Showing posts with label International Aid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Aid. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Christmas is coming and the Goat is getting fat
Regular readers will know my views on goats, and will also know that there has been a massive drought and die off of domestic lo]ivestock in East Africa. Any details of what is happening, plus your views will be very welcome, as I am planning to write more on this subject.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Water, water everywhere
The Fourth plinth in London's Trafalgar Square was used by a student from Ipswich to highlight water awareness. Dressed as a toilet, he carried a placard stating that "water and sanitation are human rights". PR from Water Aid, the charity backing him claimed that 2.5 billion people lack basic sanitation. Presumably this implies that everyone has a right to a flush toilet.
A great idea, But has anyone actually given any thought as to where all the water for this human right will come from? Or where all the toilet paper that will be flushed down these toilets will come from? Or where all the effluent will go? Like so many of the quick fix solutions to world poverty being inflicted on the less developed world, virtually no thought is given to the environmental impacts. I have tried to gather data on this topic, and would be really interested to see copies of any correspondence relating to EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments]; I know for a fact that many aid charities do not carry them out, so it is always worth writing to charities to find out if they carry them out, and with what results. What is the Environmental impact of changing traditional farming methods to 'improved' western technology? What is the environmental impact of using artificial fertilisers, pesticides? What is the environmental impact of deep boreholes for water?
I do not have a problem with emergency aid, following natural or even man-made disasters, but long-term, so called development aid, is often ill thought out, with little or no thought about the long-term environmental consequences. And providing water for everyone to use with western style profligacy is one of the biggest potential disasters I can think of. Meanwhile, we at the World Land Trust are working with several of our partner NGOs, to conserve watersheds. They are just as important as the tropical forests that often grow around them.
Is a flush toilet a basic human right or is it a luxury?
A great idea, But has anyone actually given any thought as to where all the water for this human right will come from? Or where all the toilet paper that will be flushed down these toilets will come from? Or where all the effluent will go? Like so many of the quick fix solutions to world poverty being inflicted on the less developed world, virtually no thought is given to the environmental impacts. I have tried to gather data on this topic, and would be really interested to see copies of any correspondence relating to EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments]; I know for a fact that many aid charities do not carry them out, so it is always worth writing to charities to find out if they carry them out, and with what results. What is the Environmental impact of changing traditional farming methods to 'improved' western technology? What is the environmental impact of using artificial fertilisers, pesticides? What is the environmental impact of deep boreholes for water?
I do not have a problem with emergency aid, following natural or even man-made disasters, but long-term, so called development aid, is often ill thought out, with little or no thought about the long-term environmental consequences. And providing water for everyone to use with western style profligacy is one of the biggest potential disasters I can think of. Meanwhile, we at the World Land Trust are working with several of our partner NGOs, to conserve watersheds. They are just as important as the tropical forests that often grow around them.
Is a flush toilet a basic human right or is it a luxury?
Monday, 11 May 2009
Monitoring mega-expenditure of NGOs
My regular readers will know that I am a critic of foreign aid, and I am also a critic of Oxfam. I also monitor many websites of charities, mostly to see how they present themselves, and to ensure that any criticisms that might be made do not apply to the World land Trust. A major problem with any large charity is that it almost impossible to understand what really goes on when reading their accounts. When a charity the size of Oxfam presents its accounts, it is done in round millions, and it is almost impossible to know what these figure concern. The charity can give away as much or as little information as it likes. But it does lead to an enormous potential for misunderstanding. I am sure there are very good explanations, for example, on the Oxfam website it indicates that grants paid to overseas recipients in FYE 2008 totalled £16 million going to 50 organisations. Yet in the same annual rport it is stated that the UK payroll cost £93 million, with 25 staff earning over £60,000 p.a. As I wrote above, I am sure there is a perfectly good reason for these figures, but what it does show is how difficult it is to undertand accounts when they are hidden in fiogures with 6 noughts on the end.
One of the more obviousreasons can be found by looking at the sources of income, and since a huge amount comes from governments, it is likely that this is expected to be spent on UK staff so that it stays at home to be taxed, and therefore returned to sender....
One of the more obviousreasons can be found by looking at the sources of income, and since a huge amount comes from governments, it is likely that this is expected to be spent on UK staff so that it stays at home to be taxed, and therefore returned to sender....
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo
Dead Aid is a brilliant summary of some of the views I have been espousing for many years. The Authoress, unlike me, can back it all up with facts; she is a Zambian, who has worked in the World Bank, and her book is a devastating indictment of foreign aid in Africa. I am sure all the government aid agencies will dismiss it -- they would wouldn't they? And I am sure Oxfam, Christian Aid, St Geldorf and all the others trying to 'Wipe out Poverty in Africa' will dismiss it. And I am sure not every little detail is interpreted exactly right. But I am also sure that the overall thesis has hit the nail on the head.
Foreign aid is the cause of corruption and poverty in most of Africa. And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this book. Before giving another cent or Penny read it.
Emergency aid is one thing, and will always be needed, but so-called 'development aid' is quite a different matter, and this is the aid that actually helps prevent real development, and feeds corruption. And it also has often huge benefits to the donors. In fact after reading Moyo's account it seems that these are the only real long term beneficiaries: pop-stars, politicians and donors get a real feelgood kick out of it, meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
As she points out, governments seem all to eager to listen to Bono and Geldorf -- but how often do they listen to those who actually live and try to work in Sub-Saharan Africa? Why should a pop-star know more than them?
I would actually go slightly further than Moyo, as I see elements of cultural imperialism in most aid programmes. Pushing cows that produce more milk into African economies, where the majority of the inhabitants are lactose intolerant is a classic example. I would also argue that there is little difference between the cultural imperialism of the 21st century and the Missionary zeal of the 19th century. The end results are not dissimilar: a form of ethnicide.
Foreign aid is the cause of corruption and poverty in most of Africa. And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this book. Before giving another cent or Penny read it.
Emergency aid is one thing, and will always be needed, but so-called 'development aid' is quite a different matter, and this is the aid that actually helps prevent real development, and feeds corruption. And it also has often huge benefits to the donors. In fact after reading Moyo's account it seems that these are the only real long term beneficiaries: pop-stars, politicians and donors get a real feelgood kick out of it, meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
As she points out, governments seem all to eager to listen to Bono and Geldorf -- but how often do they listen to those who actually live and try to work in Sub-Saharan Africa? Why should a pop-star know more than them?
