World Water Day: Why Plumbers Are Heroes

The old joke about the plumber's crack has gone dry. Especially on World Water Day.

But it's no joke: water and plumbing changes lives.

Here is a cool infographic I received from Able Skills, the UK-based construction training program on Why Plumbers Are Heroes (you can see an interactive version here):

 


As you can see from the infographic, clean water alone can reduce water-related deaths by 21 percent, improved sanitation alone can reduce such deaths by 37.5 percent, and simple hand-washing can reduce such deaths by 35 percent.

Today, according to UN-Water, "over 780 million people do not have access to improved sources of drinking water and 2.5 billion people are without improved sanitation."

2.5 billion. And we're well into the 21st Century, people.

Population growth, especially in cities, is driving increased water demand. Yet, even more startling is the fact that water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.

With the world population set to grow to 8 billion by 2025, water withdrawals are likely to increase by 50 percent in developing countries and by as much as 18 percent in already developed countries.

Not all of the water use is from the growth of our cities. In fact, only 8 percent of freshwater is tapped for domestic use. 70 percent of freshwater is used for irrigation and 25 percent goes to industrial uses.

Water for irrigation and food production constitutes one of the greatest pressures on freshwater resources, according to UN-Water.

The World Bank estimates economic losses from lack of sanitation cost up to 7 percent of GDP in some countries.

So, on this World Water Day, tell your plumber how much you appreciate how they've made your water safe to use and readily available. And think about how you can get involved in addressing the issue of access to clean water and sanitation.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Protecting and Saving

This post originally appeared on The Green Skeptic in March 2008, when I was about to speak at the Aspen Environment Forum. It's reprinted here as I am on hiatus from writing the blog. I promise to be back at it soon. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy this piece. --Scott

##


Everything we think about saving or protecting ecosystems and habitats is wrong.

This week, I'm at the Aspen Environment Forum, where tomorrow morning I'll be on a Panel called "Nature's Place: Saving Ecosystems and Habitats."

For the better part of 15 years I worked with The Nature Conservancy to save some of the world's "Last Great Places" around the world (I left in August; see my posts reflecting on my career at TNC
and here.

I consider myself a conservationist, not an environmentalist. What I mean by that is a conservative and prudent approach to our use of resources that requires us to manage them for the long-term -- for the benefit of people today and for future generations.

The Green Skeptic grew out of an increasing concern about our relationship to the natural world and how we protect it. I am a skeptic in the sense that I believe we need to constantly challenge the assumptions we have about "saving ecosystems and habitats."

In my view, we operate under four basic assumptions:

1. We can continue to "save" or "protect" ecosystems and habitats from harm in perpetuity;
2. We can ignore basic human needs and treat poverty alleviation as a separate issue from the environment;
3. We can entrust protection to governments and corporate NGOs;
4. We can't trust human ingenuity and community to manage its own resources.

First, I need to step back and look at the words we use. (I am a poet, so words matter to me.) Specifically, "protecting" and "saving."

Both imply we need to keep ecosystems and habitats from something. The American Heritage Dictionary defines protecting as "To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard." When we use the word protecting in terms of ecosystems and habitats, we are guarding nature from something or someone, presumably humans.

Saving is a little less problematic, as it implies a conservative approach to the future (as in saving seed corn for next year's sowing). Still, the AHD's first definition is "To rescue from harm, danger, or loss." It's not until definition number three that we get to the conservative impulse: "To avoid spending (e.g. money) so as to keep or accumulate it."

The question is not about what we should save, but how and for what purpose.

Is it hubris to assume we have protected or saved anything? We promote the fact that percentages of ecosystems or habitats are protected, but they continue to be encroached upon -- see the Amazon Rainforest for example.

What have we really saved if massive changes from climate change or the drive for much-needed economic development will have significant impact on the future status and makeup of places, habitats, and ecosystems?

Climate change will disrupt many ecosystems that exist today -- much as the Internet disrupted print media, the travel industry, TV, bookstores, you name it. It will change everything.

So the question is what are we really protecting when we talk about protecting ecosystems and habitat? Will the places we select for protection today be the same 10-20 years from now? Probably not.

Ecosystems are constantly changing, either from "external" (human) or "internal" (natural) forces. Change is inevitable and could, in the face of global warming, be dramatic.

Shouldn't we be preparing for the changes and begin to think about how we adapt to some of the most likely changes, those brought on by climate change or economic development or basic human needs, such as for food and energy?

Demand for energy and food will drive economic development for years to come and we can't continue to ignore these drivers to "save" the natural, non-human world.

This leads me to assumption two, which is about ignoring basic human needs. It's irrational for us to think that people in developing countries, many of whose basic human needs are not being met, will care deeply about the non-human natural world.

