 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
JULY 2010
SOCIAL ECOLOGY....A NEW MORALITY - alternative choices
Development :Capitalist or Socialist?
Once upon a time, I believed that 'development' and 'globalisation' were strategies designed by
multinational corporations, the G8, the UN, and the World Bank to provide aid to poor countries of the
world to help their people to improve their living conditions and enable more to survive and thrive.
I no longer believe this.
The richest countries, as represented by the G8, and more recently the G20, and the multinational
corporations that drive 'free market capitalism', have exhausted most of the resources of the 'developed
world', and are now looking everywhere else for new sources of key materials. Capitalism is investment,
exploitation, so as to gain maximum profits for shareholders.
Globalisation and development are strategies of intervention by these corporations for the benefit of
shareholders, not the world's poor!
I am going to describe and analyse the evidence for
Development and corruption;
Development and wealth
Development and poverty;
Development and subsistence and sustainability;
Development and redistribution;and social enterprise;
of future scenarios in the face of climate change; *update, Sept 2009,global warming
direct democracy; leading us to the exercise of social justice in the development of the world.
DEVELOPMENT AND CORRUPTION
Ethics World informs us that often the local communities of indigenous peoples do not benefit from these capitalist projects, because
the labour is imported, and all the profits are directed to the ‘home office’. A recent report by Transparency International [Feb
2009] revealed that these corporations and their agents are busy corrupting their customers for preferential terms on multiple projects.
For example, in Southern Asia and parts of Africa the shortages of water to drink, and for sanitation, for the poor are not caused by the
lack of water resources, but by unfair distribution of water supplies to the wealthy as a result of bribery and corruption over water
projects. The wealthy corporations, and individuals, spend their time and money increasing their own advantages. They are not
interested in alleviating poverty.
Greenpeace recently revealed that companies working in the poorest countries in the world take great pains to avoid paying taxes
and fair wages. For example, Greenpeace International makes a damaging case against Swiss logging company Danzer, who have
tax evasion schemes to divert profits from its forestry activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to offshore accounts,
depriving the local people of an estimated 7.8 million euros in tax revenue. Many organizations, including Greenpeace, have criticized
illegal logging practices in the forestry industry, but less attention has been given to corporate tax evasion which Greenpeace claims is
the norm among those logging companies working in the DRC. Danzer Group is a multinational company with subsidiaries all over the
world. Greenpeace alleges that two of its African subsidiaries sell wood to its trading partner Interholco below the market value. The
difference is then put into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on profit levied by the DRC government. According to internal
company documents obtained by Greenpeace, the African subsidiaries are also avoiding a DRC tax put on the use of expatriate labor
as a way of encouraging use of local employees. Instead of hiring native Congolese, Greenpeace says the companies use expatriate
employees and pay them with money from the offshore accounts, thereby foregoing the DRC tax.
This kind of exploitation is made all the more unacceptable when it is revealed that Africa's forests are disappearing faster than those in
other parts of the world because of a lack of land ownership, a report says.[May 2009] Less than 2% of Africa's forests are under
community control, compared to a third in Latin America and Asia, say the Rights and Resources Initiative. The deforestation rate in
Africa is four times the world's average. Action on land tenure could help to halt deforestation, slow climate change and alleviate
poverty, says the report, entitled Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities.The study was
presented in Cameroon's capital, Yaounde, at a meeting of forest community representatives from Africa, Latin America and Asia.
"There are some countries that have recognised local land rights, but the government still controls the forest, and hands out
concessions to industrial loggers - leading to more degradation and corruption." Failure to ensure land rights for indigenous peoples
and particularly women, will impede efforts to stop deforestation and mitigate climate change, say the authors. Africa's forest
communities already generate millions of jobs and dollars in domestic and regional trade, and in indigenous livelihoods, but current
laws keep some of these activities illegal and also undermine opportunities to improve forest management."
The Democratic Republic of Congo, once known as Zaire, is probably the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources; it is
“the only country on earth that houses all elements found on the periodic table. As such, it is persistently a site of fierce exploitation.
“The Congo possesses over 80 per cent of the world's reserve of coltan” and has vast amounts of cassiterite (tin ore), gold,
wolframite, pyrochlore, diamonds, clays, copper, cobalt, gas, nickel, oil, tungstone, zinc, iron, kaolin, niobium, ochre, bauxite, marble,
phosphates, saline, granite, emerald, monazite, silver, uranium, platinum and lead.
Over the last 150 years, since Belgian King Leopold II’s conquest in 1885, the ‘Belgian Congo’ has been subject to vast and
destabilising resource expropriation at the hands of European capitalism. This exploitation still continues to this day. The Democratic
Republic Congo is suffering from a war, often referred to as Africa's World War: that is almost certainly the worst in the world, leading to
the death of 5.4 million people. {The BBC News has reported, April 15 2010, how gang rape by gangs of soldiers has become a
weapon of war, leading to the death or mutilation of thousands of women.} This war is largely the result of the exploitation of the DRC’s
rich resources by foreign corporations, which fund 'warlords' from the DRC and surrounding countries, and the army, to give them
access to cheap minerals. The war and exploitation in DR Congo, principally at the hands of the imperial powers of Europe and the
United States is truly devastating! Robert Miller writes for Corporate Watch, April 2010.
The war in the DRC is now fundamentally a war for minerals, with its origins in a war for power resulting from the ousting of the dictator
Mobutu and the legacy of the Rwandan genocide. It is largely the result of corporations and states in the core nations of the capitalist
world system funding armed groups, as well as the state, in order to access the cheap natural resources and cheap labour that are
abundant in the DRC.
The UN reported in 2001 that, “the conflict in the Democratic Republic-Congo has become mainly about access, control and trade of
five key mineral resources: coltan, diamonds, copper, cobalt and gold.
As well as being the driving force behind the current war, resource expropriation has also been the driving force behind over a century
of colonialism that impoverished the DRC so greatly.
Corporations all around the world, including those in Britain, are trading for these minerals and are making a huge profit from and, by
extension, engendering the warring factions’ exploitation of people in DRC. If it wasn’t for this trade, it is extremely unlikely that the war
would be able to continue, as it is providing the profits that allow the warring groups to continue, as well as giving them the incentive to
compete with other groups for the control of resources and to exploit the Congolese workers. But the profits made from these minerals -
especially coltan, which is needed for electronics such as mobile phones, computers and televisions - are too great for the corporations
to ignore.
The UN has obtained “official documents that show that in 2007, the only importers of cassiterite and coltan from Kivu were a Belgian
company Taxys, and the UK-based company Afrimex. Corporations mentioned in the UN report as having financed rebel groups
include Gold Link Burundi, Farrel Trade and Investment Corporation and Emirates Gold. The report states that “cassiterite, coltan and
wolframite are officially exported through companies based in Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Hong Kong (China), India, Malaysia,
Thailand, Rwanda, South Africa, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates and the UK … Gold is
smuggled out mainly through neighbouring countries and principally into the United Arab Emirates and Europe.
The companies based in the UK that the UN accuses are Afrimex and Ventro Star. Global Witness reports that, “companies registered
in Belgium accounted for the largest proportion of cassiterite, wolframite and coltan imports from North and South Kivu in 2007 and
from North Kivu from January to September 2008,” and that, “after these Belgian companies, the largest buyers of cassiterite from
North and South Kivu in 2007” included the Thailand Smelting and Refining Corporation (THAISARCO) which is owned by the large
British metals company Amalgamated Metal Corporation (AMC) Group, and Afrimex based in the UK. THAISARCO was among the
largest buyers of coltan and THAISARCO and Afrimex were among the largest buyers for wolframite. Other companies based in the UK
that appear on this list are: A. Knight International Ltd; A & M Minerals and Metals Ltd; Alex Stewart (Assayers) Ltd; Amalgamated Metal
Corporation Plc; Anglo American Plc; Arctic Investment; Barclays Bank; Das Air; De Beers; Euromet; and Mineral Afrika Ltd.
As you can see, there is a huge web of corporations that are guilty of instigating, exacerbating and profiting from the conflict in the
DRC. When you take into account other businesses that trade with these corporations the list grows exponentially. There is very little
information on this, but Congo Week has compiled a list of companies profiting indirectly from the conflict (i.e. purchasing minerals that
have originally come from the warlords). These companies are Sony, Microsoft, Panasonic, Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, Intel, AVN, NEC,
Alcatel, Compaq, Dell, AMD, Nintendo, IBM, Hitachi, Samsung, Pioneer and Kenwood.
Transparency International [2010] reveals that corruption is not only fostered by corporations, but also by countries. Some of the
poorest countries in the world are reported as actively promoting corruption: in 2008/9 the most corrupt governments were judged to be
Chad, Iraq, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Somalia. These countries are involved in military action, and in receipt of vast sums of aid
funds, little of which is used to benefit the local communities.
The World Food Programme makes it clear that people are not starving because of overpopulation, they are starving because the
international corporations who control farm production have decided that crops for industrial use are more profitable than for food.
They argue what is the point of growing food crops for the poor, when they cannot afford to pay for them? Farmers are funded to plant
and harvest crops for the production of industrial products such as ethanol, textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, oils so as to maximize
profits. At the same time land is being taken over by other international corporations [both private and state] across the globe to
remove forests; mine the earth on a vast scale for minerals, removing soil and poisoning the land; construct large manufacturing units
to make products for sale elsewhere. Resource exploitation and depletion is being carried out by these multinational capitalist
corporations for the benefits of their shareholders in rich/high income countries. Go to http://www.wfp.org/1billion
The World Wealth Report,2010, clearly indicated that capitalist enterprise is benefiting individuals in the USA, Japan, Germany, in
particular, and the EU, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil, India,China, and the countries of Pacific Asia such as Australia,Indonesia,
Singapore,Korea,Taiwan: as well as those of Eastern Europe; all of whom, the report tells us, spend their wealth on more and more
luxury items. Charitable works are far from their minds!
Gandhi once proposed that there is enough wealth in the world for everybody's need, but not
enough for anybody's greed.
People such as Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, among many others, have argued that there is enough wealth in the world
today to totally alleviate poverty. But to do this, the wealth has to be redistributed, not spent on the luxurious lifestyles of the richest
individuals. 'Development' is a socialist strategy for the alleviation of poverty.
DEVELOPMENT AND WEALTH.
It is important to realise that the majority of the people living in the world are poor, and the concept of Development has to be applied to
them. Development must be regarded as a strategy for the alleviation of poverty. If most people are poor, where is the
wealth?
‘Global Issues’ tells us that World gross domestic product was $54.3 trillion in 2008; The World Bank announced it to be
$54.34 trillion.
