Southern African Regional Climate Change Programme

Africa is expected to bear the brunt of climatic changes (see earlier blogpost The IPCC on Climate Change in Africa). Now there is a new regional Southern African programme to deal with the effects of climate change on the largely poor and malnourished populations in this often forgotten part of the world. With so much anxiety on the success of the Copenhagen talks, this rings at least as a step in the right direction.

From the RCCP website:

"It is in the interests of both the developed and the developing world—North and South—that the impact of climate change on poverty be contained. The Regional Climate Change Programme (RCCP) has been established to help the whole region adapt to climate change. Extending its reach beyond political borders, the RCCP is furthermore committed to helping level the playing field with regard to equitable access to climate funding.

Future life in Southern Africa will depend on the ability of both the environment and the population to adapt to warmer temperatures and greater unpredictability in weather patterns. This variability is already having a negative impact on progress toward the Millennium Development Goals of water, agriculture, health and energy."

Read full story and much more about the programme here.

Types of growth and poverty reduction

Only economic growth in certain sectors reduced poverty (at least in China):

"The Pattern of Growth and Poverty Reduction in China"

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5069

JOSE G. MONTALVO, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Email: jose.garcia-montalvo@upf.edu
MARTIN RAVALLION, World Bank - Development Research Group (DECRG)
Email: mravallion@worldbank.org

China has seen a huge reduction in the incidence of extreme poverty since the economic reforms that started in the late 1970s. Yet, the growth process has been highly uneven across sectors and regions. The paper tests whether the pattern of China´s growth mattered to poverty reduction using a new provincial panel data set constructed for this purpose. The econometric tests support the view that the primary sector (mainly agriculture) has been the main driving force in poverty reduction over the period since 1980. It was the sectoral unevenness in the growth process, rather than its geographic unevenness, that handicapped poverty reduction. Yes, China has had great success in reducing poverty through economic growth, but this happened despite the unevenness in its sectoral pattern of growth. The idea of a trade-off between these sectors in terms of overall progress against poverty in China turns out to be a moot point, given how little evidence there is of any poverty impact of non-primary sector growth, controlling for primary-sector growth. While the non-primary sectors were key drivers of aggregate growth, it was the primary sector that did the heavy lifting against poverty.

Fragile Growth

Every now and then we post something on the topic of African growth. This time starting with a a new study published in the Journal of African Economies.

How Fragile Is Africa's Recent Growth?

Jorge Saba Arbache^* and John Page¹

Office of the Chief Economist, Africa Region, The World Bank, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA

^* Corresponding author: Jorge Saba Arbache. E-mail: jarbache@worldbank.org.

Has Africa finally reached the path to sustained growth? We find that much of the improvement in economic performance in Africa after 1995 is attributable to a substantial reduction in the frequency and severity of growth declines in all economies and an increase in growth accelerations in mineral-rich economies. We find, however, that growth accelerations have not been generally accompanied by improvements in variables often correlated withlong run growth, such as investment. We also fail to find evidence that substantial policy and governance improvements were associated with the post-1995 accelerations. We conclude that Africa's growth recovery remains fragile.

In an earlier post it was argued that sub-Saharan growth is largely achieved by a depletion of capital. It does not seem that the badly needed investments to maintain or expand the regions' productive base is realising. It was also pointed out earlier that economic growth does not lead to meaningful gains in social development.

The conclusion becomes stronger that the gains of growth in sub-Saharan Africa is dissipating. One of the reasons could be the high volatility of growth in Africa.

The obvious response is to question growth in itself, but to lift millions of people out of poverty growth is needed. Not less growth, but more (inclusive, transparent and environmentally friendly) growth is what Africa needs.

