IN FAVOUR OF A EUROPEAN POPULATION POLICY

A Demographically Increasing Europe

With 322 millions inhabitants in 1985, the European community represents 6.7% of the world population. Europeans are more numerous than Russians (279 millions inhabitants), North Americans (239 millions), Japanese (121 millions), with an average of 143 inhabitants per square km. The European density is one of the highest in the world (USA : density 26, USSR density 12). In Europe itself, there are huge disparities, with an extremely high density of 352 per square km in the Netherlands, 323 in Belgium, 245 in Denmark.

A map of population density shows the most populated areas in the community stretch along a diagonal going from the North West of England to the industrial areas of Northern Italy, across Southern Holland, North Belgium and the Rhine-Rhur area. In the german Rhine-Rhur area, nearly 8 million people are gathered in 17 towns forming a nearly continuous zone of urbanisation. This lack of balance and harmony in the distribution of population is the result of the sudden industrial development which is accompanied, by not only considerable growth in the population of Europe but also a general shift of people from rural to urban areas. The European demographic situation nowadays has a relatively low growth rate. Projections for the next twenty years (from 1985 to 2005) foresee a growth rate of the community population of 0.2% while the world average is 3.6%. But in absolute figures European population growth is important. Between 1965 and 1988 the population increased by 30 millions.

The underlying persistency of European demographic growth is totally ignored by media and politicians of all sides, who prefer to focus on the lowering of the birth rate in most European countries, and more particularly the threshold of generation renewal, ideally 2.1 children per woman if considering a perfectly steady population with zero growth. Even that figure isn't very significant unless it is placed in relation to the global demographic dynamic, which , as far as Europe is concerned, remains centred on growth.

In fact the true indicator of the health of a population is life expectancy. In Europe, life expectancy is 71 .6 years for men and 78.2 years for women, far longer than the average expectation of life in and the world (58.3 and 61.1) but inferior to that of Japan (74.7 and 79.7).

TOWARD A NEW TYPE OF DEMOGRAPHIC BALANCE

We have also to address the problem of the ageing of the population. Everybody knows the constant, threat uttered by supporters from all sides of a rising birth - rate : who is going to pay our pensions ? (answer being : the more kids the more unemployed people). That « ageing process » is of course due to the rise in life expectancy. There is no other way to rejuvenate population than to reduce life expectancy which means going back to the situation before the demographic transition : a high death rate, a high birth-rate, a short life expectancy, Nobody can wish for such a reversion.

Yet keeping (by what means ?) a high birth-rate and a long life expectancy leads to an absurd demographic explosion. In a very short time the planet would literally be covered with human beings. And at today's rate [1991], the world population is increasing by one thousand million every 13 years !

DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH : A KEY ELEMENT IN THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS

By definition, a balance between number of people and the power of the territory and available resources to sustain them is central to the ecological viewpoint. The question is : how many human beings can reasonably live on earth without those ruining ecological balances, without perturbing the evolution of life on earth on a long term ?

Depending on their activities and the technologies they use, it is estimated that the planet can support from 500 millions to 1000 millions people, that is to say the population density of 1810. Nowadays, through rapid multiplication, the human species occupies almost all the places favourable to life and is responsible for severe environmental degradation, including the extinction of thousands of species necessary to ecological balance. The most spectacular process is the destruction of wet tropical forests of the planet, which are inhabited by 80% of all the living species. If humans don't stop colonising the whole planet, it will remain impossible to remedy the damage.

But people do not only occupy all the inhabitable spaces, they also pollute them. Lakes, rivers, seas, air, soil, vegetation, the remaining animal-life and people are threatened by pollution. Most measures taken to protect environment merely shift the problem. For example, we know how to built fairly clean electric power-stations running on coal, except for the carbon dioxide they reject, but what about we do with the waters used in the processing of smokes and gaseous rejects?

Therefore we must fight against causes not against symptoms. The problem lies in the number of people, the high standard of living and comfort, the technologies which destroy environment. So we can't reasonably overcome the ecological crisis without a considerable reduction of the number of people. If no measures are taken, very soon it will be impossible to feed the whole world population. Needless to say, the 6 thousand million people of the year 2000 will in no way be able to enjoy an occidental way of life.

EUROPE: AN ABSOLUTELY OVERPOPULATED TERRITORY

In this context, we must consider that Europe, despite a few areas of poverty, lives on the whole quite beyond its means, dilapidating its nourishing earth with a total recklessness. Developed sites and communication routes are built on arable lands, which are still widely considered as reserved for future building and development.

In 1985, for the 12 countries of the European community, this was the way the land was used :

• 1.6% for lakes and rivers
• 22.1% for woods and forests
• 58.8% for farming lands
• 8.5% for developed sites

The last figure growing in a very alarming way. For example, let's quote Prof. A. Tshumi's data concerning Switzerland, a country which although it doesn't belong to the European community, is really representative of the phenomenon :

Urbanised areas, which used to cover 77.888 ha in 1942 (with a living surface of 182 square meters per inhabitants), went up to 177.795 ha in 1967 (with a living surface of 293 square meters per inhabitant). Which represents a reduction of the arable land by 99.907 hs and a loss of 8%. Just like everywhere in Europe, that decrease was compensated for by a massive increase in agricultural yield. In Switzerland, yield was multiplied by 2, though at the expense of a large increase in the consumption of energy and massive use of fertilisers and pesticides. Even if demographic growth stopped right now, (which isn't the case) we must consider the fact that a large part of the population still lives in such bad living conditions that its needs are legitimately bound to grow. In other words, urbanised areas are bound to develop. All that would be, if not satisfactory, not totally disastrous, if Europe were self-sufficient. But what's the real situation?

