Showing posts with label Population. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Population. Show all posts

Monday, 31 October 2011

Global population = 7 Billion

UN predictions suggest that today the world's population reaches a staggering 7 billion and I have to admit that it is pretty cool, although slightly scary, to think that I share my birthday with the 7 billionth inhabitant of Earth -  quite fitting considering it is Halloween!

The graph above illustrates where I fit into the picture - 5,582,734,706th person when I was born, making me the 80,819,731,395th person ever alive on Planet Earth - follow the link to find out which 1 of 7 billion you are....

I realise you are not going to be short of things to read on this topic over the coming weeks so I am not going to delve to much into the details of this pretty historic moment but first up for a few statistics that I am sure we could all slip into a Geography essay (or two!) over the common year...

Globally, every hour there are:
- 15,347 births
- 6, 418 deaths
= Average yearly increase of +1.162%
Fast-growing country is Qatar at +514 people per day
Fast-shrinking country is Moldova at -106 people per day

Highest life expectancy is in Japan at 82.7 years
Lowest life expectancy is in the Central African Republic at 45.9 years

97/100 new people on the planet are currently being born in developing countries

In the UK, the population is around 62156764 and every hour there are:
- 85 births
- 66 deaths
- +23 immigrants
= Average yearly growth of 0.6%
Average life expectancy is 79.6 years (81.7 for females and 77.4 for males)

It is quite hard to visualise all these statistics regarding population expansion but this interactive graphic produced by the Guardian, based on the UN projections, is quite good, especially when aiming to make comparisons between countries. Whilst talking about the Guardian and the resources they offer, they are very good at reporting on development and environmental issues and so checking up on that ever so often would be a good way to keep up with your independent reading, or if you are likely to forget to check you can like the facebook pages for both. However, if the thought of reading lots doesn't really excite you much then they also produce podcasts which are not too long and quite interesting to listen to - I find some of them quite good for helping me form opinions on this human geography stuff - here is the link to a recent podcast on population growth.

Whats next? Will people numbers stop rising?
The global population is expected to continue to increase during the course of this century, reaching 10 billion by 2083 - follow the link above to see a clip that illustrates this quite well. However, the rate of this growth is expected to slow in comparison to the rapid rate of exapnsion witness over the last 100 years. Little of this growth is happening in countries such as the UK, who are expected over coming years to see a drastic reduction in growth with many possibly experiencing negative growth. Instead, the growth is occuring in the developing world - with Asia presently experiencing most growth although this is soon likely to switch to Africa. We have recently placed quite a bit of focus on to the issues of ageing populations and so it is easy to forget that the world's population is actually quite young, with 43% under 25 (this constitutes 60% of the population across developing countries).

I have been struggling to know what excatly to write but the idea of writing a letter to the 7 billionth person caught my eye so I thought I would give it a try.......

Dear 7 billionth person,

First up, welcome to the world! We havent really been looking after Earth that well and unless we start to change our attitude then the future does not really look that bright......

I am trying really hard not to start on a negative but I have to admit its not easy. 7 billion people on the planet - I doubt if you said that 50 years ago anyone would have believed you, especially in the given timescale. 1 billion people added to the planet in 12 years is crazy and worryingly, for a while atleast, the rate of population expansion could continue to accelerate before it begins to slow down - I would love to know what Thomas Malthus would think about this all if he was still alive today. Anyway, whilst its easy to focus on all the doom and gloom that the future may hold, I think that this historic moment in time warrants us all to sit back and reflect, reflect on the progress made my mankind over the past few centuries. As a race we have come so far and the fact that I can stand here today and say that the global population has reached 7 billion is real testament to the great thinkers of  past generations who have solved so many of the problems society has face. Yes, we have made some huge mistakes in the past, and prevail to do so, but enough of us have learnt from this to allow for progress to be made. If you are born into a developed country (although this is unlikely considering 97/100 babies are born in developing countries) you will have access to all the simply remarkable scientific discoveries and technological advancements that have been made and therefore we be able to experience the best that we have so far achieved. If you are fortunate enough to be granted this luxury, please don't be ignorant to the fact, like so many, that the world is full of inequality, poverty is rife and suffering is an unnerving norm for so many. Suffering extends to the environment we inhabit and there is no hiding the fact our current status has been built on unsustainable foundations whilst we continually threaten our world in an unacceptable and, possibly, unforgivable way.....

Perhaps, its good that the UN have decided not to name the 7 billionth inhabitant of Earth as I feel a lot of responsiblilty would have been placed on you. Instead I think the number and the idea itself that there are 7 billion people on planet Earth should be enough (hopefully!) to shock people into changing - if we don't change (and soon!) then the thousands of children born each day are only going to inherit problems, problems generated by our ignorance and arrogance. Unification is what is required as we all need to act together if our efforts are to have the desired effect. Of course, politcans and public figures leading the way will help but we need to want to change for ourselves and the good of mankind. Hopefully the symbolic nature of your existance should catalyses the reaction needed to bring about required change but we are, as a global community, quite unpredictable and do some strange things, our persistant abuse of the Earth's finite resources even though we are fully aware of the consequences just one example.

You symoblise perfectly the issue of over-population, an issue that needs to be addressed, especially as we seem intent on continuing the unsustainable lifestyles a significant amount of us lead. This problem is slightly trickier to solve than environmental issues, to some extent, as why should we have the right to dictate how many children a couple can have. Its one that, until recently, has not been publicised enough across the world and is an issue that will only get worse before it gets better. Whilst I understand the theory behind possible solutions to this issue I am not confident enough to offer a solution, as to most of the problems this world faces, but I live in hope that one day someone will and we will all listen. When that day will be, who knows, but if current trends continue it is likely to be the time at which it is almost too late. Sounds a little skeptical I know but that seems to be the way the world works these days..... we fail to change until our bank accounts feel the impacts!

