democratic environment and a good
educational system. In fact, greater number of people may only increase a society’s stock of
misguided ideas if that society is set up in a way that stumps everyone in the same mould or
clouds their creativity.
Critique also doubts Simon’s optimism about technology. For Simon, technology has indeed made
possible substantial substitutions in the resource we depend on, often in the face of scarcity, such
as the techniques for the use of fossil fuel that resolved the fuel wood and water power shortages
of early industrialism. But will technology always come to the rescue in time to prevent serious
problems? This question is particularly germane as we encounter limits in resources that seem less
substitutable, such as fresh water, clean air, and land for agriculture and habitat for biodiversity.
Other critiques related with new technology which can bring with it unintended consequences,
such as the substitution of HCFCs (Hydrochloroflucarbons), a potent greenhouse gas, for ozone-
depleting CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons). Solving one problem often contributes to another.
Technology is also critical for its short-term benefits or unsustainable characters along with
externalities or negative effects for society. For example, green revolution in India and other
developing countries where mechanization, irrigation, pesticides, fertilizer use, high-yielding
hybrids, rural road construction, to open up new areas for clearing and cultivation - all these
techniques and practices allowed world grain production to increase 2.6 fold between 1950 and
1984. The per capita world grain harvest rose by 40 percent. This miracle in production happened
due to miracle rice ‘IRRI” 9.Unfortunately, from the mid-1980 per capita yield of all grain worlds
wide has been declining. And since then, the tale is not pretty regarding rice production. Because
10
crop yields fluctuates and decline with the weather over years. A comparative study of rice
6
production between two periods (i.e., 2004-2008 and 1984-1988) reveals that rice production rose
on an average of 34.2 percent and world population rose over 32.5 percent during the same period.
That made for a 1.3 percent increase in per capita rice yields. Moreover, in recent times, there is a
fluctuating or declining trend of rice production that does not match with growing number of
world population. Researchers at the World Watch Institute suggest that the declining
responsiveness of crops to further fertilization, as well as soil erosion, the conversion of grain land
to non-farm uses, and spreading water scarcity, is limiting the growth of grain production 11. So, it
is still not clear how new biotech varieties like ‘Golden rice’ and ‘Bt rice’ would boost yield of
rice and other grains back to at least matching population growth without causing ecological
damage? And how can current methods of cultivation provide us a way to boost yields without
negative effects or externalities to society? Moreover, whether we are able to develop technology
and resource which are capable of feeding growing world population without any externalities to
the society or in sustainable manner? These are the basic questions of our time and answers to
these questions are drawn from the following observation.
Take the previous example of green revolution that has been occurred in India and others since
1960s. The entire increase in wheat production in India came from the shift from traditional
varieties to high yielding varieties in wheat growing areas. By now, around 80 percent of the
wheat area has been brought under high-yielding varieties. Obviously, with time, the scope for a
further shift becomes limited. The rate of increase in wheat production has dropped from around
ten percent per annum in the early years of the wheat production to five percent in recent years. A
study conducted by the Narottam Shah12 of the centre for Monitoring Indian economy (CMIE)
shows that there has been a literal revolution in agricultural inputs. Between 1976-77 and 1982-83
gross irrigated area increased at the rate of 5.6 percent per annum, the number of diesel and
irrigated pump set increased at the rate of eight per cent to nine per cent, consumption of power
for agriculture increased at the rate of over twelve per cent, area under high-yielding varieties
7
increased at the rate of around seven per cent per annum, and fertilizer consumption increased at
the rate of eleven per cent per annum. But while, all the inputs in real terms put together had
increased at the rate of 4.2 per cent per annum between 1970-71 and 1979-80, the real output
increased at only 2.3 per cent per annum. As a result, the index of productivity of inputs (out puts)
declined sharply from 100 in 1970-71 to 75 by 1979-80. Therefore, he remarked ‘we are
experiencing a phenomenon of diminishing returns to inputs in agriculture.13
Shah14 also analyzed the factor behind this continued slackening return to inputs (outputs) in
agriculture. She argued that India’s heavy reliance on irrigation, high-yielding varieties have
created inequalities among farmers. Around two-third of India’s farmers are engaged in dry
farming and only around one-third in irrigation farming. Correspondingly more than two-third of
agricultural development expenditure is devoted to irrigation and irrigation-based farming and less
than one-third to dry farming. Dry farming demands measures for water harvesting and soil and
water conservation. The neglect of dry farming has led to imbalances in the country’s agricultural
development. Then what is needed to be done? According to Shah, India’s agricultural technology
has never developed taking into account the ecological bases of country’s agriculture. She
suggested that understanding of ecological possibilities and constraints need to be worked out
suitably for each soil-climatic regime of the country. And a comprehensive and wide-ranging
education in the elements of ecology and agriculture should be given to farmers for better
production in sustainable manner.