I would actually go slightly further than Moyo, as I see elements of cultural imperialism in most aid programmes. Pushing cows that produce more milk into African economies, where the majority of the inhabitants are lactose intolerant is a classic example. I would also argue that there is little difference between the cultural imperialism of the 21st century and the Missionary zeal of the 19th century. The end results are not dissimilar: a form of ethnicide.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Volunteer Travellers
In the course of work today I had cause to look at a couple of websites for volunteer travellers -- those going abroad to do good works. In fact while the intentions are often very good, I do have serious reservations about how much real good most of these young travellers do, For a start they can often be taking away employment from locals. The average trip will cost the volunteer something around £1500-£3000 for a month's 'holiday' -- often a year's employment for a local. But more important is the lack of transparency of many of the companies involved. Most of the young altruistic volunteers assume that the companies are also philanthropic. But a quick look at the websites reveals...... very little. Unlike charities, they do not have to publish their accounts, nor reveal who is paid what.
Whenever I am asked about gap year volunteering, or 'expeditions' I always say 'caveat emptor'. Earthwatch and a few (relatively few, I am afraid) do a great job, but there are a lot of others who are little more than travel companies with the profits going to the shareholders or ownwers -- even when they appear altruistic.
Whenever I am asked about gap year volunteering, or 'expeditions' I always say 'caveat emptor'. Earthwatch and a few (relatively few, I am afraid) do a great job, but there are a lot of others who are little more than travel companies with the profits going to the shareholders or ownwers -- even when they appear altruistic.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Africa, Goats, Oxfam, Christian Aid and impending disaster
I have just returned from Africa for a series of meetings with local conservation groups, and the World Land Trust will probably be supporting some of the important initiatives by the NGO sector in both Kenya and Tanzania. Land is under considerable pressure, and one of the main reasons is the rapid spread of agriculture, and to a lesser degree the mechanisation of agriculture. Added to this the dramatic and almost out of control increase in the human population has meant that more and more land once being cultivated is taken over for housing, and other forms of urban ‘development’. All this means there is a significant decrease in the area of grasslands, open woodlands and other habitats where once domestic livestock as well as wildlife once grazed. Add to that the fact that in the past 50 years the numbers of domestic goats, sheep, cattle, camels and other grazing animals have increased even faster than the human population, and it is hardly surprising that overgrazing is widespread.
But still foreign aid charities sell the idea that having lots of goats or even camels, is a way out of poverty for Africa. Of course for the individual that gets a goat or a camel, it probably is. But since none of the donor organisations appear to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects, little is known about either the impact of all these animals or the impact of the message that is being delivered. I am more concerned about the latter. If the developed world aid charities go around pretending that goats can be bred in unlimited quantities as a solution to poverty, they should at least be able to produce some evidence. In most African pastoralist societies, goats and other livestock are a form of wealth, and accumulated. Camels could be considered as a ‘rolls royce’ symbol in some societies. So dishing out livestock to the poorer members of society may have social implications that the donors are unaware of. Certainly when I met with representatives of Oxfam (one of the few organisations even prepared to discuss the issue) they were unable to point me in the direction of any research into this area.
And my final criticism of the goat and cow brigade is the way they market the idea that they are often providing ‘improved’ breed. I.e ones that give higher milk yields. On my visit to East Africa, I saw very few Ankole cattle this time, but loads of the ‘Holstein’ types. Is it really a good idea to replace cattle that have co-evolved with their local herders, to be suitable for the local conditions, with those that have been evolved to suit the conditions of northern Europe? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that in Europe there is considerable concern of the loss of genetic diversity in domestic livestock, and societies have sprung up to conserve rare breeds. But rare breeds are being created even faster in Africa, with very little concern by the aid agencies. I also know that the introduction of modern veterinary practices also produces short term gains, but may also wipe out long term, much cheaper husbandry practices, as it has done in the north. As a simple example, and one of my hobby horses, in England good husbandry was used to largely control parasites in livestock, but since the introduction of ivermectin and other pesticides, it has been easy to ‘clean’ animals. But this does not take into account the fact that those pesticides also wipe out a huge swathe of other invertebrates, particularly scatophagous insects. Vultures are pretty well extinct in India, entirely because of veterinary medicines, soon to be used more widely in Africa perhaps. The only winners are the northern hemisphere drug companies.
I am not the first to criticise the aid agencies, and certainly won’t be the last. But my recent visit to Africa certainly confirmed my worst fears. Aid charities far from helping solve the issues of poverty, are probably exacerbating it, despite their good intentions. And I can list a few of the reasons why I believe this is the case
1. Most interventions do not appear to have a clear exit strategy
2. Most interventions rely on western, and often inappropriate, technology
3. Most interventions are designed to make the donors feel good, not deliver the maximum long term benefits to the recipient
4. Very little is being done to address the real cause of poverty, i.e the explosive growth in human populations.
5. Aid encourages corruption
6. Aid absolves governments of responsibility for their own populations
7. Many aid interventions make the recipients dependent on long-term support from the donor countries and create debt.
I realise that for many of the charities and charity gift catalogues, 'Buying a goat' is only a cynical way of playing on emotions to raise funds for worthy causes. I know, because the small print often says so. But what really concerns me is the message that is being spread across the Internet, that increasing the volume of livestock across Africa, will help solve the continents appalling problems. I asked all the African conservationists I met, and all agreed that the main cause of habitat degradation was over-grazing and the spread of agriculture into marginal lands. Both of which are being actively encouraged by aid charities. This is not simply a wildlife issue. It means that short-term gains are going to lead to even greater problems for humans in the not too distant future.
I urge my readers to ask as many of the aid charities as possible to publish their Environmental Impact Assessments, not just for goat projects but for all projects. I think you will be surprised how few actually exist.
But still foreign aid charities sell the idea that having lots of goats or even camels, is a way out of poverty for Africa. Of course for the individual that gets a goat or a camel, it probably is. But since none of the donor organisations appear to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects, little is known about either the impact of all these animals or the impact of the message that is being delivered. I am more concerned about the latter. If the developed world aid charities go around pretending that goats can be bred in unlimited quantities as a solution to poverty, they should at least be able to produce some evidence. In most African pastoralist societies, goats and other livestock are a form of wealth, and accumulated. Camels could be considered as a ‘rolls royce’ symbol in some societies. So dishing out livestock to the poorer members of society may have social implications that the donors are unaware of. Certainly when I met with representatives of Oxfam (one of the few organisations even prepared to discuss the issue) they were unable to point me in the direction of any research into this area.