Advice I can give you...... well I cannot really offer you much in the way of life advice apart from enjoy it, make the most of any access you can get to education (it really is the key to the future), be yourself, help others to the best of your ability and strive to make a difference. Don't live in the past but don't ignore it, learn from the mistakes some have made. Adaptablity is going to be the key in the future, we have messed with systems we are yet to fully understand and thus the consequences are unknown, so we have to be prepared to adapt to the coming changes and make comprimises with the environment we live in. Whatever you do, just don't lose hope with the human race, unpredictability can work both ways and hope is all that some have. It is easy to look at the future and give up but we have always found ways in the past, and hope in the future is the only way forward. If you want to really do something with your life when you are older, and be able to offer solutions to the problems our and future generations face, then become a scientist/politican. This world needs another great thinker, someone who is willing to take the risk of looking far outside the box and take a chance on their gut feelings. Whilst we currently have many great scientists who are making advancements towards understanding the impacts of anthropogenic forcing, we are in desperate need of someone who can understand this knowledge, convey it to the wider audience in a way that will grap their attention and demand their support. We need someone that can unite the world, which I realise sounds strange considering we all pretty much  share the same common goal and are more connected to each other than even before. I fear that, if we are not carefull, the resource war, which could be immentent, will be catastrophic and leave the world in an even worse state than before. This resource war, at present, may remain a theory held by many but I believe we will all learn to fear the idea, especially when the unnerving probability of it occuring not too far in the future becomes public knowledge - a war that could easily violently erupt within our lifetimes.

The symbol you form could start to unite the world and make us reflect, with the words 7 billion, I am sure, spoken far more than 7 billion times tomorrow. Its key we allow this milestone passing to have some form of resonance so in  years time we can identify this date as a key turning point in the history of mankind.....

......the day humanity decided to stop, think, reflect and ultimately change

Well I live in hope! Good luck in the future, I wish you all the best in life and what you decide to make of it.

Vicki


Writing that I harder than I thought it would be and I have perhaps been slightly skeptical (poor kid!). What would you say to the 7 billionth inhabitant on Earth, any advice or warnings you would give them?

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

What should be the top environmental priority for the next 40 years?

Last week, in London, some of the world's experts in environmental change and challenges gathered, as part of Earthwatch, to discuss what aspect of environmental change should be our priority for the next 40 years. So, what factors came up during the discussion...........

Education and Population:

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, we have changed the character of the Earth;  hence the increasing use among geologists of the term Anthropocene to follow the Holocene epoch. Although a complex mix of factors are responsible for such changes, population growth is without a doubt the most dominant - and continues to be. The human population rose from around one million 12,000 years ago to around one billion 250 years ago. Since then there has been an extraordinary acceleration from 2 billion in 1930 to 6 billion at the end of the century and now approaching 7 billion this month, with projections suggesting a further rise (albeit at a slower rate) to 9 billion by 2045 - scary thought if ask me!!! As hopefully you have gathered from the AS Population module and our current Development A2 module, education is critical if we hope to solve the issue of population growth and thereby dilute the effect of the appending impacts - especially education of women ( = the Girl Effect) as where emancipation of women is achieved, CBR drastically drops, as seen in most industralised countries where the fertility rate is below replacement level fertility. However, in reflection, this does causes problems in its own right - think ageing populations - but, with regards to the environment, is no where near as detrimentally damaging. There are also many other issues such as increasing population density and rapid urbanisation, especially in the developing world, which are all causing global societal problems with secondary economic, political and environmental impacts.  To think that global education could attenuated many of these demographic issues is incredibe - if education is the answer, something which is perhaps possible to start to globally implement on the mentioned timescale, should it be our priority for the next 40 years?

Oceans:

I will try and keep this one short and simple as in truth I could probably write a few essays for you on this one! Approximately 70% of the globe is ocean and we are incredibly connected and consequently reliant on it in a multitude of ways. The oceans (although specifically the ocean circulation)  are a critical mechanizism in the Earth's heat transfer system, feeds over 25% of our population and, as a result of its close coupling with the atmosphere, absorbs the heat generated by our unhealthy addiction to burning fossil fuels. Although the oceans may look very stable and unchanged over recent decades, they are not, and are increasingly vulnerable to anthropogenic forcing. With more photosynthesis occuring on the sea surface than anywhere else, many consider that the oceans breathe for the planet, with the oceans also being the largest carbon sink. This is all set to change, if our unsustainable environmental usage and consequentially accentuated global climate change continues to happen and once a significant change happens within the oceans (as is already happening with depletion of the oceans fisheries, toxic contamination of the sea by industrial runoff and plastic pollution and acidification etc.) it will pose a great threat to the health of the world's population.

Water:

Water is a resource that many take for granted but it is a resource that we simply cannot survive without. Whilst we cannot live without it, when we are forced to drink that which is not clean it becomes lethal with diarrhoea the biggest killer of children in sub-Saharan Africa - preventable diarrhoea associated with dirty water and poor sanitation kills more children than Aids, malaria and TB combined.Water provokes other societal issues, especially for women and girls who bear the burden in developing countries of walking for miles in search of water whilst dirty water, poor sanitation and hygiene undermines maternal and child health and nutrition. This has knock on impacts on education, with 443 million schools lost due to water-related diseases, as girls, especially, are needed to find water thus cannot attend school. The World Health Organisation estimates that every $1 invested in water generates $8 in wider economic benefits. All of the above, are linked to water as a drinking resource, but it has wider uses to, in industry and agriculture. Agriculture is reliant on water supplies, with 70% of the globally available freshwater used for agriculture, making livelihoods even more reliant on water what with droughts and famines going hand in hand. It is a critical ingredient for industry - almost every manufacturing process needs water - whilst,  it's intertwined with energy and not just through hydropower but thermal power stations need water for cooling and for the steam needed to turn turbines.

Energy:

I am guessing that this one is quite obvious - we humans are different to other species on Earth as not only do we gain energy from the things we eat but also from things that we don't eat. Our energy usage throughout our history has changed, as both a consequence of our development and as a factor allowing for our development. Currently, the issue of generating energy sustainably is a huge issue for the global community, with climate change accelerated by our insatiable hunger for burning fossil fuels, a desire that is only likely to increase as the global population continues to grow and countries continue to reach higher levels of development.

Food security:

With water security and supplies under threat, whilst the population continues to expand, the challenge of feeding the world is a huge! This challenge is not going to be easy with our oil-reliant food system, our environment under stress from global climate change, distruption to water supplies and soil degradation/loss, weakening overturning in oceans, biodiversity loss, land use competition with people and animals needing space to live, space needed to grow food and people starting to utilise fertile land for energy production. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges is changing our attiutde towards food and waste as if every country fed its population to the extent that we do in the UK or the USA, we would need several planets just to grow food, with estimates that 40% of what is fit to eat we waste. If we have to feed 9 billion people by 2045 we cannot continue in the way that we are - especially if you factor in the likely future changes to agriculture patterns and productivity as a result of global climate change.


