The African Environmental Economist

The African Environmental Economist, a new online daily provides a selection of news that would be of interest to those working in natural resources, energy and environmental sectors in Africa and especially those interested in the role of economics and business in this regard.

For those interested here is the link.
Let me know what you think and please do alert me to any great content that could be posted in future editions.

Water: Tough trade-offs and a call for economic management

The management of water resources is an economic problem. The Water Resources Group 2030, consisting of the International Finance Corportion, McKinsey & Co and an extended business consortium has, in a new report, drawn attention to water scarcity and the need for economic management and further investment in this valuable resource.

A key argument is that current supply will be inadequate, but that meeting increasing demands is possible at a reasonable cost:

After careful quantitative analysis of the problem, this report provides some answers on the

path to water resource security. It first quantifies the situation and shows that in many regions, current supply will be inadequate to meet the water requirements. However, as a central thesis, it also shows that meeting all competing demands for water is in fact possible at reasonable cost. This outcome will not emerge naturally from existing market dynamics, but will require a concerted effort by all stakeholders, the willingness to adopt a total resource view where water is seen as a key, cross-sectoral input for development and growth, a mix of technical approaches, and the courage to undertake and fund water sector reforms.

South Africa was one of the case studies . The report indicates that South Africa will have to resolve tough trade-offs between agriculture, key industrial activities such as mining and power generation, and large and growing urban centers.

Training Manual: Economic Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management

From the UNEP’s Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) and the Economics and Trade Branch (ETB) of the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) - a jam-packed training manual on the use of economic instruments for environmental and natural resource management.

The Training Manual builds on a report on ‘The Use of Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Opportunities and Challenges’ published by UNEP in 2004 and on a range of standard literature on environmental economics. The 2004 report was prepared under the auspices of the UNEP Working Group on Economic Instruments consisting of twenty-five developed and developing country experts from research institutions, relevant international and non-governmental organization and governments. 

On free choice and planning in natural resource management

Aren’t economists often seen as the defenders of free choice and are they not sceptical about any intervention or planning that could hamper that choice? When one picks up a textbook on the subject this might easily be your first conclusion. However, further developments in the discipline have pointed out that focusing only on either planning or markets is untenable. This post will attempt to point out some of the bridges between free choice and planning within the context of natural and environmental resource management.

The first important concept is that of external effects or externalities. These negative or positive effects of certain economic activities are not accounted for in market prices. An example of a negative effect could be air or water pollution, while an example of a positive effect is that private research could lead to new general knowledge. Policy adjustments are often necessary, especially to internalise negative impacts, which, ceteris paribus, would ultimately lead to better-informed choices. 

Another important development in economic theory is the contributions of neo-institutional economics. The focus here is on the rules and contracts that guide exchange. In this view the market, or any other institution for that matter, is just one way of exchange and could be efficient, but should be measured according to the costs of performing such transactions. The focus is not on a choice between planning or market frameworks, but on the relative costs of keeping such institutions intact. 

The third, and least developed concept in economic theory, is one related to the burgeoning sciences of systems theory, complexity theory and chaos theory. With the holistic focus on the interrelationships between objects, rather than on objects themselves, the contribution of this subject field for our purpose lies in the emphasis on continuous feedback from the system under study. The ex post planning of complex systems is almost a contradiction in terms, one which will only make sense if applied in a process of experiential learning. 

These three concepts are important when evaluating the importance of  theories on economy-environment interactions for planning purposes. The fact is that the tension between the amount and type of planning, and the amount and type of free choice differ on deep philosophical grounds. Even the views of scholars within the subject field of economics and the environment (including environmental economics, ecological economics, neo-institutional economics and other more peripheral approaches) differ vastly on the relative roles they would like to assign to free choice and to planning. 

Without going into the details of such a debate, it would possibly be valuable to point out some environmental issues where such a debate will continue to flourish:

• The economic value of open spaces in urban environments
  
• The prioritisation of alternative environmental planning options
  
• The economic assessment of environmental policies and plans
  
• The economic valuation of alternative land uses in applications such as city planning, rural development or spatial development initiatives (SDIs)
  
• The planning of an international or national trading system for carbon credits

In all these examples, some will argue that more planning means more economic costs, while others will continue to argue that more individual choice means more potential for anarchy, and thus failure to reach environmental objectives. It can be foreseen that this debate will reach an academic stalemate if not guided by a learning process that facilitates such interactions. The context of natural and environmental resource management will be an important factor in determining the best mix between planning and markets.