Will the UK increase Overseas Development Assistance?

There's a bill in parliament to increase ODA. The next government will determine the bill's success. But DfID faces more challenges than convincing the UK government to keep to their old unfulfilled promises.

In the UK, election season is swinging into high gear, and many government projects are wondering if they are going to survive - whomever wins the election. Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), generally carried out through the Department for International Development (DFID) is no exception. This week, the International Development Select Committee, which oversees DFID in Parliament, recommended that whomever wins the election should increase international development assistance to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to support development efforts in 2013 and each following year.

Back in 2004, the UK government agreed to make the now-famous 0.7% of GNI. This year, they will commit 0.57% of the budget. The government has never made 0.7%. Indeed, the government took 11 years to increase their budget .17%. We're not talking about big percentiles - but increasing the aid budget, regardless of the commitments and the rhetoric, seems to be difficult regardless of who is prime minister. So there is a bill on the table to increase ODA to 0.7% - in other words, to keep their promises. But the bill has a pretty large loop hole: it allows the government to renege on their comittment for 'economic, fiscal or external circumstances'. Given the current climate, that's pretty much the same thing as saying that they don't really have to do anything. It would mean that once again, the UK government is making a promise it won't actually live up to - hardly the first time in the field of sustainable development. The Select Committee discouraged this - not too surprising, given that it is the Overseas Development Committee - they are likely to push their 'select' concern.

Of course, even if the bill passes - and even if, by some small miracle, it is done well, and Parliament makes the right decision and takes out that loophole big enough for any government to waltz right through it without even being singed on the edges of their fancy coats, larger questions loom. Does DfID have the capacity to work effectively in increasingly insecure and challenging environments, from Afghanistan to Somalia? How are they going to work with complex emerging actors such as China, or work with internal actors such as the State department, who is increasingly getting involved with 'development issues'? And in times of economic struggle, how are they going to get that much-sought-after 'value for money'? And of great importance, how are they going to work on sustainable development - promoting it and re-imagining it in the context of constrained resources, climate change, the need for low-carbon growth, and the renewed power of actors such as the World Bank who don't exactly have a clean environmental record (though they are making some strides in improving it)?

It's a challenging time for DfID. It's hard to know if their prospects are better with a labor or conservative government - either party might cut, not increase, ODA. Personally, I feel efficiency for sustainable development - which we are still learning how to do, and thus will make many mistakes in learning how to do it well - is one of the greatest challenges, and one of the greatest opportunities. To do it well, DfID can't work alone. Of course, they never have. But maybe one of the solutions to their problems is one of the ones they haven't yet learned to use - the British public. Can social media contribute to DfID's work towards sustainable development? DfID's Canadian counterpart, CIDA, has made efforts to have greater Canadian public engagement in their work and have found it quite challenging. Not too surprising - as corporations and others who try to make use of public engagement have found, its rarely an easy or quick process. But I suspect that greater engagement, not less, is key for DfID, both at home and abroad.

From Control to Engagement - Not an easy transition, but an important one

There is a general agreement: to engage with the public for sustainable development in a socially-networked world, companies need to actually engage. I know, I know, that is just oh-so-brilliant. But again and again, companies try to control their messaging and their communications. I've met a lot of ex-corporate communication managers who left because it was, well, boring. These days, both internal and external communications need to move up the spectrum of public engagement - towards engagement (and not just 'talking down' to the public'. I've no doubt that it will, eventually, happen.

There are ways to 'help' organisations become more engaged - the same ways one goes about any organisational change. Register what isn't working and why it isn't working. Create a vision for what the company works. Put in place structural management processes, and the necessary evaluations and assessments to measure the halting journey towards better business. That will help lead to sustainable development.

Certainly social media can be about transforming the business model. Reuters Market Lite in India is a fascinating example of this. They've devised a new sector: the micro information sector, connecting farmers in India with the market - especially national and global food prices through the use of mobile phones. This has tremendous impact - including return on investment for customers that can increase as much as 1000 times. This innovation-centered, customer-orientated, sustainable business model has gotten huge attention from international media; especially for and from emerging markets. Over two years, they have 200,000 customers, and are keeping as close to their customer base as possible. At the moment, it is mostly a one-way communication and they are thinking about how to go down that route.

Photo credit: Aesthetics of Joy

Where's the Crisis? Ask the Young Women

There's been a lot of talk of the financial crisis. Recently, there has been talk of it lessening - even being over. For those looking at international development, East Asia and other countries have been held up better than anyone - including them - predicted. Despite comforting noises from the financial services, development organisations of all stripes are warning the global public that poor and vulnerable people the world over have just begun to feel the effects of the financial crisis. And around the world, it is the women who are feeling it most.