What do I think? Well, I think that just the above mentioned are cause for concern and there are other factors that I am shocked did not get on the list. We place a lot of focus on how oil fuels fighting and whilst it cannot be argued that it doesn't, I think greater focus should be placed on possible/likely future fighting over resources that are essential to our survival - primarily water and food. If we are prepared to start wars over oil what would countries be prepared to do when the resource we are all after is one intrinsic our survival. This is worthy of a few blog posts on its own but I am reading a really interesting, if not slightly worrying, book at the moment called Climate Wars which covers this - a book review will be on its ways shortly, once I have finished reading it, but it is definetly worth a read for any Geographer! Anyway, back to the question,  to be honest, I feel that all these factors (and many many more) are so closely interlinked that we cannot hope to untangle them and thus it is crucial that instead of trying to prioritise them we spend the time discussing how to prevent worse case scenairo's from occuring by developing mitigation techniques whilst also ways in which society can adapt to the inevitable consequences of the damage already caused by humankind. So, I suppose what I am trying to say is that I believe we need a more holistic approach to environmental change rather than trying to prioritise different aspects.

Anyway, the afore mentioned are the factors covered during Earthwatch, followed by my view for the need for a holistic approach but what do you think should be the top environmental priority for the next 40 years? Would you choose one of the above or do you think something is missing from the list? Let me know what you think!

I am a bit reluctant to tell you which of the above factors was voted to be the greatest environmental challenge and thus should be our priority over the next 40 years but I am guessing I probably should tell you and anyway, hopefully, by now you will have formed your own opinion. The chosen factor was Population and Education with the agruement for the desperate requirement to address expotential population growth and providing education for all, viewed as the most compelling. The speech given by Sir Crispin Tickell, on this topic, can be replayed here - do you agree with the factor chosen?

Friday, 7 October 2011

Geography Picture of the Week - Kerala churches rewarding big families

I realise that this week's Geography Picture of the Week post is not particularly centred one specific picture but I just read this story online and thought that it may be of some interest and, as an added bonus, it is related to human geography and links can be made to our current module.....

Hindu groups have said the two child policy should be imposed as
 there are limited resources
It seems like ages ago that we studied the AS population module but do you remember that really interesting case study of Kerala, in India, that we learnt about. Well I am guessing that it is probably quite a good case study to know a little bit about for this current module - here is the basics incase you have forgotton.......

KERALA :- Kerala is a really good case study to know about as it is an anomally to the general pattern between population and development indicators in LDC's/MDC's and it also demonstrates the spatial differences within countries themselves.
  • Kerala is India's longest lived, healthiest, most gender-equitable and most literate region with one of the best education systems. The state's basic human development indices are roughly equivalent to those in the developed world and the state is substantially more environmentally sustainable than many of the countries in Europe and North America. A survey conducted in 2005 also concluded that Kerala was the least corrupt state in India. Although Kerala is a poor state with a GDP of around $11000, it has very good demographic indicators........
    • Population = 31.8 million
    • Life expectancy = 73.3 years
    • IMR = 20/1000
    • Literacy rate = 96.6%
    • CBR = 14/1000
    • CDR = 6.4/1000
    • TFR = 1.7
  • WHY? 90% of the people own the land they live on, and each family can only have a maximum of 8 hectares. In 1957 a communist government was elected to power and fair price shops and ration cards were introduced to ensure that everyone could afford to eat. This government has a strong commitment to female education and a participatory democracy in which; every 10 years, 10% of the population are invited to meeting to express their views and help make decisions on how to take Kerala forward.

So, what is happening in Kerala at the moment that is so interesting. Well, several Christian parishes, Catholics and Muslim groups in this developed state have started to offer incentives to couples who have more children, with one church reportedly offering 10,000 rupees ($200) for a couple's fifth child. Now in a country with a huge population that is only projected to continue to grow, passing that of China's by 2030 whilst having massive problems with water security which are only likely to worsen as a result of global climate change and with sea level threatening to displace millions; to me this seems like a really strange idea - trust me after spending 10 minutes in an Indian city you will fully appreciate why the last thing this country needs is more people!

The move by local churches comes after a report submitted to Kerala's chief minister proposed imposing a strict two-child policy. So, why excatly are the churches feeling the need to encourage couples to have more children? Some feel it is because the church groups are concerned about the dwindling numbers of Christians in the region; with the lastest censensus showing numbers are in steady decline and risk slipping below 18%. This is probably not really an excuse to pay people to have more children in a country that greatly struggles to provide for its already huge population. If you think back to when we learnt about population policies, you will probably remember all the disadvantages and negatives of the Chinese 'one child policy and many of the same opinions are being aired in Kerala by religious groups, prominetly the view that it is solely a personal decision on how many children a couple should have and consequently the church feels that any finanical punishments placed on couples for having more than two children should not prevent them from doing so and that the ruling encroaches upon the right to religious freedom. These rewards have not be announced by the church statewide yet but many individual parishes are choosing to other incentives in some form, including free treatment and the parish run hospitals. 

Although to many families these incentives will look rather appealing the punishments recently recommended by the panel for the Commission of Rights and Welfare of Women and Children, which include 3 months in prision or a 10,000 rupee fine for any father expecting his third child, are probably harsh enough to put many off.

The Hindu United Front, who strongly support the introduction of this policy, believe that "the two-child norm should be strictly enforced in India as we have limited resources to share among us"and they are definetly right about the country having limited resources when considering its population size!

Let me know what you think! Should a population policy be enforced in India? Does its forever increasing population help or hinder its development?

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Are current farming practices sustainable?

Farming is something that affects everyone in some way or another and living in Somerset means that, for some of you, farming is part of your daily lives. My stepdad is a farmer and so farming has been a part of my life since I can remember  and we own sheep and chickens and we grow vegetables for either our consumption or the sheeps. Over the last few months I have read numerous articles about the problems that are going to arise, in terms of food supplies, as the global population continues to grow. I have also been reading (yes I know, I read rather a lot!) the weekly articles, which is part of a year long investigation that have been published in the Farmer's Weekly which discuss farm energy and the ways in farms could exploit renewable energy. All of this, accompanied with some of the things that Al Gore has mentioned in his second book Our Choice and my personal experience of farming, has made me really question whether or not our current farming practices are sustainable and how they are going to have to change in the future.

