Just a few years ago, in 2019, the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd Müller, declared: "The major challenge in terms of population development is the African continent, where the population will have doubled by 2050. This puts great pressure on the limited resources of these countries. Development policy must therefore make a contribution to reducing birth rates."1 The fact that population policy has always been and still is part of so-called development cooperation (DC) is no longer stated quite as obviously in 2024. Instead, there is much talk of "feminist development policy" and "self-determined family planning". 

Reproduction as a field of power and control

Already during European colonialism population control was a part of the oppression and exploitation apparatus, even if its policies were often times contradictory. After permitting abortion during the early stages of colonisation, to reduce pregnancy-­related absences of enslaved laborers, the colonizers were confronted with a decline in population in the colonised areas at the beginning of the 20th century. In what was then called German East Africa, for example, the colonisers reacted with an abortion ban, set up a number of birth centers, under the euphemistic title “Maternal Health Care” and illegalized traditional doulas.2 The centers’ titles do not only obscure the fact that they were not meant to improve the health of the colonised, but instead secure the future supply of forced laborers. They also suggest a false reason for the population decline – instead of enslavement, forced labor, bad sanitary conditions, poverty and hunger, the blame was put on the practices of traditional midwives and the alleged absence of “sexual morals” and hygiene.3 Strikingly, these are the same stereotypes used today to claim  a looming overpopulation.

The myth of overpopulation

The perceived threat of overpopulation as an obstacle to development (but implicitly also as a racist scarecrow scenario in which the white, Western world makes up an even smaller proportion of the world's population) characterised development policy from the Second World War onwards. Development cooperation was supposed to "regulate fertility and thus contribute to a reduction in misery".4 This myth was further fuelled by the publication of the book "The Population Bomb" by biologist Paul Ehrlich in 1968, in which he predicted global hunger and bitter distribution struggles for humanity, as the available resources would not be able to keep up with population growth in the Global South. Among other things, the idea of an explosive population growth completely ignored the fact that the exploitation of resources is distributed very differently around the world.5

The discourse was characterised by the image of allegedly ill-considered to non-existent family planning in countries of the Global South, which was contrasted with the supposedly superior and more rational nuclear family model of Western societies. The message was that people in the Global South only needed to be made to understand they should have fewer children and provided with the means for birth control.

From population policy to family planning

The UN World Population Conference in Cairo in 1994 seemed to herald the end of this era: a shift in focus from number-fixated population planning to individual reproductive rights and self-­determined family planning with a strong emphasis on the importance of gender equality marked a turning point in development cooperation, at least superficially. Population policy disappeared as a key concept, now only appearing hidden behind concepts of sexual and reproductive health. This strategy changed once again with the "Family Planning Summit", which took place in London in 2012. In addition to governments, e.g. of the USA, the UK, Germany, Norway, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, Nigeria and Indonesia, not only public organisations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) took part, but they were joined by private foundations such as the Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer and Pfizer.6

This was followed by the initiation of the FP2020 committee, which set itself the goal of providing an additional 120 million people in the Global South with access to contraceptives by 2020. The following year, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development published a strategy paper7 on "Population Dynamics" – population policy had thus once again become a guiding principle of German development cooperation, even if the majority of these endeavours now run under the umbrella of family planning.

With the objective of FP2020, the focus was set. In addition to the national contributions to the programme’s funding, multilateral collaborations involving foundations and companies, among others, also increased. This shift was most evident in the "Implant Access Programmes", which were primarily concerned with the provision and insertion of hormonal contraceptive implants, including the Jadelle Initiative. "In this context, Bayer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation agreed to provide 27 million units of the Jadelle contraceptive implant marketed by Bayer over six years at a reduced price per implant from 18 to 8.50 US dollar."6

The implant was presented as ideal for "developing countries" as it offers contraceptive protection for up to five years. However, it was largely unclear how a desired premature removal or the treatment of side effects could be guaranteed in areas without comprehensive access to medical care. In this respect, the programmes initiated as part of FP2020 are symptomatic of a development in international development cooperation: donors are investing less in the UN's core programmes (for example in the field of basic healthcare) and are instead pouring resources into programmes with a very specific focus. In this way, donors – and not just state actors, but also philanthropic foundations – are influencing policy strategies and have been able to prioritise population policy in the process.

Self-determination vs. fulfilling quotas 

FP2020 has since been replaced by FP2030 – what has remained is the focus on measurable success. Its website states: "We're fundamentally data-driven and believe in the power of data to drive results and measure impact"8. But how do you measure success when the stated overarching goals are reproductive choice, autonomy and empowerment, and gender equality? The indicators9 that FP2030 uses to quantify the impact of its own programmes provide little information on whether the conditions under which people in the Global South make decisions concerning family planning and contraception have improved in terms of a good information base and greater freedom of choice.

The only exception: the "Method Information Index Plus", which is based on surveys on knowledge about side effects and information about alternative contraceptive methods. However, no details are collected on which alternatives the respondents were informed about, for example whether they were offered methods that can be discontinued at short notice in addition to long-term hormonal contraception. The main factors measured are the use of modern contraceptive methods in absolute figures, the rate of teenage pregnancies, the availability of contraceptives from certain healthcare providers and one figure in particular: CYPs – Couple Years of Protection, i.e. the years that a (heterosexual) couple is protected from unwanted pregnancies. The focus on this figure was already heavily criticised in the context of FP2020.

