By Meenakshi Ganguly
NEW DELHI, Oct 3 2022 – The economic, political, and human rights calamity gripping Sri Lanka has made news around the world, but its roots go back years – or even decades. In September, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, underscored in her report on Sri Lanka that “impunity for serious human rights violations [has] created an environment for corruption and the abuse of power.”

The UN Human Rights Council will soon consider a resolution to address this issue. Countries in the global south that serve on the council, – —including Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Namibia and Senegal, have an important role in supporting the people of Sri Lanka to address the current crisis and its underlying causes.

Between 1983 and 2009 Sri Lanka endured a devastating civil war between the government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The decades of brutality against civilians and the government’s continuing attempts to shield those responsible from justice, have cast a long shadow over the country. Both sides committed widespread violations of international law.

“It is the inability to get truth and justice in Sri Lanka despite many efforts, and the subsequent loss of confidence and hope in domestic processes, that drive many Sri Lankans to Geneva”

Ruki Fernando, Sri Lankan activist

In the final months of the conflict in 2009, the LTTE used human shields, while tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed when government forces shelled no-fire zones and hospitals. As the war ended with the defeat of the LTTE and the destruction of its leadership, government forces were implicated in summary executions, rape, and enforced disappearances.

Since then, many Tamils have sought to learn what happened to those who did not return. In August, a group known as the Mothers of the Disappeared passed 2,000 days of continuous protests demanding to know the fate of their loved ones. Instead of receiving answers they have been subject to intimidation and surveillance by the government’s security apparatus. Nevertheless, representatives of the group have travelled to Geneva to ask the Human Rights Council to keep their hopes of justice alive.

Over many years, people from all of the country’s faiths and communities have taken their accounts of suffering and their search for justice to the Human Rights Council. As the prominent Sri Lankan activist Ruki Fernando recently wrote, “It is the inability to get truth and justice in Sri Lanka despite many efforts, and the subsequent loss of confidence and hope in domestic processes, that drive many Sri Lankans to Geneva.”

Successive Sri Lankan governments have appointed people allegedly responsible for these atrocities to high office, and blocked investigations, undermining the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. In one rare case in which a soldier was convicted of murder, the president pardoned him.

Earlier this year, following years of mismanagement and corruption, Sri Lanka ran out of foreign exchange – meaning that it could no longer finance essential imports such as fuel, food and medicine, causing the government to default on its foreign debts. As inflation spiralled and people were unable to obtain basic necessities, massive protests broke out leading to the resignation of the prime minister in May and of the president in July.

On the streets, huge numbers of ordinary Sri Lankans called for constitutional reform and action to address corruption. A 2020 amendment to the constitution weakened human rights institutions and gave the president the power to appoint senior judges. It also undermined institutions such as the Bribery Commission that are responsible for combatting economic crimes.

The new president, Ranil Wickremesinghe, has promised reform. But he has responded by suppressing dissent, using the military to disperse peaceful protests and arresting dozens of alleged protest organizers. He has used the notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act to detain three student activists for up to a year without charge.

The use of the this law shows that the government’s assurances to the international community on human rights cannot be trusted. As recently as June the then-foreign minister told the Human Rights Council that there was a moratorium on the use of that law, which has repeatedly been used to enable arbitrary detention and torture, and which successive governments have promised to repeal.

The resolution currently before the Human Rights Council extends the mandate of a UN project to gather and analyze evidence of war crimes and other crimes under international law that have been committed in Sri Lanka and to prepare them for use in possible future prosecutions. It also mandates the UN to continue monitoring and reporting on the human rights crisis in Sri Lanka. As people struggle for daily necessities and the government cracks down on dissent, that is more important than ever.

The Sri Lankan government has opposed these measures, falsely claiming that it is already acting to protect human rights. To support Sri Lankans who are calling for change and accountability, Council members from the global south should fully support the resolution.

Excerpt:

Meenakshi Ganguly is South Asia director at Human Rights Watch

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 3 2022 – While cities are seen as a symbol of glamour and comfort for a number of their residents, over one billion people continue to live in overcrowded settlements with inadequate housing. And their number is rising every single day.

