The Power of a Human Face

The nonprofit microlending organization Kiva has recently been in the news for less than flattering reasons. Essentially billed as an organization that links individuals (such as you and me) with burgeoning small business owners in the developing world who are in need of a loan, Kiva's hook was in adding the illusion of person-to-person contact. Donors literally believed that their small loan was going to the project and the person of their choosing: a woman creating a sewing business in Mozambique for example, or a local group creating a sustainable farm in Uganda. Much like those sponsor a child programs, there is something uniquely heartwarming in thinking our dollars were going to a specific person or group.

The reality (which admittedly was all readily available on their website), is that the money does not go to a specific entrepreneur but rather goes to creating a general microlending funding structure (much like Grameen bank). Fundamentally, nothing has changed, perception wise the recent uproar indicates that much has changed.

It turns out that Kiva is not the only nonprofit organization guilty of creating such misperceptions amongst its donors. Many of those nonprofits that encourage people to help a family in the developing world by donating money to purchase a family of geese or a milking cow does not always turn those donation dollars into an actual goose or cow. The money, which in part does go to purchase livestock, can also go to help with operating costs. A reality that doesn’t feel as heartwarming as believing we helped a family get its first cow.

Similarly, not all of the dollars collected in those sponsor a child programs goes directly towards maintaining the welfare of that child. Some of the money has to go to maintaining programmatic costs such as finding the children, making sure that the money is going to support their well being, and recruiting new donors.

In a culture that seems to value an almost ruthless sense of honesty, these obfuscations seem to have a thin veneer of bait and switch. But on a deeper more practical level, I’m hard pressed to say more than “so what?”

I’ve worked for non-profits and the reality is that getting donors to donate money for operating costs is nearly impossible. Donors want to fund projects they don’t want to hear that their dollars went to buy stamps. At the same time however, without funds for operating costs the projects that people happily donate their dollars to would not exist. Buying a goat or helping a specific person pulls at our purse strings and gets us to donate in a way that helping to pay a living wage for a secretary in San Francisco (where Kiva is based) doesn’t. But without that San Francisco secretary there would be no way to make the connection to that burgeoning business person in the developing world. There is no evidence that Kiva or any of these organizations are using their donor dollars in ways that are not in keeping with the spirit of the donation and in my opinion the transparency issue is moot as it was all clearly listed on their website. Donors simply chose not to read the fine print.

Kiva found a hook to get even the most jaded amongst us to open up our wallets and thousands of people have benefitted. All I can say to that is… where can I donate?

You are staring into the face of illegality

Sage, Juniper and Rosemary, the chickens photographed to the left are secret chickens. Bootleg chickens. Illegal chickens. Their hometown, a distant suburb of a major city, does not allow its residents to raise chickens so their owners, self-proclaimed suburban homesteaders, raise them covertly under the title of pets. The fresh eggs that they get each morning with golden orange yolks that they whip into omelets, place atop croque madame’s or turn into the occasional batch of cookies are merely a benefit of having pet chickens, not the goal…definitely, not the goal.

That these chickens are illegal is symptomatic of zoning laws that reflect the standards and needs of bygone eras and not the needs of their current communities. As an increasing number of people develop an interest in sustainable food including growing their own produce, and yes raising their own animals the rules need to change.

However, as any number of individuals who have attempted to get the ordinances in their local municipality changed, changing the rules can be exceedingly difficult. The powers that be have created inflexible systems that are difficult to change and often fail to anticipate changing mores. This is not an issue that begins and ends with my friend’s illegal chickens, either.

Many zoning ordinances currently on the books prioritize wider roads, cul-de-sacs, car transport and a host of unsustainable practices. And yet, when individuals or organizations move forward to incorporate more sustainable behaviors into their lifestyles, they discover that those same rules often stand in their way. The most common barrier is rules that were originally developed to protect residential areas from the negative effects of industrial factories and prohibit mixed use developments of all sorts. How this often plays out, however, is that the average person cannot live next to an automobile factory (good) but they also cannot live next to a supermarket (bad). This kind of blanket zoning is why many suburbs are driving distance and not walking distance from the closest supermarket, restaurant or bakery; the ordinances explicitly prohibit mixing businesses (even safe ones) with residences.

The inanity of these rules abound: households that have become car free discover that it is illegal for them to convert their now useless driveways into lawns or gardens; an individual who has managed to get his trash down to absolutely zero is fined for not having trash, and so on. As those of working to develop more sustainable communities push against these ordinances to get them changed to encourage more sustainable developments, we should also leave behind ways of making it easier to change the ordinances in the future. Much as many of the current rules are outdated and no longer contribute to how we as a society would like to live, we must also recognize that the rules we are currently implementing may one day be rendered inoperable. We have to incorporate flexibility into our planning process.

Technology Transfer: not always a good solution for sustainable development

Climate Change discussions are filled with ideas for technology transfer, and every time I hear the discussions I shudder. From decades of attempts at building sustainable development, we can say for sure that technology transfer is, at best, a mixed blessing. Too often it is based on an old idea that has not yet been retired as it should have – that technology is good and will bring economic growth and development and that technology is transferable. But technology is not always transferable. And that includes renewable energy technology, a favorite among Sustainable development folks.

Let’s take the example of cooking stoves. Women in Southern Africa chop down trees (or gather dead wood if its available) for fuel to cook food, especially those women for whom petrol is too expensive. This contributes to deforestation and, when the cooking is done indoors, it can increase respiratory illness. Not a great situation for people or planet For the past decade, there have been various attempts to change this pattern to enhance sustainable development. They have rarely been successful.

