World Bank, Development Delusion and Other Interesting Articles

Just read a great and informative article about the World Bank entitled “The World Banks Development Delusion”. The article briefly explores the history of the Bank and argues the need for change in the funding approach used by the World Bank, in its attempts to facilitate development and reduce poverty. The article made the following interesting points:

• History shows that most of the countries that have come under the sway of the World Bank – and its sister institution, the IMF – have experienced declining development outcomes over the past 30 years or so.
• Developing countries need much more control over decisions that affect them. Power in the World Bank is presently apportioned according to members’ shares, just like in a corporation. Major decisions require 85% of the vote, and the United States, which holds about 16% of the shares (and controls the presidency), wields de facto veto power. The same is true of the IMF. Developing countries together hold less than 50% of the vote, which is shocking given that the institution supposedly exists to promote their welfare. • Development aid should be delinked from corporate bonds. This would take Wall Street’s interests out of the equation, eliminate the pressure to siphon wealth from debtors, and allow the bank to evaluate its performance on the basis of poverty reduction outcomes instead of loan volume, as is the current practice. (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/jasonhickel/2012/09/28/the-world-bank-and-the-development-delusion/)

The article also reminded me about the poem The Development Set. Yes, I know I always mention this but it’s only because it’s so true and I have yet to see any real evidence of development finance institutions trying to steer away from being tarred by the same brush that tarred “The Development Set”.

Should you wish to find out more on unsustainable aid, read the article on the World Bank and its development delusions and or read the poem The Development Set, check out the links below:

The need for Sustainable Aid

Aid, Development and the Development Set

The World Banks Development Delusion

Infrastructure Development and Funding

New Species Discovery At iSimangaliso Wetland Park

Edwardisia iSimangaliso

 

My day has just been made with the news that a new species of anemone has been discovered at the iSimangaliso Wetland Park in Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa. The new anemone species is to be called Edwardsia isimangaliso and is considered a unique find in that;

• The anemone lives half-buried in sand, unlike other anemones.
• It displays a large number of long, tapering tentacles
• It is the only one in the genus [and among only a few anemones] able to survive salinities in excess of sea water.
• It is also able to survive periodic freshwater conditions.

Click here for more information on the new anemone; Edwardsia isimangaliso.

The discovery of new species that are able to withstand changes in environmental conditions is significant due to the fact that not only is our environment dynamic and ever-changing but also due to the fact that our actions have impacted and altered the functioning of our natural environment and the environmental services that are provided by our environment. Environmental degradation, inefficient resource use, waste, climate change etc have all combined to reduce the biodiversity of the planet and thereby impacted the ability of nature to provide much-needed environmental services. Consequently, the discovery of a new species that is unique and resilient, (due to its ability to survive in both freshwater and sea water), is significant as it is indicative of a healthy and bio-diverse environment.

Biodiversity is important due to the role of biodiversity in the effective functioning of ecosystems and to ensure the provision of ecological infrastructure and green infrastructure services. As per the Convention on Biodiversity;

“At least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to such new challenges as climate change.”

The discovery of a new species is therefore awesome news indeed!

Additional reading:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares

http://www.cbd.int/convention/

(Not so) Rare Earth Metals & Your Role in Sustainable Development

Despite their name, rare earth metals are are abundant in nature but are hazardous and costly to extract. Rare earth metals are a group of 17 metals that have moved from being a by- product of mining operations to an important component of many or most of the hi-tech products that are becoming/ have already become a key component of everyday life for most of us. As a society nearly all the technology that we use includes rare earth metals, including many of the green technologies (tablets, cell phones, solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars) that we hope will help us transition to a more sustainable society. This makes rare earth metals both a valuable input into, and a strategic for, sustainable economic development. This is especially true within the context of climate change, environmental degradation and an ever increasing need for more efficient resource use. It is therefore essential that these metals are used and extracted in the most sustainable way possible.

