Put your head around these statistics. In 1965, at a time when states were becoming independent, there were some 95 million goats in the developing countries of Africa (FAO statistics), and relatively little poverty. By 2004 , with poverty widespread, there were some 225 million goats; that's nearly two and a half times as many. Is there a connection? And if so why are Oxfam, Farm Africa and other charities suggesting increasing the goat population?
In fact the increase is not uniform, and in some countries the goat population has actually declined. But a detailed look shows that those countries that have seen the largest increases in goats are also among those where poverty is rife. Zimbabwe's rose from 700,000 to nearly 3 million, Sudan from 6.8 million to a massive 42 million. And in Mauritania, which is one of the countries least suitable for massive goat populations, the goat population has doubled from 2.7 to 5.6 million. A quick glance at any other statistics shows that desertification increased, human populations increased, and in general it would be safe to say that quality of life decreased for large numbers of people.
Conservationists have known for as far back as I can remember (and that's over 50 years) that goats are a major cause of environmental degradation, particularly in arid climates. So why are charities advocating and subsidising a massive increase in an already disastrously high goat population? It is surely an extreme example of a short-term, quick-fix, to make a load of donors feel good for Xmas, but funding a long term environmental disaster which is looming around the corner.
I quote the text from Oxfam:
No if's or butts a goat is a great gift. Even the kids can get involved. You start with one and end up with a herd. They can then be sold to raise cash for school fees, or tools and start to reduce poverty. Best of all, the first female kid is given to another family and the process starts all over again. So why not invest in a goat?
How this gift helps
"As for the goats we received from Oxfam...I consider them a gift from the sky. Giving animals to people like us is very important. It gave me confidence and increased my family'’s security because we now had assets." Aiche Mint Imizine, Mauritania
Nowhere on the site is any indication as to what these goats will feed on. Or when this boom in goats will be halted. YOU START WITH ONE AND END UP WITH A HERD!
And you start with a fragile ecosystem in subsahelian Africa and end up with a desert.
I would emphasise, this is a personal opinion, but I have heard so many friends and colleagues express horror at the idea of even more goats in Africa, felt I had to write something.
Finally, I recommend that my readers also go to the Shell Foundation website, and read Kurt Hoffman's writings.
Friday, 25 November 2005
Monday, 14 November 2005
Conserving energy, biofuels and other myths
At long last some serious, sensible questions are being asked. In an earlier blog, the Chairman of the World Land Trust, Prof. Renton Righelato pointed out some of the problems engendered by biofuels - in particular the areas that would be needed to be cleared of agricultural production, or of forest. However, more recently I have been pondering the issues surrounding reduction in carbon emissions.
In its simplest form emissions reduction is being 'sold' to the public. Cut down on petrol consumption, save energy by switching off computers, TVs etc. This all appears to make sense. Switch to 'green', renewable energy, from hydro electricity, wind power, solar, etc. Again it appears to make sense. But does it really add up? Is there any evidence that the overall consumption of fossil fuels has declined anywhere in the world as a result of emissions reductions? And is there anywhere in the world where energy consumption per capita is declining? Or any country where total energy consumption is declining?
The facts are surely as follows: If we save energy, we generally save money. And the money we save is almost inevitably spent on something that consumes energy. If we generate renewable energy there are often enormous environmental impacts, such as the flooding of valleys and the building of industrial complexes for wind generation. And finally, however much the so-called developed world reduces emissions, the use of energy in countries such as India and China will continue to rise. In other words, the current proposals for emissions' reduction and the use of renewable energy will not have any significant effect on climate change, as the current policies do not actually encourage redeployment from once source to another, and from one country to another. The real issue that needs addressing, and is being steadfastedly ignored by Blair, Bush and other world leaders, is that of the expanding human population. I personally feel powerless to do anything about this issue (other than having not propagated myself), but there is one thing that all of us can do, and that is help preserve what little is left of the natural habitats on the planet.