Therefore from above discussion and insights, I recommended the followings suggestions taking
population and resources at the centre for creating a more sustainable society.
1) Total fertility rate (TFR) i.e. number of children per woman, must be maintain at replacement
level. This may be done through proper population policies.
8
2) Infant mortality rate (IMR) should reduce through launching ‘Mother-Child’ care unit,
improvement of health care system, education and eradication of poverty.
3) Flood control and protect people from water and vector borne diseases.
4) More literacy, adult education, continued study, vocational and technical education should be
promoted.
5) Creating proper democratic environment through participation of all citizen in all spheres of
peoples ‘activities irrespective of race, religion, castes and creed etc.
6) Country’s ecological bases should given importance for agricultural activities. Agricultural and
other productive sectors should focus on ecological elements of the country. And proper balance
should maintain between agriculture and ecology for any development activities.
7) Flood, heavy rain fall, cyclone, land devastation, soil erosion, deforestation, overfishing and the
resultant consequences should be minimised and protected people from such causalities. Short run
and long run policies should be launched in this regard.
8) Irrigation, crop cycle maintaining and cultivation of crop should be done through ecological
knowledge and training.
9) Lastly, but not least continued research and follow up in the area of agricultural development
and population growth may be taking as a corrective to any whimsical administered of policies.
Notes and References:
9
1
Biswajit Ghosh. “Excess Manpower to be a Liability for India”? Globalization and
Environment- Discourse, Politics and Practices(ed. Manish Verma) Jaipur, Raw at Publication,
2012, pp 331-351
2
Michael Mayerfeld Bell. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. New Delhi, Sage
Publication, 2012, p 97.
3
Michael Mayerfeld Bell. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. New Delhi, Sage
Publication, 2012, p98
4
William Catton. Overshoot: The ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana.
University of Illinois Press, 1982
5
Ester Boserup. The condition of Agricultural growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change
under Population Pressure. London, Allen & Unwin. 1965.
6
J. McGregor , “ Refugees and the Environment”, Geography and Refugees (eds.R black and
Vaughan Robinson), London:Belhaven,1983
7
Julian, Simon. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981.
8
Julian, Simon. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981.
9
IRRI ( International Rice Research Institute) , A variety of rice seed named after the Institution.
10
Michael Mayerfeld Bell, An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. New Delhi, Sage
Publication,2012. p.112
11
R, Lester Brown Nicholas, Lenssen & Hale, Kane. Vital Signs,1995:The Trend That Are
Shaping Our Future. New York & London. Norton, 1995.
12
Narottam Shah. “The grain gap (Box) Population and environment”, the 2nd Citizens’ Report,
1984-85 ,New Delhi, Centre for Science And Environment (CSE), 1983. P 4 27
13
Narottam Shah. “The grain gap (Box) Population and environment”, the 2nd Citizens’ Report,
1984-85 ,New Delhi, Centre for Science And Environment (CSE), 1983.p431
14
Narottam Shah. “The grain gap (Box) Population and environment”, the 2nd Citizens’ Report,
1984-85 ,New Delhi, Centre for Science And Environment (CSE), 1983.p437