Why the women? Because women - especially poor women - are more likely to take care of things when things fall apart. Social networks, especially the family, takes up the challenges of supporting one another. Older women play a significant role in keeping the women together. They care for the elderly and the children. They are more likely to a be in the informal sector, which has been strongly effected by the crisis. Many already work several 'jobs', and when you are poor and working in the informal sector and work dries up, where are you going to go? Many must turn to prostitution to feed their families. As for the 'young' part - at least in many countries, especially in south east asia, young people have been hit harder than older people.

Oxfam recently asked women what they wanted. They wanted school children to have free books, low interest loans for poor people, social security for children which would reduce medical bills, and, when factories got shut down, workers would get some compensation so they were not suddenly left with nothing. These all come under the loose but vital category of social protection.

The age has come for social protection in all countries. But despite the evidence for this, it is questionable if the political will is there.

Greenwashing on the high seas: WHY?

Wally, a “brokerage and charter service of sail and power boats in futuristic design” has partnered with Hermes, a design company famous for its luxury products, to create the WHY – Wally Hermes Yacht – which debuted last month at the Abu Dhabi Yachts Show and has been touted for its green features.

Really? A Green Yacht?

Okay, let’s start with the specs. The WHY is 58 m long and 38 m wide, with 3,400 square meters [roughly 36,600 square feet] of “guest surface area” spread over its three levels. [One for living space, outdoor deck, spa, dining room, music room and cinema; one for guest suites, lounge area, and library; and the third reserved as the owner’s private space.] Designed to accommodate 12 guests and 20 crew members, it affords roughly 280 square meters [or 3,014 square feet] per guest. Just for comparison, according to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size for a one-family home in the United States is 2,330 square feet [216 square meters]. And we Americans are not known for living in tight spaces. The WHY also offers three different sky-lit patios, a 25 m swimming pool with “thermoregulated” water, and a helipad -- for transportation convenience.

It’s “green” features include the following: “ultra-low consumption” LED lighting and air-conditioning systems, wind turbines and 900 square meters of thermophotovoltaic panels -- which reportedly power the boat’s auxiliary systems -- and an aerodynamic hull designed to decrease energy needs by cutting wind resistance. There is also a computerized energy management system that regulates the use of the vessel’s renewable energy and supplementary diesel fuel.

The green stats listed on the WHY website include the annual fuel savings [160,000 litres or 200 tons. A 200 TON savings?!] and the “lost thermal energy recovered” [1,500 kWh/day], but make no mention of the total diesel fuel costs, the energy consumed in the production of 900 square meters of pvs, the total carbon costs of the project, or an explanation of how anyone could possibly need [or justify the purchase of] a 3,400 square meter yacht.

Luca Bassani Antivari, President and CEO of Wally, writes: “This revolutionary concept of the moving island is developed with the latest and most advanced sustainable technologies … the architecture of the whole project fits perfectly in the environment – there are no excesses, nothing is superfluous, the impact on the sea is minimum.”

I didn’t make that up; he really claims that “there are no excesses” and “nothing is superfluous.”

WHY is a beautiful piece of engineering; its sleak, steamlined design is gorgeous, its luxury features are breath taking, and it certainly looks like an amazing place to spend a vacation…or, well, the rest of your life. But, I’m sorry, I just can’t take the green claims seriously. How can we lend the sustainability label to something that is so obviously nothing but excess, that is so clearly a superfluous use of resources.

I’m not saying WHY isn’t beautiful; I’m not saying its morally wrong; I’m not even faulting Sheik Whoever at the Abu Dhabi Yachts Show for buying one. All I’m saying is that it isn’t green; Antivari shouldn’t say that it is and we shouldn’t believe him even if he does.

If we’re going to talk about WHY at all, we should recognize it for what it is – an innovating achievement of yacht design and a fantastic display of opulence – instead devaluing the meaning of “green” by using it so inappropriately.

Sustainable Languages

What does it mean for a language to be endangered, and how do languages relate to sustainable development?

Can you read this?

Obviously if you’re reading this you are a speaker of English, native or otherwise.

Do you speak another language?

If you’re an American there’s a 75% chance that English is the only language that you speak well enough to converse in.

If you’re in the minority 25%, chances are that second language is Spanish.

What about Alyawarre, or Pipil, Itza' or Baldemu, Liv or Karaim?

Chances are you don’t speak these languages, because these languages are on the list of endangered languages.

What’s an endangered language? It’s a language that’s at risk of falling out of use, generally because it has few surviving speakers. If it loses all of its native speakers, it becomes an extinct language.

Why does this matter?