In a two-part report published in 202010, Dutch journalists Lisa Peters and Marlies Pilon showed the effect that the target of increasing CYP has on the counselling and care practices of the organisations providing services on the ground. During their research, they visited family planning centres and clinics in Uganda, but also spoke to local health experts and activists. During their travels, they repeatedly heard from women who actually wanted contraceptive pills or a three-month injection but ended up receiving a hormone implant with an effective duration of three years. According to Jackson Chekweko, Director of Reproductive Health Uganda, the CYP target was a big problem and that his organisation was dependent on donations – the pressure to use more long-term contraceptives stood in the way of freedom of choice and unbiased counselling.

Generating data – at any cost?

The fact that the rights and health of girls and women in the Global South are not always the core driver for the design of programmes was sadly demonstrated in the context of a study about a possible link between a contraceptive implant and an increased HIV infection rate among its users. After some countries considered removing the Depo-Provera implant from their family planning programmes in the face of a possible link between the two, the WHO launched a study with start-up funding from the Gates Foundation: Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO). In addition to conflicts of interest (the Gates Foundation owns shares in various pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, the manufacturer of Depo-Provera), there were other, perhaps even more serious violations of ethical standards such as bonuses for recruiting participants and language in the informed consent forms that put moral pressure on the participants (young women aged between 16 and 35) and downplayed health risks. In addition, there was inadequate medical care and counselling during participation in the study and insufficient legal protection for the test subjects.11 How valid is data collected under such circumstances? And what does this kind of treatment of people in the Global South mean for "development policy" programmes and concepts of family planning where similar actors are involved?

Feminist development policies?

After taking office, the new Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Svenja Schulze, announced her intention to place women and girls at the centre of German development cooperation. In 2022, the BMZ launched the "Strengthening sexual and reproductive health and rights" initiative, followed in 2023 by a strategy paper entitled "Feminist development policy".
Even though Development Minister Schulze has repeatedly emphasised that she wants to set different priorities than her predecessors, the idea of dangerous overpopulation has not completely disappeared. On the occasion of the publication of the World Population Report 2023, she declared: "The right response to population issues is a policy that strengthens the rights and opportunities of women and girls. If we as humanity want to enable a good life for eight billion people, then women and girls must be given equal rights worldwide. If you empower women and girls, you empower entire societies. This is a key to good development and, as a result, also helps to steer population development in a sustainable direction for the planet and for us humans."12

We therefore, cannot assume an abandonment of population control – for 2022 and 2023, Germany has committed to using 200 million euro of its bilateral funding in the area of family planning and reproductive health as part of FP2030.13 In the near future, nothing is likely to change in terms of prioritisation and the influence of actors without democratic legitimisation such as the Gates Foundation.

• 1BMZ (12.11.2019): Pressemitteilung: Deutschland steigert internationales Engagement für Familienplanung. Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lq.
• 2Bendix, D. (2010): The Colonial Fear of „Underpopulation”: Debates on Health and Population in German East Africa. Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lr.
• 3Bendix, D. (2013): „Fürsorge für die Eingeborenen“. Deutsche koloniale Bevölkerungspolitik. In: GID 217, p.20. Online: www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/fuersorge-fuer-die-….
• 4Deuser, P. (2010): Genderspezifische Entwicklungspolitiken und Bevölkerungsdiskurse: Das Konzept der „Sexuellen und Reproduktiven Gesundheit und Rechte“ aus postkolonialer Perspektive. In: Peripherie, Jg. 30, Nr. 120: Postkoloniale Perspektiven auf „Entwicklung“.
• 5Skovgaard Petersen, C. (2023): Dispelling the Myth of Overpopulation. Interview with Dr. Alice Hughes about the dangerous idea that threatens the health of the biosphere. Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lt.
• 6a6bBendix, D./Schultz, S. (2013): Implantierte Verhütung. Trend zurück zum Neomalthusianismus? In: GID 217, pp.17-19, online: www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/node/2528.
• 7BMZ (2013): Bevölkerungsdynamik in der deutschen Entwicklungszusammen-arbeit. BMZ-Strategiepapier, online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lv.
• 8FP2030 Website, online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lw.
• 9FP2030 (2022): FP2030 Measurement Framework. Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lx.
• 10Peters, L./Pilon, M. (2020): Op pad met de racende dokters die een heel land van anticonceptie willen voorzien. Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-ly.
• 11Sathyamala, C. (2022): In the name of science: Ethical violations in the ECHO randomised trial, Global Public Health, 17/12, pp.4014-4029, online: www.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1634118.
• 12BMZ (2023): Selbstbestimmte Frauen und Mädchen sind die Antwort auf Bevölkerungsfragen. Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung des Bundes­ministeriums für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), des Bevölkerungsfonds der Vereinten Nationen (UNFPA) und der Deutschen Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW). Online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-rb.
• 13FP2030: Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), online: www.kurzelinks.de/gid269-lab. [Last access online sources: 08.05.24]