It is a well known fact that the global population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and, as many people starve everyday in the world at present, many are worried that we will struggle to feed 9 billion mouths if we continue to farm the land in the same way that we do at present. Also rising sea levels threaten to claim the world's most fertile farm land which would put even more pressure on farmers to efficiently grow crops as it takes roughly 3000 years for a metre of workable soil to form. On the other hand, some people take a more optimistic view, and believe that we already produce enough food to feed 9 billion people (one article I read even went as far to say that we currently produce enough food to feed 15 billion!) and that we just need to reduce the amount that we waste. It is estimated that in developing countries 30% of their harvest is eaten by rats or insects or rots in grain silos and in developed countries we throw away 25% of our food, uneaten and that each 'rich' person waste 800 calories of food each day (for more on reducing waste see previous blog post on 'can the world cope with the growing population'). If we could reduce this waste then perhaps not as many people would go hungry each day. To reduce wastage in developing countries it is going to come down to improving their farming methods but in developed countries I think a change in attitudes is required. I was discussing this whole issue with my family a few weeks ago and in relation to reducing waste, we all agreed that the power that supermarkets have needs to be reduced and we all need to care less about aesthetics. Next time you go to a supermarket, look at the fruit and veg and see if you can notice how it is all practically the same size and shape and colour. How much fresh food do you think is wasted because it either fails to meet the aesthetical requirements of supermarkets or it is not brought before it reaches its shelf life? I am guessing that it is possibly quite a lot and this does not just occur in supermarkets as I am sure that many of us are guilty of throwing out untouched food if, even if it is fine, but has just passed its best before date. Reducing waste could be one way of ensuring we can feed the growing population but, in the future, other factors are likely to provoke farming patterns to change.......

As we  worked our way through the energy module, it became increasingly apparent that life as we know it cannot exist without the use of fossil fuels and, as oil reserves in particular continue to dwindle, farmers are going to have to change the ways in which they use the land. All pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides are produced from oil and since the mechanisation of farming, large machinery has played a large part in food production. The use of all of the above is going to have to be reduced as oil reserves run out. An increase in organic farming, at first glance, may seem like an attractive alternative as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are not used on the crops. However, due to the fact that you are not permitted to use such things, tractor hours are drastically increased which makes it debatable whether or not increasing organic farming would actually consume less fossil fuels. So, how are we going to manage to increase productivity without the use of fertilizers and pesticides or large machinery. Is hydroponics going to have a play a bigger role in food production or is the way we utilise land going to have to change?

Energy plays a crucial part in farming as we know it, especially fossil fuels, but farms do have huge potentails in terms of renewables. I feel I need to mention the fact that biomass and biofuels are becoming increasingly popular in the UK but, as expressed previously (see 3 quick questions I have been meaning to put forward in relation to the energy module.......Can biofuels offer a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels? Do developed countries have the right to limit the amount of fossil fuels industralising countries use? And finally Does oil fuel aggression?) I question whether or not biofuels are a sustainable option for the future. Biogas is becoming increasingly popular amongst farmers, especially in Germany who now have 6000 fully functioning plants. This popularity has been provoked by the government's feed-in tarrif scheme which gives finicial support to those considering developing a biogas plant on their farm.  In the UK, wind turbines are slightly more popular at present, as they can be constructed on grazing land as they do not pose any potentail threat to lifestock. Farms, due to the UK's FiT scheme, are starting to exploit wind energy by constructing a few small 10-15kW turbines on their land to help generate some of the energy that they consume for lighting and heating etc. Solar energy, especially in the south east, is also proving to be increasingly popular with farmers.

At present farmers, within the EU, are paid subsidies to manage conservation and preserve the surrounding environment and, due to the costs involved with farming, the vast majority of farmers comply with these requirements to ensure they get the subsidies. These requirements often affect the size of land available for arable farming as, for example, farmers qualify for differing levels of subsidies depending on whether or not they leave a 6ft or 12ft margin around the field for conservation. The issue of whether or not we will be able to continue to preserve and protect the environment in this way when we have 9 billion people to feed featured greatly in the discussion I had in my family and my stepdad, who recognises the importance of preserving the environment for future generations, questions whether or not we will be able to continue to protect the environment in this way in the future without comprimising our ability to feed the people that live in it. Perhaps this is going to come down to deciding which  areas to extensively farm and which areas to conserve. For example, a recent government-backed report suggested that Wales should convert at least 20% of its farmland back to forestry because its agriculture is so unprofitable. So, what if we reduce our use of land and turn to hydroponics instead? Many Japanese farmers, due to a lack of flat fertile land, have tried this method of farming to increase yield and so is this the way for the future?

Another influential factor, that needs to be considered when discussing the future of farming is changes to climate. Currently arable farming in the UK is centred in the south east whereas pastoral farming occurs elsewhere where the climate is not as hot. However, with the predicted rises in temperatures experienced in the UK over the next 20 - 30 years, Scotland and Northern England are likely to experience the higher temperatures that are required to switch from livestock to higher value arable crops. Therefore, it will not only be a lack of fossil fuels that will provoke changes to farming but also changes to the climate which ultimately dictate what and when crops are grown.

From this, I think it is clear to see that our current farming practices, for various reasons, will not be able to be continued in the future and we have to change in response to a lack of resources, growing global population and an ever changing environment. Despite it being easy to say that they will have to change; it is harder to predict what exactly they will change to. Are we likely to turn to hydroponics, or is this unlikely as freshwater becomes scarce? Is organic farming the future of farming in the UK? Or are we going to have to revert back to subsistence farming to reduce the transportation of food and the need for large machinery?

Monday, 16 May 2011

Last minute revision of case studies relating to the DTM

Some quick notes on population case studies related to development and the demographic transition model.....
KERALA :- Kerala is a really good case study to know about as it provides an anomally the general pattern between population and development indicators in LEDC's/MEDC's and it also demonstrates the spatial differences within countries themselves.
  • Kerala is India's longest lived, healthiest, most gender-equitable and most literate region with one of the best education systems. The state's basic human development indices are roughly equivalent to those in the developed world and the state is substantially more environmentally sustainable than many of the countries in Europe and North America. A survey conducted in 2005 also concluded that Kerala was the least corrupt state in India. Although Kerala is a poor state with a GDP of around $11000, it has very good demographic indicators........
    • Population = 31.8 million
    • Life expectancy = 73.3 years
    • IMR = 20/1000
    • Literacy rate = 96.6%
    • CBR = 14/1000
    • CDR = 6.4/1000
    • TFR = 1.7
  • WHY? 90% of the people own the land they live on, and each family can only have a maximum of 8 hectares. In 1957 a communist government was elected to power and fair price shops and ration cards were introduced to ensure that everyone could afford to eat. This government has a strong commitment to female education and a participatory democracy in which; every 10 years, 10% of the population are invited to meeting to express their views and help make decisions on how to take Kerala forward.
UK's transition through the DTM