Yes, life in urban centres represents plenty of offices, constructions, job opportunities, shops, bars, restaurants, transport systems, and health and education services. So much that 2 of 3 people are forecasted to be concentrated in urban areas by 2050.

But this is only one side of the coin.

The other side is that the current fast and unplanned urbanisation of the world’s population has transformed cities into a major generator of pollution that is increasing and accelerating climate catastrophes.

Cities are responsible for 70% of global carbon dioxide emissions, with transport, buildings, energy, and waste management accounting for the bulk of urban emissions

Indeed, urban centres are now among the largest greenhouse gas emitters due to the excessive use of cars, trucks, airports, train stations, inadequate buildings, heating and air conditioning, noise and light pollution, housing shortage and too expensive rents.

Cities: 70% of CO2 emissions

Much so that cities are responsible for 70% of global carbon dioxide emissions, with transport, buildings, energy, and waste management accounting for the bulk of urban emissions.

This year’s World Habitat Day (3 October) looks at the problem of growing inequality and challenges in cities and human settlements, as a consequence of such a rapidly growing urbanisation.

The Day also seeks to draw attention to the growing inequalities and vulnerabilities that have been exacerbated by the triple ‘C’ crises — COVID-19, climate and conflict.

Inequalities

On this, it warns that the pandemic and recent conflicts have reversed years of progress made in the fight against poverty, resulting in the emergence of newly poor people — those who would have exited poverty in the absence of the pandemic but remain poor, and those who have fallen into poverty on account of the pandemic.

In fact, according to the 2022 UN-Habitat’s World Cities Report, the number of people affected was between 119 and 124 million in 2020, and between 143 and 163 million in 2021.

The report underlines that tackling urban poverty and inequality have become an “urgent global priority,” adding that “to prepare urban areas for future catastrophes, we need to start with cities.”

Exclusion

This very month also marks the 2022 World Cities Day on 31 October.

The Day warns that too often this is not the shape of urban development. “Inequality and exclusion abound, often at rates greater than the national average, at the expense of sustainable development that delivers for all.”

Urban October was launched by UN-Habitat in 2014 to emphasise the world’s urban challenges and engage the international community towards the New Urban Agenda.

See some facts:

• Until 2009, more people lived in rural areas than in urban areas.

• Today, around 55% of the world’s population lives in towns and cities, with the level of urbanisation projected to reach almost 70% by 2050.

• Much of the growth in urban populations will take place in Asia and Africa, especially in China, India and Nigeria where the fertility rates remain high.

• Cities are here to stay, and the future of humanity is undoubtedly urban, but not exclusively in large metropolitan areas.

• Urbanisation will continue to be a transformative, but uneven process that will require differentiated responses depending on the diversity of the urban context.

• The worst-case scenario of urban futures will have disastrous consequences for cities; thus, resulting in economic uncertainties, environmental challenges and exacerbating existing vulnerabilities.

• A business-as-usual approach will result in a pessimistic scenario of urban futures characterised by the systemic discrimination and exclusion of the poor in urban agendas.

• Any vision for an optimistic future of cities must embody a new social contract with universal basic income, health coverage and housing.

There is another oftenly unseen problem: every time a farmer migrates to an urban centre means one food consumer more. And one food producer less.

What is the future for cities?

In view of the above, if business continues as usual, the future will only worsen the past and the present situation.

Indeed, most cities are not able to meet the triple objective of being economically productive, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable, according to the United Nations findings on the occasion of the World Habitat Day.

The world’s body also identifies the priorities that include ensuring access to a clean water supply, functional sanitation, and appropriate sewage and waste disposal.

Also providing sustainable and efficient mobility; promoting more compact, safe and healthy settlements; and enhancing resilience against climate change, extreme weather events and disease transmission.

Mega cities

Currently, Tokyo is the world’s largest city: 38 million residents, followed by Delhi (30 million inhabitants); Sao Paolo in Brazil (22 millions), and seven more mega urban centres which are home to 20 millions or more, like Cairo (22 millions), Dhaka (21 millions), and Beijing, with more than 20 millions, just to mention some.

Are cities the best place to live in?

Up to you to judge. But please remember that big urban centres, by attracting high numbers of people, also generate social tensions, deep inequalities, violence, and criminality.