In 2005, the world’s billionaires — just 497 people— were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP). In 2007 [according to the
World Wealth Report of MerrilLynch/CapGemini] there were 10.1 million $millionaires including 103,000 $billionaires, worth in total
$42 trillion [76% of world GDP]. The World Bank and the IMF estimate, June 2010, that the world population of 6.83 billion generated
a GDP of $58 trillion.
The World Wealth Report 2010 indicates that there were 10 million individuals worth $39 trillion: 3.1 million in North America worth
$10.7 trillion; 3 million in Europe worth $9.5 trillion; 3 million in Asia-Pacific worth $9.7 trillion. 53.5% of the world's richest people lived
in US, Japan, and Germany. 477,000 millionaires lived in communist China! 448,000 millionaires were counted in the UK. The Sunday
Times Rich List, April 2010, shows the combined wealth of the richest 1,000 in the UK stood at GBP 333 billion in June 2009, with 53
billionaires in the country - three times as many as in 2003. In 2008, Forbes.com tells us that there were 1,125 billionaires with $4.4
trillion, globally, and in June 2009, this number had reduced to 793 with $2.4 trillion.
Forbes Russia [April 2010] reports that in 2009 there were 62 billionaires in Russia, controlling $297 billion in total - out of a
population of 139 million. Thus, we learn that the centre of the Communist movement, once the USSR, has successfully enriched a
minority and impoverished the majority, in accordance with corporate capitalism!
Global Issues[Oct 2008] reports that of the 6.8 billion people living on earth, 80% live on less than $10 a day; and 20% on
more than $10 a day. I estimate, [based on the American Census reports of wealth distribution in the USA,] that, in 2008, of this 20%
with more than $10 a day..............
13.85% live on $11 to $274 a day;
6% live on $275 to $11000 a day;
less than 1% live on more than $11,000 a day.
This would mean that about 6% [418.1 million] earn in excess of $100,000 a year and have more than $275 a day, enjoying 82% of
export trade, and 68% of direct foreign investment.
In 2008, if less than 00.15% of the population owned $42 trillion, it follows that 99.85% had $12.3 trillion. This population
includes the 5.4 billion on less than $10 a day and the 1.39 billion on more than $10, but less than $11000 a day. The World Bank
[2008] reports that a global average wage was $7985 a year or $21 a day. The majority of the people in the world, about 6.8
billion, are poor: with those living on $1a day in absolute poverty; and those on more than $21 a day, relative poverty.
The evidence of 2010 does reveal that the richest continue to get richer e.g. the fortunes of the UK billionaires increased by 33%
during 2009! 10 million people are worth $39 trillion, managing to thrive on more than $11000 a day. How much more evidence do we
need of the inequality of the global societies? and the prevalence of poverty? If the $58 trillion GDP were divided evenly amongst the
6.83 billion individuals, [children and adults], there would be $8000 per head or $22 a day.
DEVELOPMENT IN A WORLD OF POVERTY
The evidence makes it clear that we are living on a world in which poverty and hunger is the norm, and the richest comprise
less than 1% of the global population........that is, 10 million people out of 6.83 billion are worth $39 trillion out of $58 trillion.
Global Issues.org tells us that nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book nor sign their names.
The World Food Programme of the UN declared in January 2009 that “Approximately 1 billion people in the world are still chronically
undernourished, starving, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.” They confirmed in Nov.2009 that 1.1 billion people
are starving to death. Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic
sanitation. Of the 6.8 billion, 2.2 billion are children, of which 1.1 billion are living in poverty.
and poverty line:
Poverty is widespread across the globe, not restricted to just Africa and Asia.
The wealthiest nation on Earth, the USA, has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. A report in 2007 said
that 12% of the population, 37 million people, of the USA were classified as poor. In 2009 the US Census put this at 13.2%. Greater
public awareness of the poverty programme, and the downturn now gripping the US , are reasons for the steady increase in the use of
food stamps since 2001...... a period of solid economic growth until the full explosion of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in late 2007,
which has transformed into a credit crisis in 2008' and mass unemployment in 2009.
But food stamps are also a reminder of the continuing existence of widespread poverty in the US, and the ever expanding gulf between
rich and poor in the world's wealthiest country. The US Census reports in 2009 that the use of food stamps jumped 13 percent last year
to nearly 9.8 million U.S. households, led by Louisiana, Maine and Kentucky. The increase was most evident in households with two or
more workers, highlighting the impact of the recession on both working families and unemployed single people. Pharr, Texas, and Flint,
Michigan, each had more than a third of its residents on food stamps, at 38.5 percent and 35.4 percent, respectively. By November
2009 36 million US citizens were registered for, and using their food stamps.............. Another 16 million were eligible. January 2010,
there were 38 million using food stamps to get enough to eat.
Top income brackets have seen their disposable incomes soar, while earnings of the lowest paid have struggled to keep pace with
inflation. The minimum wage had stood unchanged for a decade. Its longest freeze ever , until it was increased to $5.85 an hour in
2007 from the $5.15 set in 1997; in 2009, it will be raised to $7.25 an hour. The national poverty rate stands officially at around 13 per
cent, a level little changed from the 1970s. Poverty is currently defined as an income of $24,500 for a family of five, that is $67 a day,
or $13.50 each; or $10250 for a single person - $28 a day.
In the UK, 23% of the population, or 13.5 million people, are described as poor, lacking basic necessities, living on the equivalent of
$26 a day.
In Greece, where I live now, one can estimate that 6% of the population, [660,000 people] have more than E100,000 a year. A recent
Government report declared that 20% of the population,or [2,200,000,] survive on E6500 a year, or 17 euros a day. It is normal here to
see people living and sleeping in the fields; and other open spaces; and for families to be occupying what can only be described as
one room hovels.
To put this in perspective, on October 7th 2009, an organisation, Labour behind the Label, pronounced that, in order to tackle
poverty and hunger in Asia, the many millions of workers in the textile industries in India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, should all be paid a living wage of $475 a month, $5700 a year, $15 a day! This, in a world in which 8.6 million have more
than $11,000 a day.
It has become clear that poverty is more complicated than lack of money. The UNDP Human Development project, has been working
with the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, to devise a Multi-dimensional Poverty Index which is designed to
analyse poverty in terms of income per head; standards of living; fuel; electricity;nutrition; sanitation; education; health outcomes. The
results of their first researches were published on July 13th 2010. The report on the MPI for 8 States in India - Bihar,Chathegarth,
Jharkand, Madya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal - revealed that 421million people lived in poverty, compared
with 410 million people in the 26 poorest African countries. For the first time it was indicated that more of the world's poor live in India,
than in sub-saharan Africa. More detailed information will be published in the UNDP Human Development Report in October 2010.
and children:
“The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” .
According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far
removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more
invisible in death.” That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year.
Millions of the world's poorest children are among the principal victims of climate change - caused by the rich developed world, a United
Nations report said recently, calling for urgent action. The UNICEF report "Our Climate, Our Children, Our Responsibility" measured
action on targets set by the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, aimed at halving child poverty by 2015. It found failure on counts from
health to survival, education and gender equality. The report said climate change could add 40,000-160,000 child deaths a
year in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa through lower economic growth.
and debt:
In all countries, it would seem that the poor are getting poorer: The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are
being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. The developing world now
spends $25 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. “The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global
exports. The alleviation of poverty across the world must be the top priority of all peoples.
and disease:
The fact that the majority of the world’s population is poor and undernourished means that they are subject to persistent disease. For
example, the World Health Organisation’s Health Report of 2008 estimates that there are 40 million with HIV/AIDS, and 500 million with
malaria, as well 9 millions with TB.
At this time of financial crises in the rich countries, and the reduction of development aid, it is almost certain that health services for
the poor will be withdrawn. The WHO in 2008 estimated that 60 million people die each year, many from diseases rather than old age.
For example, some 11 million children die from malnutrition and diseases. 8.8 million people have TB and 2 million die in a year; 40
million live with HIV, and 3 million die from AIDS; 500 million have Malaria and 1 million die; across the world 13 million die from heart
disease, and 7 million with lung diseases, often associated with smoking; and more than 2 million from diarrhoea. With the increasing
rate of hunger and starvation and malnutrition, this number will almost certainly increase over the next two years, possibly to 1 billion.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and others repeatedly point out that many of these diseases are “diseases of poverty.”
However, some diseases are now not only the result of poverty, but have been contributing to poverty—a nasty positive feedback loop.
In the case of malaria, for instance, the WHO notes that malaria has significant measurable direct and indirect costs, and has recently
been shown to be a major constraint to economic development. This means that if a country is poor, or prosperous, and becomes
subject to widespread malaria, it will get even poorer for no corporation will invest there.
and hunger:
The poor majority will have to confront lower incomes due to rising unemployment. There will be an increase in the numbers trying to
live on $10 a day. Despite increasing farm production, they are facing rising food prices, and increasing hunger, and the spread of
diseases. The numbers of starving people will increase to more than 1 billion. Doomsday today and every day!
The World Food Programme and the United Nations declare that increases in starvation and malnutrition are the result of the increases
in industrial farming, and the decline of food crops, and the subsequent rise in food prices. In November 2009 both the WFP and the
UN launched a new programme on the internet to raise money to buy foods to alleviate hunger. The 1 billion internet users were asked
to contribute $52 [a dollar a week for a year] to alleviate the hunger of the 1billion starving across the world.
Go to http://www.wfp.org/1billion
On Sunday, 19 April 2009, Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, of the Independent, reports that the United Nations warns that hunger
threatens to "spiral out of control" in the wake of the financial crisis. Harvests threaten to slump at a time when record numbers of
people are already hungry. Crops are being hit by a combination of bad weather, falling food prices and farmers' being refused credit
to buy seeds and fertilisers. The UN's World Food Programme warned: "As the global financial crisis deepens, hunger and malnutrition
are likely to increase as incomes fall and unemployment rises. The world is at a critical juncture where we risk watching hunger spiral
out of control. We cannot afford to lose the next generation.". The UN adds that it would cost $6bn to stave off the resulting hunger……
"relatively inexpensive compared to the 11 trillion-dollar rescue packages designed to save financial institutions'. Indeed recent
announcements by finance houses like Goldman Sachs have revealed that despite the recession they continue to make massive
profits, and pay $16 billions in bonuses. It would improve the lives of the poor majority, and the billion starving, if such companies paid
their bonuses to alleviate poverty and hunger, rather than allow their rich elites to buy more luxuries.
About two years ago food prices started to rise abruptly, despite the bumper crops, mainly because of
[a] the increased use of corn to make biofuel, particularly in the US, and
[b] increasing meat consumption – which mops up grain supplies to feed livestock – in developing countries such as India and China.
Prices of wheat and corn doubled in a year – and rice more than trebled – leading to the first steep and sustained rise in hunger in
decades.