And my final criticism of the goat and cow brigade is the way they market the idea that they are often providing ‘improved’ breed. I.e ones that give higher milk yields. On my visit to East Africa, I saw very few Ankole cattle this time, but loads of the ‘Holstein’ types. Is it really a good idea to replace cattle that have co-evolved with their local herders, to be suitable for the local conditions, with those that have been evolved to suit the conditions of northern Europe? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that in Europe there is considerable concern of the loss of genetic diversity in domestic livestock, and societies have sprung up to conserve rare breeds. But rare breeds are being created even faster in Africa, with very little concern by the aid agencies. I also know that the introduction of modern veterinary practices also produces short term gains, but may also wipe out long term, much cheaper husbandry practices, as it has done in the north. As a simple example, and one of my hobby horses, in England good husbandry was used to largely control parasites in livestock, but since the introduction of ivermectin and other pesticides, it has been easy to ‘clean’ animals. But this does not take into account the fact that those pesticides also wipe out a huge swathe of other invertebrates, particularly scatophagous insects. Vultures are pretty well extinct in India, entirely because of veterinary medicines, soon to be used more widely in Africa perhaps. The only winners are the northern hemisphere drug companies.
I am not the first to criticise the aid agencies, and certainly won’t be the last. But my recent visit to Africa certainly confirmed my worst fears. Aid charities far from helping solve the issues of poverty, are probably exacerbating it, despite their good intentions. And I can list a few of the reasons why I believe this is the case
1. Most interventions do not appear to have a clear exit strategy
2. Most interventions rely on western, and often inappropriate, technology
3. Most interventions are designed to make the donors feel good, not deliver the maximum long term benefits to the recipient
4. Very little is being done to address the real cause of poverty, i.e the explosive growth in human populations.
5. Aid encourages corruption
6. Aid absolves governments of responsibility for their own populations
7. Many aid interventions make the recipients dependent on long-term support from the donor countries and create debt.
I realise that for many of the charities and charity gift catalogues, 'Buying a goat' is only a cynical way of playing on emotions to raise funds for worthy causes. I know, because the small print often says so. But what really concerns me is the message that is being spread across the Internet, that increasing the volume of livestock across Africa, will help solve the continents appalling problems. I asked all the African conservationists I met, and all agreed that the main cause of habitat degradation was over-grazing and the spread of agriculture into marginal lands. Both of which are being actively encouraged by aid charities. This is not simply a wildlife issue. It means that short-term gains are going to lead to even greater problems for humans in the not too distant future.
I urge my readers to ask as many of the aid charities as possible to publish their Environmental Impact Assessments, not just for goat projects but for all projects. I think you will be surprised how few actually exist.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Annual Goat Rant
Several friends and colleagues have contacted me over my silence on goats this year. I am sorry, I simply have not had the time. It is very depressing to see Oxfam and the rest still flogging goats to Africa. If the world is led to believe that increasing the goat (and other livestock) population is going to solve the problems of poverty in Africa, we truly are in a mess. If the aid agencies continue short term 'solutions' without carrying out Environmental Impact Assessments, it is not unreasonable to accuse them of potentially creating the problems they are trying to solve.
With habitat degradation continuing apace in Africa, any programme that suggests that increasing the numbers of livestock should be very seriously questioned. And that is without taking into account the social aspects. Giving camels and other livestock away in communities where these are not so much a part of a subsistence economy, but part of the wealth bartering system, has serious ramifications, and I cannot find any analysis of this by the agencies concerned.
And finally, what happens to the huge flocks of goats that the agencies claim are being produced by giving a poor African a single animal, when a drought come along?
If anyone can find some respected environmental conservationists who believe that increasing the numbers of goats in Africa is a way out of poverty, I would be very interested to see what they have published. But every single conservationist I have spoken to thinks it is a mistake. A big mistake.
With habitat degradation continuing apace in Africa, any programme that suggests that increasing the numbers of livestock should be very seriously questioned. And that is without taking into account the social aspects. Giving camels and other livestock away in communities where these are not so much a part of a subsistence economy, but part of the wealth bartering system, has serious ramifications, and I cannot find any analysis of this by the agencies concerned.
And finally, what happens to the huge flocks of goats that the agencies claim are being produced by giving a poor African a single animal, when a drought come along?
If anyone can find some respected environmental conservationists who believe that increasing the numbers of goats in Africa is a way out of poverty, I would be very interested to see what they have published. But every single conservationist I have spoken to thinks it is a mistake. A big mistake.
Monday, 8 December 2008
The endangered lion
Lion numbers have plummetted from around 450,000 ca. 50 years ago to around 20,000. When I was the secretary for the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society some 20 years ago I suggested to the Council that the lion was in serious difficulty,and that the society (now known as Fauna and Flora International) should initiate a conservation programme -- a proposal that was turned down. I pointed out at the time that the lion together with the unicorn was on the royal coat of arms. In fact, one of the origins of the unicorn has been suggested as the Arabian or White Oryx -- a species saved from extinction by an initiative of the Fauna Preservation Society (as it was then).
But still lion numbers decline, and will continue to do so as more and more of their territory is taken over by humans and their ever expanding flocks of domestic livestock (particularly if charities continue to encourage more and more goats as Christmas presents). The fragmentation of their habitat is the real problem. While lions are not Territorial like most cats, they do need large numbers of prey, each time habitat is fragmented, the survival of lions is threatened. And because they are large predators, and both humans and cattle, as well as sheep and goats are all well within their natural prey range, conflict is inevitable. Lions were exterminated in Europe over 2000 years ago, and throughout much of the Levant and Middle East by the early 20th century. India has lost all but one tiny population. The Cape Lion has gone, and so has the North African population. The rest are pretty well doomed, unless we can create corridor ts between the fragmented patchwork of national parks and other protected areas. The World Land Trust is pioneering the creation of corridors, but as yet has not been able to do so in Africa. We probably need at least $2 million to kick start such work. Any Offers?
But still lion numbers decline, and will continue to do so as more and more of their territory is taken over by humans and their ever expanding flocks of domestic livestock (particularly if charities continue to encourage more and more goats as Christmas presents). The fragmentation of their habitat is the real problem. While lions are not Territorial like most cats, they do need large numbers of prey, each time habitat is fragmented, the survival of lions is threatened. And because they are large predators, and both humans and cattle, as well as sheep and goats are all well within their natural prey range, conflict is inevitable. Lions were exterminated in Europe over 2000 years ago, and throughout much of the Levant and Middle East by the early 20th century. India has lost all but one tiny population. The Cape Lion has gone, and so has the North African population. The rest are pretty well doomed, unless we can create corridor ts between the fragmented patchwork of national parks and other protected areas. The World Land Trust is pioneering the creation of corridors, but as yet has not been able to do so in Africa. We probably need at least $2 million to kick start such work. Any Offers?