And that fancy innovations like growing food in vertical gardens, on the roofs of buildings, do not seem to be enough to solve the many challenges facing such an urbanised world.

Nor is it the unstoppable growth of the “modern slums” such as the case of vast neighbourhoods being built and used mainly as “bedrooms.”

Are there any serious plans to improve the harsh living conditions in rural areas, instead of transforming them into vast industrialised and urbanised centres, surrounded by energy fields converging farming lands with solar panels, windmills, power and telecommunication towers and endless highways?

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Oct 3 2022 – This week is a momentous one for the world’s premier human rights body. At stake is a resolution to decide whether the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva can hold a debate on a recently released UN report.

The report concludes that rights violations by China’s government in its Xinjiang region ‘may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity’.

Unsurprisingly, China’s government is doing everything in its power to scotch plans for a debate on the report’s contents. Its tactics include intimidating smaller states, spreading disinformation and politicising genuine human rights concerns – the very thing the Human Rights Council was set up to overcome.

The historic report, which affirms that the rights of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslim population are being violated through an industrial-level programme of mass incarceration, systemic torture and sexual violence, attracted huge controversy before it was released on 31 August 2022, minutes before the end of the term of the outgoing High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet.

The report was supposedly ready in September 2021 but so great was the pressure exerted by the Chinese state that it took almost another year for it to be aired. Absurdly, the 46-page report includes a 122 page annex in the form of a rebuttal issued by China, rejecting the findings and calling into question the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Office of the High Commissioner has asserted that the report is based on a rigorous review of documentary evidence with its credibility assessed in accordance with standard human rights methodology. The report’s recommendations are pretty straightforward: prompt steps should be taken to release all people arbitrarily imprisoned in Xinjiang, a full legal review of national security and counter-terrorism policies should be undertaken, and an official investigation should be carried into allegations of human rights violations in camps and detention facilities.

Nevertheless, a proposed resolution to hold a debate on the report’s contents in early 2023 is facing severe headwinds. A number of states inside and outside the Human Rights Council, united by their shared history of impunity for rampant human rights abuses – such as Cuba, Egypt, Laos, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Venezuela – have already rallied to China’s defence in informal negotiations on the brief resolution.

What is most worrying is that China appears to be leaning on smaller states that make up the 47-member Human Rights Council by inverting arguments about politicisation of global human rights issues and projecting itself as the victim of a Western conspiracy to undermine its sovereignty.

If China were to have its way, it would be a huge setback for the Human Rights Council, which was conceived in 2006 as a representative body of states designed to overcome the flaws of ‘declining credibility and lack of professionalism’ that marred the work of the body it replaced, the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his ground-breaking In Larger Freedom report, lamented that states sought membership ‘not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others’.

Human Rights Council members are expected to uphold the highest standards in the protection and promotion of human rights. But our research at CIVICUS shows that eight of the Council’s 47 members have the worst possible civic space conditions for human rights defenders and their organisations to exist. In these countries – Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan – human rights are routinely abused and anyone with the temerity to speak truth to power is relentlessly persecuted.

Regimes that serially abuse human rights may be motivated to block findings of investigations being aired on the international stage, but the international community has a collective responsibility to the victims. Civil society groups are urging Human Rights Council members to stand firm on the call for a debate on the China report.

Human Rights Council member states that assert the importance of human rights and democracy in their foreign policy are expected to vote in favour. Nevertheless, the influence of regional and geo-political blocs within the Council mean that the issue will essentially be settled by the decisions of states such as Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Senegal, Ukraine and Qatar.

China will undoubtedly pressure these states to try to get them to oppose or abstain in any vote that seeks to advance justice for the Uyghur people.

The stakes are particularly high for China’s mercurial leader, Xi Jinping, who is seeking to anoint himself as president for a third term – after abolishing term limits in 2018 – at the Chinese Communist Party’s Congress, which begins on 16 October.

Recognition of the systematic abuses to which Xi’s administration has subjected the Uyghur people would be considered an international affront to his growing power.