I use the word preserve advisedly, since from the mid-1950s onwards the word conservation has steadily eroded the use of preservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) was founded as the International Union for the PRESERVATION of Nature. Fauna and Flora International was once the Fauna and Flora PRESERVATION Society; BirdLife International was once the International Council for the PRESERVATION of Birds (ICBP). By the mid-1970s it was increasingly fashionable to ally conservation with sustainable use, development and ultimately exploitation. I believe it is time to realise that what is needed is a lot more PRESERVATION. Now, preservation need not be incompatible with preservation. Sustainable development is possible alongside preservation. That is precisely what is being demonstrated by the World Land Trust partners, in projects part-funded by the WLT. But key to all these projects, is the PRESERVATION of large tracts of land. The preservation and protection of the land is paramount. Having achieved that, then sustainable development can be considered. AND, to return to the beginning, with 20% of carbon released into the atmosphere coming from the destruction of forests and other natural habitats, preserving as much as possible, is the surest, cheapest and most efficient way of combating global climate change. And on top of that, it also preserves and protects biodiversity, and species richness.
In its simplest form emissions reduction is being 'sold' to the public. Cut down on petrol consumption, save energy by switching off computers, TVs etc. This all appears to make sense. Switch to 'green', renewable energy, from hydro electricity, wind power, solar, etc. Again it appears to make sense. But does it really add up? Is there any evidence that the overall consumption of fossil fuels has declined anywhere in the world as a result of emissions reductions? And is there anywhere in the world where energy consumption per capita is declining? Or any country where total energy consumption is declining?
The facts are surely as follows: If we save energy, we generally save money. And the money we save is almost inevitably spent on something that consumes energy. If we generate renewable energy there are often enormous environmental impacts, such as the flooding of valleys and the building of industrial complexes for wind generation. And finally, however much the so-called developed world reduces emissions, the use of energy in countries such as India and China will continue to rise. In other words, the current proposals for emissions' reduction and the use of renewable energy will not have any significant effect on climate change, as the current policies do not actually encourage redeployment from once source to another, and from one country to another. The real issue that needs addressing, and is being steadfastedly ignored by Blair, Bush and other world leaders, is that of the expanding human population. I personally feel powerless to do anything about this issue (other than having not propagated myself), but there is one thing that all of us can do, and that is help preserve what little is left of the natural habitats on the planet.
I use the word preserve advisedly, since from the mid-1950s onwards the word conservation has steadily eroded the use of preservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) was founded as the International Union for the PRESERVATION of Nature. Fauna and Flora International was once the Fauna and Flora PRESERVATION Society; BirdLife International was once the International Council for the PRESERVATION of Birds (ICBP). By the mid-1970s it was increasingly fashionable to ally conservation with sustainable use, development and ultimately exploitation. I believe it is time to realise that what is needed is a lot more PRESERVATION. Now, preservation need not be incompatible with preservation. Sustainable development is possible alongside preservation. That is precisely what is being demonstrated by the World Land Trust partners, in projects part-funded by the WLT. But key to all these projects, is the PRESERVATION of large tracts of land. The preservation and protection of the land is paramount. Having achieved that, then sustainable development can be considered. AND, to return to the beginning, with 20% of carbon released into the atmosphere coming from the destruction of forests and other natural habitats, preserving as much as possible, is the surest, cheapest and most efficient way of combating global climate change. And on top of that, it also preserves and protects biodiversity, and species richness.
Sunday, 23 October 2005
Carbon sequestration and tree planting
Soon after the World Land Trust started taking an interest in carbon sequestration as a means of combatting global warming the critisisms started. The critics argue that planting trees and preserving forests is a "cop out" allowing the polluters to continue polluting. It was, they argued, far more important to reduce emissions and become more energy efficient. And I agreed.
However, over the past few months I have begun to seriously question the relative importance of emissions reduction versus preserving forests and reforestation. The latter is complex and controversial, since it depends on a variety of factors such as where the planting is taking place, the species used, and the ultimate use of the trees. But to me preserving standing forests is clear cut and conclusive. With something like 20% of carbon dioxide still resulting from forest clearance, forest fires amnd other destruction, anything that can be done to reduce this figure must be a benefit. That to me is demonstrable and self evident.
What is not so clear are the benefits of emissions reduction, and improved energy efficiency. As far as I can see, this will not actually lead to any overall reduction in the levels of non-renewable energy being consumed. It will simply change the patterns of use. A very simple model that I have used from time demonstrates on a local, domestic level what is involved internationally. If an ordinairy consumer reduces their energy consumption, uses an energy efficient car, cuts out pointless journeys, they can easily end up saving £500 or £1000 in the course of a year. So whoopee they can then spend that £1000, on what? A holiday in Sicily? Whoosh. All that energy in air travel etc. And even if it isn't spent on air travel, virtually everything we do and buy these days consumes energy. If Britain and the rest of Europe halved their imports of oil, it's all the more for China and India -- it won't be left in the ground for future generations.