Biodiversity: From hotspots to human needs

Protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity in the world's watersheds

Authors: Luck, Gary W.¹; Chan, Kai M.A.²; Fay, John P.³

Source: Conservation Letters, Volume 2, Number 4, August 2009 , pp. 179-188(10)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Abstract:

Despite unprecedented worldwide biodiversity loss, conservation is not at the forefront of national or international development programs. The concept of ecosystem services was intended to help conservationists demonstrate the benefits of ecosystems for human well-being, but services are not yet seen to truly address human need with current approaches focusing mostly on financial gain. To promote development strategies that integrate conservation and service protection, we developed the first prioritization scheme for protecting ecosystem services in the world's watersheds and compared our results with global conservation schemes. We found that by explicitly incorporating human need into prioritization strategies, service-protection priorities were squarely focused on the world's poorest, most densely populated regions. We identified watersheds in Southeast Asia and East Africa as the most crucial priorities for service protection and biodiversity conservation, including Irrawaddy—recently devastated by cyclone Nargis. Emphasizing human need is a substantial improvement over dollar-based, ecosystem-service valuations that undervalue the requirements of the world's poor, and our approach offers great hope for reconciling conservation and human development goals.

Keywords: Biodiversity; carbon storage; conservation investment; conservation policy; ecosystem services; flood mitigation; human well-being; water provision;watershed

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00064.x

Affiliations: 1: Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia 2: Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 3: Geospatial Analysis Program, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-9328, USA

A laudable effort!

Several research questions remain, for instance: is investment in biodiversity (and resulting ecosystems goods and services) an effective developmental strategy when compared to alternatives? Who pays for these investments? Will the benefits of investing in ecosystems in fact reach the poor? By which mechanisms?

Overlaying the supply of ecosystem goods and services to the demand from a human needs perspective is a vital first step. Placing this in context of alternative developmental programmes is next. Institutions that realise those remaining real values in a sustainable way are key to implementation.

Should business be involved in poverty alleviation?

In a world of persistent poverty and growing inequality the pressure to respond will continue to increase. This is not only the case for governments, but increasingly one for larger businesses who start realising that it makes little sense to operate in failed societies. 

An article from Sustainability Investment News on the basis of a new WBCSD report, highlights the perceived role of business in poverty alleviation: 

Almost half of the world’s population survives on the equivalent of less than $2 a day. And the gap between rich and poor countries continues to widen; the richest 20% of the world’s population control three-quarters of the world’s wealth, while the poorest 20% control just 2%. 

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a global association of 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development, has produced a report that sees in such dire statistics an opportunity to do business in new ways. The report, developed by the WBCSD Development Focus Area and entitled "Doing Business with the World--The New Role of Corporate Leadership in Global Development", finds that "companies can contribute to global sustainable development through their core businesses in a way that is profitable for the companies and good for development." 

The key to alleviation of poverty is the creation of wealth, the report concludes, and business is a necessary part of the equation. By engaging with low-income segments of developing countries through direct employment and sourcing from low-income suppliers, companies can tap into a market that despite its poverty represents an estimated collective purchasing power of $5 trillion. 

It is a good thing that big business is coming on board in addressing the world's biggest problems.  Social responsibility is not something only for governments, NGOs and philanthropists.

Expect some interesting developments in shaping this suggested partnership between governments, NGOs and business.

Hope that the really poor are not left out in the action.

Poverty and violence

From VoxEU.org - a new study on poverty and violence in Africa:

This column suggests that in Africa an income drop of 5%—a large but altogether common deterioration in economic conditions—increases the risk of civil conflict in the following year to nearly 30%. This suggests that aid agencies could help prevent war by targeting short-term emergency aid towards countries hard-hit by adverse commodity price movements or weather shocks.

...

If we believe that a direct link connects poverty and violence, then when failing rains create economic hardship, war should follow. In this case, we can actually figure out whether poverty caused violence by isolating rainfall’s effects. Drought and the resulting economic hardship turn out to matter a lot for understanding conflict in Africa. In work with co-authors Shanker Satyanath and Ernest Sergenti of NYU, we find that a 1% decline in national GDP increases the likelihood of civil conflict by about 2 percentage points. So an income drop of 5%—a large but altogether common deterioration in economic conditions, especially when the rains fail—increases the risk of civil conflict in the following year to nearly 30%, up from an already-high average probability of conflict in Africa of around 20% in normal rainfall years. So we find that short-term shocks to income – exactly the type that Djankov and Reynal-Querol purport to study – do trigger violent conflict on the world’s war-prone continent.