Thursday, 18 September 2008
The goat season approaches
Last year the Environment Funders Network published a report "Where the Green Grants Went". And I presume it represents the interests of the Trusts and Foundations that make up the Environment Funders Network. In this report, one of the more bizarre pieces of information I came across was that these environmental funders had given grants totalling £1.3 million over a three year period to Farm Africa, an organisation that specialises in promoting livestock use in Africa. And in particular 'sells' goats and other livestock as a way of fundraising. Now any reader of this column will know that I have railed against this for several years. Promoting livestock in Africa, is about as environmentally irresponsible as one can get. The number of goats, cows, sheep, camels and other livestock has spiralled over the past half century, and habitat degradation is a direct result. So the question is how is funding organisation that promotes expanding the keeping of livestock and green?
I will, once again, urge everyone to question the agencies involved, as to why they see fit to encourage more and more livestock in Africa, in the full knowledge that one of the main causes of environmental damage is overgrazing by livestock, and it has a direct correlation with poverty. And also ask all the agencies involved to produce the Environmental Impact Assessments they carried out before dishing out more livestock. Finally, they could be asked about the studies carried out as to the likely socio-economic perturbations caused by hand-outs of livestock.
I know the answer to some of these questions: very few environmental impact assessments have ever been carried out, and very little information about the social impacts of the hand outs has been published. The aid agencies and charities should be held to account.
I will, once again, urge everyone to question the agencies involved, as to why they see fit to encourage more and more livestock in Africa, in the full knowledge that one of the main causes of environmental damage is overgrazing by livestock, and it has a direct correlation with poverty. And also ask all the agencies involved to produce the Environmental Impact Assessments they carried out before dishing out more livestock. Finally, they could be asked about the studies carried out as to the likely socio-economic perturbations caused by hand-outs of livestock.
I know the answer to some of these questions: very few environmental impact assessments have ever been carried out, and very little information about the social impacts of the hand outs has been published. The aid agencies and charities should be held to account.
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
The Population Bomb. And the causes of poverty. An update
Readers of my blog, will be familiar with my rants about how we are ignoring the real issues that drive climate change, endanger species, destroy habitats: i.e. rapidly increasing human populations.
I have just returned from an extensive visit to South America, and unlike Africa, this is a part of the world that is experiencing rapid economic growth. Increasing prosperity. And even more rapid destruction of natural resources.
I was also able to see first hand the results of doing-good by aid charities and missionaries. Not a pleasant experience. And it reminded me of the response I got from one of the world's largest aid charities when I asked them what their policy on human populations was. Here it is, verbatim:
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
To me, it is utterly incomprehensible how an organisation delivering aid to human populations in the most impoverished areas of the world does not have a policy on something so indelibly linked with poverty. And of course, the root cause, which they claim to be tackling, is obviously unsustainable population growth.
And presumably the sustainable economies they are helping build, are based on the unsustainable market economies of the donor countries.
I have just returned from an extensive visit to South America, and unlike Africa, this is a part of the world that is experiencing rapid economic growth. Increasing prosperity. And even more rapid destruction of natural resources.
I was also able to see first hand the results of doing-good by aid charities and missionaries. Not a pleasant experience. And it reminded me of the response I got from one of the world's largest aid charities when I asked them what their policy on human populations was. Here it is, verbatim:
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
To me, it is utterly incomprehensible how an organisation delivering aid to human populations in the most impoverished areas of the world does not have a policy on something so indelibly linked with poverty. And of course, the root cause, which they claim to be tackling, is obviously unsustainable population growth.
And presumably the sustainable economies they are helping build, are based on the unsustainable market economies of the donor countries.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Should we call for an end to aid in Africa?
I have written about the problems of foreign aid on many occasions, and am going to develop the theme I first put forward on 28/06/07. Does aid wipe out poverty? Thinking about it, raised another question in my mind. Does aid actually encourage poverty? I don't know the answer, and would welcome feedback, particularly from the agencies which promote it. But surely if aid agencies pump in millions of dollars worth of aid into a country, they are really taking away the responsibility for carrying out those vital humanitarian actions from the government of the country concerned. Many of the recipient countries have significant natural resources
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
People in third world countries have too many babies
People in third world countries have too many babies
I was surprised to find this response put on the Oxfam website as a common myth.
And the paragraph below given as their response:
Rubbish! It really is time to get shot of this. First of all, in lots of poor countries, families are getting smaller, not bigger. This is because people have fewer children when they begin to prosper – which is good news, all round. And the bad news? Millions of kids are still born into poverty, and don't even make it past their fifth birthday
The problem with this claim is that it cannot be substantiated, and is actually contradicted by virtually all the published statistics. And not only do people in third world countries definitely have too many babies, so do many people in the developed world. The world population is growing at an alarming rate, and to deny it is on a par with denying climate change. And there is a strong linkage between the two. The fact that families are getting smaller, hides the more significant fact that the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate, and that the human populations of most parts of the world (including Britain) are not sustainable.
Making poverty history in these circumstances may be an admirable objective, but it is fundamentally completely unachievable -- which is probably why no one has ever shown a plan as to how it will be achieved. Apply crude animal population dynamic theories to any human populations and it is immediately obvious that the present rate of increase cannot be sustained. It therefore follows that there will be catastrophic declines from time to time, either from disease, natural disaster or warfare, or all three. I have yet to see any models that can demonstrate an alternative. And certainly none of the Aid agencies have any on their websites; it's an issue they conveniently ignore -- or as shown above are misleading. Interestingly the Charity Commission in the UK has recently revised definitions of poverty. In the developing countries it can mean "lacking basic essentials such as clean water, food and shelter", but in the UK "it could refer to those living on less than 60% of the average income". Now to me this certainly seems like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which definition do aid agencies use?
I was surprised to find this response put on the Oxfam website as a common myth.
And the paragraph below given as their response:
Rubbish! It really is time to get shot of this. First of all, in lots of poor countries, families are getting smaller, not bigger. This is because people have fewer children when they begin to prosper – which is good news, all round. And the bad news? Millions of kids are still born into poverty, and don't even make it past their fifth birthday
The problem with this claim is that it cannot be substantiated, and is actually contradicted by virtually all the published statistics. And not only do people in third world countries definitely have too many babies, so do many people in the developed world. The world population is growing at an alarming rate, and to deny it is on a par with denying climate change. And there is a strong linkage between the two. The fact that families are getting smaller, hides the more significant fact that the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate, and that the human populations of most parts of the world (including Britain) are not sustainable.
Making poverty history in these circumstances may be an admirable objective, but it is fundamentally completely unachievable -- which is probably why no one has ever shown a plan as to how it will be achieved. Apply crude animal population dynamic theories to any human populations and it is immediately obvious that the present rate of increase cannot be sustained. It therefore follows that there will be catastrophic declines from time to time, either from disease, natural disaster or warfare, or all three. I have yet to see any models that can demonstrate an alternative. And certainly none of the Aid agencies have any on their websites; it's an issue they conveniently ignore -- or as shown above are misleading. Interestingly the Charity Commission in the UK has recently revised definitions of poverty. In the developing countries it can mean "lacking basic essentials such as clean water, food and shelter", but in the UK "it could refer to those living on less than 60% of the average income". Now to me this certainly seems like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which definition do aid agencies use?