If China were to prevail at the Human Rights Council, it would be another blow to the legitimacy of the UN, which is already reeling from the UN Security Council’s inability to overcome Russia’s permanent member veto to block action on the invasion of Ukraine. So much – for the UN’s reputation, and for the hope that human rights violators, however powerful, will be held to account – is resting on the vote.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, is chief programmes officer and representative to the United Nations at global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 3 2022 – The United Nations is planning to introduce a new “mobility policy” under which staffers based in New York and other Western capitals will be mandated to serve in overseas missions and field services in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, including the UN’s 12 peacekeeping operations.

According to the proposed plan, the new policy will run in parallel with the staff selection system (vacancy management), which will continue to be the only way to progress to a higher level.

It covers all P (professional), D (Director) and FS (Field Service) staff in all functions. Only Assistant-Secretaries Generals and Under Secretaries-General (ASGs/USGs), plus staff in the Secretary-General’s office, staff on temporary appointments and a small percentage of posts designated as non-rotational, are exempted.

Currently, 93 percent of all posts are classified as rotational. The remaining seven percent includes project posts and those that are highly specialized and cannot be found in other duty stations.

All staff subject to the Mobility policy will be required to move laterally to another duty station every 2 to 5 years (depending on the duty station’s hardship level). Staff not required to move in a given year may also join the annual exercise voluntarily.

The Mobility exercises will be annual. Staff who have reached their time limit at a duty station (2 to 5 years) will be placed in one of two compendia (one for P staff and another for FS), along with those who join the exercise voluntarily.

They must express interest in up to ten posts in their compendium at other duty stations. If they are not selected for any of the posts they requested, they may be matched to other positions.

A special constraints panel will be set up to consider appeals from staff members who cannot take part in the exercise or have reasons not to move to a proposed position or location.

There is no credit for past geographic moves. The first mobility exercise is expected to begin shortly, according to the plan.

Aitor Arauz, President of the UN Staff Union (UNSU) and General Secretary, UN International Civil Servants Federation (UNISERV), told IPS the Staff Union in New York is fully committed to a fair, viable and sustainable Mobility scheme that contributes to UN staff’s career development, rotation through hardship duty stations and better awareness of the organization’s range of operations and challenges on a global scale.

“However, precisely due to UN Secretariat’s diversity of roles and specializations, we are not convinced that all UN staff can simply be moved around at regular intervals without risking a loss of expertise and programme continuity”.

The cost-benefit analysis of such a huge disruption to people’s life and family plans just doesn’t add up at this time, he pointed out.

A fully rotational workforce needs to be supported by continuous learning (with dedicated resources for internal and external studies); robust knowledge-sharing platforms free of digital divides; genuine results-based management; and an atmosphere of trust and collaboration where colleagues on all levels are willing to share information and support each other’s learning and success, he argued.

Though efforts are being made, these conditions are far from being met across the board. Furthermore, meaningful rotation out of hardship locations will only be achieved by removing artificial barriers between the GS, F and P categories, he noted.

“We are working with the Administration to ensure the rollout of a Mobility scheme that remains voluntary for now, so we can get people moving while we iron out the issues that will inevitably arise and continue to build a conducive environment of genuine trust, collaboration and knowledge sharing across the Secretariat,” declared Arauz, who presides over a 7,500-strong Staff Union, including 6,000 constituents in New York and 1,500 more in other offices around the globe.

According to UN estimates last year, the total strength of its staff worldwide is more than 315,000 with over 56 UN agencies, and approximately 9,300 in the Secretariat in New York,and offices in virtually every one of the 193 member states.

A former UN staffer who served in New York and later in Africa, told IPS: “ If you are designated an “international civil servant” – as all UN staffers are – you cannot work all your professional life only in New York, Geneva, Rome or Vienna, which are not considered “hardship” stations.”

All staffers are also entitled to “hazard pay” –over and above their regular salaries—for working in “dangerous peacekeeping locations”.

Those who serve in the field– outside Europe and North America– get hardship pay, mobility incentive (depending on how many moves they have done in the past), and non- family allowance– if it is a location that you can’t bring your family to

Ian Richards, former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, and an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), told IPS “To be clear, we support mobility. Staff join the UN to work in different parts of the world. But we should distinguish mobility from hyper-mobility.”

The Secretary-General, he pointed out, wants to force staff to another country every two to five years, which is more frequent than many diplomatic services.

“He twice asked our member states at the General Assembly to approve this package but they did not. He says he will go ahead with it anyway”.