A record crop in 2008 did not help much. It brought the cost of grain down in rich countries, which saw most of the increased
production, but not in developing ones where the poor live, partly because their currencies fell against the dollar, in which international
prices are set. It led to farmers in Europe and the US planting less this year because they expect lower returns at a time when it is
harder than ever to get loans. The US Department of Agriculture reported in 2009 that 7 per cent less land is being used to grow
wheat, in a country that helps to supply 100 nations around the world. China – which feeds a fifth of the world's people off just a 10th
of its cropland – did increase sowing but, in another cruel twist of fate, was then hit by its worst drought in nearly 70 years, cutting
yields by up to 40 per cent. Drought has led to a similar slump in another of the world's great grain-growing regions, Argentina,
Paraguay and southern Brazil. All this means, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, that harvests are set to fall this year "in
most of the world's major producers".
and climate change:
In May, 2009 a report from former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's thinktank, the Global Humanitarian Forum announced that by
2030, climate change could cost $600 billion a year.
Climate Change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people. Increasingly severe heatwaves,
floods, storms and forest fires will be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths a year by 2030, making it the greatest humanitarian
challenge the world faces. Economic losses due to climate change today amount to more than $125bn a year — more than the total
world aid.
Civil unrest may also increase because of weather-related events, the report says: "Four billion people are vulnerable now and 500m
are now at extreme risk. Weather-related disasters ... bring hunger, disease, poverty and lost livelihoods. They pose a threat to social
and political stability".
If emissions are not brought under control, within 25 years, the report states:
• 310m more people will suffer adverse health consequences related to temperature increases
• 20m more people will fall into poverty
• 75m extra people will be displaced by climate change.
Climate change is expected to have the most severe impact on water supplies . "Shortages in future are likely to threaten food
production, reduce sanitation, hinder economic development and damage ecosystems. It causes more violent swings between floods
and droughts. Hundreds of millions of people are expected to become water stressed by climate change by the 2030. ".
The UN study says it is impossible to be certain who will be displaced by 2030, but that tens of millions of people "will be driven from
their homelands by weather disasters or gradual environmental degradation. The problem is most severe in Africa, Bangladesh, Egypt,
coastal zones and forest areas. ."
The study compares for the first time the number of people affected by climate change in rich and poor countries. Nearly 98% of the
people seriously affected, 99% of all deaths from weather-related disasters and 90% of the total economic losses are now borne by
developing countries. The populations most at risk it says, are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and the small island
states of the Pacific.
But of the 12 countries considered least at risk, including Britain, all but one are industrially developed. Together they have made
nearly $72bn available to adapt themselves to climate change but have pledged only $400m to help poor countries. "This is less than
one state in Germany is spending on improving its flood defences," says the report.
The study comes as diplomats from 192 countries prepare to meet in Bonn next week for UN climate change talks aimed at reaching a
global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in December in Copenhagen. "The world is at a crossroads. We can no longer
afford to ignore the human impact of climate change. This is a call to the negotiators to come to the most ambitious agreement ever
negotiated or to continue to accept mass starvation, mass sickness and mass migration on an ever growing scale," said Kofi Annan,
who launched the report today in London.
Annan blamed politicians for the current impasse in the negotiations and widespread ignorance in many countries. "Weak leadership,
as evident today, is alarming. If leaders cannot assume responsibility they will fail humanity. Agreement is in the interests of every
human being."
Barbra Stocking, head of Oxfam said: "Adaptation efforts need to be scaled up dramatically. The world's poorest are the hardest hit,
but they have done the least to cause it. The G8 summit in Italy, July 2009, was looking for agreement amongst the rich and the poor to
act to reduce temperatures by 2C. The US and Italy were upset that the developing countries insisted that the developed world met
their promises for reduced emissions, as well as aid to help the poorest.
Climate change may displace up to 200 million.
In July 2009 CARE International reported that up to 200 million people could be on the move by 2050, and the recent gains in the
fight against poverty could vanish unless issues of forced migration become an integral part of the dialogue on global warming.
Simple changes could help alleviate big problems. For example, women who raise chickens in flood-prone Bangladesh could switch to
ducks. In other areas, it could mean something as simple as changing water-craving crops to more resilient foods. "So if the rains don't
come when needed, you don't lose an entire crop," Ehrhart of CARE said.
They are not fleeing despicable acts of violence or persecution but the very land and water on which their livelihoods depend. They are
some of the world's poorest, forced from their homes by global climate change. "The consequences for almost all aspects of
development and human security could be devastating," says the new study, co-sponsored by the Columbia University's Center for
International Earth Science Information Network and the U.N. University's Institute for Environment and Human Security.
Ehrhart said the breakdown of ecosystem-dependent livelihoods is likely to remain the main driver of forced migration during the next
few decades. In the Mekong River Delta, for instance, the sea level rising by 2 meters (6.5 feet) could mean the loss of millions of acres
of agricultural land, reducing it by half, Ehrhart said.
Climate Change will exacerbate stressful conditions unless vulnerable populations, especially the poorest, are assisted in building
climate-resilient livelihoods. It's morally imperative for developing nations to adopt policy that addresses these global changes. Ehrhart
said climate migration could climb to staggering levels, its consequences reaching far and wide.
Without money or resources, climate refugees will likely stay within their own borders, accelerating movement from rural areas to urban
centers and crowding into cities already bursting at the seams.
"New thinking and practical approaches are needed to address the threats that climate-related migration poses to human security and
well-being," said Warner of the UN. For development experts, such as Ehrhart, climate change is a formidable foe that must be
tackled. He doesn't want to see the hopes of the world's poorest turned to dust.
It is obvious that in areas where the total population exceeds the capacity of the
land to support them, the people do not thrive, and will die soon.
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years
because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people
in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending
to meet the challenge.
December 2009 marked the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Four days have
passed and the arguments have centred on how much 'it' is going to cost, and who
is going to pay? Most of the countries present agree that climate change is
happening, and something has to be done. But the poorest countries are asserting
that they cannot pay! The Association of Small Island Countries declare that their countries are already disappearing under the sea.
And what is to be done? December 11 witnessed the EU forming a climate change fund of $7billion.
Poverty trap
According to the World Bank, three quarters of the population in South Asia - almost 1.2 billion people - live on less than $2 (£1.2) a
day. And more than 400m people in the region are now chronically hungry.
The report focused on the impact that the economic crisis had on women and children, saying they are the people most vulnerable
during a downturn.
The report cites a number of factors for the sharp rise in people living in hunger and poverty:
• Declining wages at home
• A drop in remittances from abroad
• Poor women often go without food to feed their families
• Children can be pulled out of school and sent to work
• High prices have forced people to borrow money at high interest
• Income is spent on food but not on other essentials
Even the region's economic giant, India, has suffered because of job losses and lower remittances from Indians living abroad.
Unicef says the region's governments need to increase spending on food, health care and education to alleviate the crisis.
But it acknowledges that the economic slowdown means there is less money to spend.
It said that it was important for the two biggest countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to reduce their defence budgets to allow for
increased social spending.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social
services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people.
But the problems of poverty and hunger are being compounded by the effects of climate change e.g. areas in Africa,Australia, and
South America, that were once wet, have become dry, and their grasslands have disappeared and farming has collapsed. New deserts
have formed.
Rivers that once flowed to the sea are drying up, depriving many communities of sources of water. Forests become tinder dry and burst
into flames, destroying vast areas, as seen recently in Victoria, Australia and California, USA and Greece in Europe. Ironically, these
effects have been generated as a result of excessive pollution in the rich countries of the world such as the USA, China, and the EU.
The generation of excessive carbon dioxide, and other gases such as methane, chloroflourocarbons, and soots, cause heat retention
in the atmosphere, and rising temperatures.
and death:
We have to conclude that the 1 billion starving today will soon become 2 billion, and all will soon die. Doomsday – tomorrow! Their
deaths will be the result of the spread of industrial farming, and the impacts of climate change. They will die not as the result of their
own actions but the changes generated by other people living on the other side of the world.
Our free market capitalist society enables the rich to prosper and to live for more than 70 years. The poor majority struggle to survive,
and 80% die before the age of 70. If the population balance is altered by starvation, disease, and calamity, and conflict, the projected
increase to 9 billion in 2050, will become a decline! Doomsday - today! Tomorrow!
SUBSISTENCE and SUSTAINABILITY
I want to suggest that 'development' must include everyone, and that a sustainable future for the 100% of the world’s population is a
‘subsistence’ future, made easier by the provision of modern technology e.g solar energy, water purification, drugs to cure diseases.
Profits should have social objectives, and be spent for the benefits of local communities in the form of health care, sanitation,
education, not for the luxuries of the individual. Muhammad Yunus describes this in terms of social business, a no loss, no dividend
company with social objectives. Ironically, in 2008, we may have taken a step towards this future. The global financial crisis has led to
the collapse of confidence in capitalism, and a reassessment of the world economy.
Put farming first in Africa.
Without sustainable agriculture, sustainable development in Africa will remain a dream, argues Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, in the
Guardian, April 2009.
A top priority of the UN is to halve the number of people in the world experiencing poverty and hunger. While several countries have
made progress in this area (China alone has lifted more than 175 million of its people above the poverty line), many other countries,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, still face the same hunger and poverty levels that they experienced 20 years ago. Up to 300 million
Africans are facing chronic hunger.
So what can Africans do to put food on the table and money in their pockets? The answer is simple – invest in agriculture.
After decades of stagnation in agricultural yields and little investment in rural economies, African countries are beginning to prioritise
the development of agricultural production and markets. Rural development and agricultural productivity improvement now feature
prominently on the agenda of national governments.
Continent-wide plans and investments, through programmes under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
(CAADP), the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Research into Use (RIU) and the Alliance for Commodity Trade in East
and Southern Africa (ACTESA) and many others are encouraging.
With the majority of African governments spending on average less than 5% of total national budgets on agriculture, one of CAADP's
key objectives is to increase this to 10%, with the target of raising agricultural productivity by at least 6% per annum. Achieving Africa's
agricultural growth requires massive investments from the global community and the on-going global financial crisis poses a threat to
Africa's efforts.
Over the past generation, agriculture and farmers have been sidelined in international policy circles. During this time, agriculture's
share of total aid has dropped from 17% to 3% of total spend. As a result, productivity is low. While total aid to sub-Saharan Africa
remained stable during the 1990s, the proportion allocated to agriculture declined year on year. Aid to agriculture in the Southern
Africa Development Community (SADC) member states declined as a proportion of total aid from 20% in the early 1980s to 8% by
2000. If poverty in Africa is to be reduced, aid to agriculture must be increased substantially and made to work more effectively.
The G8 agriculture ministers in discussions of the world food emergency, have done well to recognise the role agriculture plays in the
success of a broader development agenda. The G8 ministers have endorsed CAADP as an excellent plan of what is needed to
achieve food security.