Yet, we continue to have blind faith in our cause and ignore the needs of real people.

I recently returned from India where the extreme poverty is evident almost everywhere you look. Also evident is a growing middle class that strives for the kind of lifestyle we have here in the west, specifically the US, with its inherent accelerated pace and impacts.

Who are we to say that people in developing countries have no right to the kind of lifestyle we have exported for decades? We can not convince, persuade or cajole or even pay people -- Americans as much as people in developing nations -- to "come around to our way of thinking," and yet this is what I hear whenever I talk to environmentalists.

And we can't ask poor people around the world to forgo the comforts of the lifestyle we have been living, and which they wish to copy, "for the sake of the planet" or to set aside their habitats and ecosystems for the sake of humanity. No country wants to become an ecological reserve for the world, especially if it means it cannot pursue economic prosperity.

Try floating this idea with people who go hungry every night for lack of food or money to buy food and see what kind of reaction you get.

In the end, poor people matter. And the governments of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and African countries must be concerned first and foremost with the well-being of their people. I'm not saying that human well-being isn't tied to ecosystem health; I'm a strong believer that economic growth is tied to those resources.

I believe we can no longer separate the issue of economic development and poverty alleviation from ecosystem health. We also can't expect that governments whose people aren't meeting basic needs to protect their habitats over the economic well-being of their people.

Which leads me to assumption three: increasingly, we are entrusting protection of habitats and ecosystems with the wrong people. Governments have a mandate to improve the economic health of their country and people.

Yet we continue to have faith that these governments will "do the right thing" and enforce laws protecting their forests or other ecosystems in the face of seemingly insurmountable economic obstacles.

Why do we think that is a good strategy? What indicators do we have that tell us this strategy will succeed where it hasn't in the past? Why do we think that the World Bank program to pay countries to "avoid deforestation" will be any more successful than their previous grand plans?

The same goes for NGOs. NGOs are basically corporations that serve a set of shareholders (donors in this case) who subscribe to a specific idea of Nature and a specific set of outcomes, outcomes that may not necessarily be shared by all stakeholders.

This idea of Nature has for a long time discounted the needs of people both today and in the future. To illustrate this, one only need look at the environmental community's approach to government debt.

Conservation groups (my old employers among them) have promoted using a country's debt as leverage to gain conservation protection. The debt-for-nature swap was an innovation of the past couple of decades and a noble one. But it was also painfully ignorant of the true nature of that debt -- in many cases "dictator debt" incurred by regimes that did not have its people's best interests in mind.

Now that we have a more clear understanding of how that debt was derived, and can no longer ignore its immoral origins, we need to give up or adjust the debt-for-nature swap concept and join the call for debt forgiveness. That will free some countries from having to exploit their natural resources to pay down that debt.

Yet, many in the environmental community continue to push the debt-for-nature strategy, because they can't let go of a good thing that advances their agenda.

How is this different from any corporation -- a sector many environmentalists attack -- that advances its agenda at the expense of people here and abroad? Can we really trust ecosystems and habitats to big government or big international non-governmental corporations?

In the end, wouldn't a better approach be to put our trust in the people and the communities where these ecosystems and habitats are found? They have the most at stake in managing these resources, as their needs and livelihoods are most closely tied to the lands and waters.

I believe human beings are basically good. I also believe that, given the opportunity, communities will manage their common interests and keep each other in check. This is the open-source community approach one finds in social networks and in business models such as eBay.

I also believe that human beings are the most creative and adaptable species on the planet -- just look at the variety of habitats, climates, and conditions we inhabit. Our resilience as a species is astounding. I argue that we need to embrace this resourcefulness and apply it to overcoming ecological shifts, climate change, and loss of ecosystems and habitats.

We need to unleash the power of human creativity to find new ways to "save" those places for future use by both human and non-human species.

Unleashing this human capacity will require suspending our assumptions. We will need to focus more on community-based or "commons-based" management (as Jonathan Rowe of the West Marin Commons in California calls it in a recent essay in The State of the World 2008).

We need a people-centered conservation that addresses the real needs of real people, and to empower individual entrepreneurs and communities to manage their resources cooperatively rather than impose grand plans from Washington.

We need to clearly draw the lines connecting economic prosperity with ecological health and human well-being.

And, finally, we need to unleash human creativity to find new technological solutions as well as new ways of living with nature.

This may, in the end, be our only hope to really save habitat and ecosystems – and, ultimately, to save ourselves.

Acumen Fund's 10 Lessons Learned About Getting Beyond Poverty

Jacqueline Novogratz of Acumen Fund

Five years ago I sat down with Jacqueline Novogratz to talk about Acumen Fund. She was just about to leave for a trip to Africa and I was just beginning to think about leaving The Nature Conservancy.