STAGE 1 - Pre 1760
  • Little medical care
  • No effective contraception
  • Subsistence farming
STAGE 2 - 1760 to 1880
  • 1848 = Public Health Act ---> clean water and sewers mean less deaths to typhoid and cholera
  • 1868 = Government condemn the construction of buildings that are unfit to live in
  • 1876 = Compulsory Education Act
  • 1880 = Food begins to be imported
STAGE 3 - 1880 to 1940
  • 1891 = Children under the age of 11 not permitted to work due to compulsory education
  • 1906 = Free school meals introduced
  • 1907 = Midwife training begins
  • 1911 = National Insurance set up
  • 1921 = TB vaccine offered and the first Marie Stopes clinics set up tp offer family planning and free contraception
  • 1929 = Pencillin, the first antibiotic, is discovered
STAGE 4 - 1940 to 2000
  • 1946 = Welfare State created
  • 1948 = NHS set up to provide free health care to all
  • 1950's = The consumer society begins to take dominance in British society
  • 1961 = The contraceptive pill is introduced
  • 1967 = Abortion legalised
  • 1980's = Women get equal career oppurtunities
The DTM is based on the UK. As outlined above, development in the UK took from 1760 to the present day as we had to wait for the invention of vaccinations, improvements in science and technolgy and the realisation that education was key before we could start to complete the transitions of the DTM. Nowadays the only thing that prevents other countries from developing is a lack of money and the presence of ongoing conflict and so many countries complete the transitions of the DTM a lot quicker than we did .............

Sri Lanka
  • End of stage 1 :- 1921
  • End of stage 2 :- 1953
Stage 2 was 32 years long
  • Sri Lanka is still in stage 3 now. About 40% of the decrease in CDR was down to controlling malaria with DDT and the foreign aid which was used to improve the health care.
  • Countries, like Sri Lanka, often complete the transitions of the DTM quickly as they don't have to wait for new inventions, like we did, they just need to be able to afford to access them and so once they can, the effects are rapid.

Monday, 2 May 2011

Buoyant Bangladesh

Do you read National Geographic? Well, if you don't, I would strongly recommed that you do but if you struggle to find the time, I definetly recommend you read the latest article in the year long special series, 7 billion people as it links very closely to not only the population module but also the last section of the coasts module, rising sea levels, that we finished off last week.


Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and is 'a place where one person, in a nation of 164 million, is mathematically incapable of being truly alone'. Despite a sharp drop in it's CBR, the population is expected to grow to 220 million by 2050 and, due to trends in sea level, much of the landmass would be permanently underwater - further increasing the population density of this region. Sea level rise is not just something that will affect those in poor, low lying countries like Bangladesh as more than a third of the worlds population live within 62 miles of the sea. It has been predicted that by 2100 there could be as many as 250 climate refugees (related http://geography-student.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-developed-countries-have-moral.html), the majority of which displaced by rising sea levels and as many as 30 million coming from the coast of Bangladesh.

Click on the link to see the full interactive version

Where are these people supposed to go? That is a question being asked by many at present............. India is building a six foot barrier of barbed wire and concrete along its 2,500 mile border with Bangladesh to prevent immigration from Bangladesh. With this option being taking away from those displaced by the encroaching sea, many choose to move to the urban areas further inland which is causing huge problems for cities like the capital Dhaka. It has been predicted that by 2030, 41% of the population will live in urban areas with only 52% having access to sanitation. This predicted scenairo is the perfect breeding ground for disease and crime and would further hold back Bangladesh's development.


However, climate change not only threatens the coast but also the inland communties as, like neighbouring India, the main rivers in Bangladesh are fed by the Tibetan Plateau snowfall and the monsoon rains - both of which have been disrupted by changes to the climate. Although some may consider monsoons to hamper economic progress, my personal experience of them in India made me realise how much people rely on them and plan their year around then - even right down to day to day lives. When I was in India the monsoon arrived late (although when it did finally appear, its presence was definetly felt!) and this uncertainity to when it was going to arrive caused a lot of distruption and worry to the local people who explained that, over recent years the timing of the monsoons has never been as predicted. Adapting to these changes is not easy but, in Bangladesh, many new ideas have been implemented to help people cope with the rising sea levels. These include altering farming practices to enable them to farm on floating gardens and therefore still grow the crops required to survive. Many farmers have totally altered what they grow. Rising sea levels have increased the salinity of farm land and rivers to such levels that rice can't grow, whilst other fields remain flooded for most of the year. Therefore many farmers have changed from growing rice to growing crabs and shrimps in the ponds that have been created and then vegetables on the embankments. Solar-powered school boats have also been introduced so that kids can attend schools even if it floods whilst limiting the potential damage to infrastruture.

So, can the developed world learn from anything from Bangladesh? The attitude that many of the Bangladesh people share towards the problems they face is admirable - they don't complain but just shape their lives around the frequently changing conditions, with many saying they have moved more than 40 times within their life times. I am unsure if as many people in the developed world would be as resilient as many of those affected in Bangladesh have been. They have utilised their limited resources to the best of their ability but this problem is not likely to go away. In the near future, it is likely that Bangladesh will recieve more international aid to help it deal with the effects of climate change because due to the target set, by the developed nations in the Copenhagen conference of 2009, to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 for poor countries who face many problems which they played only a minimal role in creating. However, this is clearly not an problem that can be remedied by money.

Before I end up re-writing the whole article in my own words I had better stop - I have just picked out the main points but the article is honestly a really good thing to read as part of your revision. Although this is after our summer exam keep your eyes open for the July article related to this series which will discuss what it will take to feed 9 billion people in 2045.





Thursday, 28 April 2011

New census shows that China's population is ageing

New statistics from the recent census taken in China have been published and they all suggest that not only is the population ageing but that the population, in general, is now residing in urban areas instead of rural areas. The census also included migration, which is something that has not been previously included. The article China census shows population ageing and urban is definetly worth a quick read and includes some statistics which can easily be compared to the results of the 2000 census to enable you to gain an insight into how the population structure of China has changed over recent years.

One thing that I think is quite interesting to think about is the debatable issue of whether China, and its people, are better off with an ageing population or a rapidly increasing population (which would have occured if the One Child Policy was not introduced) - your response to this could be linked to whether or not you are a population optimists or pessimist....