It is particularly important to consider rare earth metals within the renewable energy and green technology context. It is also essential to weigh up the pros and cons of transitioning to new technologies before simply adopting them. It is just as important for your ecocide that you know what the real impact of your renewable energy, paperless office, electric car etc really is as you do not want to be lulled in to a false sense of green-ness. For example:

• Electric cars seen as a way to reduce carbon footprints and GHG emissions so necessary for climate change mitigation. However, an electric car might use nearly 10 times the amount of rare earth metals as opposed to a conventional car which uses a little more than one pound of rare earth materials.
• A single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5 megawatts) typically contains 600 kilograms, or about 1,300 pounds, of rare earth metals. (http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/04/09/bright-green-technologies-dependent-on-rare-earth-metals-that-may-soon-be-economically-unviable/)
• Moving towards a paperless office may save trees and water but the technology needed to do so will require rare earth metals that will necessarily involve mining, pollution and environmental degradation.

I am not saying new hi-tech solutions are unsustainable, what we need are solutions that have the least impact. It is therefore essential that we weigh up the costs and benefits of any new, greener technologies that we adopt as we make our way towards sustainability.

Rare Earth Element	Used in
Scandium	metal alloys for the aerospace industry
Yttrium	phosphors, ceramics, metal alloys
Lanthanum	batteries, catalysts for petroleum refining
Cerium	catalysts, polishing, metal alloys
Praseodymium	improved magnet corrosion resistance,   pigment
Neodymium	high power magnets for laptops, lasers
Promethium	beta radiation source
Samarium	high temperature magnets, reactor control rods
Europium	liquid crystal displays, fluorescent   lighting
Gadolinium	magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent
Terbium	phosphors for lighting and display
Dysprosium	high power magnets, lasers
Holmium	the highest power magnets known
Erbium	lasers, glass colorant
Thulium	ceramic magnetic materials under development
Ytterbium	fibre optic technology, solar panels
Lutetium	X-ray phosphors
Sources: (Nath, 2011)   (British Geological Survey, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010)

At present the majority of the rare earth metals are mined and processed in China. China produces an estimated 97% of the rare earth metals that are used around the world (Nath, 2011). China is also associated with unsustainable mining and production practices making society’s reliance on unsustainably sourced Chinese rare earth metals somewhat “unsustainable”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

An example is;The town of Baotou, in Inner Mongolia, where two-thirds of Chinas rare earths are mined and processed. Baotou is the largest Chinese source of rare earth minerals, the minerals are mined at Bayan Obo, north of Baotou then brought to Baotou for processing. The mining and processing operations in Baotu has resulted in soil, air and groundwater pollution which has in turn negatively impacted on the health and well-being of people living in the area.

“According to an article published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, “Every ton of rare earth produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater plus about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).” Furthermore, according to statistics conducted within Baotou, “all the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region produce approximately ten million tons of all varieties of wastewater every year” and most of that waste water is “discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands.” (www.thecuttingedgenews.com, 2012 )

While rare earth minerals may be able to help us transition to a more sustainable society they are not the silver bullet to enabling the transition towards a low carbon, greener economy. It is therefore essential that mining and processing of the rare earths occurs in a sustainable manner as does the use of technologies containing rare earths. As a society we need to be more mindfull of how we use our technology and not blindly assume that we are doing the environment a favour by changing to a so called “greener technology”.

So the next time a new tablet, ipod, cellphone or whatever is released don’t just buy the new one for the sake of having the latest model, “Wasting rare earth minerals on gadgets is not going to get us any closer to being sustainable”, (says the blogger typing away on her latest hi-tech tablet/ gadget!)

Sources:

Baotou article

The cutting edge.

Dr Chandrika Nath 2011, Rare Earth Posst Note UK Parliament. 

Rare Earth Elements, June 2010, British Geological Survey

http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/environmental-impact.html

Tied Aid & The Need For Sustainable Aid

“Tied aid is foreign aid that must be spent in the country providing the aid (the donor country) or in a group of selected countries. A developed country will provide a bilateral loan or grant to a developing country, but mandate that the money be spent on goods or services produced in the selected country. From this it follows that untied aid has no geographical limitations.” (wikipedia, 2012)

I was recently approached to provide my view on a funding proposal. My view was not the view that was expected or sought and this resulted in a “little-big” debate. The ensuing discussion and debate left me distressed and also questioning my view of aid, and specifically tied aid. The key issue is; are developing countries so very desperate for aid that they are willing to accept aid that comes with conditionality’s such as tied aid? This despite it being a known fact that tied aid is unsustainable and has been deemed illegal by certain donors?