That is why I now think the biggest single priority for the future of the planet is saving every last acre of forest, swamp and wilderness that we can. Acre, by acre, hectare by hectare, pound by pound, euro by euro and dollar by dollar.
However, over the past few months I have begun to seriously question the relative importance of emissions reduction versus preserving forests and reforestation. The latter is complex and controversial, since it depends on a variety of factors such as where the planting is taking place, the species used, and the ultimate use of the trees. But to me preserving standing forests is clear cut and conclusive. With something like 20% of carbon dioxide still resulting from forest clearance, forest fires amnd other destruction, anything that can be done to reduce this figure must be a benefit. That to me is demonstrable and self evident.
What is not so clear are the benefits of emissions reduction, and improved energy efficiency. As far as I can see, this will not actually lead to any overall reduction in the levels of non-renewable energy being consumed. It will simply change the patterns of use. A very simple model that I have used from time demonstrates on a local, domestic level what is involved internationally. If an ordinairy consumer reduces their energy consumption, uses an energy efficient car, cuts out pointless journeys, they can easily end up saving £500 or £1000 in the course of a year. So whoopee they can then spend that £1000, on what? A holiday in Sicily? Whoosh. All that energy in air travel etc. And even if it isn't spent on air travel, virtually everything we do and buy these days consumes energy. If Britain and the rest of Europe halved their imports of oil, it's all the more for China and India -- it won't be left in the ground for future generations.
That is why I now think the biggest single priority for the future of the planet is saving every last acre of forest, swamp and wilderness that we can. Acre, by acre, hectare by hectare, pound by pound, euro by euro and dollar by dollar.
Friday, 21 October 2005
Water, water everywhere. Bottles, bottles everywhere
In the USA alone, 30 million bottles are thrown away because of the developed world's obsession with bottled water. Some are plastic, some are glass. Some go to landfill, some are accumulated as litter by the roadside. Even those that are recycled (virtually none are reused) use huge amounts of energy in the recycling process. And there is no evidence that most of this water is any healthier than the water that comes out of a tap (or faucet for that matter). In fact some of it is quite possibly less healthy.
Oh, and I forgot to say, that figure of 30 million, is per day. Which equates to 10,950,000,000 a year. And that in the USA alone. Surely this must equate to one of the biggest environmental disasters of the 21st century. Millions of those people buying those millions of bottles of water worldwide must be claiming to be environmentally friendly; they must be making donations to green organisations. How can they justify supporting an industry that is helping destroy the planet as surely as any other energy-dependent industry? Pause and think of all the energy used in making the bottles, filling them, transporting them, disposing of them. And all for a commodity that comes almost free out of a tap.
I was horrified to see in the wake of the tsunami, earthquake and other disasters, relief organisations shipping pallet loads of small bottles of water. Compounding natural disasters with man-made disasters ? when water can be shipped (as it was in the past) in reusable tanks.
It has often been claimed that wars of the 21st century would be fought over water ? and seeing the profligate waste of water and the overpackaging of it, I cannot but think that the poorer half of the world must think the richer half is completely mad. And yet such is the power of advertising and marketing, I will also bet that the purveyors of bottled water are now looking to the impoverished countries of the world to expand their markets.
Oh, and I forgot to say, that figure of 30 million, is per day. Which equates to 10,950,000,000 a year. And that in the USA alone. Surely this must equate to one of the biggest environmental disasters of the 21st century. Millions of those people buying those millions of bottles of water worldwide must be claiming to be environmentally friendly; they must be making donations to green organisations. How can they justify supporting an industry that is helping destroy the planet as surely as any other energy-dependent industry? Pause and think of all the energy used in making the bottles, filling them, transporting them, disposing of them. And all for a commodity that comes almost free out of a tap.
I was horrified to see in the wake of the tsunami, earthquake and other disasters, relief organisations shipping pallet loads of small bottles of water. Compounding natural disasters with man-made disasters ? when water can be shipped (as it was in the past) in reusable tanks.
It has often been claimed that wars of the 21st century would be fought over water ? and seeing the profligate waste of water and the overpackaging of it, I cannot but think that the poorer half of the world must think the richer half is completely mad. And yet such is the power of advertising and marketing, I will also bet that the purveyors of bottled water are now looking to the impoverished countries of the world to expand their markets.