EUROPE IS IN A STATE OF PERFUSION

Despite an excess in agricultural product concerning staples (wheat, milk, meat) the European community is the biggest importer of farming products, mostly tropical products and animal food. That is to say that a large part of our cattle live by food importation. As regards our needs in wood, such as sawing, panels, paper pulp, paper cardboard, the community deficit is considerable, and amounts to about 15 thousand million ECU per year, ranked second after oil products. Some of that wood comes from the destruction of tropical forests.

As for energy dependence, it amounts to about 43%. Oil remains the main source of primary energy in use (45%). The biggest energy consumers are the domestic sector, tertiary industry, and transport, the latter which increased consumption from 18% to nearly 25% between 1973 and 1985. So that Europe, in an irresponsible way, burns a raw material the shortage of which will soon be sorely felt.

For good measure let's add that Europe is heavily dependent on other countries for its industrial raw material. EEC industry depends on other countries at a rate of 100% for copper, more than 90% for iron, phosphate, nickel, 91% for antimony, 80% for aluminium and 75% for zinc. Without taking into account the ecological damage which is already irreversible and that we'll have to correct, we can infer from all these facts that European prosperity depends greatly on countries abroad. That prosperity is due to the supply of natural resources taken away from countries getting poorer and poorer while their population increases dramatically. It's a situation full of dangers in the foreseeable future. So that we may say that considering its own resources, its ecological situation and the ecological situation of the planet, Europe is absolutely overcrowded.

WE MUST QUICKLY ELABORATE A EUROPEAN DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE BASES.

This is one of the basic requirements of the European greens. Obviously, any policies in favour of a high birth-rate are an ecological nonsense and directly threaten the survival of human and other populations. We need a demographic policy which respects the voluntary self-regulation seen nowadays, and makes the too prolific couples aware of their social and economic responsibilities.

Any approach to the problems of the reproduction of mankind which doesn't take scientific data into account, leads to irresponsible positions. These data are simple enough : each woman can give birth to an average of eight children. Now to start the inescapable demographic decrease, fertility has to fall below two children per woman, during that period of transition. In Europe men and women have gained that control more of less against the law. The law must quickly stop mocking the interest of mankind and personal freedoms. If man proves incapable of self-regulation, then nature will do the job itself : wars, famines, epidemics...

The people in favour of a high birth-rate must stop monopolising the media, most particularly in France. There must be a true debate about demographic problems, and people must be fully aware of the relationships between the density of population, space, the quality of the environment, and available resources in universities and secondary schools, elementary notions of human ecology must be taught. On a larger scale people responsible for the environment must stop dissociating environmental problems from demographic problems. Moreover, the increase in life expectancy together with a necessary decrease in fecundity are responsible for a change in the balance of populations, a change unknown up till now, in which the older part of the population will be represented on a large scale. No doubt this state of things will make a series of adaptations necessary. We must anticipate these adaptations from now on: the age of retirement, geriatrics, new social transfers, and so on.

DEMOGRAPHY AND IMMIGRATION

Immigration is an important datum of demography. In a given space, no demographic control is possible if at the same time the problem of immigration isn't mastered. For the greens, three aspects must be considered :

• The right to political asylum : a more and more restricted right, the restriction of which the greens are totally opposed to.
• The immigration stemming from the colonial period and the import of manpower by heavy industry and agriculture. The greens are against any discriminatory policy towards immigrants, economically as well as politically speaking. So this means that immigrants have to be considered as full European citizens.
• Economic immigration : considering European overpopulation, European borders can't be opened for the time being, since it is hard to discriminate between political and economic asylum.

The overpopulation of the third-world is such that immigration can in no way solve that problem, moreover, immigration doesn't reduce the birth-rate in poor countries. We must fight against the numerous socio-economic causes of that high birth-rate.

EUROPE MUST FEEL CONCERNED WITH THE HIGH BIRTH RATE OT THE THIRD WORLD

In order to be credible, we must give an example by condemning a policy in favour of a high birth-rate in Europe. We are responsible in many ways for the situation in the third world countries : they are crushed by their debts, and their economic structures and ways of life are destroyed by an unregulated market economy. It is acknowledged that the rise in the standard of living, real participation in society, and emancipation of women bring about a spontaneous decrease of fecundity. But we must quickly overcome the problem of pauperisation linked with a galloping demography. In numerous third world countries, political and religious leaders are aware of the urgency to stop the demographic growth, and they ask for technical and financial help, and need qualified personnel to enable couples to achieve birth-control.

In our opinion, it's urgent that these demands from the leaders or from the populations should be satisfied first of all, for birth control is essential to an improvement of public health of populations, and to a reduction in the degradation of ecosystems.

CONCLUSION