It is time we realised that there can be no sustainable development without sustainable agriculture. For Africa to develop sustainable
food policies, partnerships are key. The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) has joined
forces with international groups from the science and technology, farming, and private sector communities to endorse a plan called -
Farming First among global policymakers. Farming First calls on world leaders to take action by developing a locally sustainable
value chain for global agriculture. It emphasises the need for knowledge networks and policies centred on helping subsistence farmers
to become small-scale entrepreneurs, and it proposes six interlinked imperatives for sustainable agriculture:
safeguarding natural resources,
sharing knowledge,
building local access,
protecting harvests,
enabling access to markets
and prioritising research imperatives.
Implementation of programmes under CAADP is critical for reducing hunger and achieving the global priorities expressed in the
Millennium Development Goals.
• Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda is CEO of the Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network.
At the same time as 'putting farming first', Margaret Pagano of the Times reports, May 2009, that neo-colonialists, cash rich countries,
are buying up agricultural land in Africa – and local farmers could be crushed unless there are international rules to protect them. In
Africa they are calling it the land grab, or the new colonialism. Countries hungry to secure their food supplies – including Saudi
Arabia, the Emirates, South Korea (the world's third biggest importer of corn) China, India, Libya and Egypt – are at the forefront of a
frantic rush to gobble up farmland all around the world, but mainly cash-starved Africa.
Over the past few months, Saudi Arabian investors have paid $100m for an Ethiopian farm where they hope to grow wheat and barley,
adding to the millions of acres they already own in the war-ravaged country, as well as in neighbouring Sudan. The Saudis also have
land in Indonesia and Thailand for growing rice. China owns vast tracts of overseas land, mainly in Algeria and Zimbabwe. Kenya and
Tanzania have leased land while the Ugandans have been big sellers, allocating two million acres of land to Egypt for wheat and corn.
Further afield, the Saudi government and other Gulf States are negotiating with Pakistan to buy another million acres.The deal includes
the services of a 100,000-man private army to protect the food being exported. Buyers or lease-holders have also been promised
legal cover in case a future government in Islamabad is less welcoming.
By far the most aggressive buyer is Saudi Arabia, where the government is now actively encouraging private investors and companies
to buy farmland abroad after abandoning its attempt to be self-sufficient because of worries over water scarcity. It cut its wheat
production by 12.5 per cent last year, prompting the search for new land.
At the African Union (AU), the agriculture commissioner, Rhoda Peace Tumusiime, is worried that many land buyers are ignoring the
interests of local farmers and communities. But the AU also recognises that bringing new capital into Africa could be positive if it is
directed in the right way. Instead of purchasing land, she says, buyers or lease-holders should invest through production and trade
agreements with the host country. Deals which increased overall food production should be encouraged, a move which would bring
more food to the international markets, as well as to the poorest African households, Tumusiime said. Some of the AU's new guidelines
on land sales include recommendations that new investors should promise to help with infrastructure, such as health facilities, agree to
pay local taxation and look at ways to get more involved on the food-processing side which would create more local jobs.
It estimated that 20 million hectares of land – twice the size of Germany's croplands – have been sold since 2006 in more than four
dozen land deals, mainly in Africa. So far, most of the buyers are a mix of private investors, US private equity houses such as Sanlam
Private Equity, the Saudi Kingdom Zephyr fund, the UK's CDC and sovereign wealth funds.
Subsistence farmers and nomadic tribesmen are of particular concern, since many of them do not have titles to their land and could be
easily exploited by their own governments, which are desperate to sell to boost their foreign reserves.
If the latest invasion of overseas money can be handled well, it could bring huge advantages to Africa after a generation of declining
investment. But much of the new money is going into capital intensive farming – and speculative bio-fuel crops – which do not bring
great benefits to local farmers. One of the implications of this investment in farming is that the amount of water used to produce food
and goods imported to developed countries is worsening water shortages in the developing world. April 2010, the 'Engineering the
Future' alliance, reported that this is unsustainable, given population growth and climate change. "We must take account of how our
water footprint is impacting on the rest of the world." Developing countries are already using significant proportions of their water to
grow food and produce goods for consumption in the West. The report says, "The burgeoning demand from developed countries is
putting severe pressure on areas that are already short of water.” Key to the report is the concept of "embedded water" - the water
used to grow food and make things. Embedded in a pint of beer, for example, is about 130 pints (74 litres) of water - the total amount
needed to grow the ingredients and run all the processes that make the pint of beer. A cup of coffee embeds about 140 litres (246
pints) of water, a cotton T-shirt about 2,000 litres, and a kilogram of steak 15,000 litres. Such 'embedded water' will not seem much to
the average UK consumer who uses about 150 litres per day, the size of a large bath. The report says it means nations such as the UK
have a duty to put farming first and help curb water use in the developing world, where about one billion people already do not have
sufficient access to clean drinking water. UK-funded aid projects should have water conservation as a central tenet, the report
recommends, while companies should examine their supply chains and reduce the water used in them. This could lead to difficult
questions being asked, such as whether it is right for the UK to import beans and flowers from water-stressed countries such as Kenya.
Food security and encouraging more of the right sort of investment in agriculture was top of the agenda at the G8 agricultural summit in
Italy, April 2009. The G8 summit in July 2009 offered developing countries $20 billion for 'farming first', and for food supplies.
Nevertheless, the FAO predicts the number of chronically hungry will shoot up by 100 million this year – on top of the 1.4 billion people
already living on the poverty line.
2010. New Economic Foundation’s report, ‘Growth isn’t possible’ revealed that concern for climate change and the rising price
of oil has resulted in new policies that aim to substitute petrol and diesel with biofuels. There are, however, a number of unintended
consequences of agro-industrial biofuels. ‘The grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol…could feed one
person for a year; this shows how food and fuel compete. Rising prices of staple crops can cause significant welfare losses for the
poor, most of whom are net buyers of staple crops’. The rise in popularity of biofuels is creating competition for land and water between
crops grown for food and those grown to make biofuels. This has led to civil unrest around the world. For example, the ‘Tortilla Riots’ in
Mexico in 2007 followed the dramatic rise in price of corn (a staple food for poor households) as more land was given over for biofuel
production. Research published earlier in 2007 showed that the growth of palm oil for biodiesel for the European market is now the
main cause of deforestation in Indonesia.
Is the complete or even partial substitution of diesel and petrol fuels with biofuels possible?
If the UK directly substituted all its diesel and petrol fuels to rapeseed oil biodiesel and corn bioethanol, the amount of agricultural land
required would be approximately 36 million hectares. Total land area in the UK is just over 24 million hectare; less than 20 per cent is
suitable for agriculture.
To meet President Bush’s goal of increasing bioethanol production from the five billion gallons produced to 35 billion gallons by 2017
would require more corn than the USA currently produces.
To replace 10 per cent of global petrol production with bioethanol, Brazil would have to increase its ethanol production by a factor of
40, and would result in the destruction of around 35 per cent of the remaining Amazon Rainforest.
By increasing the consumption of bioethanol to around 34 million barrels per year by 2050, we find that this would require a 25 per
cent increase in cultivated land by 2050. This will clearly mean claiming a vast amount of land from the already stressed natural
environment.
But it is not only land for farming. It is also land for oil. It is not only 'neo-colonialists', it is the home governments that are selling
land off for revenue. For example, the BBC reports that it is six years since Chad's first US-led oil project at Doba came on stream.
Human rights activists in Chad say they fear a new Chinese-backed oil project will displace hundreds of people and will destroy at least
10 villages. The deal is directly between the Chadian government and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), without any
scrutiny from the international community. Work has begun to build a 300km (185 mile) pipeline from the Koudalwa oilfields in the
south of the country, to a new refinery north of the capital. Chad's government says those who have to move will be compensated. The
activists assert that the locals have not been consulted.
These land grabs are not only occurring in Africa. In Peru, in South America, for the first time isolated indigenous groups are uniting to
fight the Government’s plans to auction off 75 per cent of the Amazon — which accounts for nearly two thirds of the country’s territory
— to oil, gas and mining companies. They oppose 11 decrees issued by President García, under special legislative powers granted to
him by the Peruvian Congress, to enact a free trade agreement with the US. These would allow companies to bypass indigenous
communities to obtain permits for exploration and extraction of natural resources, logging and the building of hydroelectric dams.
Amazon Watch reports, April 2010, that the Belo Monte Dam Project on the Xingu River is boiling up to a conflict between the local
peoples and the Brazilian government and the development corporations and the courts. Indigenous leaders say that these plans will
affect more than 50 Amazonian nations representing hundreds of thousands of Indians. “If an oil company tries to come here, we will
block its path and block the rivers. We will not let them in and we will take strong action,” Jempe Wasum Kukush, a local leader, said.
Another, Tayajin Shuwi Peas, warns: “We are not scared and we will fight to the death over this.”
Put social objectives and sustainability first.....in business.
2007…..2008….2009….World in crisis….Capitalism in crisis.
Food crises: prices going up, and down. Millions starving. Hunger riots.
Food for fuel……corn, rice, ethanol.
Food for animal feed…more animals being eaten.
Oil Crises: prices rocketing, then slumping.
Production reduced by 2 billion barrels a day. Plans of the oil countries abandoned
due to loss of income.
Financial crises: funding based on debt. Debt defaults.
Banks and corporations and countries go bankrupt.
Environmental crises: pollution, deforestation. Desertification. Ice melt.
Coastal flooding.
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Professor Muhammad Yunus, a banker and economist, and founder of the
Grameen Microcredit Bank in Bangladesh, argues that even though there has been
crisis after crisis in the global capitalist economy, no-one has put forward alternatives to capitalism. On the contrary, centres of
socialism and communism, like the USSR and China, have become centres of capitalism, challenging the dominance of the USA. It is
accepted across the world that free market capitalism is better at generating profits,
which can be used to payback loans, to reward investors, to promote innovation, to fund expansion, corporate development, and
motivate the workers. But Professor Yunus wants to propose an alternative version of capitalism: social business capitalism – a
capitalism in which
[a] success is measured by the achievement of social objectives, not the size of the profits;
[b] loans are offered to the local communities to enable them to organize the projects and improve their living conditions, their
employment opportunities, their nutrition, their healthcare;
[c] the monies are invested to start social enterprises, such as farming projects; provision of shelter; eradication of disease, providing
eye care clinics, hospitals, pharmacies; constructing roads and railways; opening educational opportunities; all of which are organized
by the local communities:
[d] the owners and investors are selfless, altruistic, charitable, and not selfish and greedy;
[e] social entrepreneurs are encouraged by means of low cost loans from banks/cooperatives/municipalities/ non-governmental
organizations/charities to establish social business enterprises in competition with all kinds of other enterprises;
[f] the quality of the services and benefits provided to the customers is the most important criteria of success.
www.grameen.foundation.org
A key financial change in this social business capitalism is that loans are provided at little or no interest according to the necessity of
the social objectives and social benefits, and these social business loans are to be available to all, in particular, the poor. Many of
these poor people will have ideas about projects to improve their living conditions, achieve social objectives and provide social benefits
for the people in their local communities, but have no access to funding. For example, a collective of farmers may want to develop new
crops; or to devise more efficient and sustainable sources of water;a number of families in local villages may want to produce a solar
powered system of lighting, or water toilets or water purifiers;groups of teachers want to provide a mobile library service for all the
children and schools in a neighbourhood.