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
How environmentally friendly is Public Transport?
Every time I drive to Norwich I pass a bus either travelling to or from the city. And it is invariably nearly empty. A big, double decker bus, with two or three passengers. How can this be environmentally sensible?
There is a sort of mantra that goes along the lines "buses and trains good for the environment, cars and aeroplanes bad. Private transport bad, public transport good." But hang on, aeroplanes are public transort, every bit as much as buses. And on all the flights I have been on recently, there have not been many empty seats.
I also read somewhere (I have forgotten where) that some modern trains are now so heavy, and carry relatively fewer passengers, that they are less energy efficient than a private car with four passengers.
While I am sure that public transport makes sense in urban areas, I am equally certain that it is not environmentally friendly in rural areas. Huge empty buses lumbering around tiny country lanes, do not make sense, and are only viable because of the subsidies given by local councils.
Another fact that the green movement is ignoring when constantly pressing for more and better public transport, is that this simply encourages people to make more and more uneccessary journeys. Cheap efficient public transport makes it possible for people to live further and further from their place of work. And it makes it possible to travel more frequently. Airlines such as Easy Jet and Ryan Air demonstrate this very clearly and simply. Their flights are nearly always full, because they are so cheap -- or you caould express that the other way round. But the net result is that people now travel more frequently, and further afield. There is no difference in the economics of this phenomenon, between airlines and trains, it's just that we are more readily concious of the effects it has had in the airline industry.
Like so many aspects of the energy debate we are actually ignoring many of the fundamental realities. Perhaps the most fundamental of them all is that while energy is cheap, we will continue to use is. Cheap air travel is possible, because the tax on aviation fuel is less than that on car fuel. But beyond that, the other fundamental reality is that we, in the UK are, relative to most of the world, wealthy. We have large disposable incomes, that are not needed for survival. Food is cheap, and once we have paid for the bare essentials in life, we still have, on average a lot left over. Shopping has become a leisure pursuit, an end in itself (sad, but true). And virtually everything we spend our money on has energy implications. And while the world's population continues to soar, there is no possibility of energy consumption falling. And no possibility of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. That is why preserving natural habitats is SO important. Every acre we save is one less contribution to global warming, but it is also one more step to preserving something for the future. One day the world's human population will crash. It's not if, it's when (to quote health experts discussing bird 'flu'). It may not be in my life time, but it will crash. I want to see as much of the natural world left behind for the time after that crash.
There is a sort of mantra that goes along the lines "buses and trains good for the environment, cars and aeroplanes bad. Private transport bad, public transport good." But hang on, aeroplanes are public transort, every bit as much as buses. And on all the flights I have been on recently, there have not been many empty seats.
I also read somewhere (I have forgotten where) that some modern trains are now so heavy, and carry relatively fewer passengers, that they are less energy efficient than a private car with four passengers.
While I am sure that public transport makes sense in urban areas, I am equally certain that it is not environmentally friendly in rural areas. Huge empty buses lumbering around tiny country lanes, do not make sense, and are only viable because of the subsidies given by local councils.
Another fact that the green movement is ignoring when constantly pressing for more and better public transport, is that this simply encourages people to make more and more uneccessary journeys. Cheap efficient public transport makes it possible for people to live further and further from their place of work. And it makes it possible to travel more frequently. Airlines such as Easy Jet and Ryan Air demonstrate this very clearly and simply. Their flights are nearly always full, because they are so cheap -- or you caould express that the other way round. But the net result is that people now travel more frequently, and further afield. There is no difference in the economics of this phenomenon, between airlines and trains, it's just that we are more readily concious of the effects it has had in the airline industry.
Like so many aspects of the energy debate we are actually ignoring many of the fundamental realities. Perhaps the most fundamental of them all is that while energy is cheap, we will continue to use is. Cheap air travel is possible, because the tax on aviation fuel is less than that on car fuel. But beyond that, the other fundamental reality is that we, in the UK are, relative to most of the world, wealthy. We have large disposable incomes, that are not needed for survival. Food is cheap, and once we have paid for the bare essentials in life, we still have, on average a lot left over. Shopping has become a leisure pursuit, an end in itself (sad, but true). And virtually everything we spend our money on has energy implications. And while the world's population continues to soar, there is no possibility of energy consumption falling. And no possibility of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. That is why preserving natural habitats is SO important. Every acre we save is one less contribution to global warming, but it is also one more step to preserving something for the future. One day the world's human population will crash. It's not if, it's when (to quote health experts discussing bird 'flu'). It may not be in my life time, but it will crash. I want to see as much of the natural world left behind for the time after that crash.