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Poverty: What does it mean?
One of my (many) criticisms of charities aiming to "make poverty history" in Africa, is that they never define what they mean by poverty. Try and find a definition on Christian Aid's website, or any of the other charities -- or try writing to them and you will see what I mean.
The UK Charity Commision have really helped muddy the waters now to the point of 100% turbidity. According to a Third Secor report: 'poverty', in charity law "means people who are financially disadvantaged"..... It continues 'in developing countries the phrase could mean those "who lack even the most basic essential to sustain life, such as clean water, food or shelter. But in the UK, it could refer to those "living on less than 60 per cent of the average income, or below the level of income support." Talk about all people being equal, but some being more equal than others...." Either way, it remains to be seen how any of the organisations aiming to raise the entire human population of Africa out of poverty, intend to do it. While it may be a noble aim, I would suggest that it is an impossibility, and that they are misleading the public by suggesting it can be done. Worse still some of the methods being used could actually be creating long-term poverty. Goats for eaxample, to cite my bete noir....
The UK Charity Commision have really helped muddy the waters now to the point of 100% turbidity. According to a Third Secor report: 'poverty', in charity law "means people who are financially disadvantaged"..... It continues 'in developing countries the phrase could mean those "who lack even the most basic essential to sustain life, such as clean water, food or shelter. But in the UK, it could refer to those "living on less than 60 per cent of the average income, or below the level of income support." Talk about all people being equal, but some being more equal than others...." Either way, it remains to be seen how any of the organisations aiming to raise the entire human population of Africa out of poverty, intend to do it. While it may be a noble aim, I would suggest that it is an impossibility, and that they are misleading the public by suggesting it can be done. Worse still some of the methods being used could actually be creating long-term poverty. Goats for eaxample, to cite my bete noir....
World Land Trust in India and an old quoteation.
Just after Christmas, I returned from visiting India, and seeing what the Wildlife rust of India has been doing over the past few months. And very exciting it is too. The elephant corridors are a great success, with not only elephants using them, but lots of other wildlife including tigers.
That was the good news. But travelling around India, it was hard not to be filled with a sense of foreboding. Every three years or so, the human population increases by the size of Britain's population -- that's an extra 60 million people. And the standard of living, for a large proportion of that population is galloping ahead. The almost grid-locked cities are a testament to the new prosperity.
But one has to ask, What is fuelling this economic growth? And the answer is, to a large extent, the west's demand for cheap, mass produced goods. And despite all the rhetoric about 'sustainable development', there is no question that this development is far from sustainable.
And while travelling, I read a book, published nearly 70 years ago. Before foreign aid, and organisations like Christian Aid were saving Africa. But the writing had an amazingly contemporary ring to it. But can any of my readers identify the source of the following passage?
"..... the most significant facts are these: the inhabitants of every civilized country are menaced; all desire passionately to be saved from impending disaster; the overwhelming majority refuse to change the habits of thought, feeling and action which are directly responsible for their present plight. In other words, they can't be helped, because they are not prepared to collaborate with any helper who proposes a rational and realistic course of action. In these circumstances, what ought the would-be helper to do?'
'He's got to do something'said Pete.
'Even if he thereby accelerates the process of destruction?'....Doing good on anything but the tiniest scale requires more intelligence than most people possess. They ought to be content with keeping out of mischief; it's easier and doesn't have such frightful results as trying to to do good in the wrong way. Twiddling the thumbs and having good manners are much more helpful, in most cases, than rushing around with good intentions, doing things..... Incidentally, the price measured in human terms, is enormously high. Though, of course, much lower than the price demanded by the nature of things from those who persist in behaving in the standard human way. Much lower than the price of war, for example -- particularly war with contemporary weapons'...'
I would make a strong case for this line of thinking being just as valid today, as it was before the outbreak of World War II, when it was written. Rushing around doing good by aid agencies has caused many of the problems they set out to solve, simply because they do mot deal with the underlying, real reasons for the problems. They treat symptoms, not causes.
But can any reader identify the source of this quotation? I'll happily send a copy of Endangered Mammals of the World -- now 20 years old, and one of my last remaining copies, to the first person to identify the quote.
That was the good news. But travelling around India, it was hard not to be filled with a sense of foreboding. Every three years or so, the human population increases by the size of Britain's population -- that's an extra 60 million people. And the standard of living, for a large proportion of that population is galloping ahead. The almost grid-locked cities are a testament to the new prosperity.
But one has to ask, What is fuelling this economic growth? And the answer is, to a large extent, the west's demand for cheap, mass produced goods. And despite all the rhetoric about 'sustainable development', there is no question that this development is far from sustainable.
And while travelling, I read a book, published nearly 70 years ago. Before foreign aid, and organisations like Christian Aid were saving Africa. But the writing had an amazingly contemporary ring to it. But can any of my readers identify the source of the following passage?
"..... the most significant facts are these: the inhabitants of every civilized country are menaced; all desire passionately to be saved from impending disaster; the overwhelming majority refuse to change the habits of thought, feeling and action which are directly responsible for their present plight. In other words, they can't be helped, because they are not prepared to collaborate with any helper who proposes a rational and realistic course of action. In these circumstances, what ought the would-be helper to do?'
'He's got to do something'said Pete.
'Even if he thereby accelerates the process of destruction?'....Doing good on anything but the tiniest scale requires more intelligence than most people possess. They ought to be content with keeping out of mischief; it's easier and doesn't have such frightful results as trying to to do good in the wrong way. Twiddling the thumbs and having good manners are much more helpful, in most cases, than rushing around with good intentions, doing things..... Incidentally, the price measured in human terms, is enormously high. Though, of course, much lower than the price demanded by the nature of things from those who persist in behaving in the standard human way. Much lower than the price of war, for example -- particularly war with contemporary weapons'...'
I would make a strong case for this line of thinking being just as valid today, as it was before the outbreak of World War II, when it was written. Rushing around doing good by aid agencies has caused many of the problems they set out to solve, simply because they do mot deal with the underlying, real reasons for the problems. They treat symptoms, not causes.
But can any reader identify the source of this quotation? I'll happily send a copy of Endangered Mammals of the World -- now 20 years old, and one of my last remaining copies, to the first person to identify the quote.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Carbon and Hot Air
Variations on a theme of previous gripes.