To my mind at the time the Conservancy had moved away from its core strength of supporting work on-the-ground and in-the-water -- we were more focused on large-scale global planning.

We had moved to the side of the "Planners" versus the "Searchers," to use William Easterly's nomenclature from his critique of Western efforts to "Aid the Rest," White Man's Burden. 

"Planners determine what to supply; Searchers find out what is in demand," Easterly wrote. "Planners apply global blueprints [emphasis mine]; Searchers adapt to local conditions. Planners at the top lack knowledge of the bottom; Searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom. Planners never hear whether the planned got what it needed; Searchers find out if the customer is satisfied..."

Acumen Fund was on the side of the Searchers, the entrepreneurs. I wanted to get back to working with entrepreneurs who were doing real work.

There were three things I really liked about Acumen Fund:

1.) They were investing not donating -- and they were all about results.
2.) They thought like a Venture Fund, only with a more patient, long-term view.
3.) Jacqueline. She was direct and didn't beat around the bush.

I need to explain that last bullet.

I was coming from a big, non-profit corporation, which operated in many ways like a Fortune 500 company.  Five years into its life Acumen was still more like a small and nimble start-up fund.

As entrepreneurial as I was -- I'd started several print and online media ventures over the years -- and despite how intrapraneurial I had been in my time with the Conservancy, Jacqueline saw that I wouldn't fit into Acumen at that time.

"Have you thought about starting something on your own?" Jacqueline asked.

(I ended up going to Ashoka as their vice president for global development before moving on to start my own endeavors.)

I continue to follow, support, and be impressed by Acumen's progress.  They have an impressive record of success.

Tonight and tomorrow Jacqueline and Acumen Fund are celebrating 10 years of creating a world beyond poverty by investing patient capital in social enterprises, emerging leaders, and breakthrough ideas.

Since 2001, the fund has invested more than $65 million in enterprises providing access to water, health, alternative energy, housing and agricultural services to low-income customers in South Asia and Africa. Their global community of emerging leaders combines the tools of business and philanthropy, making the world a better place.

Here are 10 Things Acumen Fund has learned over the past 10 years:

1. Dignity is more important to the human spirit than wealth.

2. Neither grants nor markets alone will solve the problems of poverty.

3. Poverty is a description of someone’s economic situation, it does not describe who someone is.

4. We won’t succeed in the long term without cultivating local leaders, local money, and strong local communities.

5. Great people, every time, no exceptions.

6. Great technology alone is not the answer.

7. If failing is not an option, you’ve ruled out success as well.

8. Governments rarely invent solutions, but they can scale what works.

9. There is no currency like trust, and there are no shortcuts to earning it.

10. Patient capital investing is built upon a system of values; it is not a series of steps to be followed.

You can learn more about Acumen Fund here and download their Lessons Learned here.

Congratulations Jacqueline and Acumen Fund on ten years of success -- and here's to the next ten years!

From The Green Skeptic Archives: Caring, or A New Conservation Ethic

My son Jasper tagging a saltwater croc, Mexico, January 2005

[Note: While on hiatus this week, I'm re-posting gems from The Green Skeptic Archives. This post originally appeared on 7 October 2005.--SEA]

Over the past several weeks, in the conference centers of Monterey, the wilderness of Yosemite, and the halls of my company's offices in suburban Washington, our talk has been about drawing a closer connection between conservation and people.

We've come a long way, but still have miles to go before we can say we've expanded the boundaries of our own conservation ethic.

I've been thinking a lot lately about conservation ethic. One phrase that keeps coming back to me is Robert Michael Pyle's statement that "People who care conserve, people who don't know don't care." It's a powerful truism and one to which we should pay heed.

Our movement is often accused of being elitist and defeatist and, frankly, those criticisms are far too often accurate. Beautiful photos of pristine places beg the question, "What about the people?"

(Pyle's words came back to me during tonight's playoff battle of the Sox. It was late in the game, my beloved Red Sox had bases loaded and blew several chances to tie the game or take the lead. Johnny Damon was up, surely ready to play the hero. My nine-year old son, who learned to care about baseball -- and my team -- during the 2003 ALCS, was on tenterhooks: would Damon do it? When the Caveman struck out, stranding three base runners and turning the BoSox into WoeSox once again, my son was apoplectic. "Now I know you are a true fan," I told him. "You really cared." I haven't seen him that upset since he learned that polar bears were losing habitat to global warming!)

We need a new conservation ethic that clearly redefines the human + nature equation: that human beings are not apart from, but rather a part of nature. We need to articulate the real connections between conservation and restoration of the earth's natural functions -- also known as ecosystem services -- and their real implications for the people of the earth.

Moreover, that we care about people as much as the earth's other species. Without this, we will sink in a downward spiral of our own making.