“Tied aid is now illegal in the UK by virtue of the International Development Act, which came into force on 17 June 2002, replacing the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act (1980).” (http://www.appropedia.org/Tied_aid)

So the questions remain; is tied aid to be considered aid? and should developing countries accept tied aid as part of the sustainable development process? This becomes particularly important given, the current environmental, climate change and economic context. The current development context creates the perfect opportunity for an increase in aid requirements, needs and proposals, however, if the aid is tied and bound by conditionalities that are unsustainable in the long-term the impact of the aid will be unsustainable and will end up being counterproductive, which in my opinion is not the path that development aid should be pursuing.

“Development assistance may get a new lease on life thanks to global warming. Aid occupies a major place in multilateral negotiations and sometimes, by default, becomes the main outcome of negotiations, which stumble at real fundamental issues (Carbonnier, 2010)”

The details of the aid proposition that sparked this post are as follows:

• Country X (donor) to provide country Y (recipient) with funding to undertake specialist environmental studies.
• Conditions:
  • Consultant from Country X will undertake the specialist water resource studies for country Y, to the value of 75% of the donation.
  • A maximum of 25% of the donation may be spent on consultants in the recipient country.
  • The reasoning for the 25% 75% spilt between the consultants is due to the recipient country being perceived as not having the skills to undertake the specialist studies.

My key concerns with aid that is tied to sourcing of skills and/or produce etc from the donor country are;

• The majority of the economic benefit goes to the donor country. As a result the benefit to the recipient country is much less than anticipated.
• Skills transfer to the recipient country and recipient country consultants is minimal and often inefficient and ineffective and is therefore not a feasible or sustainable argument on which to base the tied aid. The reasons for this are
  • Most of the skills will come with the donor country consultants and will not stay in the country. Very little skill will in fact be transferred to the consultants of the recipient country.  If you want to capacitate, educate and transfer skills maybe education and the funding of degrees and actual work experience should be considered.
  • In most cases donor country consultants have a limited understanding of the region and environment. In addition limited project times frames do not allow for donor consultants to adequately come to grips with regional sensitivities and details.
  • The studies may assist in providing data and information for the recipient country to use in decision-making, however, what is the point of studies if the recipient country (according to the donor country, ie why donor consultants need to do the work) does not have the skills to undertake such studies or then use such studies in decision-making and project implementation?

I do realize that corruption, inefficiency’s and lack of capacity and implementation skill,  etc are important issues that have to be considered and factored into development aid projects and certain conditionalities are required. One would imagine that the various debates around aid and dependency, unsustainable aid costs, aid misappropriation etc would have somehow made an impact and resulted in more appropriate, sustainable and effective aid proposals being made?

Some examples and impacts of Unsustainable Aid:

• Western surpluses resulting from faulty agriculture or other policies have been dumped in poor countries, thus wiping out local production and increasing dependency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid)
• Tieing recipient countries into using donor country skills and consultants prevents the development of specialist skills and capacities with recipient countries. This increases the dependency on foreign consultants and hinders the development of local and regional consultancies and specialist skills.
• Aid tying by OECD donor countries has important consequences for developing countries. Tying aid to specific commodities and services, or to procurement in a specific country or region, can increase development project costs by as much as 20 to 30 per cent.( http://www.cgdev.org/files/1422445_file_Morgan_Zambia_FINAL.pdf)
• Tied aid costs more. It is at least 15-30% more expensive than untied aid because of overpricing, and likely leads to longer delivery times (Ryden, 2011)