“We are told this is to help staff in peacekeeping missions. But it will apply to all staff. I don’t understand how moving translators and their families back and forth across the Atlantic between New York, Geneva and Vienna will address the situation of colleagues in Mali. Nor if it is wise to completely change the staff of the regional economic commissions every five years”.

Richards said each move of a staff member and their family can cost the organization $75,000. With this policy in place, you could be looking at an extra $300,000 per staff member over their career.

With 20,000 international staff, member states are facing a liability of $6 billion just in moving costs. I’m not sure if they’re ready to pay for this right now.

“We have put forward sensible and cost-effective alternatives which we hope he will consider,” he declared.

The total UN budget for 2021-2022 is $4.8 billion compared with $4.4 billion in 2018-2019.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section who also served as a member of the Secretary-General’s Results-based Budgeting Group, told IPS: “This is a great idea of the Secretary-General– but not new”.

He pointed out that former Secretary-General Kofi Anan initiated the mobility program and implemented it in a modified form. Experience in the field was going to be made a requirement for promotion.

“I myself was nearly assigned to Baghdad with Sergio, but due to the bombing this movement did not happen”. (In August 2003, the top UN envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed when terrorists blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, also killing at least 14 others)

Two or three of my staff voluntarily went to Bosnia and performed well., said Kohona, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.

He said most national diplomatic staff get rotated every two to three years and acquire excellent experience and skills. No one is irreplaceable.

“You shouldn’t become an international civil servant so as to secure the privilege of living in New York and Geneva, acquiring real estate and sending your children to expensive schools at the expense of the taxpayer,” he declared.

A former senior staffer at the UN children’s fund told IPS: “UNICEF had a mobility program, which specified that NY was a five-year duty station and staff could be moved after 5 years. The exceptions were specialized positions which were New York-based, but even in these specialized posts incumbents could be asked to rotate’.

“I don’t know the UN policies, but if I recall, we work within UN regulations which calls us to work where needed. It’s time for New York staff to work in duty stations that require assistance,” he added.

Roderic Grigson, who worked at the UN Secretariat in the ‘70s and ‘80s as a technology innovations officer and later served in peacekeeping forces in the Middle East, told IPS: “Yes, my overseas assignment was voluntary. I arrived in 1974 and left for the Middle East in 1978, less than 5-years later, so that I would have met the program’s criteria.”

“I think it’s a good thing to do, although I can see why the Staff Union will protest. All the ‘fat cats’ in HQ who have never been in a humanitarian or conflict zone should experience what it is like living in those conditions. I do not doubt they will be the better for it.”

“I clearly remember when I came back a couple of years later to New York after serving in the Middle East, I was amazed at the lack of knowledge or sympathy my colleagues had for those of us working in the field.”

“They held themselves almost superior to those who often put their lives on the line and had to live in conditions worse than what you find in the worst slums in a big city,” said Grigson, a published author of three books, now working on a fourth.

“Frankly, it pains me to say this, but many segments of the world’s first-world population consider the UN almost irrelevant. If the UN wants to stay at the forefront of peace-keeping and humanitarian relief efforts, it must begin reforming itself from within and show the world that it can play an essential role in the future,’ he pointed out.

“What I am saying, in effect, is that they have to do a much better role in marketing themselves to their global constituents and change the way people view the organization as a whole. We are moving inexorably towards major big-power conflicts in Europe and Asia, which could shape the world in ways no one would have anticipated a few years ago”.

“I support the SG in trying to do something even as small as this, which would allow people to see the UN in a better light”.

“It might also attract a better calibre of people without political connections to take on essential jobs in the field where they are needed,” said Grigson, currently a retired corporate executive based in Melbourne, who works with local community organizations teaching refugees and new migrants how to use computers and employability courses.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 3 2022 – While the world’s population of 8 billion is continuing to increase and projected to reach 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2058, considerable diversity in the population growth of countries is continuing in the 21st century.

At one extreme are some 50 countries, accounting for close to 30 percent of today’s world population, whose populations are expected to decline over the coming decades.