This is an interesting observation. It also begs the next question how aid organisations, governments and society as a whole can effectively react to such shocks. Apart from preventing those few that can be controlled, it is more a matter of keeping "the fingers on the pulse" and to have sensitive systems in place that can "hear the baby cry". That means a lot of flexibility and adaptability.

Poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: Hydrocarbons to the rescue?

Sub-saharan Africa is going through a hydrocarbon boom. Will this help alleviate poverty? The potential is there, but do not expect miracles without open and transparent governments.

From Fact sheets for World Energy Outlook 2008:

H/T: Common Tragedies

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2008 FACT SHEET: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

Could revenues in oil- and gas-rich sub-Saharan African countries 

alleviate energy poverty? 

n Oil and gas exports in the top-ten producing sub-Saharan African countries are set 

to grow steadily to 2030, providing the means for alleviating poverty and expanding 

energy access. In the Reference Scenario, in which no change in government policies is 

assumed, their oil exports rise from 5.1 mb/d in aggregate in 2007 to 6.4 mb/d in 2030. Gas 

exports, largely as liquefied natural gas (LNG), increase from 21.6 bcm in 2006 to 130 bcm 

in 2030. These projections hinge on a reduction in gas flaring, adequate investment and 

avoidance of disruption to supplies through civil unrest. The ten countries flared 40 bcm 

in 2005 — almost three times the entire region’s gas consumption. These countries could 

make direct use of their gas resources by using currently flared gas for power generation 

or distributing it in cities. The liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) extracted from natural gas or 

produced in refineries can provide a low-cost source of supply for distribution networks. 

n Less than a third of households in the majority of oil- and gas-rich countries have access 

to electricity or to clean fuels for cooking, like LPG, kerosene, biogas and ethanol 

gelfuel. About 150 000 people, mainly women and children, die prematurely each year in 

these countries because of indoor air pollution from burning traditional fuels – essentially 

fuelwood and charcoal – for cooking in inefficient stoves or open fires. In the absence of new 

policy initiatives, the number of people living without electricity and relying on fuelwood 

and charcoal for cooking rises over the Outlook period, as the population grows. 

n Government revenues from oil and gas are set to rise strongly, giving these countries 

the means to speed up economic and social development and alleviate poverty. The 

government take in the top ten oil- and gas-producing countries is projected to rise from 

some $80 billion in 2006 to about $250 billion in 2030. Nigeria and Angola account for 86% 

of the $4.1 trillion cumulative revenues of all ten countries over 2006-2030. All these 

countries desperately need sustained and sustainable economic development. Modern 

energy services are a crucial prerequisite, bringing major benefits to public health, social 

welfare and economic productivity. In most of the countries, improving energy access 

will entail fundamental political, institutional and legislative reform, as well as efforts 

to strengthen the capability of regional and local authorities to implement programmes 

and to expand access to credit. 

n The upfront cost of expanding access to modern energy is small relative to the wealth 

that these countries’ hydrocarbon resources will generate. An estimated $18 billion is 

needed to achieve universal access to electricity and to LPG cooking stoves and cylinders 

– a mere 0.4% of the projected cumulative government revenues from oil and gas export 

revenues in 2007-2030. The cost relative to the government take in Equatorial Guinea, 

Angola and Gabon is only 0.1%. 

n Sub-Saharan Africa’s hydrocarbon-resource wealth will lead to economic development 

only if governments manage wisely and honestly the development of the sector 

and the revenues that accrue. An improvement in the efficiency and transparency of 

revenue allocation and the accountability of governments in the use of public funds 

would improve the likelihood that oil and gas revenues are actually used to alleviate 

poverty generally and energy poverty specifically.

Night Time Light as proxy poverty indicator

Tired of breaking your head on how to construct comparable measures of poverty? Remotely sensed data on artificial night time light may be a good proxy.  From a study published by Noor et al in in Population Health Metrics: 

Population health is linked closely to poverty. To assess the effectiveness of health interventions it is critical to monitor the spatial and temporal changes in the health indicators of populations and outcomes across varying levels of poverty. Existing measures of poverty based on income, consumption or assets are difficult to compare across geographic settings and are expensive to construct. Remotely sensed data on artificial night time lights (NTL) have been shown to correlate with gross domestic product in developed countries.

Notice any differences?