Whether we're talking about food, fuel, fiber for clothing or paper or a myriad of other goods and services nature provides, we need to stop "seeing the natural world as a resource for the economy," as James Gustave Speth writes in his book, Red Sky at Morning, "rather than seeing the economy as nested in the natural world."

We have obligations to the world that go beyond our self-interest, to paraphrase Aldo Leopold, and until we own up to this our conservation ethic will ring false for the majority of the world's people. Our new conservation ethic must be as inclusive as it is pragmatic, and as interconnected to the other issues of our time -- poverty alleviation, terrorism, AIDS/HIV -- as to the natural world we hold dear.

We need to remember this whether we're on higher ground in one of this nation's important National Parks, the sterile corridors of an office in northern Virginia, or the cozy confines of that little bandbox of a ballpark that is Fenway.

KVA & Portable Light's Sheila Kennedy on Clean Energy Solutions

Back in March at the Aspen Environment Forum, I facilitated a panel called Energy Equity: Clean Energy for All, in which we discussed exciting new alternative energy innovations with the potential to change the lives of the "bottom billion" of the world's poor.

One of our panelists, Sheila Kennedy of KVA Kennedy & Violich Architects and the Portable Light Project, shared her designs for textiles with flexible solar materials and solid state lighting that enables people to create energy harvesting bags, blankets, and clothing using local materials and traditional weaving and sewing techniques in an open source model.

Tonight, Sheila will share her latest developments on the show "Brink," on CBS Science Channel.

"At the Aspen Forum, our discussions revolved around what we can do right now to rethink the delivery model for clean energy so it can become more widespread, accessible and enjoyable as a part of everyday life," Sheila wrote to me recently. "It's my hope that our designs can set a new direction for 'ready out of the box' clean energy products and building components that can drive the green economy —- in the developing world and right here at home."

KVA's work with energy harvesting textiles is being featured on a special episode of Brink on "Sustainable Living" tonight at 10:30 PM EST: "Brink"

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Business Week Profiles 25 of America's Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs

Business Week is featuring 25 of America's Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs and asking readers to view a slide show and vote "for the business you feel holds the most promise, from now until Apr. 26."

They will announce the top five vote-getters on May 2.

Here's a description from Business Week:

"Social entrepreneurs—enterprising individuals who apply business practices to solving societal problems such as pollution, poor nutrition, and poverty—are now 30,000 strong and growing, according to B Lab, a nonprofit organization that certifies these purpose-driven companies. Together, they represent some $40 billion in revenue.

"Not surprising, then, that they've caught the attention of venture capitalists such as those at Acumen Fund, a nonprofit that invests in companies that try to alleviate poverty, and Bay Area Equity Fund, which backs businesses aiming to make social or environmental improvements to San Francisco's needier neighborhoods. President Obama has even suggested starting a new government agency to help socially conscious startups gain more access to venture capital."

Go watch the slide show of these very inspiring people and their ideas. You won't be disappointed.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Good Company Ventures: A Virtual Incubator for Social Sector Companies Launches in Philly (greenskeptic.blogspot.com)
• Investing to fight poverty (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com)

Blog Action Day '08: Poverty and Energy

Energy is a basic human need and underlies all economic and social activity. It is an "indispensable element of sustainable human development," according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). "Without access to modern, commercial energy, poor countries can be trapped in a vicious circle of poverty, social instability and underdevelopment."

And yet, today, according to a 2005 UNDP study, Energizing the Millennium Development Goals, "millions of households in the developing world still lack access to safe and reliable energy and pay high prices for poor-quality substitutes. Moreover, poor people spend much of their income on energy, more than a third of household expenditures in some countries."

That would be bad enough were it the only impact, but poor households, especially women, also "devote a large portion of another important asset, their time, on energy related activities--women and young girls spend upwards of 6 hours a day gathering fuelwood and water, cooking, and agro-processing."

Worldwide, around 2.4 billion people still use solid fuels, including wood, dung, agricultural waste, and coal to meet their household energy needs. Cooking and heating using open fires or traditional, inefficient stoves results in health-compromising indoor air pollution, and causes up to 1.6 million deaths every year, according to the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University in Houston. Most of those deaths involve women (60 percent) and children under five with acute respiratory infections.

In some countries, Baker Institute researchers claim, "this neglected health risk is to blame for 3.7 percent of all deaths, making it the most lethal killer after malnutrition, unsafe sex and lack of safe water and adequate sanitation."

Worldwide, according to sources familiar with the situation, two billion people live without any access to modern energy supplies and about 1.6 billion people live without access to electricity.

It's a vicious cycle: poor households do not have the resources to obtain cleaner, more efficient fuels and appliances; so they rely on solid household fuels and limited, often inefficient appliances, which in turn reduces the potential for economic development and affects their health and productivity, keeping them from making their way up the poverty ladder.