By 2060, for example, those projected population declines include 9 percent in Germany, 11 percent in Russia, 13 percent in Spain, 15 percent in China, 17 percent in Poland, 18 percent in Italy, 21 percent in South Korea, 22 percent in Japan, and 31 percent in Bulgaria (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In terms of the size of those population declines, the largest is in China with a projected decline of 218 million by 2060. Following China are population declines in Japan and Russia of 27 million and 16 million, respectively.

At the other extreme, the population of 25 countries, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the world’s population, are expected to more than double by 2060. Those projected population increases by 2060 include 106 percent in Afghanistan, 109 percent in Sudan, 113 percent in Uganda, 136 percent in Tanzania, 142 percent in Angola, 147 percent in Somalia, 167 percent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 227 percent in Niger (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

With respect to the size of the populations that are projected to more than double, the largest is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a projected increase of 165 million by 2060. DRC is followed by population increases in Tanzania and Niger of 89 million and 60 million, respectively.

In between the extremes of declining and doubling populations are 120 intermediate growth countries. They account for about 60 percent of today’s world population and are projected to have larger populations by 2060 to varying degrees.

Those projected increases in population size include 13 percent in the United States, 17 percent New Zealand, 20 percent in India, 24 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Australia, 38 percent Saudi Arabia, 58 percent Israel, 95 percent in Nigeria, and 98 percent in Ethiopia (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Among the intermediate growth countries, the largest expected population growth is in India with a projected increase of 278 million by 2060. India is followed by Nigeria and Ethiopia with population increases of 208 million and 121 million, respectively.

The continuing significant differences in the rates demographic growth are resulting in a noteworthy reordering of countries by population size.

For example, while in 1980 about half of the 15 largest country populations were developed countries, by 2020 that number declined to one country, the United States. Also, Nigeria, which was eleventh largest population in 1980, was the seventh largest in 2020 and is projected to be the third largest population in 2060 with the United States moving to fourth place (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

In addition, China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s, 1.7 billion versus 1.2 billion, respectively.

The major explanation behind the diversity in population growth rates is differing fertility levels. While the countries whose populations are projected to at least double by 2060 have fertility rates of four to six births per woman, those whose populations are projected to decline have fertility rates below two births per woman.

Europe’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close the continent’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million

About two-thirds of the world’s population of 8 billion live in a country, including the three most populous China, India and the United States, where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In addition, most of those populations have experienced low fertility rates for decades.

Also, many countries are experiencing fertility rates that are approximately half the replacement level or less. For example, the total fertility rate declined to 1.2 births per woman for China and Italy, 1.3 for Japan and Spain, with South Korea reaching a record low of 0.8 births per woman.

The population of some countries with below replacement fertility, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, are projected to continue growing due to international migration. However, if international migration to those countries stopped, their populations would begin declining in a few decades just like other countries with below replacement fertility levels.

In hopes of avoiding population decline, many countries are seeking to raise their fertility rates back to at least the replacement level. Among the countries with below replacement fertility close to two-thirds have adopted policies to increase their rates, including baby bonuses, family allowances, parental leave, tax incentives, and flexible work schedules.

Most recently, China announced new measures to raise its below replacement fertility rate by making it easier to work and raise a family. Those measures include flexible working arrangements and preferential housing policies for families, as well as support on education, employment, and taxes to encourage childbearing.

Despite the desires, policies, and programs of governments to raise fertility levels, returning to replacement level fertility is not envisaged for the foreseeable future.

The world’s average total fertility rate of 2.4 births per woman in 2020, which is about half the levels during the 1950s and 1960s, is projected to decline to the replacement level by midcentury and to 1.8 births per woman by the end of the 21st century. Consequently, by 2050 some 50 countries are expected to have smaller populations than today, and that number is projected to rise to 72 countries by 2100.

As many of those countries are in Europe, that continent’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close Europe’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million.

In contrast, the populations of roughly three dozen countries with current fertility levels of more than four births per woman are expected to continue growing throughout the century.

As most of those countries are in Africa, that continent’s population is projected to double by around midcentury. Moreover, by close of the 21st century Africa’s population is projected to be triple its current size, i.e., from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion.

In sum, considerable diversity in the growth of populations is expected to continue throughout the 21st century. While the populations of many countries are projected to decline, the populations of many others are projected to increase. The net result of that diversity is the world’s current population of 8 billion is expected to increase to 10 billion around midcentury.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”