Within free market capitalism, none of these groups will qualify for loans as they do not have enough cash and have no collateral and
would be regarded as too risky, and their projects could not generate enough profit to be of interest to any of the 10 million $millionaire
potential investors. But within social business capitalism, these groups will all be entitled to small loans, say $200, to get started. If they
formed themselves into social business enterprises, they could offer proposals to local banks and local municipalities or local councils
and work to achieve their objectives for their own community, and then expand to provide for other communities. Their success will be
measured by the benefits provided for these communities, and the local funders will be free to invite other agencies or individuals to
contribute more money into the projects.
So what are the characteristics of a ‘social business enterprise’? How is it different to a profit business enterprise?
It will be owned and operated by the local communities, not by some funding agency or capitalist group in
London/NewYork/Paris/Singapore……..
An SBE is a non-profit, non-dividend, non-loss company set up for social benefit. But, it is not to be seen as a ‘loss-leader’.
An SBE is expected to be efficient and generate income so as to cover all costs. If it is operating efficiently, and the enterprise wants to
expand its services to more customers by investing in innovation, and greater production, it will be necessary to create profits to
provide the resources for expansion, innovation, development.
For an SBE, profits are intended to support the product and the customers, and not to enlarge the bank balance of the senior directors
and managers.
Prof. Muhammad Yunus reports that the concept of social
business ‘crystallized in my mind through my experience with
the Grameen companies. Over the years, Grameen has created
a series of companies to address different problems faced by the
poor in Bangladesh. Whether it is a company to provide
renewable energy, a company to provide healthcare, or yet
another company to provide information technology to the poor,
we were always motivated by the need to address social needs.
We designed these businesses as profitable companies to
ensure their sustainability so that the products or services they
provided could reach more and more of the poor on an ongoing
basis. In all these cases, the social need was the only
consideration; earning a personal profit was no consideration at
all. That is how I realized that businesses could be built that way,
from the ground up, around specific social needs, without relying
on the motive of personal gain.’ For example, Grameen Danone
Foods Limited [GDFL] was established, as the world’s first
consciously designed multinational social business in 2006.
GDFL was established with a view to conduct social business on
a no-loss basis. This means that no shareholder should lose
money from their participation in the business. Any profits
(beyond the cost of capital) generated by the company will be
re- invested in the growth and development of the business, in a manner that is mutually agreed upon by parties to the contract. The
first, and currently the only, manufacturing unit has been established on 800 m of land in Banani Betgari, an area close to Bogra town,
some 220 km north-west of the capital, Dhaka. The 7,500 ft. factory currently processes around 6,000 litres of milk on a daily basis to
produce 3,000 kg of yoghurt. It aims to increase production up to 10,000 kg/day by the third year and beyond. The facility is manned
by a total of 35 staff. The primary raw material, milk, is obtained from a variety of sources, collected by specially refrigerated vehicles
that operate across various collection centres. Premium quality full-cream milk is supplied to these centres by individuals, obtaining
micro-loans from Grameen Bank. Staff, at the collection centres, test the quality of milk with lactometers and if the minimum quality
standards are met, payments are made at a pre-agreed rate (currently at Tk20/litre). The milk is then transported and processed at the
plant, into fortified yoghurt, which is currently being offered in one flavour, and is packaged in 80 gm plastic cups, priced at Tk5/cup
(approximately seven cents), and marketed under the name ‘Shakti Doi’ (Energy yoghurt). At the moment most of the milk comes from
the Grameen livestock and fisheries farms and from various local villagers who raise cows. Over the longer term, GDFL is actively
considering developing about 500 mini dairy farms financed with micro loans by Grameen Bank. Such measures will lead to an
augmentation in employment and business opportunities for all stakeholders. GDFL is an eco-friendly facility designed to ‘ensure
environmental sustainability’. Water used in the plant is treated by means of special water-treatment equipment, which purifies both
incoming and outgoing water. This ensures that all water used in the plant is treated both before and after use. Such treatment helps to
meet water safety standards before being used, and subsequently ensures that the water returned to the environment is clean and
safe (Yunus and Weber, 2007; Sarkar, 2007). Harvested rain water is also sanitised and used in certain parts of the plant. Solar panels
generate renewable energy that is used in the facility, while a biogas plant supplies energy to meet any natural gas demands, such as
to illuminate the perimeter fencing of the factory. The containers in which the yoghurt is dispensed are made of cornstarch. These are
biodegradable and, if buried, are transformed by naturally accumulating pressure and heat into a nutrient-rich substance suitable for
fertiliser, which works just like compost for fertilising soil. The Bogra plant has a specially prepared pit for recycling used containers
(Yunus and Weber, 2007). The GDFL team is currently trying to design edible containers. These cups would offer extra nutrition, the
problem of trash disposal would be completely eliminated, and recycling would not be necessary.
Why produce yoghurt? The yoghurt is high nutrition, providing most of the daily energy requirements for children.
A report by the WHO and UNICEF (EHPA, 2006) warned that the vicious cycle of ill health and poverty could defeat human
development efforts, with children being the first to suffer. The provision of high quality foods secures the health and fitness of the
children. The report further warns that a global trend towards urbanisation is marginalising the rural poor, and putting a huge strain on
basic services in cities. As a result, families living in rural areas and urban slums are being trapped in a continuous, never-ending cycle
of ill health and poverty. Children are always the first to suffer from diseases caused by dirty water and poor hygiene, while the wider
impact of unhygienic environments drags back economic progress. For this reason, health should be the pre-eminent measure of the
success or failure of development policies in the next century. Grameen Danone is just the first social business. There is also an eye
care hospital in the area of Bogra. A joint-venture with Veolia of France is building a small water treatment plant to bring clean water to
50,000 villagers, in an area of Bangladesh where the existing water supply is highly arsenic contaminated. The water will be sold at a
very affordable price to the villagers to make the company sustainable, but no financial gain will come to Grameen or Veolia. Now
more and more companies are coming forward to partner with Grameen to set up new social businesses. Prof. Yunus observes that
some people are skeptical when he describes the concept of social business.
Who will create these businesses?
Who will run these businesses?
Why would anyone devote time, energy, and money to projects with no hope of personal gain? ‘I always say that, to begin with, there is
no dearth of philanthropists in the world, no dearth of donor countries giving grants. People give away billions of dollars every year. So
do donor countries. Imagine if those billions could be used by social businesses to help people. These billions would be recycled
again and again, and the social impact could be all that much more powerful. In the same way, money allocated by companies to
corporate social responsibility projects could easily go into social businesses. Each company would create its own range of social
businesses. We can also create Social Business Funds to pool funds from many sources and invest them in social businesses’. The
opportunities for launching social businesses are really limitless. The funds could be provided by governments, municipalities, banks,
private investors.
Chris Cook [ www.opencapital.net] informs me that it is more appropriate to think of social or community enterprises as limited
liability partnerships, rather than as organisations owned by the State or by a company. Such LLP's allow the stakeholders and the
investors to be members of the enterprise, and to be active in its organisation and operation. The LLP has two key attributes: firstly it
is an "Open" corporate body in which any stakeholder, whether or not they are Investors may become members, thereby aligning their
interests with other members. Secondly, the LLP makes it possible for those who invest money in an enterprise, or in capital assets,
such as land, to be members of a "Capital Partnership" alongside the users of the capital or capital asset. In essence, all these
stakeholders are brought inside the partnership, so their interests are aligned. The LLP delivers an ideal combination of the collective
and the individual; it's flexible and easy to establish while its partnership characteristics are robust enough to make it attractive to the
private sector. The more one reflects upon this alternative version of capitalism, the more one realises that there is no reason why a
profit motivated company could not become a social business enterprise by altering the funding, the objectives, and the business plan.
Profit maximizing companies can be social businesses if their stakeholders are the poor and the local communities.
For example, Grameen Bank falls under this category of social business. It is owned by its poor borrowers. The borrowers buy
Grameen Bank shares with their own money. These shares cannot be transferred to non-borrowers. A committed professional team
does the day-to-day running of the bank. Every year, dividend checks are sent to the borrowers, representing their share of the bank’s
profits. Bilateral and multi-lateral donors interested in supporting economic development could easily create social businesses of this
type. For example, when a donor wants to give a loan or a grant to build a bridge in the recipient country, it could create instead a
"bridge partnership" in association with the local stakeholders. A committed management team could be given the responsibility of
running the business. Part of the profits earned by the partnership would go to the local poor as dividends, while part would go towards
building more bridges. Many infrastructure projects, like roads, highways, airports, seaports, and utility companies could be built in this
manner. The social business is operated by the local communities, in partnership with the donors. Once the concept of social business
is included in economic theory, thousands of people will come forward to invest in social businesses because of the social dreams they
have in their hearts. Powerful multi-national social businesses can be created to capture a share of the benefits of globalization for
poor people and poor countries. Social businesses will either bring ownership to poor people, or keep the profit within poor countries,
since taking dividends will not be their objective. Direct foreign investment by foreign social businesses will be exciting news for
recipient countries. Building strong economies in poor countries and protecting them from plundering companies will be a major area
of interest for social businesses. It is worth noting that In the UK the movement towards ‘social enterprise’ has been developing, so that
now there are 55,000 social enterprises involving 650,000 people and contributing 8.4 billion GBP to the economy, with the support of
the ‘Third Sector’ of the government. April 14th 2010, it is disappointing to note in the New York Times a report outlining the ways in
which microfinancing/micro-lending, with global access to up to $60 billion assets, has been 'taken over' by different banks/finance
funds in countries such as Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, with interest rates of 50%-130%. Such lending is operated for the maximum profits of
the banks.
DEVELOPMENT AND REDISTRIBUTION Davos 2009
The rich countries, comprising less than 1.4 billion people, were represented in The World Economic Forum, January, 2009, in Davos.
The wealthiest people and corporations, and governments, in the world, gathered to discuss solutions to the failing world economy.
Many of them, who were interviewed on CNN, and BBC, were convinced that they were the best people to lead everybody out of the
financial crises, and to reorganize capitalism. They recognised that free market capitalism in general, and their banks in particular, were
to blame for the present and future crises. But they were convinced that free market capitalism is best, and must be mended.