One can argue that achieving many of the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015 is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without addressing the need for increased access to cleaner, affordable, and safer energy.

Researchers at the Baker Institute conclude that, "In order to halve the number of people living on less than $1 per day, there is a concomitant need to reduce the number of people who lack electricity services by some 560-600 million." Their price-tag for providing electricity services to these people? Around US$200 billion.

It's kind of a no-brainer: Better energy services can reduce workloads and indoor air pollution, potentially generate income for poor households, and lead to greater environmental sustainability, encouraging better natural resource management and improved water quality.

Microenergy or small, distributed energy generation may be the key to providing energy services to the global poor. Small-scale solar installations are now affordable for application in most rural, developing countries. Wind turbines, geothermal, and more efficient biomass or biogas stoves can reduce the impact of indoor air pollution and forest degradation.

As microfinance has revolutionized the access of financial services to the poor -- by no means is that revolution complete -- so, too, can microenergy help leverage the rural poor out of their vicious cycle of poverty.

And just as there is a ladder out of poverty, there is a corresponding ladder of energy (see diagram above). Increasing energy access to the world's rural poor can contribute to reducing global poverty. Indeed, you can't reduce rural poverty without it.

(Diagram Source: IEA Analysis, World Energy Outlook 2002)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Commentary: Reconciling Poverty, Sustainability, and the Financial Crisis
• MDGs a distant dream
• Warming 'affecting poor children'

Review: Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

You may want to read this book by starting with Part II. Either that or make sure all the knives are locked away so you won't slit your wrists during Part I.

Lester Brown has his facts straight and uses them liberally, but reading about how dire is the current situation on the Earth leaves you feeling hopeless.

Increasing shortages of water, rising CO2 levels, food security, health, education, and natural systems under stress. What can we possibly do to change this for the better?

Luckily, Brown pivots after the first 127 pages and devotes the rest of the book to solutions.

"There are many things we do not know about the future," Brown writes. "But one thing we do know is that business as usual will not continue for much longer...Will the change come because we move quickly to restructure the economy or because we fail to act and civilization begins to unravel?"

That is the critical question of this book. Can we move fast enough and for the right reasons?

Brown, the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute, has been promoting a sustainable future for over 30 years.

He includes recommendations for eradicating poverty, stabilizing population (through education and contraception), restoring natural systems, feeding the projected 8 billion we are likely to see in this century, and shifting to greater energy efficiency and alternatives.

And he budgets out the necessary costs, estimating Plan B will take an additional annual expenditure of $190M, "roughly one third of the current U.S. Military budget or one sixth of the global military budget."

Brown concludes: "The choice is ours -- yours and mine. We can stay with business as usual and preside over an economy that continues to destroy its natural support systems until it destroys itself, or we can adopt Plan B and be the generation that changes direction, moving the world onto a path of sustained progress."

What choice do we have?


(Blogging by BlackBerry; links to come later.)

Social Entrepreneurs: CNN Interview with Majora Carter of Sustainable South Bronx

Majora Carter is one of my green heroes. As the founder of Sustainable South Bronx, she has effectively turned around an area that was once best known as the poster child for urban blight.

The South Bronx was once a thriving, working-class community; it was also home to rich cultural traditions and influences. (Think: hip-hop, which first emerged from there in the 70s.)

Majora wants to see the South Bronx restored and respected, and is committed to its bright, green future.

Highlights from the story:

-Carter, who grew up in the Bronx, set up Sustainable South Bronx in 2001

-She wrote a $1.25M Federal Transportation planning grant for the South Bronx

-The 11-mile-long stretch now Hunts Point Riverfront Park is the first South Bronx waterfront park in 60 years

-Carter wants to see the South Bronx become a thriving community again

Her organization promotes green-collar jobs and sustainable development as a route out of poverty and to create stronger, healthier and greener communities. She wants Manhattan to start handling its own waste rather than dumping it on the local communities

CNN spoke to her about her inspiration, her work and her hopes for the future:

Majora Carter Interview

Here is more on Majora: Bio

More about her organization: Sustainable South Bronx

And a slide show of her work: Slides

Majora at Aspen Institute Environment Forum: Big Idea

And don't miss Majora's TED Talk, "Greening the Ghetto":




She is so damned inspiring! We need more Majora Carter's in the world.

Global Climate Change: Hans Rosling on CO2 Emissions and Human Development Trends

Dr. Hans Rosling rocked the house at TED in 2006 with his sportcaster-like presentation of data on human development trends (see embedded video below).

It really is quite a fascinating presentation; watch him describe trends in life length and family size like it's the Kentucky Derby. Wow.