Thousands of delegates attended the Conference in Bali, discussing the impact of climate change, carbon sequestration and all that goes with it. An estimated 15,000 people will have taken part in this jamboree -- and if we estimate an average cost of $10,000 per person (which is actually ridiculously low even as an average), then the total (excluding infrastructure costs)is over $150 million for delegates. Now as anyone who supports the World Land Trust knows, that could buy around 1,500,000 hectares of rainforest (that's 150,000 sq kms, or an area bigger than Bulgaria, Iceland, or Greece)
And while politicians wittered on in broadcast after broadcast about reducing emissions they all seem to miss the point that emissions are totally dependent on a free market based around consumerism, and that in turn is linked to expanding economies, in turn based on rapidly growing human populations. And then phrases (or rather oxymorons), like sustainable development are thrown in for good measure, together with wiping out poverty in Africa. Does anyone ever think these things through? If the standard of living in Africa was to be raised to the basic 'poverty' level of Europe, where would the resources come from? How much energy would be needed, and how much water would be needed and where would that even more scarce mineral come from? What would be the global impacts of all the carbon emissions? Before aid agencies tell us they are going to wipe out poverty, perhaps they should develop a 10 year plan, which answers some of these key issues? Personally, I don't believe it is possible, given the accepted rates of human population growth in the region.
Billions of pounds and dollars have been poured into aid schemes, which while they have undoubtedly benefited the economies of the developed world, except on a small scale they have done little or nothing to prevent the descent into poverty of millions, or prevent the spread of civil wars. Of course we don't know what would have happened without these interventions, but it is difficult to see how the situation could be a lot worse.
Conferences on global warming, climate change, and greenhouse gases have a very high risk of being nothing more than hot air, and do little or nothing about the root causes of environmental problems. As far as I am concerned there are two fundamental issues that need addressing: We need to save what little is left of the world's wild places (and all the biodiversity they contain), and we need to curtail the increase in human population.
If we don't, the planet is not threatened, but we all are. Very seriously threatened.
Thousands of delegates attended the Conference in Bali, discussing the impact of climate change, carbon sequestration and all that goes with it. An estimated 15,000 people will have taken part in this jamboree -- and if we estimate an average cost of $10,000 per person (which is actually ridiculously low even as an average), then the total (excluding infrastructure costs)is over $150 million for delegates. Now as anyone who supports the World Land Trust knows, that could buy around 1,500,000 hectares of rainforest (that's 150,000 sq kms, or an area bigger than Bulgaria, Iceland, or Greece)
And while politicians wittered on in broadcast after broadcast about reducing emissions they all seem to miss the point that emissions are totally dependent on a free market based around consumerism, and that in turn is linked to expanding economies, in turn based on rapidly growing human populations. And then phrases (or rather oxymorons), like sustainable development are thrown in for good measure, together with wiping out poverty in Africa. Does anyone ever think these things through? If the standard of living in Africa was to be raised to the basic 'poverty' level of Europe, where would the resources come from? How much energy would be needed, and how much water would be needed and where would that even more scarce mineral come from? What would be the global impacts of all the carbon emissions? Before aid agencies tell us they are going to wipe out poverty, perhaps they should develop a 10 year plan, which answers some of these key issues? Personally, I don't believe it is possible, given the accepted rates of human population growth in the region.
Billions of pounds and dollars have been poured into aid schemes, which while they have undoubtedly benefited the economies of the developed world, except on a small scale they have done little or nothing to prevent the descent into poverty of millions, or prevent the spread of civil wars. Of course we don't know what would have happened without these interventions, but it is difficult to see how the situation could be a lot worse.
Conferences on global warming, climate change, and greenhouse gases have a very high risk of being nothing more than hot air, and do little or nothing about the root causes of environmental problems. As far as I am concerned there are two fundamental issues that need addressing: We need to save what little is left of the world's wild places (and all the biodiversity they contain), and we need to curtail the increase in human population.
If we don't, the planet is not threatened, but we all are. Very seriously threatened.
Friday, 16 November 2007
The Goat and Cow season is upon us
My attacks on the misguided philanthropy that involves 'sending' cows, goats and other domestic animals to Africa, has had an impact. One very positive outcome has been that Oxfam entered a dialogue with the World Land Trust, and recently assured me that they were starting to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments for their projects. This is clearly a good thing, as it appears that Christian Aid, Send a Cow and many of the others are still not carrying out EIAs. All they seem to do is produce statements from the recipients saying how grateful they are. Well they would, wouldn't they?
My criticisms were very fundamental: overgrazing by domestic animals is one of the most significant causes of habitat degradation in Africa, and hence one of the causes of poverty. The numbers (published by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation -- FAO) speak for themselves. And the published literature on the subject is vast. In the past, whole cultures have disappeared as a result of desertification, in which goats are known to have played a significant role.
But beyond this basic flaw in the arguments for promoting programmes that increase the numbers of livestock in Africa, there are other issues which never seem to be openly addressed. In many parts of Africa, animals are a form of wealth and are often accumulated in numbers way above that needed for sustenance; indeed, animals such as camels, are often status symbols. Whenever there is a drought, (and as everyone knows, these are far from infrequent), hundreds of thousands of goats, sheep, cattle and other livestock, die. Each time there is a drought the numbers dieing increases, simply because more and more animals are being kept, with less and less pasture for them. From a wildlife perspective this is even more disastrous, because the domestic livestock are usually in direct competition with the wild antelope and other grazing animals. But whereas the wild animals are often adapted to cycles of drought, and each species has its own niche, the domestic animals simply turn the landscape to desert.
Of course the philanthropic organisations encouraging poor Africans to keep even more livestock are able to demonstrate that a few of the animals they distribute do no harm, but it is the fundamental principle that I am attacking: more livestock is not a solution to poverty in Africa. It is also a form of Aid Imperialism, often making the recipients dependent on imported veterinary supplies, and potentially creating welfare problems, as many of the animals will be kept in conditions that would not be tolerated by those donating the funds.
But perhaps the most bizarre response came from the International Director of Christian Aid, who seemed to imply that I should not criticise them because we were both charities, and it harmed all charities if I criticised them. The reality, of course was very different; last year we received overwhelming support for our stance against increasing livestock in Africa, with virtually no criticism at all. In fact it is almost impossible to find a conservation scientist who does not believe that the overpopulation of both humans and their domestic stock, is the single most serious cause of poverty in Africa.
Until aid agencies tackle these problems head on, there is little hope for either poverty-stricken humans or wildlife.
My criticisms were very fundamental: overgrazing by domestic animals is one of the most significant causes of habitat degradation in Africa, and hence one of the causes of poverty. The numbers (published by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation -- FAO) speak for themselves. And the published literature on the subject is vast. In the past, whole cultures have disappeared as a result of desertification, in which goats are known to have played a significant role.