Most of these ‘technological fixes’ have come from the West, designed in American or Dutch laboratories and then taken down to Southern Africa. There are problems of uptake, problems of usefulness, of familiarity, and of countless little things those who designed these new stoves didn’t think of. People prefer the taste of food made with fire. The new designs (there have been several of them) break easily, or take more time, or are not suited to other aspects of the culture.

So what does work? One really had to get to the heart of sustainable development. And that means, remembering that in putting people and planet first, that includes putting the knowledge of local indigenous people first. Technology should not be designed far away and then assumed to work. It needs to be designed with the local people as much as possible. Those times when that has happened, using local materials and local knowledge, has led to greater success.

Battle for Leadership is just the beginning for UNESCO’s Bokova

It was a long, drawn out fight to determine the next leader, and the work of repairing and strengthening the organization which suffers financially means the real battle has only just begun. I’m not talking about a company, but about the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization more commonly known by its acronym, UNESCO. This past week, Irina Gueorguieva Bokova, a former Bulgaria foreign minister, won over her apponent, Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni. There is little question that Hosni’s comments that he was ready to ‘burn’ Israeli books led many to question him as anti-semetec – hardly appropriate for the leader of a global educational and cultural institution. Bokova will need to spend much of her first few weeks building bridges with those countries who supported Hosni, a painter much favored by the Arab world.

But Bokova has more to do than ease complicated relationships. To achieve some degree of sustainable development, she will need to put the ‘S’ for ‘science’ back into UNESCO, which has, of late, done little to advance science (much less on science for enhancing sustainability) around the world. If she is able to do that – and thus far there is only a little evidence that she is interested in sustainable science policies - sustainable development will have a greater chance of success. Like so many UN organizations, UNESCO has the potential to make a tremendous difference. And as is unfortunately all too common, the extent to which it can make that difference is compromised by a lack of financial resources, diverse political commitments, and weak political leadership. Hopefully Bokova can make a difference in at least some of those constraints.

South Africa: Biofuels, Take II

South Africa has been making considerable strides towards renewable energy as part of its overall attempts for sustainable development. You may remember the last big attempt, a few years ago, when the company Ethanol Africa halted construction of a plant when the government suddenly realized the implications of using corn, the staple food for a country with roughly 25% unemployment and 50% under the poverty line, to fuel cars. The resulting food vs fuel debate has never died down – nor should it; food should never be taken out of the mouths of poor people and put into the gas tanks of rich(er) people’s cars. That’s not sustainable development.

But biofuels made out of waste vegetable oil? That’s another story entirely, and one ripe for sustainable sustainable development. And First in Spec (FIS) biofuels are looking to invest R1.5 trillion over four years in three biodiesel plants processing waste vegetable oil. The energy will go towards the mining, forestry, fisheries and agricultural industries, starting in the spring of 2011.

The problem: South Africa doesn’t produce enough waste vegetable oil to make it sustainable in-country. FIS’s solution: procuring waste vegetable oil from Canada, India and Australia.

I have to wonder if those countries have enough waste vegetable oil for their own biofuels – probably not. Waste vegetable oil is hardly plentiful outside of MacDonalds – and even in MacDonalds, it’s hard to say how long that will last. It’s trying to power its entire UK delivery vehicles on the company’s own grease. Though if we ask them, I suppose they would suggest that the solution to a lack of waste vegetable oil is to eat more French fries. Which, if health is a key component of sustainable development, doesn’t work so well.

Sustainable Development with Heifer International

Now is the time for companies to follow a holistic approach and promote sustainable development. Heifer International, a non-governmental organization has been making significant contributions to this cause. It donates a wide variety of trees and animals to needy families all around the world. The organization has developed global initiatives to end hunger and poverty. Due to its efforts, not only millions of hungry people all over the world are getting fresh vegetables, milk and eggs but many poor families have also started their business and built new homes.

Heifer International follows the strategy of ‘passing on the gift’. The recipient of the animal is required to donate the offspring of the gifted animal to someone in need. This makes them an equal partner with the organization in fighting poverty and hunger. The organization is also involved in transporting food, providing training on animal husbandry, sustainable farming and community development.

Heifer meets all standards for charitable solicitation set by the Better Business Bureau. It is also a member of BBB’s Wise Giving Alliance. People who donate money to support this cause can also designate their gift to certain country programs. It feels great to learn how a simple strategy of ‘passing the gift’ can create a large network of self reliance, hope and dignity. More organizations need to realize the importance of sustainable efforts and set such examples for ensuring a better future.

Sustainable Development with Sustainable Tourism

Can tourism make a positive contribution in sustainable development? The answer is yes! You will be surprised to know that besides creating revenue and jobs, the tourism sector can also contribute in improving eco-friendliness. The UN World Tourism Organization recently launched a campaign in the wake of promoting this sector for achieving sustainable development. According to experts, this industry can play a major role in dealing with pressing issues like global recession and climate change. However, it does not get the deserved attention when these subjects are discussed globally.

We all know that uncontrolled rise in tourism can have detrimental effects on the local cultures as well as on the environment. But if managed properly, it can help any developed or emerging economy attain socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. As compared to other industries, the effect of tourism on the environment and natural resources is less. It plays an important role in encouraging commitment of consumers towards the principals of environmental sustainability through various distribution channels.

There has been an overwhelming response on sustainable tourism from corporate all around the globe. An effective environmental program has been developed by the largest Canadian hotel conglomerate, Canada Pacific Hotels to redesign the purchase policies for reducing water wastage. They have also launched a recycling program for decreasing the waste being sent for landfill by 50%. The Kandalama Hotel in Sri Lanka has received the “Green Globe” aware thrice for its commitment towards the ‘go green’ cause. Various inter-regional initiatives have also been taken to use tourism for sustainable development. The key to success lies in encouraging more participation from industrial organizations and trade association.