Hans Rosling's TED Talk is really more like, what can I call it, a "datashow":



Rosling has also taken a look at CO2 emissions trends and finds that some humans emit much more than others.



For example, while "the total CO2 emissions from China are almost as big as those from United States, the emission from a single American is more than 6 times those from a person in China."

In the end, Rosling concludes, what "China needs is an environmental friendly way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal." Don't we all?

You can find more GapCasts and information about Dr. Rosling's data at: gapminder.org

Global Climate Change: Myanmar Satellite Images

Thanks to Paul Kedrosky @ Infectious Greed for these NASA satellite images that illustrate the impact of the Myanmar Cyclone. I hear death toll range of 22,000-66,000. And no early warning for many of these people.

In this day and age of technological advances, one would think major destruction of human life could be avoided through communication.

I know no single event can be tied to global warming, but we probably need to get used to these events happening more frequently with climate change.

As Paul said, "Jaw-dropping."

Salzburg Global Seminar: Africa on Agenda of Africans and Others

Day 3 of the Salzburg Global Seminar on "Towards a 'Green Revolution' in Africa."

Productivity, markets and trade, equity, sustainability, farmers and households have all been on the agenda.

The global food crisis did not hijack the agenda, as some had feared, but was clearly on our minds here.

We recognized; however, that while the immediate need to address the crisis is important, we should not lose sight of the longer time horizon required by making real change in African agriculture.

Infrastructure, conflicts, and genetically modified organisms were also on the minds of many here; however, as quickly as these issues were brought up, they were also tabled.

Appropriate? Not necessarily; but most of us recognized we didn't have the time to adequately address these issues.

There must be a focus on these issues and the potential impacts of climate change, by some body. Perhaps sub-groups on peace and stability, infrastructural investments, cliamte impacts, and GMOs?

One subject that came up consistently was strengthening the capacity of farmers and their organizations, as well as ensuring the concerns of farmers and pastoralists (ranchers) are included in agenda-setting.

Another consistent subject was gender equity; both empowering women, but also getting men more completely engaged in agriculture.

One could argue these are not concerns raised at the time of the earlier Green Revolution -- at least not when it was conceived or launched.

Thinking these issues through up front will ensure this Green Revolution/Revolution Vert en Afrique will be very different and, hopefully, even more beneficial to people on the continent as a result.

Ultimately, what it all comes down to is quite simple: we need a people-focused Green Revolution in Africa.

(Composed on BlackBerry; links to come in future.)

Salzburg Global Seminar: Seeking a Green Entrepreneurial Solution in Africa

A "Green Revolution" in Africa?

It may be a good idea; it may even be a necessity. But one hopes we learn from the lessons of the Green Revloution in Asia of the 1960s and 70s and apply those lessons to Africa.

While there were definite benefits and succeses in terms of agricultural yields and production:land ratio -- especially in certain parts of Asia -- there were also negative impacts and unintended consequences.

As I understand it, these negative impacts essentially came from three inputs: increased reliance on chemical fertilizers and irrigation, promotion of the monoculture-style farming popular in the day, and depletion of genetic diversity and soil health that put farmers at higher risk.

The environmental degradation this caused in some places (not all) is well-documented. The impacts are still being felt by people and communities in many parts of Asia.

But we've learned alot since then and part of the solution requires such inputs. We need be vigilant, however, to better monitor these inputs as we seek to increase outputs.

As important, perhaps, is to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of Africans, both farmers and non-farm entrepreneurs.

Smallholder farmers in particular can help maintain the diversity of species and soil health, keep more of the income generated local, and respond to local changes brought about by global warming and other impacts.

Entrepreneurs working in the non-farm economy can promote access to markets and to microcredit, alternative energy development, and other livelihoods. Again, ensuring a local response to needs and impacts.

My point is, any Green Revolution in Africa must engage, invest in, and deploy entreprenurial Africans.

The continent is full of entrepreneurial people. We only need welcome them to the table and ensure they have a voice in crafting any solutions.

Africans helping Africans. Now there's a concept whose time has come.

(En route to Salburg Global Seminar.)

Salzburg Global Seminar: Towards a Green Revolution in Africa?

This week I'm attending the Salzburg Global Seminar conference, "Toward a 'Green Revolution' in Africa?"

"Toward a 'Green Revolution' in Africa?" is an Initiative of the Salzburg Global Seminar, the Institute of Development Studies and the Future Agricultures Consortium.

The title is posed as a question, which of itself is an interesting statement.

I like that it's a question, because it implies the seminar organizers are not wedded to one idea or one approach to what ails Africa.

It also implies that there are lingering questions about whether a "Green Revolution" is what's needed in Africa.

A healthy skepticism is important when people come together in dialog about issues as important as the health and future of the African continent and its people. I admire the seminar organizers for sticking that question mark in the title.