Monday, 10 October 2005
A Letter to Nature
The Letter in Nature (vol 436/18 August 2005) by Orme et al.: "Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat" demonstrates the proposition that "hotspots" and many of the interpretations of the importance of "biodiversity" are potentially misleading when applied to the implementation of conservation policies for endangered species -- or at least that is the interpretation I inferred.
The paper deals almost exclusively with birds, which are generally accepted as one of the better-studied taxa. However, even these taxa demonstrate the failings of the hotspot concept. A glance at the maps immediately demonstrates one of my fundamental criticisms: all hot spot concepts, as currently used, have an automatic bias towards the tropics. Tundra, steppe, temperate woodlands and all other species-poor habitats are absent from any of the hotspot maps.
In order to understand the relative importance of locations for setting conservation priorities, hotspot concepts need to be allied in some way with the species diversity potential for an area; not treated as an absolute. There is absolutely no point in stating the obvious: almost all of Ecuador is bound to have a greater species diversity than an equivalent area of Patagonian steppe. However, this does not mean that from a conservation point of view a given area in Ecuador is more important than that of the Patagonian steppe, since however much of Ecuador is protected, it will not protect a single species of the Patagonian endemics.
If future researchers wish to develop the hotspot concept into something useful, then they must express data in proportion to the potential, not in absolute numbers. Furthermore, it is also essential to take into account the carrying capacity of a habitat; deserts and other species poor habitats usually need much larger reserves if they are to be effective. And finally the island effect needs to be taken into account when proposing conservation areas.
But meanwhile species continue to become extinct, and of greater interest to the present writer, would be evidence that the modelling and theorising has been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, and been shown to actually conserve threatened species any better than the hunches of informed biologists and field workers. Huge amounts of money in the form of research grants are expended on developing these models, and even reputable conservation bodies give grants for such purposes, but is it justified? The trouble with most of the scientific models is that they are nearly always based on biology and science. Unfortunately, in the real world, politics and economics are invariably more important. I would far rather buy a piece of forest that is actually on the market and under threat, than spend money on working out which piece of forest has the theoretical greatest number of endemic species. As far as I am concerned the economics are relatively simple: In the US or Europe, it will cost around $100,000 a year to keep a single fairly junior scientist employed on researching these issues. That will buy at least 4000 acres of wilderness. Often enough to save more than one species from extinction, as Bob Ridgely, Nigel Simpson and others have demonstrated in Ecuador.
But this is not to say I am anti-science. It's just that I think conservation money should not normally be used for research -- it's a form of fiddling while Rome burns.
The paper deals almost exclusively with birds, which are generally accepted as one of the better-studied taxa. However, even these taxa demonstrate the failings of the hotspot concept. A glance at the maps immediately demonstrates one of my fundamental criticisms: all hot spot concepts, as currently used, have an automatic bias towards the tropics. Tundra, steppe, temperate woodlands and all other species-poor habitats are absent from any of the hotspot maps.
In order to understand the relative importance of locations for setting conservation priorities, hotspot concepts need to be allied in some way with the species diversity potential for an area; not treated as an absolute. There is absolutely no point in stating the obvious: almost all of Ecuador is bound to have a greater species diversity than an equivalent area of Patagonian steppe. However, this does not mean that from a conservation point of view a given area in Ecuador is more important than that of the Patagonian steppe, since however much of Ecuador is protected, it will not protect a single species of the Patagonian endemics.
If future researchers wish to develop the hotspot concept into something useful, then they must express data in proportion to the potential, not in absolute numbers. Furthermore, it is also essential to take into account the carrying capacity of a habitat; deserts and other species poor habitats usually need much larger reserves if they are to be effective. And finally the island effect needs to be taken into account when proposing conservation areas.
But meanwhile species continue to become extinct, and of greater interest to the present writer, would be evidence that the modelling and theorising has been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, and been shown to actually conserve threatened species any better than the hunches of informed biologists and field workers. Huge amounts of money in the form of research grants are expended on developing these models, and even reputable conservation bodies give grants for such purposes, but is it justified? The trouble with most of the scientific models is that they are nearly always based on biology and science. Unfortunately, in the real world, politics and economics are invariably more important. I would far rather buy a piece of forest that is actually on the market and under threat, than spend money on working out which piece of forest has the theoretical greatest number of endemic species. As far as I am concerned the economics are relatively simple: In the US or Europe, it will cost around $100,000 a year to keep a single fairly junior scientist employed on researching these issues. That will buy at least 4000 acres of wilderness. Often enough to save more than one species from extinction, as Bob Ridgely, Nigel Simpson and others have demonstrated in Ecuador.