Sunday, 24 April 2011

Migration Case Studies

As I worked through the population module yesterday afternoon, I soon realised that I didn't have any notes on any of the migration case studies and so I have spent this morning reading up about each of them and I thought, due to the fact that I know I am not the only one lacking notes on this, that I would type them up on here instead of writing them all out by hand.

Bosnia Herzegovinia

Origin of the Area
After years of unstable governments, economic problems and conflict; the central European country of Yugoslavia spilt up into various countries. The process started in 1991, when the country spilt into four, and has continued for years up until the present day. Bosnia Herzegovina, one of the largest countries to come out of the division and it gained its independence in 1992. The areas population structure of Serbs, Albanians and Croats has historicaly been a place of ethinic conflict, which was ultimatly the cause of the spilt.
After the formation of the country, war broke out and years of fighting between the ethinic groups followed. Ownership of land was disputed, resulting in ongoing conflict that led to economic and  political instability across much of former Yugoslavia. Thousands of people were killed until the area settled down in 1995, but even today it is far from stable.

Migration inside Bosnia Herzegovinia is forced, meaning people are moving because of fear. Forced migration within the country is due to the ongoing conflicts, and is displacing thousands of people from their homes. Many moved to cities or towns and stopped at the nearest safe place they could find. Others emmigrated to other countries. It is estimated that 40% of those who emmigrated went to either  Serbia, Montengro or Crotia whilst some went to the USA, Canada and Australia but the majority emmigrated to Germany and Austria.

As a result of the ethnic cleansing that took place it is thought that around 102 000 people were killed and just under 2 million people were displaced.

Push Factors
Þ  Heavy conflict meant that the threat of losing your life was forever present
Þ  Lack of tolerance for religious and cultral diversity
Þ  Frequent violations of basic human rights
Þ  Poor public services and other facilites
Þ  Lack of employment and economic stability – conflict destroyed crops and farm land
Þ  Destruction of property and infastructure                                                                             

Pull Factors
Þ  Religious freedom –people fled to where their ethnicity was a majority not a minority to try and avoid the ethnic cleansing
Þ  Safety in numbers – more people lived in the cities and towns and the death threat was not as prominent
Þ  Stable economy – adults needed jobs and a realiable income to sustain a family
Þ  Better infastructure that had not been devasted by the conflict
Þ  Better and more widely avaiable facilites and public services

Migration Obstacles
These are problems people face in the area that could prevent them from migrating. In the current situation, most people will face problems but because they are migrating through fear, will find ways to overcome them. If the situation is forcing people to migrate, most will go to any extent to find a safe place to live. Despite this, people could face problems such as lack of money or transport and confusion as to where a safe place to go actually is. Most will end up going to urban areas, resulting in general rural to urban migration in Bosnia Herzegovinia.

Positives about the orgin
Bosnia is predominantly a mountainous country with only a few regions of flat grass land used for farming. This is where most of the ethnic cleansing took place and so this caused problems with food supplies as farmers and their families migrated away from the unsafe countryside to the cities. Flat land was fiercely fought over as it was the most suitable land to farm. 

Negatives about the destination
The areas where people migrated to quickly became overcrowded and refugee camps started to appear like the one near Kosovo. It was reported that over 4000 people were fleeing into camp near Kosovo every hour. This stretched public services and also provoked higher crime rates as people became desperate. The land nearer the cities and towns was harder or impossible to farm and so food shortages were an issue.

Neutral factors of the origin and destination  
The situation in the destination, compared to the origin, is likely to be very different. It will probably be more crowded, but would not be under the pressures of conflict the origin had. Some things could remain the same however, such as general living conditions. Overall, you would probably expect life to much better in the new destination, as life would be reasonably similar to before, only without conflict.  

Effects of migration
Rural to urban migration has lead to an uneven distrubtion of skills. This has also meant that food production has been reduced as farmers left the countryside for safety. This has meant that their was no one left to farm the land. Ethnic cleansing has increased the seperation between the different ethnic groups that reside in \Bosnia Herzegovina and the violation of human rights has been reported to still occur; especially amognst the refugees that are still returning home. Although the European Union Peacekeeping Troops are still present in Bosnia Herzegovina to try and maintain the peace and stability; things are starting to improve. It is estimated that 579 000 people have returned to their original homes with many more locally intergrated.

Africa to Western Europe

Origin of the Area
Many of the countries in Africa face political instability or are under dictatorial rulers that seem to care little about the quality of life and social welfare of those in the country. Health care is poor, or non- existant, and with HIV and malaria being rife in many of the countries that make up this contient life expectancy is extremely low (the average in Africa is 47 years). The accessibilty to education is also a big problem across much of Africa and job oppurtunites are hard to find. Access to clean water, food, electricity and many of the things people in the developed world take for granted, are also extremely hard to come by.


Push Factors
Þ  Lack of health care
Þ  Lack of education
Þ  Conflict and political instability
Þ  Poor public services and other facilites
Þ  Lack of employment and economic stability
Þ  Lack of infrastucture
Þ  Lack of religious freedom                                                                              

Pull Factors
Þ  Free health care and education
Þ  More polictically and economically stable
Þ  More job oppurtunites with a minimum wage enforced
Þ  Better and more widely avaiable facilites and public services
Þ  Laws enforced in a fair and humane way means safety

Migration Obstacles
Travelling on old fishing boats from Africa to Europe is very dangerous and many do not survive the route (in June this year, 24 Africans drowned after a dinghy capsized south of Malta)which, due to people smugglers, can cost up to 2000 Euros. I Also once you get to a country like Spain, which is popular due to the fact that it is one of the closest European countries, many often get expelled from the country or repatriated. The language barrier can also present problems when it comes to communication and with living costs being so much higher in European countries, most cannot afford to find somewhere to live. The cultral barrier is another obstacle that needs to be overcome but perhaps the biggest is gaining the right to permanent residence in that country.

Positives about the orgin
The culture, language and climate are the same and all very different to those found in European countries. The skills that many of these immigrants have are most applicable to the conditions found in their origins.  

Negatives about the destination
The cost of living is very high and separation between immigrants and the people already living in the destination can create tension and, in some extreme cases, result in violence. High taxes also have to be paid.