At the heart of this question are two overarching additional questions:

1. How can new interest and investment in African agriculture be used to bring about real and sustainable change; and

2. How can these efforts be aligned strategically with other investments and development activities (be they from private donors, public aid, or private business) and new strategic alliances and partnerships be created to ensure success?

As the conference organizers write in an Overview provided to participants: "There is a clear need for a new vision for agricultural development in Africa that can deal with the complexities of agriculture in diverse settings across Africa and meet the conditions necessary to achieve more equitable benefits for Africa’s farmers. But whose vision should this be?"

The conference brings together "diverse stakeholders, from within Africa and beyond, who are experts (in their given areas), leading thinkers, change-makers and are, or can influence, senior decision-makers."

At last count, there are 90 participants from government, business, academia, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), "who will explore a set of issues of vital concern to the future of agriculture in Africa, and, indeed, to Africa’s development agenda."

We'll be asked to "devise the conceptual framework within which a new agricultural development agenda in Africa can be set and implemented, and to recommend specific actions," including "recommendations for policy adjustments, streamlining practice, and creating strategic alliances."

It will be interesting to see what the outcomes of the sessions will be. For now, I'm really looking forward to this dialog, both as a learning experience and for what I think I can contribute in terms of linking agriculture to biodiversity health, social entrepreneurship, and investments.

Click here for more on the Salzburg Global Seminars.

Social Entrepreneurs: Van Jones on Colbert Report (Forgot to Post)

"When I was a kid they promised me a jet-pack," Stephen Colbert says. "Where's my jet-pack?" He's being his usual acerbic self, poking fun at his guest, Van Jones of Green for All.

I meant to post this earlier in the month, but it somehow got lost. I'm a big fan of Van Jones and his take on the "green economy." I also like the way he promotes clean and green jobs in the US as a pathway out of poverty.

His interview with Colbert keeps Van on his toes, but the point still gets across. Watch it here:



Bottom line: We need to move from a pollution economy to a solution economy.

Go Van go!

Environment: U.N. Expert Calls Food Crisis "a silent tsunami"

CNN reports that a U.N. expert calls the current global food crisis "a silent tsunami."

"Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls 'a silent tsunami' in developing nations.

"Josette Sheeran, the U.N. World Food Program executive director, illustrates the food ration for children.

"The rising prices are 'threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,' Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations' World Food Program, said on the agency's Web site Tuesday.

"Sheeran is one of the experts attending a Food summit hosted Tuesday by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, aimed at determining ways to boost food supplies and identify deterrents. Also attending the meeting are scientists and representatives from the European Union and Africa.

"On the Web site, Sheeran said the increase in food prices is 'a silent tsunami that respects no borders.'

"'The world's misery index is rising ... as soaring food and fuel prices roll through the lives of the most vulnerable,' she said Friday.

"The crisis is forcing the organization to look for cuts in aid to some of its recipients, she said.

"Soaring food prices have triggered violence in some developing countries, and biofuels are bearing at least part of the blame."

Read the full article: Food Crisis

Read the Economist cover story on the issue: Silent Tsunami

Global Philanthropy Forum: My 3 Take-Aways

As I mentioned after the Aspen Environment Forum, someone taught me to leave a conference with 3 Take-Aways; three things you learned, want to remember, and maybe even act on.

Here are my 3 from last week's Global Philanthropy Forum:

1.) We need to change the way we market Africa; to change the perception of Africa by changing the search image. Instead of poverty and backwardness, we should be sharing success stories of Africans helping Africans of which there are a growing number of examples. (Avoid the "broken window syndrome.")

2.) We are not being ambitious enough in attacking poverty and our vision of a world without poverty is not yet big enough. (BRAC's Fazle Abed made some comments that were particularly enlightening in this regard.)

3.) "Climate change takes the oxygen right out of the air," in the words of Google.org's Larry Brilliant. It affects everything and impacts all. We need to rethink how we approach climate change: it's not solely an environmental issue or an issue of reducing carbon emissions. (More on that later.)

I'm sure I will have additional thoughts as I begin my rounds of follow-through from the conference, but these are my 3 Take-Aways from 39,000 feet above the US.

Oh, yeah, and "Watch the Street Hacks!" (Thanks, Jan Chipchase from Nokia)

Global Philanthropy Forum: Another Perspective

Okay, so where and when am I going to get a hug and kiss from Annie Lennox again? Did that make this conference for me? Maybe. But there where many other discussions and dialogues of note that made this conference worth attending.

One was the dialogue I facilitated -- a Table Talk Conversation -- about social entrepreneurs consisting of a very engaged and interested group of people. It included two social entrepreneurs and a round of phenomenal people. There are phenomenal people throughout this conference, on stage and off.