But beyond this basic flaw in the arguments for promoting programmes that increase the numbers of livestock in Africa, there are other issues which never seem to be openly addressed. In many parts of Africa, animals are a form of wealth and are often accumulated in numbers way above that needed for sustenance; indeed, animals such as camels, are often status symbols. Whenever there is a drought, (and as everyone knows, these are far from infrequent), hundreds of thousands of goats, sheep, cattle and other livestock, die. Each time there is a drought the numbers dieing increases, simply because more and more animals are being kept, with less and less pasture for them. From a wildlife perspective this is even more disastrous, because the domestic livestock are usually in direct competition with the wild antelope and other grazing animals. But whereas the wild animals are often adapted to cycles of drought, and each species has its own niche, the domestic animals simply turn the landscape to desert.
Of course the philanthropic organisations encouraging poor Africans to keep even more livestock are able to demonstrate that a few of the animals they distribute do no harm, but it is the fundamental principle that I am attacking: more livestock is not a solution to poverty in Africa. It is also a form of Aid Imperialism, often making the recipients dependent on imported veterinary supplies, and potentially creating welfare problems, as many of the animals will be kept in conditions that would not be tolerated by those donating the funds.
But perhaps the most bizarre response came from the International Director of Christian Aid, who seemed to imply that I should not criticise them because we were both charities, and it harmed all charities if I criticised them. The reality, of course was very different; last year we received overwhelming support for our stance against increasing livestock in Africa, with virtually no criticism at all. In fact it is almost impossible to find a conservation scientist who does not believe that the overpopulation of both humans and their domestic stock, is the single most serious cause of poverty in Africa.
Until aid agencies tackle these problems head on, there is little hope for either poverty-stricken humans or wildlife.
Monday, 30 July 2007
Criticising Charities
I had a letter from Christian Aid, more or less implying that I shouldn't criticise them because they were a charity and so was the WLT. I.e. it was bad form for charities to criticise one another. Personally I cannot see why I should not criticise another charity, any more than I shouldn't criticise any other business. I have a duty to uphold the values and mission of the WLT, and if another charity is damaging those values, then I am duty bound to criticise.
A few weeks ago Third Sector magazine reported that Bob Geldof 'recently slammed Al Gore's Live Earth event as "just an enormous pop concert without any real goal".' I think Al Gore should have retaliated that the Make Poverty History events were "just another pop concert without any realistic goals".
It is time that the charity world sectorised itself more. There are huge differences in the sector, every bit as great as in the business world. Service delivering charities, such as hospitals and schools have almost nothing in common with a charity such as the World Land Trust. Similarly religion-based charities have very little in common with performing arts charities. Comparing these together is like comparing theatres with banks, or art galleries with refuse collection services. In fact many of the religion-based charities are carrying out activities which are in direct opposition to environmental charities. And some animal welfare charities are undertaking activities which have negative environmental impacts. And so on and so forth. Debate is healthy, and I believe it is only right and proper for organisations like Christian Aid to be criticised for not undertaking Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects in Africa.
A few weeks ago Third Sector magazine reported that Bob Geldof 'recently slammed Al Gore's Live Earth event as "just an enormous pop concert without any real goal".' I think Al Gore should have retaliated that the Make Poverty History events were "just another pop concert without any realistic goals".
It is time that the charity world sectorised itself more. There are huge differences in the sector, every bit as great as in the business world. Service delivering charities, such as hospitals and schools have almost nothing in common with a charity such as the World Land Trust. Similarly religion-based charities have very little in common with performing arts charities. Comparing these together is like comparing theatres with banks, or art galleries with refuse collection services. In fact many of the religion-based charities are carrying out activities which are in direct opposition to environmental charities. And some animal welfare charities are undertaking activities which have negative environmental impacts. And so on and so forth. Debate is healthy, and I believe it is only right and proper for organisations like Christian Aid to be criticised for not undertaking Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects in Africa.
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Jared Diamond: Collapse
It has taken me a while to getting round to reading Jared Diamond's Collapse. A truly depressing book, which should be compulsory reading for all politicians, and in particular to all aid agencies dealing with poverty in developing countries; and very well written. While I may not agree with some of the detail, or all his interpretations, overwhelmingly, Diamond makes the case for putting human populations and over-exploitation of resources, right at the top of the international agenda.
I was intrigued by the omission of two areas of collapse. The first was the collapse of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides in the 1930s. It was a recent, exceptionally well-documented population collapse, which probably gives insight into the collapse of Greenland's European population 600 years earlier. And the second omission was the Levant, or Middle East as it has become to be known. (As an aside, the Middle East has moved westwards in time, to replace the Near East, which seems to have fallen into the Mediterranean Sea).
The present conflicts in Lebanon and Palestine, and adjacent countries are examples of societies in collapse, every bit as much as any of the others cited by Diamond. Slender natural resources, with rural populations inevitably lead to conflict. As Diamond points out, the only societies that can exist at high densities, with few resources, have to become highly industrialised, and high tech, in order to keep out of poverty. Before the immigration of the Jewish diaspora into Palestine, the area was barely able to support the existing populations, but the introduction of thousands of ex-patriates, together with the introduction of externally generated wealth has led to growing tensions, partly because a widening wealth gap.
Conventionally these are identified as religious tensions, but just as Diamond points out in Rwanda, where ethnic cleansing was claimed to be the motive for the violence, the reality was far more Malthusian than at first appears. The wealthy, heavily subsidised jewish state is surrounded by poverty stricken populations with virtually no natural resource, or other means of generating wealth. The inevitable consequence is a collapse into civil war, and without outside intervention, the final result could well be the total collapse of infrastructure and society.
This is a lesson to all societies that do not have the resources to support themselves. And even those that do.
I was intrigued by the omission of two areas of collapse. The first was the collapse of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides in the 1930s. It was a recent, exceptionally well-documented population collapse, which probably gives insight into the collapse of Greenland's European population 600 years earlier. And the second omission was the Levant, or Middle East as it has become to be known. (As an aside, the Middle East has moved westwards in time, to replace the Near East, which seems to have fallen into the Mediterranean Sea).
The present conflicts in Lebanon and Palestine, and adjacent countries are examples of societies in collapse, every bit as much as any of the others cited by Diamond. Slender natural resources, with rural populations inevitably lead to conflict. As Diamond points out, the only societies that can exist at high densities, with few resources, have to become highly industrialised, and high tech, in order to keep out of poverty. Before the immigration of the Jewish diaspora into Palestine, the area was barely able to support the existing populations, but the introduction of thousands of ex-patriates, together with the introduction of externally generated wealth has led to growing tensions, partly because a widening wealth gap.