Effects of migration
-          In 2006, about  22,016 people reached Italy by boat from Africa
-          The majority of African migrants live in Europe with an estimated 4.6 million doing so compared to only 890,000 in the USA
-          About two-thirds of Africans in Europe are from North Africa
Having migrated, many of the migrants send home money to family members they have left behind. Billions of dollars each year is sent back to Africa from migrants scattered around the world and, in some cases, this makes up sizeable chunks of the origin country’s GDP. However, it leaves many families seperated and again leads to a lack of skilled people in the origin. The impacts on the destination are, perhaps, mainly negative as huge amounts of money has to be invested in combacting illegal migration. The legal migrants though, do help to bolster a country’s workforce which, in countries like the UK who have an ageing population, is crucial if they are to  maintain a certain degree of economic stability.

Brain Drain from UK to USA

Push Factors
Þ  High taxes which, in the near future, are only expected to get higher
Þ  High house prices and day to day living costs
Þ  Poor climate
Þ  Career stagnation is making it harder and harder for newly qualified graduates to get a job
Þ  Lower salaries
Þ Industrial unrest


                                                                             
Pull Factors
Þ  Higher initial salaries are offered in the USA compared to the UK
Þ  American universites and research companies have made the effort to attract graduates over to the USA
Þ  Many feel that they have a better chance of getting a job in America
Þ  Many just want to take the oppurtunity to work abroad and see it as part of their personal development
Þ  No language barreir

Migration Obstacles
The cost of moving to America is without a doubt the biggest obstacle that needs to be overcome. The costs involved with moving to America would be huge but the fact that so many people chose to move to America suggests that the rewards must be very high. Distance is another obstacle as moving to America means that you are a long way away from family members and friends. Getting a green card/visa is also another obstacle that needs to be overcome by people wishing to move to America.

Positives about the orgin
Free health care and education system are the biggest positives about the origin. Being part of the EU means that travelling amongst other countries in Europe is easy.

Negatives about the destination
Health care system is run slightly differently and so you end up paying a lot more for it then you, indirectly, do in the UK. Higher crime rates, especially gun crime rates due to different laws.  America experiences hurricanes and wildfires and earthquakes, amongst other things, that do not occur in the UK due to the climate and location.

Neutral factors of the origin and destination 
There are similarities between the origin and destination like the fact that the same languages are spoken and, in terms of development, they are on very similar levels. This means that the facilities found, and the quality of them, will be very similar. Compared to other countries they are both quite politically stable with similar military activities in other countries.

Effects of migration
This migration has led to an uneven distribution of skills. This has rapidly changed British society as large numbers of highly skilled graduates are moving abroad and this is not match by those migrating to the UK. However, this brain drain has attracted more than a million skilled immigrants to the UK which has helped to reduce the impacts of this trend. It is believed that if the UK stopped attracting graduates from abroad the full force of the impacts of this trend would be felt. This emmigration trend is costing the country a lot of money as, for example, it costs £250,000 to train a junior doctor who, like many, is choosing to practice abroad (it is estimated that 37.7% of those emmigrating have health or education qualifications). This is greatly benefitting the USA who don’t have to pay for the training of professionals but are benefitting from their education, which was funded by the UK.

 
Poland to the UK

Origin of the Area
Poland was admitted to the EU on 1st April 2004 and with this came the right for any citizen of Poland to move freely around all the other EU countries. On the accession to the EU, it was anticipated that  levels of migration from Poland and the other A8 countries (all former communist bloc countries in central and eastern Europe) to the UK would drastically increase and this is excatly what happened. Living conditions in Poland are poor and unemployment is a huge problem and so many people have been attracted to the UK. This is only one of the three major waves of Polish immigration to the UK though. The first wave was as a result of wartime displacement and deportation with the Nazi occupation of Polish territory. The second wave occurred during the cold war when, despite the heavy restrictions on movement imposed by communist authorites, several thousand Poles joined existing groups in the UK.


Push Factors
Þ  High levels of unemployment – in 2005, 18.5% of those at working age were unemployed in Poland
Þ  Poor living conditions
Þ  Low salaries
Þ  Poor public services and other facilites
                                                                             

Pull Factors
Þ  The UK was one of only three countries (the other two being Ireland and Sweden) who didn’t put a limit on the number of migrants from A8 countries who could enter the country
Þ  English is spoken as the second language in Poland and so there was no language barrier, as such, to overcome
Þ    Migration was easy to the UK due to cheap flights and coach services
Þ    Plenty of avaliable jobs in the UK due to a skills shortage (think about the Brain Drain to the USA)
Þ    An average Polish worker could earn five times the amount he could in the UK compared to what they could earn in Poland
Migration Obstacles
Compared to the other case studies there are not many obstacles that had to be overcome. Language was not an issue, entry to the country was not an issue and budget airlines were able to offer relatively cheap transport to the UK.

Who are the migrants?
-          Around 80% are aged 18 to 34
-          Only one in ten have brought dependents with them
-          Only 3% have brought dependents with them who are under 17
-          The average age is 28
-          Most of them are single
-          The ratio of males to females is 58:42
-          Most of them are skilled/semi-skilled industrial workers and tradesmen
-          No real demographic concentrations as they choose to reside in both rural and urban areas up and down the country
-          97% of the immigrants work full time

Neutral factors of the origin and destination  
In terms of development, the origin and destination, as they are noth memebers of the EU, should be very similar. The language barrier is not present, so to speak, as English is taught as a second language in Poland. Cultural differences are not going to be wildly different either.

Effects of migration
It has been estimated that Eastern European immigrants have contributed £2.5billion to the UK’s economy and roughly 1% of the UK’s growth in 2006 was attributed to the same workers. British businesses have been able to cash in on the new market created by the presense of the young, single Poles who seem keen to join the consumer culture common in the UK. Polish shops and businesses have helped to start and rejuvenate the seriously declining shopping streets of the UK and also swell the size of church congregations. The migrants, 80% of which are aged between 18 and 34, have helped the UK cope with the problems being provoked by the ageing population by filling the gaps in the UK’s labour market and have also helped to fill the skills gap created by the brain drain. However, additional stress has been placed on the education and health care systems and demand for housing has further driven renting/buying prices higher. Also much of the money earnt is not staying in the UK as it is being sent back to Poland. In Poland, itself, this migration of young workers to the UK has helped to reduce the unemployment problems but has been blamed for increased divorce rates.