Another was the technology discussion on rapid response featuring Mark Smolinski from Google.org and Jan Chipchase of Nokia; another was Fazle Abed (BRAC) and Larry Brilliant (Google.org) in conversation with Judy Woodruff. Stimulating.

Is it worth it? Or is it just another conference? Lucy Bernholz had this to say on her excellent blog, Philanthropy 2173:

"Conferences are what they are. Good ideas, lots of conversations, some entertainment, (hopefully) some provocation, and always that question of whether or not it was worth the time. Here's what is worth it - we are in this together. This is so simple, yet runs counter to so much of what we have claimed for philanthropy. Philanthropy fails when it separates givers from doers, them from us, and uses words likes 'unto' or 'for.' Change relies on all of us. Giving and doing with others requires us to recognize that we have a self interest in making change happen -- not hiding our solidarity, but working from it."

Read Lucy's entire post: Philanthropy 2173

Global Philanthropy Forum: Live Blogging Continues

Day Two of Global Philanthropy Forum started with stirring, impassioned, and inspirational speech on Human Rights and its many abuses by Kerry Kennedy.

She was kicking off a plenary on the issue with Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch, Paul van Zyl, who founded a transitional government consultancy, Sidney Harman of Harman International, and Keith Leisinger from Novartis.

Van Zyl practically put the current administration on notice when he suggested the potential need for a review of the human rights abuses of the past eight years.

Roth spoke mostly about Human Rights successes, until he was challenged by two audience members: one from northeastern India, where the indigenous people are "legal targets," based upon a 1958 law, and the second who asked whether governments should boycott the Beijing Olympics. His answer: they should not go to opening ceremony, but not boycott the games.

But Sid Harman was the most engaging, telling stories about his own journey of ensuring the rights of his employees at Harman's various industries.

Harman's story of the Oliver, TN, autoparts plant and its transformation is worth hearing again. And they've been proactive in addressing domestic violence issues in their company.

Great to have an example of an enlightened leader among captains of industry -- and among more policy oriented activists.

Microfinance: How Big Can Micro Get?

To profit or not to profit? That is the question. Whether it is nobler to make microloans with donor money or with investor capital is being hotly debated in the development community these days.

The question surrounds Compartamos, which means "let's share" in Spanish, and whether its principals -- known as the two Carloses -- should be sharing the spoils of their microlending institution cum commercial bank. According to a study cited in the New York Times, Compartamos enjoyed a 19.6 percent return in the 4th Quarter.

Part of the issue is profit, but another is about shareholder return. Will shareholders or investors keep the best interests of the poor in mind? Or are the interests of the poor better served by the donor community, who have typically funded microfinance?

For the record, among the largest shareholders in Compartamos are Accion Gateway Fund (Accion Gateway Fund L.L.C), IFC (International Finance Corporation), Oikocredit (Oikocredit), PROFUND (ProFund International, S.A.), Triodos-Doen Foundation (Triodos-Doen Foundation). Not exactly cutthroat capitalists.

There is certainly a need for more capital. According to a Deutsche Bank study, cited by The Times, "the global demand for microfinance loans [is] about US$250 billion, 10 times the amount that has been lent."

Banco Compartamos went public last year in an attempt to gain access to a broader capital market rather thank rely on the limited pool of philanthropic capital. That got the attention of Wall Street and drew some ire from more traditional microfinance institutions.

Some of the criticism stems from the roots of microfinance as a tool for eradicating poverty. A play like Compartamos seems to take microlending in a completely different direction, which, to some, strays from the mission.

But the question remains, is there room for traditional banks and other lending institutions to offer financial products for the poor?

What if Compartamos had not started as a non-profit (it was founded by a Catholic social action group called Gente Nueva, according to the Times), but had started with a different approach?

It seems like microfinance is feeling some growing pains. Some 20 years after the concept first sprouted -- and only two years since one of its originators, Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, won the Nobel Peace Prize for the innovation -- its best practitioners have demonstrated it works. Now others want in the game.

I suspect there has to be room at the table for players like Compartamos, as well as commercial banks and other investors, alongside the small "mom-and-pop" shops and the Kiva.orgs, the latter of which connects lenders directly with borrowers through an online interface. The problems of poverty -- extreme as well as low- and mid-level -- are just too great to be limiting approaches now.

As I've argued before in this blog, the poor need better access to the full range of financial services -- and they need it now more than ever.

We need to remain vigilant as big institutions enter this space or we may end up with something like the mortgage crisis on our hands. We don't want people, as microfinance consultant Charles Waterfield told the Times, "making obscene profits off poor people."

But who decides when micro gets too big to be called micro any more?


For more on this issue, read the New York Times article by Elizabeth Macklin, "Microfinance Success Sets Off a Debate in Mexico."