Because embedded within language are ways of seeing and of understanding. Learn a new language; gain a new soul says a Czech proverb. Language is a huge part of culture, and identity, and examples abound that when people are ripped from their culture, and they lose that identity their societies cannot thrive, even if they are not ripped from their land or other ways of being. You cannot have sustainable development if you destroy a people in the process.

As the National Geographic Society's Enduring Voices Project notes:

Every 14 days a language dies. By 2100, more than half of the more than 7,000 languages spoken on Earth--many of them not yet recorded--may disappear, taking with them a wealth of knowledge about history, culture, the natural environment, and the human brain.

In the push towards global connectedness we are leaving beautifully necessary aspects of humanity behind.

For a very long time this loss has only been the concern of linguists and anthropologists, which is why Rosetta Stone, the popular language software, foray into the field of endangered languages is worth noticing. The Rosetta Stone Endangered Language Program creates language learning software for endangered languages, allowing indigenous nations to hold onto (or in some cases) regain a linguistic tradition and culture that had been all but lost. The communities hold onto the final product and are free to distribute them as they see fit.

The greenest city in the U.S.?

Justmeans co-founder Kevin Long recently asked me what I thought was the greenest city in the U.S. and without too much hesitation, I responded with Portland, OR.

I’ll admit, I’m biased; I can’t help it; I heart Portland.

Everyone hearts Portland, or they should. It’s a great place – beautiful, clean, not too expensive, good food, great beer, free public transportation. What’s not to like? Okay, I know, somewhere out there I’m sure there is a contingent of Portland haters -- people who probably think the city is too yuppie or too upper-middle-class-white or too rainy. [First of all, let me just say that I live in Boston and by this time of the year, February, I’d take rain over frigid arctic temps any day. Second, you can complain about the yuppiness of a place like Portland all you want, but let’s face it, deep down you kind of like it.]

Anyway, Portland was my knee-jerk reaction, but then I got to thinking…why is it that I think Portland is the greenest city in the country? Is it really because of the various sustainable development initiatives put forth by the city? Or, is mostly because Portland is, simply, a nice place to live? Is a nice city with a high quality of life a sustainable city?

After a little googling, I found some “objective” support for my case. I am definitely not the first to attest to Portland’s greenness – the city’s progressive planning and land use, urban innovation, air and water quality, and impressive number of green buildings make it an easy choice.

But there’s more to it than this. When I think about why Portland feels like a green city, it’s not these measurable qualities that come to mind, but instead, something much more difficult to articulate…something about the culture of the city and the priorities of the people who live there.

It’s not just that you can walk out your door and sample locally-brewed beer at any one of the many microbreweries, or go for a trail run in the city’s 5,000-acre city park, or ride your bike everywhere…it’s that the people you meet in Portland really care about these “green” urban features and want to talk to you about them. Portland’s “greenness” is embedded into the culture of the city; people move there because of it and there’s a palpable energy that comes from this collective environmental enthusiasm.

People heart Portland. They care about the city they live in and because they care, they work to improve it, even though it’s pretty darn cool already. Maybe that’s not the way we typically think about “greenness” but it sure makes Portland a nice place for the environmentally-minded to call home.

Pride, Denial and Development

Confronting the pride and the denial that are besetting the world's 'greatest superpower': redefining development.

The problem with being a super power is you tend to think highly of yourself. You are, after all, both super and power. The pride that comes with thinking of oneself as highly developed, or civilized, or at least a great Empire is undoubtably one of the major reasons why it has taken the United States - and other Western countries - so long to fully admit to and appropriately deal with dangers such as climate change and with the challenges of sustainable development and to normalise green growth.

Take the area where the United States should excel: renewable energy. The US has the old auto factories that easily become wind turbine factories, it has the massive of unemployed, many of who are blue collar workers, it has a social movement (Green for All) that is supporting the transition, it has excellent examples of poverty-energy-growth- win-win-win sustainable solutions, it has global reach, industrial prowress, excellent access to markets, generally favorable trade policies, etc. You know the drill. Who is excelling? China. They are becoming the leaders in green energy - as you probably knew.

There are a lot of reasons why. But pride, prejudice, and a dangerous degree of denial are right up there. Not that the United States is new to any of those characteristics - particularly the denial aspect. Which is dangerous for any market entity - it is essential that the US keep its head above water, something its having an increasingly difficult thing doing.

There needs, now, a reconceptualisation of development in order to enable sustainable development. With China owning much of the US, and with it clearly racing ahead on what is surely some of the most important emerging markets for this century, we can not longer say that even though China is poor, it is clearly undeveloped. And given the dangers of pride and prejudice, I would be loath to call any country that includes them as 'developed'. Instead, all countries should be seen as developing. That would enable a greater degree of humility - and the chance for learning. And such humility is essential for sustainable development.