Conventionally these are identified as religious tensions, but just as Diamond points out in Rwanda, where ethnic cleansing was claimed to be the motive for the violence, the reality was far more Malthusian than at first appears. The wealthy, heavily subsidised jewish state is surrounded by poverty stricken populations with virtually no natural resource, or other means of generating wealth. The inevitable consequence is a collapse into civil war, and without outside intervention, the final result could well be the total collapse of infrastructure and society.
This is a lesson to all societies that do not have the resources to support themselves. And even those that do.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
IMF and Africa
The WLT is often asked why we don't have any projects in Africa. And the simple answer is that we have yet to identify an NGO we feel could carry out a land acquisition, and manage it sustainably into the future. But we are looking, have identified some potential partners, and will probably announce a project soon.
Millions of conservation dollars, pounds and Euros have been spent in Africa, and the conditions for wildlife have continued to deteriorate. Most of this funding has been completely wasted, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of researchers from the developed world have got their masters' degrees and PhDs researching the demise of the wildlife. The IMF recently pointed out that misapplied aid can be disastrous. The G8 group of nations have called for an increase of £13 billion of aid to Africa, but the IMF has pointed out this could have an adverse effect if it is not spent thoughtfully. Aid agencies continue to raise millions in Britain to 'wipe out poverty' in Africa, without having a clue what the environmental impacts are. If you don't believe me, ask any of the big agencies for copies of their EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) for a range of projects. Or try asking them what their policies on human population are. This is a fine example:
Dear Mr Burton,
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
Thank you for your interest in the work of Christian Aid.
But hang on, surely the root cause of poverty is a rapidly expanding, unchecked human population, dependent on limited resources?
Comments on a post card or by email please.......
Millions of conservation dollars, pounds and Euros have been spent in Africa, and the conditions for wildlife have continued to deteriorate. Most of this funding has been completely wasted, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of researchers from the developed world have got their masters' degrees and PhDs researching the demise of the wildlife. The IMF recently pointed out that misapplied aid can be disastrous. The G8 group of nations have called for an increase of £13 billion of aid to Africa, but the IMF has pointed out this could have an adverse effect if it is not spent thoughtfully. Aid agencies continue to raise millions in Britain to 'wipe out poverty' in Africa, without having a clue what the environmental impacts are. If you don't believe me, ask any of the big agencies for copies of their EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) for a range of projects. Or try asking them what their policies on human population are. This is a fine example:
Dear Mr Burton,
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
Thank you for your interest in the work of Christian Aid.
But hang on, surely the root cause of poverty is a rapidly expanding, unchecked human population, dependent on limited resources?
Comments on a post card or by email please.......
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Poverty: who is responsible
For the past 50 years aid agencies have been sending billions of dollars-worth of aid to Africa, propping up, often corrupt, governments, creating markets for the products of the industrialised world, dumping unwanted surpluses, and distorting local economies and creating dependency. Droughts and other catastrophes, both natural and man-made occur, and will continue to occur, at regular intervals, and the aid agencies launch emergency appeals to save the starving, to send food, medicines, shelter etc. And meanwhile the human population continues to grow, further outstripping local resources. Millions of people are forced into urban slums or refugee camps, where they become totally dependent on further aid.
When an aid agency rushes in, does it ever consider the long term consequences? Or the ecological implications? Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should not show compassion, but when compassion is highly selective, and politically or economically motivated, then I think searching questions should be asked.
None of the aid agencies, whether government funded or NGOs are consistent in the way they apply their criteria. They are always making subjective judgements on where to send their limited funding. They are already 'playing god' -- all I am suggesting is that the short term tactics should always consider the long term strategic implications of aid; and in particular the ecological aspects, as in many cases the human population is part of that ecosystem. This is very rarely considered, and as a consequence, throughout the world impoverished populations continue to grow at an alarming rate. When disasters strike they will cause untold misery and suffering -- surely it is just another form of genocide? Most aid to Africa appears to be used to treat the symptoms of poverty not the causes. To use a single example close to my heart -- goats and livestock are given to poor farmers to alleviate hunger. But the cause of the poverty is often the habitat destruction caused by too high a human population, which in turn owns too many grazing animals, which are destroying the very resource on which livestock depends -- as well as displacing entire ecosystems.
Short-sighted?
SS Bob, Bono and others may believe they can 'make poverty history'. Personally I think this is an utter delusion if you try and do it with aid, whether it is food or cash. And history is on my side. Aid the way it is delivered by most western agencies is another form of imperialism -- thrusting our values on unrelated cultures. What appears superficially altruistic is in fact far from it. As many more qualified than I have pointed out most foreign aid benefits the donor country more than the intended recipients.
And finally, have any of the agencies, and altruistic individuals claiming to want to wipe out poverty actually thought what the implications are? How much water, how much energy, how much food is needed? Where will it come from? I personally do not believe in miracles. I am a rationalist. And if you look at these issues rationally, there simply are not enough resources to go round.
When an aid agency rushes in, does it ever consider the long term consequences? Or the ecological implications? Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should not show compassion, but when compassion is highly selective, and politically or economically motivated, then I think searching questions should be asked.
None of the aid agencies, whether government funded or NGOs are consistent in the way they apply their criteria. They are always making subjective judgements on where to send their limited funding. They are already 'playing god' -- all I am suggesting is that the short term tactics should always consider the long term strategic implications of aid; and in particular the ecological aspects, as in many cases the human population is part of that ecosystem. This is very rarely considered, and as a consequence, throughout the world impoverished populations continue to grow at an alarming rate. When disasters strike they will cause untold misery and suffering -- surely it is just another form of genocide? Most aid to Africa appears to be used to treat the symptoms of poverty not the causes. To use a single example close to my heart -- goats and livestock are given to poor farmers to alleviate hunger. But the cause of the poverty is often the habitat destruction caused by too high a human population, which in turn owns too many grazing animals, which are destroying the very resource on which livestock depends -- as well as displacing entire ecosystems.
Short-sighted?
SS Bob, Bono and others may believe they can 'make poverty history'. Personally I think this is an utter delusion if you try and do it with aid, whether it is food or cash. And history is on my side. Aid the way it is delivered by most western agencies is another form of imperialism -- thrusting our values on unrelated cultures. What appears superficially altruistic is in fact far from it. As many more qualified than I have pointed out most foreign aid benefits the donor country more than the intended recipients.
And finally, have any of the agencies, and altruistic individuals claiming to want to wipe out poverty actually thought what the implications are? How much water, how much energy, how much food is needed? Where will it come from? I personally do not believe in miracles. I am a rationalist. And if you look at these issues rationally, there simply are not enough resources to go round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