India to Dubai

-          In the UAE, 90% of the workforce (10 million people) are migrants, most of which originate from  the rural areas of  India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
-          Dubai has a population of 1.5 million and 1 million of these people are migrants.
-          As Dubai’s oil reserves are declining the ruling family, Maktoums, wanted to invest their wealth to make Dubai the best city and so they created lots of long term building projects. Many migrants have seen this as an opportunity to earn some money whilst enjoying the glamorous city life that Dubai claims to offer.
-          The average wage of a migrant in Dubai is $4 a day and most of this is sent back home to their families.
-          Migrants who get work on one of the long term building projects have to pay for their travel to Dubai and on arrival their passports are confiscated  while they are on a contract with a firm. Exit visas can’t be obtained without approval of a sponsor or an employer. These workers live in the workers’ camps which are remote and cramped and  constructed in the desert. This thereby adds extra time, for journeying to and from the construction site, to an already long enough 12 hour shift. There are also many accusations of discrimination and violence from employers, police and security forces including sexual assaults of women.


Push Factors
Þ  Poor infrastructure and lack of housing and santitation
Þ  Areas very densely populated
Þ  Lack of job oppurtunities
Þ  Monsoon rains hampering economic progress
Þ  Lack of natural resources
Þ  Poor standard of living
Þ  Low salaries                                                                           


Pull Factors
Þ  In 2007, it was named the world’s fastest growing city
Þ  More job oppurtunites – all of which are better paid
Þ  More stable economy
Þ  Better infastructure anf facilities
Þ  Believed to offer a better quality of life

Migration Obstacles
Again the costs involved with moving are high and once you are there you are not guaranteed a job. The is also the language barrier and the cultral differences that migrants have to overcome.

Positives about the orgin
Depends greatly on where in India the people are emigrating from. A few regions, like Kerala, have good education and health care services and equality for all.  

Negatives about the destination
Many of the negatives have been mentioned at the start of this case study but to reinforce the idea……..the working conditions and the living conditions provided are very poor and violence appears to be common. Wages are not great as there is no minimum wage and spending 12 hours in the heat, building skyscrapers is not ideal. The employers also fail to pay for many things that they should including health care costs and visa fees. The corruption of the employers who, illegally, hold on to workers passports means that once in Dubai it is very, very hard to leave.

Neutral factors of the origin and destination  
Living conditions do not seem to be that different and corruption among officals is something that is common to both countries.

Effects of migration
It has eased the unemployment problems in India but has left a shortage of men to work the land and produce food for the country, as they are the ones who have been migrating to Dubai for the manual labour. The migrants offer cheap labour for Dubai and are prepared to work long hours doing the manual labour required to develop the infrastructure that is required to attract people from the developed world to this region. Despite a tight control on the media, local newspapers etc have reported on and opened the worlds eyes to the dreadful conditions and abuse experienced by the migrant workers in Dubai which has started to give it, and rightfully so, a bit of a bad reputation.  Many migrants want to move back to India, but cannot at present afford to or travel as their employers hold on to their passports. When they do manage to move back to though, Dubai is going to be left with a huge gap in its society which will affect its development, whilst the unemployment problems still present in India will be furthered.

Rwanda to DR Congo

Origin of the Area
Rwanda is in central Africa, east of Democratic Republic of the Congo where the separation between the Hutu and Tusi has caused huge problems and forced many to migrate to the DR Congo. The tension between these two groups was first created when the Belgian colonists treated the Tutsi as the superior group despite the fact the Hutu were the majority.  On 6th April 1994 genocide was sparked when the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane was shot from the air above Kigali airport. With less than hours after the attack, a campaign of violence spread from the capital throughout the country, and did not subside until three months later. In Kigali, the presidential guard immediately initiated an operation of retribution. Leaders of the political opposition were murdered, and almost instantly, the slaughter of Tutsis and moderate Hutus began. This conflict later became known as the Rwandan Genocide and lasted 100 days and claimed the lives of close to 1 million people (the majority of which were Tutsis).  In July, of that year, the Tutsi’s managed to gain control of the capital Kigali and declare a ceasefire. The Hutu, fearing retribution attacks, fled to Zaire (which is now the DR Congo). It is estimated that around 2 million refugees fled from Rwanda.

Push Factors
Þ  Heavy conflict meant that the threat of losing your life was forever present
Þ  Lack of tolerance for religious and cultral diversity
Þ  Frequent violations of basic human rights
Þ  Lack of employment and economic stability – conflict destroyed crops and farm land (think about the Bikes to Rwanda case study we did in the energy module and how the genocide effected the once thriving coffee industry which, at present, is still struggling to recover)
Þ  Destruction of property and infastructure due to the conflict                                                                                   

Pull Factors
Þ  DR Congo was more stable than Rwanda
Þ  Safety
Þ  Not to far away (think about distance decay)
Þ  Better infastructure that had not been devasted by the conflict

Migration Obstacles
Surviving the journey to the DR Congo was the biggest obstacle as many feared for their lives. The migrants had also lost everything and so life, if they managed to get into the DR Congo, would be extremely hard.

Positives about the orgin
The Hutu’s were in a majority in Rwanda and safety often comes in numbers. Coffee plantations offered the most employment and many men had skills in these areas which were harder to apply in the DR Congo.

Negatives about the destination
Many of the tribes in DR Congo (then Zaire) had links to the Tutsi’s and so the Hutu’s were not always received very well. The country also had its own problems including civil unrest, unemployment and lack of food and access to clean water in many areas.

Neutral factors of the origin and destination  
Both countries had been under Beligium colonail rule and, after they claimed independence, both countries became unstable in terms of the econonic, political and social aspects of life.

Effects of migration
This migration ultimately led to many wars in Zaire as some of the tribes had Tutsi links and it was as if the conflict in Rwanda just spilled over into the DR Congo.  There have also been reports of Rwanda supplying arms and soliders to the Tutsi rebels in DR Congo. Refugee camps had to be set up to accommodate this sudden migration and thousands of the migrants died in epidemics of diseases common to the squalor of refugee camps, such as cholera and dysentery.

These are only a few rough notes that I made quickly this morning to try and fill the gaps in my knowledge. There are other things that you can add under each heading as I didn’t bother with all of the really obvious push and pull factors, for example, or bother writing about some of the origins as I think most of you will know enough of the basics about some of the countries. If you get the chance, I would suggest reading the book Blood River by Tim Butcher as it mentions the Rwandan Genocide and the effects that both Belgium colonial rule and the migration have had on the DR Congo – I started reading it the other day and it is extremely good so far (review probably won’t appear until after my exams though) and I have been struggling to put it down! Anyway back to the revision, I hope this is useful and I think I covered all the basics – let me know if there is anything I crucial I have missed out!