Everything will be OK! They could not accept that the system was unjustifiable and unsustainable. They did accept that innovation
today will solve the problems of tomorrow. They considered that the biggest threats to prosperity in the future were the rising
population, and atmospheric pollution, leading to dramatic climate change: all of which would peak in 2050. At that time, the world
population is predicted to be 9 billion; the atmospheric pollution to be 650 parts per million; climate change turning farm lands into
deserts; oceans flooding coast lands up to 100 metres; fuel oils exhausted, forests destroyed, farm lands exhausted, unable to produce
enough food. The majority of the world’s population is already facing conditions of depletion and shortages and catastrophes and
disaster.
alleviating poverty:
It is not acceptable that less than 1% of the world's population control 80% of the global wealth! The solution to poverty is one whereby
money is redistributed.
Oxfam International www.oxfam.org/Email: advocacy@oxfaminternational.org has issued a report in April 2010 about The
persistence of poverty,which has cast doubt over the effectiveness of aid and lately, unleashed a barrage of criticism. Critics take
examples of where it is not working to argue that all aid is bad and should be reduced or phased out altogether. Of course it is true that
not all aid works, and that a lot of it could work better. But this is an argument for aid to be fixed – not abandoned-
Aid that does not work to alleviate poverty and inequality ; aid that is driven by geopolitical interests, aid which is too often squandered
on expensive consultants; aid which spawns parallel government structures accountable to donors and not citizens; aid conceived by
‘experts’ in Washington, Geneva, or London and imposed without meaningful consultation with, or participation by those it intends to
help; All such aid has little to do with the poor.
Aid critics argue that aid hampers growth, asserting that where aid is found, growth is usually absent. Arguing that because aid is found
in countries that are poor it must be the cause of low growth is like arguing that fire engines cause fires because they can be found at
the scenes of burning houses. Aid is found in the very places where these problems are worst precisely because it is designed to help
tackle them
*If governments had provided what they committed to in 1970, extreme poverty (at 2005 levels) could now have been ended 22 times
over.
*The shortfall of aid that has not been provided since 1970, when governments first committed to 0.7 per cent figure, now amounts to
over $3 trillion.
*In 2009, the only countries to reach or exceed the UN target were Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.
*On current trends, donors will not hit 0.7 per cent until 2050.
*Without vast increases in the aid being provided currently, Germany will not reach 0.7 per cent before 2027, and the USA until around
2055.
The long term solution has to be one whereby wealth is taxed, and the wealthy given incentives to give significant sums to charity, and
the proceeds used to provide housing, to facilitate subsistence farming, to prevent starvation, to cure diseases, to ease water
supplies, and provide sanitation; to build schools and teach billions to read and write; to make villages and neighbourhoods, places
where peoples can survive. What is more, such redistribution will have to be accompanied by serious attempts to stop fraud and
corruption so as to make sure that the monies go to the poor and not into the pockets of some third party. There is no prospect of the
poor majority becoming ‘rich’ and ‘comfortable’. The only hope is that they will survive in better conditions than at present. Most people
in the world today are poor, and living in appalling conditions. There is overwhelming evidence that rural areas account for three in
every four people living on less than $1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. Urban slum growth
is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin. Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of
three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions. The UN wants each citizen of the planet, by virtue of
his or her humanity, to be given a right to a minimum living standard including reduction of poverty, universal primary education,
gender equality, reduced child mortality, better health for mothers, medicines, a sustainable environment, and partnerships for
development. Yet figures show that many states will not have the macroeconomic capacity to guarantee these basic standards for
many decades to come – standards that will most likely increase in the future. By aiming for targets that are out of reach of the neediest
countries, the UN accepts that the provision of basic social services will be through long-term financial transfers - redistribution of
wealth. This change of philosophy implies a real revolution for the development community, which very few states have fully
apprehended. It sets aside considerations of economic viability, which used to count amongst the cornerstones of development aid.
The efficiency of a programme is no longer evaluated on the capacity of its recipients to emancipate themselves of international
transfers through economic growth, but through the sole improvement of the targeted populations’ basic living standards. To use a
common metaphor, it is as if we had set aside the idea of teaching the weakest states how to fish to focus on large-scale fish
distribution.
In a way, official development flows are moving away from a logic of investment towards one of global wealth redistribution. If financial
transfers and redistribution of wealth is to work globally there will need to be ‘global networks’ of allocation, enforcement and
supervision similar to the United Nations and its various organisations. Such systems are possible, as has been shown by the European
Union, and the efforts to alleviate poverty, and provide support for technology, amongst those members unable to afford it, such as
Greece. In addition, the EU has recently undertaken to police the billionaires, who are hiding their monies in Lichtenstein, and
Switzerland, by regulating the banks and taxing profit, with the cooperation of the governing authorities [as from August 2008] If there is
to be planned alleviation of poverty and the global redistribution of wealth, there will have to be global enforcement by the governments
of countries, or by a world government agency.
The Millennium Development goals are already a step in the right direction. They specify the basic standards of living that are deemed
necessary for all humans e.g. a roof over your head, a meal a day, sources of food and water, sanitation, an education in key skills,
medical aid. But such services can only be provided by redistribution, and regulation, of wealth, for they are a matter of social justice.
The current global crisis, in 2008, has produced a strategy for regulation: the UK has devised a plan whereby the government provides
financial support, and the banks and corporations accept government representatives on their boards, and agree to the regulation of
salaries and bonuses. This is the part nationalisation of key financial institutions designed to secure the monies of the depositors. The
plan has been accepted by the USA, and the EU. It will take a major effort to even begin the process of redistribution. And if the rich
people behave as they have always done, they will spend a lot of the time concealing their wealth, so that no one else can get hold of
it! The wealthy themselves must alter their ‘mindset’ and ‘cultural filters’ and recognise that their wealth depends on others, and those
others, require some of that wealth so as to survive. In future, we should be looking for a more equitable distribution of the goods of
the world!
alleviating the loss of wealth:
October, 2008.
It has become crystal clear that the wealth-holders of the world, represented by the G7, the G8, and the G20, and the World Economic
Forum are only really interested in alleviating the loss of wealth, not poverty.
The global financial crisis has seen $11 trillion put up to protect the banks and financial houses from bankruptcy and closure: that is,
the same organisations who had precipitated the crisis by their mismanagement of the capitalist system. The indifference of the wealthy
to the rest of us has again been shown by their greed at this time of crisis: the directors of Lehman Brothers proudly paying themselves
$300,000,000 each in the face of the collapse of their corporation; and directors of several UK banks [on the edge of collapse] going
off to luxurious hotels for their board meetings; the RBS paying their CEO a fortune to retire; and CEO's like Bart Becht of Reckitt
Benckiser being paid 22 million GBP; Tom Glocer of Reuters 19 million GBP; while the financial system collapses, and unemployment
accelerates; and so on! The 10 million very wealthy people are busy looking after their own interests.
November 2008.
The financial systems of the world are interconnected. The credit crisis in the USA has initiated bankruptcies of banks, funds, investors,
and countries across the globe, and the onset of a global recession.
One third of the wealth of corporations, and many individuals, has disappeared in bad debts! The World Bank and the IMF are running
out of money to support the liquidity of countries across the globe. And yet there are 10.1 million people, 0.0015% of the world
population, controlling $42 trillion of the GDP. If they contributed their fortunes to the World Bank and the IMF,[at a significant rate of
interest, of course] there would be more than enough money to resolve the global crisis. Or they could redistribute their fortunes by
means of charities and trust funds, to alleviate the poverty of the 5.4 billion people living on less than $10 a day.
Alas, the World Wealth Report 2008 [Merrill Lynch/CapGemini] tells us that the wealthy spend their monies on luxuries such as
diamonds, boats, cruisers,airplanes,helicopters,mansions across the world, diamond studded credit cards! and so on. Why should
they be bothered with the problems of the 'plebians', the poor?
It seems to me that
Anup Shah of Global Issues is correct when he declares that merchants and traders of the 'developed world' are only interested in
'development' when it protects their trade, profits, and wealth.
Greenpeace and Christian Aid are correct when they assert that 'development' will not happen as a result of capitalist projects
financed by multinational corporations. Such donors have all the money in the first place, and they will offer it on condition that the
clients exhibit 'good behaviour'.......responsible governance, elimination of corruption, and, of course, preferential treatment of the
donors! [www.ethicsworld.org].
If people are made secure in their villages or towns, then they will stay. The communities must be dynamic so as to ensure a creative
future, The local communities must be supported in their development of subsistence agriculture, or fishing or forestry which will
provide every local person with basic resources, rather than give into the offers of McDonalds or Fyffes or Cadburys and so on, to
follow industrial farming as well as other exploitation. It seems that a future is one of United Nations governance and regulation not the
incessant profiteering and exploitation of corporate capitalism.
WHAT SORT OF FUTURES?
At the moment we may be obsessed with the financial crises, the credit crunch, 2007/08/09, that are undermining the free market
capitalist system. But many regard these as temporary problems. More long term challenges go by the name ' climate change' in
response to greenhouse gases and pollutants. In 2009, it is increasingly recognized that climate change and environmental pollution
are generated by human action within market capitalism as a result of the emission of these greenhouse gases by factories and
transport, and the pollution of land by mining processes and farming methods, and the destruction of forests.
Is it possible to solve the greenhouse problem ?
The Stern Report, for the UK Treasury, 2006, and the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007), Working Group III, Fourth
Assessment Report, 2007, have indicated three conclusions:
First, the greenhouse problem can be solved,
Second, it can be solved at negligible cost, and
Third, it can be solved without any need to question the commitment to affluent living standards and economic growth.
Ted Trainer, of the University of New South Wales, in his latest analysis, published in The International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY, Vol.4, No. 4 (October 2008) argues that the cost and difficulty of resolving the greenhouse problem will be significantly
greater than is foreseen by these two studies.
Once the concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases has reached 450 parts per million, Trainer presents evidence [for the
technical details refer to the article] to show that the greenhouse problem cannot be solved without large scale reductions in the
volumes of economic production and consumption. He asserts that the greenhouse problem cannot be solved within a society
committed to free market capitalism and affluent “living standards”, maximum levels of economic output, and economic growth.
The "limits to growth" school, as represented by Ted Trainer, has been arguing for half a century that consumer societies are
fundamentally unsustainable. The Stern Review and the IPCC Working Group 3 Reports, on the other hand, have reinforced the
dominant faith in ‘grow or die’, and have seriously reduced the chances of the global sustainability predicament being recognized, and
effective strategies being adopted. Ted Trainer argues that the alarming greenhouse, energy, equity etc. problems now threatening us
cannot be solved within any capitalist/consumer society but require a vast and radical transition to very different economic, political and
value systems and structures. A simpler way is the only way forward. We must drastically reduce economic production and
consumption ?
Is it possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution if we stop the emissions of heat trapping gases, such
as carbon dioxide and methane?