But this is not to say I am anti-science. It's just that I think conservation money should not normally be used for research -- it's a form of fiddling while Rome burns.
Friday, 23 September 2005
Making poverty history
Maybe I am very naive, but there's something about this whole 'Make poverty history' campaign, led by rich and famous 'celebs' that somehow does not ring true. We live in a world dominated by capitalism and one of the facts of capitalism is that the rich get richer, so inevitably, by comparison the poor get poorer. This is to me inescapable, and easily illustrated at the local, community level. If you are living on the breadline, and do not have a car, you go to the local shop and buy your food and other essentials. If you are slightly wealthier, you have a car, can drive to a supermarket and benefit from discounts. If you are even wealthier, you can shop around and afford to buy in bulk, taking full advantage of special offers, and laying in stocks when commodities are cheap.
We live in an era when governments are obsessed with low taxation. One does not need to be an ecomomic genius to realise that this benefits the rich more than the poor, since the latter are more dependent on the facilities that are provided by taxes.
So am I being naive, or can an economist out there explain how, without some neo-socialist radical redistribution of wealth, we are going to make poverty history? Hand-outs from charity and foreign aid programmes demonstrably do not work -- yet that is all that is really on offer at present. Well intentioned as I am sure they are, sending used computers to the third world, old wellington boots, used spectacles may make the donors feel good, but I believe they do nothing at all to solve the long term problems. Nor do big grants to, often, corrupt governments.
In fact, many of the solutions may exacerbate the environmental problems that organisations such as the World Land Trust are trying to combat. Extending irrigation, providing goats to poor families, 'modernising' agriculture, all have potentially serious damaging environmental impacts.
I don't know the answers, but I am pretty sure that the evidence of the past 50 years is that hand-outs and foreign aid do little to 'make poverty history'. They may even have caused it.
The main cause of third world poverty is surely the constant leakage of capital from the poor countries to the rich? And that is why the WLT's modus operandum is likely to be relatively effective in the long term. In essence all we are doing is providing the capital, to acquire land, the ownership of which then stays where it belongs, in its country of origin. That land cannot be sold to overseas investors, and income generated by the ownership of the land will help provide sustainable incomes for those working in and around the reserves; and protect the wildlife and biodiversity the reserves contain. It's a simple concept, but I believe it is effective and sustainable, and if we could carry out our activities on a much larger scale, then we might even be making a contribution to 'making poverty history'.
We live in an era when governments are obsessed with low taxation. One does not need to be an ecomomic genius to realise that this benefits the rich more than the poor, since the latter are more dependent on the facilities that are provided by taxes.
So am I being naive, or can an economist out there explain how, without some neo-socialist radical redistribution of wealth, we are going to make poverty history? Hand-outs from charity and foreign aid programmes demonstrably do not work -- yet that is all that is really on offer at present. Well intentioned as I am sure they are, sending used computers to the third world, old wellington boots, used spectacles may make the donors feel good, but I believe they do nothing at all to solve the long term problems. Nor do big grants to, often, corrupt governments.
In fact, many of the solutions may exacerbate the environmental problems that organisations such as the World Land Trust are trying to combat. Extending irrigation, providing goats to poor families, 'modernising' agriculture, all have potentially serious damaging environmental impacts.
I don't know the answers, but I am pretty sure that the evidence of the past 50 years is that hand-outs and foreign aid do little to 'make poverty history'. They may even have caused it.
The main cause of third world poverty is surely the constant leakage of capital from the poor countries to the rich? And that is why the WLT's modus operandum is likely to be relatively effective in the long term. In essence all we are doing is providing the capital, to acquire land, the ownership of which then stays where it belongs, in its country of origin. That land cannot be sold to overseas investors, and income generated by the ownership of the land will help provide sustainable incomes for those working in and around the reserves; and protect the wildlife and biodiversity the reserves contain. It's a simple concept, but I believe it is effective and sustainable, and if we could carry out our activities on a much larger scale, then we might even be making a contribution to 'making poverty history'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