Examples of Sustainable Aid

• Development of local capacity through education, skills development and knowledge transfer, based on the development needs of the recipient country.
• The provision of food aid in the form of cash as opposed to food and produce shipped from donor countries.
• Local sourcing of food: “When food aid is provided in cash, it allows recipients to source food locally or regionally and at a much lower cost. In addition, cash assistance enables recipients to purchase food from producers in areas of the country with surpluses to distribute in areas of scarcity. This, in turn, helps strengthen local and regional agricultural sectors and markets, and it can increase incomes for smallholder farmers and poor rural communities”.( www.hungerreport.org/2011 )
• The provision of culturally appropriate food.  “U.S. food aid sometimes falls short in this regard: countries whose staple diet is rice may get shipments of sorghum or wheat from the United States because those are the current surplus commodities, whereas rice might be available in nearby countries or in other parts of the country experiencing the hunger emergency. ( www.hungerreport.org/2011 )
• Untying administrative responsibilities to recipient countries, multilateral agencies or NGOs might also be beneficial, as they can provide more neutral and recipient-centred judgements, as long as donors actively evaluate the results. (Ryden, 2011).
• Untied aid: as this would increase the efficiency of aid to reduce poverty and thereby increase the impact of aid (Ryden, 2011).

References and other reading:

• Ryden H, 2011: The extent and effects of tied aid http://www.hannes.se/files/The_extent_and_effects_of_tied_aid_by_Hannes_Ryden.pdf
• Wikipedia: articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied_aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_aid)
• World Hunger Report 2011: chapter 3: untie aid http://hungerreport.org/2011/report/chapters/three/untie-aid )
• http://www.appropedia.org/Tied_aid
• CGDEV: http://www.cgdev.org/files/1422445_file_Morgan_Zambia_FINAL.pdf)
• Carbonnier G, 2010. Official development assistance once more under fire from critics (http://poldev.revues.org/141 )

UNDP Human Development Report 2011: A Super Quick Summary

 

http://www.undp.org

Here is some information and findings from the summary report that I found to be of interest:

 

UNDP HDR 2004

 

 

• Sustainability is inextricably linked to equity. Understanding and exploring the links between environmental sustainability and equity is critical.
• Un-sustainability and in-equality should be the focus of all development initiatives. Consequently resources should be directed towards the critical challenges of un-sustainability and in-equality.
• Environmental degradation stunts people’s capabilities and goes beyond income impact to issues such as livelihoods, health, education and other dimensions of well-being.
• Fossil fuel driven consumption and growth is not a prerequisite for development.
• Development does not have to be fueled by high carbon emissions. For example: Norway’s per capita carbon emissions (11 tonnes) are less than those of UAE (35 tonnes). Both countries have high incomes.
• Environmental trends show deterioration which will impact human development.  Those particularly at risk to environmental deterioration are the millions of people who depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods.
  

  Link between Ecosystem Services and Human Well being (from MEA)

• Globally, nearly 40 percent of land is degraded due to soil erosion, reduced fertility and overgrazing. Land productivity is declining, with estimated yield loss as high as 50 percent in the most adverse scenarios.
• Agriculture accounts for 70–85 percent of water use, and an estimated 20 percent of global grain production uses water unsustainably, imperiling future agricultural growth. 
• Deforestation is a major challenge. Between 1990 and 2010 Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa experienced the greatest forest losses.
• Transformation in gender roles and empowerment is a way to improve environmental sustainability, equity and facilitate development.
• There exists a need to integrate equity into green economy policies.
• The relationship between public and private sector finance is key in enabling sustainability and equity. Public sector commitments and efforts are an important leverage tool to catalyze private sector investment.  
• The Report proposes an emphasis on 4 country-level sets of tools that are necessary to facilitate equitable and sustainable development these are:

1. Low-emission, climate-resilient strategies— to align human development, equity and climate change goals.
2. Public-private partnerships— to catalyze capital from businesses and households.
3. Climate deal-flow facilities— to bring about equitable access to international public finance.
4. Coordinated implementation and monitoring, reporting and verification systems— to bring about long-term, efficient results and accountability to local populations as well as partners.

The UNDP 2011 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT can be read here.

You can view individual country profiles here.