A report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, January 2009, proposes that it is too late and that it will not be possible to stop climate change and environmental pollution.
Many people who worry about global warming hope that once emissions of heat-trapping gases decline, the problems they cause will
quickly begin to abate. Now researchers are saying that such hope is ill founded, at least with regard to carbon dioxide. Because of the
way carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and the way the atmosphere and the oceans interact, patterns that
are established at peak levels will produce problems like "inexorable sea level rise" and Dust-Bowl-like droughts for at least a thousand
years. The researchers describe what will happen if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide - the principal heat-trapping gas
emission - reaches 450 to 600 parts per million, up from about 385
ppm today. Most climate researchers consider 450 ppm virtually
inevitable and 600 ppm difficult to avoid by midcentury if the use
of fossil fuels continues at anything like its present rate. At 450 ppm
rising seas will threaten many coastal areas, and Southern Europe,
North Africa, the Southwestern United States and Western Australia
could expect 10 percent less rainfall. "Ten percent may not seem
like a high number," Solomon, leader of the research team, said
Monday, Jan 27 2009,"but it is the kind of number that has been
seen in major droughts in the past, like the Dust Bowl." In their
paper, Solomon and her colleagues say they confined their
estimates to known data and effects. For example, they based their
sea level estimates largely on the expansion of seawater as it
warms, a relatively straightforward calculation, rather than including
glacial runoff or melting ice sheets - more difficult to predict, but
potentially far greater contributors to sea level rise. The new work
dealt only with the effects of carbon dioxide, which is responsible for about half of greenhouse warming. Gases like chlorofluorocarbons
and methane, along with soot and other pollutants, contribute to the rest. These substances are far less persistent in the atmosphere;
if these emissions drop, their effects will decline relatively fast. Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton, praised the report as
a "remarkably clear and direct" discussion of whether it would be possible to temporarily exceed a level like 450 ppm and then reduce
emissions in time to avoid catastrophic events like the collapse of a major ice sheet. Oppenheimer said the new analysis showed that
"some dangerous consequences could be triggered and persist for a long, long time, even if emissions were cut radically." "Policy
makers need to understand," he continued, "that in some ways once we are over the cliff, there's nothing to stop the fall." Solomon said
it would be wrong to view the report as evidence that it was already too late to do much good. "So if we slow it down," she said, "we
have more time to find solutions”.
REFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (1991), Climate Change; The IPCC Response Strategies, Washington, Island
Press:
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007), Working Group III, Contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007:
Stern, N., (2006), Review on the Economics of Climate Change, H.M.Treasury, UK, Oct.
Trainer: as presented in The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Oct 2008.
Trainer: The Simpler Way…..www.ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au
Solomon,et al, NOAA, Irreversible Climate change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jan 2009, as reported in the
International Herald Tribune, Jan 27 2009.
Global Warming Could Forestall next Ice Age!
September through December 2009, there will be meetings at the UN, a G20 meeting in the USA, a climate change conference in
Copenhagen .
It has finally been recognized by world leaders that in order to implement global action to control climate change all the members of the
UN have to agree. This is a significant step forward, particularly in view of the fact that many people, including political leaders and their
experts, still have doubts as to the validity of climate change. Such doubts are held despite the overwhelming evidence of global
change: deserts that were once prairies; mountains that were previously covered by snow fields; northern plains once covered by
glaciers; large rivers drying up; coastal deltas converting to shallow seas. These doubts continue as part of the attempts by peoples of
the ‘developed’ countries to justify their levels of consumption and production.
In September 2009, yet another research team, this time from the Universities of Arizona, USA, presented a new set of findings in
Science -[www.sciencemag.org] that provided fresh evidence that human activity is not only warming the globe, particularly the
Arctic, but could also even fend off what had been presumed to be an inevitable descent into a new ice age over the next few dozen
millenniums. Summer temperatures in the Arctic region would be expected to cool for at least 4,000 more years, given the growing
distance between the Sun and the North Pole during the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. As a result of these periodic shifts, 17 ice
ages are thought to have come and gone in two million years. The last ice age ended 11,000 years ago and the next one, according to
recent research, could be 20,000 or 30,000 years off, discounting any influence by humans.
The last ice age buried much of the Northern Hemisphere under a mile or more of ice. But Dr.Overpeck, a study author and climate
specialist at the University of Arizona, said the rising concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases guaranteed warming at a pace that
could stress ecosystems and cause rapid melting of Greenland’s great ice sheet. The research team writes ‘the reversal of the slow
cooling trend in the Arctic, recorded in samples of layered lakebed mud, glacial ice and tree rings from Alaska to Siberia, has been swift
and pronounced. Darrell S. Kaufman, the lead author and a climate specialist at Northern Arizona University, said the biggest surprise
was the strength of the shift from cooling to warming, which started in 1900 and intensified after 1950. “The slow cooling trend is trivial
compared to the warming that’s been happening and that is in the pipeline.” Dr. Overpeck observed that “The fast rate of recent
warming is the scary part. It means that major impacts on Arctic ecosystems and global sea level might not be that far off unless we act
fast to slow global warming”. The new study was most significant for showing just how powerfully the Arctic climate appears to be
responding to a greenhouse-gas buildup.
How can we slow it down?
Live Green in future.
In future, if the rate of consumption is 100 times greater than now: and the exploitation accelerates, the resources, such as oil, and
timber, and coal and water will run out, and there will be little further development. In 2008 when 20% consume 86% of products,
pollution and waste and environmental degradation is at the highest, and climate change is accelerating, and extreme events more
frequent. In the USA and Western Europe some years ago, the Green movement evolved. The Green Party, and Greenpeace, among
other groups,such as 'Live Green or die', began calling for a new way of life: [ see Education section]
A ‘green’ way of living which eliminates waste, eating locally grown foods, working where you live, abandoning private transport, utilising
public transport, no more international flights, limiting international trade, generating energy locally, by wind, sun, water; stepping out of
the ‘rat race’.
But ‘No growth’ and the abandonment of capitalism is a future for the wealthy. Let us be realistic. Human beings will probably not do
anything in particular to limit atmospheric pollution,nor stop poisoning the earth, nor stop exhausting the rich diversity of resources, nor
over using water supplies…………...until it is too late.
At this time, I live in Thessalia in Northern Greece, in the city of Trikala. The area is a farming zone with agri-businesses. The local
residents dump their rubbish out on the country roads. The local industries, such as dairy, and cement, and fertilisers, flush their
containers in the rivers. There is hardly any concern for the protection of the local environments. The farmers are constantly
demanding to be allowed to pump more water for the irrigation of their fields, even though there is considerable evidence of the
lowering of the water table. Let us accept that when conditions begin to deteriorate such people will look around for others to blame,
and politicians to accuse, and refuse to see that they themselves are to blame.
For example, at the moment in 2008 there is a fuss about plastic bags, which could be stopped, if we all decided to stop using them.
A maritime survey has revealed that a large section of the Pacific Ocean is full of plastic things, floating in the water and not
decomposing.
and provide water
An IPCC report from the BALI climate conference, Dec 2007, tells us that 75-250 million people across Africa could face water
shortages by 2020. Water problems affect half of humanity: A report from the analysts Maplecroft, in 2010. says that the ten countries
most at risk are: Somalia (1), Mauritania (2), Sudan (3), Niger (4), Iraq (5), Uzbekistan (6), Pakistan (7), Egypt (8),
Turkmenistan (9) and Syria (10). [The ranking was based on an assessment of access to water, water demands and the reliance on
external supplies with countries like Mauritania and Niger more than 90 per cent reliant on external water supplies.]
Egypt, ranked eight by the report, is dependent on water from the Blue Nile, and is in the midst of an ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over
the construction of the Gibe III dam in Ethiopia, which it claims will further deplete its water resources. The dam, which would be the
largest in Africa, has also faced opposition from NGOs who claim it will devastate fisheries in neighbouring Kenya.[as reported in the
the ECOLOGIST July 2010]
A separate report has highlighted the worsening problem of water scarcity in the Himalayan sub-region of India, Bangladesh, China and
Nepal. Although none of these countries made Maplecroft's top ten list, the Indian-based Strategic Foresight Group (SFG) say they will
have to cope with 275 billion cubic meters less water within 20 years - more than the total amount of water currently available in just
one of the countries – Nepal. It says that while global warming may take two centuries to seriously deplete the Himalayan glaciers, some
impacts will be visible sooner. The Yellow River in China and the Ganges (with its tributaries) in India are expected to become seasonal
rivers by the second half of this century. It seems that shortages of water will be difficult to cope with. Experiences during 2010 reveal
that humans have great difficulty coping with droughts and with floods: areas that have received 3 metres of rain in winter, are in states
of drought in the summer. Adequate provision of water will continue to be problems across the world.
Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. Some 1.8
million children die each year as a result of diarrhoea. 443 million school days are lost each year from water-related illness. Almost two
in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day. More than
660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day. Access to piped
water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%. 1.8
billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In
the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets and average daily water usage is about
150 litres a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 litres day.) Close to half of all people in developing
countries will continue to suffer at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits. Millions of women
spend several hours a day collecting water. Crop yields could increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30%
in Central and South Asia. Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020. 20-30% of all plant and
animal species are at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise between 1.5-2.5C. Glaciers and snow cover are expected to
decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water. The report states that the observed increase in the global
average temperature was "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
and global dimming
Research has shown that air pollutants from fossil fuel use make clouds reflect more of the sun’s rays back into space. This leads to an
effect known as global dimming, whereby less heat and energy reaches the earth. At first, it sounds like an ironic saviour to climate
change problems. However, it is believed that global dimming caused the droughts in Ethiopia in the 1970s and 80s where millions died,
because the northern hemisphere oceans did not get warm enough to allow rain formation. Global dimming is also hiding the true
power of global warming. By cleaning up global dimming-causing pollutants without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, rapid warming
has been observed, and various human health and ecological disasters have resulted, as witnessed during the European heat wave in
2003, which saw thousands of people die. So in future, it will be hotter overall. The patterns of global warming that have emerged over
the last 50 years will continue. It does not really matter what is the cause…….natural change or human intervention. What matters is
that it is happening. Deserts will have expanded. Some areas will have become more tropical, others drier and more arid, and of
course, other areas will be colder, and wetter. It is known that the tropics have expanded since the era of reliable satellite observation
began in 1979. "The edges of the tropical belt are the outer boundaries of the subtropical dry zones, and their poleward shift could
lead to fundamental shifts in ecosystems and in human settlements," researchers write in the journal Nature Geoscience.[ref : BBC
Science]. "Shifts in precipitation patterns would have obvious implications for agriculture and water resources, and could present
serious hardships in marginal areas." The scientists behind the new study note that the tropical zone appears to be expanding much
faster than predicted by computer models. Some scientists argue that climate change is natural, and cannot be effected by changes in
human behaviour. This last week [1 May 2009] NASA has reported that the sun is showing signs of cooling, and has no sun spots. If
this continues, there will be significant changes to the atmosphere of the Earth. Natural or not, the impact of climate change will be
negative on humans and animals, and plants. One of the consequences of global warming that will affect everyone is the melting of ice
sheets and floes and glaciers and the rising of sea levels, and the flooding of coasts across the world. *Scientists in the US have
presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.[ ref: BBC Science 2008] Their latest
modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told
an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer
melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low
point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to
constrain their future projections. *In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly* says Professor Peter Wadhams. [2008.] Given that
most of the largest cities are to be found on coasts, many millions of homes will be flooded and destroyed, and millions of people will be
dispossessed and on the move. It is worth remembering that rises in sea level directly affect the flows of rivers, which directly affect
lands well inland. So areas that are well drained today may well become swamps and marshes in future. One has to accept that for the
rich, the consequences may not be so dire. But the vast majority of the world’s population is poor, and will be directly affected by
significant changes in climate and water levels. The rich, and rich communities, will have the wealth to take protective action. For
example, they will be able to build barrages to keep the sea at bay, and to drain lands to keep them dry. Although it was reported the
other day, in the Independent, in March 2008, that the Thames Barrage may not be able to cope with rises in sea levels, if they are too
rapid each year. and air pollution As more and more people live in cities, outdoor air pollution will be a growing problem. For example,
unless car transport is banned in the cities, there will be too many cars, belching out too much pollution, just travelling to and from work:
Much better for it to be ‘public transport’. More cities will make public transport systems, the system of choice. Temperature inversions
will keep the polluted air at the surface. Over time, breathing by the residents in cities will become more difficult. This will be
accompanied by increasing levels of bronchitis, asthma, and other breathing diseases. As temperatures rise, the tolerances of the
people will reduce, followed by more deaths. Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid biomass fuels [by poorer segments of
society] is a major killer. In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuel wood, charcoal and animal
dung—to meet their energy needs for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional
biomass for cooking, as do over half of the populations of India and China. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more
than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000
deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds
total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of
deaths from tuberculosis. As deaths increase, the rich
will move out. The poor will die in greater numbers.
According to UNICEF, at the moment, 26,500-30,000
children die each day due to poverty. Around 27-28
percent of all children in developing countries are
estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two
regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
and food aid
Food aid is intended to keep the poor alive. But the
tying of food aid with conditions that benefit the donor
has been one of the reasons food aid has not been
effective, and criticized for benefiting multinational food
companies and donor nations more than recipients.
At the same time, economic policies, such as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), enforced by the IMF and World Bank for decades
on poor countries have had a disastrous effect on health. The IMF/WorldBank have insisted on the payment of debt and the
abandonement of social medicine: The typical prescription for this economic medicine included: Privatization at all costs; Capital market
liberalization; Market-based pricing; and Free Trade; as a result of which ‘ Millions die each year, needlessly’ as one billion people lack
access to health care systems. Despite incredible improvements in medicine and health since 1950, there are still a number of
challenges, which should to solve. The adoption of long term financial transfers indicates a significant shift in the policies and practices
of agencies of aid and development.
"Go Forth And Multiply!"
That's what the human population has successfully been doing for thousands and thousands of years, expanding, exploring, migrating,
conquering, utilizing, evolving, civilizing, industrializing,and now, and in future, destroying the very land upon which we live [www.
globalissues.org]. Gandhi believed that the long distance transportation of goods,competitive trading, and relentless economic growth
would destroy the fabric of human communities as well as the integrity of the natural world [after Satish Kumar and opendemocracy.
net]. He was right.
Oligarchy or Democracy?
Elitism, communalism, municipalism, cooperatives, social enterprise ?
Different ways of enabling the poor majority to control their own affairs.
Political and social analysts may believe that direct democracy and communalism are ‘good’, and that they represent better ways of
local government for everybody. It is postulated that it is better for local residents to be directly involved in the organization and
government of their locality and taking decisions about the development of the area. But the evidence shows that no one is interested
in being involved directly!
Why should people in a neighbourhood come together in any cooperative enterprise?
Why should they be part of municipal organization?
Across the world, less than 1% of the population own more than 80% of the wealth of the globe. It is known that 10 million people, out of
6.8 billion, own $35-42 trillion of a global GDP of $54 trillion. This wealthy elite control the lives of the ‘rest’, 6.7 billion people. They
form a ruling elite, using their wealth to pay others to achieve what they want. In this society, individualism, and meritocracy are
approved by all, and lead us to accept elitism as natural. Most people believe that it is natural to be dominated by the successful,
wealthy few, and accept elitism as natural. In this meritocracy, the wealthy few are at liberty to run their businesses for their own profit:
the bigger the better. Profit is regarded as more significant than the interests of their workers and local communities: what is more, it is
believed that the biggest profits are in the interests of workers and communities! The Friedman fallacy. The majority, that is, 5.4 billion
people living on less than $10 a day, are poor, and dependent upon the rich for work and pay; and politically dependent upon the elite.
The poor will not see any possibilities for enrichment in working in cooperation with other poor. Local affairs are organized by the rich
and their associates and local candidates in local elections are the acolytes of the powerful, influential rich….the elite. One must ask,
why should the poor majority get involved with organizing their local municipality? Their perception is that all matters are taken care of
by ‘the elite’. It is natural for matters to be organized by the elite. Their views are that the elite get involved with local politics so as to
further their own business interests. Their judgments are that anyone getting involved in local politics is serving their own interests,
and those of the elite, not those of the community. What could induce the poor majority to be directly involved in local politics, in
communalism? when they are busy surviving, earning a living, looking after their families? And anyway all matters are taken care of by
‘the elite’! When do whole communities work together? cooperate? act in cohesion?
in unison ?......when they are in danger from climatic catastrophe or from acts of war; when they are unjustly treated, exploited,
suppressed; when a family or a tribe or a nation feels that it is under attack and is driven to act in unison, and in opposition to the
enemy; when there is a common need, such as water, food, shelter which generates a common purpose. But in all these situations the
‘communion’ is temporary. Once the threat is removed, individual enterprise reasserts itself. It is safe to say that any notion of
communalism is not intended to bring communities into conflict, division and separatism. Communalism is about citizens cooperating
and working together in order to bring about better futures for them all. But how can you bring ‘communalism’, or ‘direct democracy’ or
‘community action’ or ‘open democracy’ into operation, when so many areas in the world are dominated by an elite? In many parts of
the world, communities seem to be content to elect representatives and leave them to govern. In some countries, the people allow
themselves to be directed by dictators. In fact, most communities do not seem to want to be directly involved in governing their own
affairs, even though it is believed by political analysts that direct democracy would be better for all than representative democracy. The
evidence of history is that dictatorship benefits only the dictator and their friends e.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Hussein in Iraq, Franco in
Spain, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in USSR., Ataturk in Turkey. I wish to propose that direct democracy or communalism
involves a ‘mind change’, another ‘mind set’, a different morality, before it will come into operation. For example, individualism will be
replaced by socialism and communalism. Independence will give way to interdependence. Freedom of the individual will become
freedom of the community, once we all realize that we achieve objectives in unison, in community. Meritocracy will change to
cooperation, in which the most able help others, and the wealthy, care and share. Elitism will be rejected, and replaced by community,
teamwork, cooperation, socialism. The interests of the one will be transformed in to the interests of all. The most able are not better,
nor more worthy than the others, they are just different. The less able are not inferior to others, just different. Once we realize that we
are socially interdependent, socially equal, acting to gain social freedom within communities, then we shall be willing to manage our
affairs together. There is no point in doing so in a society in which our every decision is subject to the approval or veto of the boss, or
the chief, or the minister, or the chosen: the elite. In an interdependent society, our enterprises and projects and businesses will be
designed, planned, and organized to achieve social ends and benefits, to promote social freedom, to generate income for all in equal
measure. No business will operate for the profit and aggrandizement of the one individual. They will operate for the benefit of the
communities in the neighbourhood by distributing income equally, or according to community priorities and agreements. This open
society, based on our interdependence, will be governed by us all, in the interests of all. We achieve social freedom together, not as
one against one. It involves the rejection of any profit based capitalism, whereby all profits go to the elite. A direct democracy, based on
communalism, arises out of our social interdependence and the exercise of our social freedom. It will lead to the promotion of social
enterprises and the identification of social objectives and social benefits. This is a society in which there are no rich, and no poor, and
all have sufficient wealth to live in comfort; in which all gain the benefits of greater profits. This direct democracy will generate wealth
either as part of social business capitalism or as a system of common ownership. In a social business system: [a] success is measured
by the achievement of social objectives, not the size of the profits; [b] loans are offered to the local communities to enable them to
organize the projects and improve their living conditions, their employment opportunities, their nutrition, their healthcare; [c] the monies
are invested to start social enterprises, such as farming projects; provision of shelter; eradication of disease, providing eye care clinics,
hospitals, pharmacies; constructing roads and railways; opening educational opportunities; all of which are organized by the local
communities: [d] the owners and investors are selfless, altruistic, charitable, and not selfish and greedy; [e] social entrepreneurs are
encouraged by means of low cost loans from banks/cooperatives/municipalities/ non-governmental organizations/charities to establish
social business enterprises in competition with all kinds of other enterprises; [f] the quality of the services and benefits provided to the
customers is the most important criteria of success. A key financial change in this social business capitalism is that loans are provided
at little or no interest according to the necessity of the social objectives and social benefits, and these social business loans are to be
available to all, in particular, the poor. A ‘social business enterprise’ is a non-profit, non-dividend, non-loss company set up for social
benefit. But, it is not to be seen as a ‘loss-leader’. An SBE is expected to be efficient and generate income so as to cover all costs. If it
is operating efficiently, and the enterprise wants to expand its services to more customers by investing in innovation, and greater
production, it will be necessary to create profits to provide the resources for expansion, innovation, development. For an SBE, profits
are intended to support the product and the customers, and not to enlarge the bank balance of the senior directors and managers. A
system of common ownership is one in which all enterprises are owned and controlled by the members of the communities in specified
neighbourhoods. This system will not be possible in the short term simply because the communities will have no income. They will
require loans from the wealthy. But in the long term, the profits generated by these enterprises will be invested either in community
projects or in the betterment of the enterprises. All the workers will be paid wages as agreed by the ‘common owners’. This system does
not mean that enterprises are owned by the state. It does mean that they are owned by the local communities. It is clear that a
communalist society is not one dominated by an elite, nor one in which all wealth goes to the few. It is a rejection of market capitalism.
Success is measured by the quality of the services to the community. It is a society where wealth has been redistributed to the 100%
of the population.
J.Kelvyn Richards
hmr@kelvynrichards.com
