Palm oil growers can protest too …

by Tim Wilson, April 30, 2010

An interesting article has appeared in Mongabay.com about the challenges food manufacturers are now facing on the issue of palm oil. While rich country consumers are still angry about the impact of the crop, it now seems that developing country farmers are threatening supply in protest at the crops treatment in the developed world. And interestingly the Catholic Church has now weighed in with a senior Indonesian church official arguing that palm oil is not a religious issue, but one for governments and the people of Indonesia. Considering palm oil’s clear contribution to economic development in Indonesia and Malaysia it’s probably politically wise for the Catholic Church not to weigh in on the issue, but a shortage of supply may mean Nestle is drag into the debate more than they would like. The question is which side Nestle chooses …

Biofuels from deadly products …

by Tim Wilson, March 31, 2010

There’s an interesting article in today’s The Australian on the use of tobacco as a potential source of biofuels. As many readers will know the foolish obsession for biofuels to help cut global carbon emissions recently cut available food supply and consequently led to food prices increases. These increases had a relatively insignificant impact on food prices developed countries but hit people in the developing world harshly.

The theory behind tobacco-based biofuels is that it won’t increase the price of food but may increase the price of tobacco and either cut tobacco company profits, or increase the price of tobacco for consumers and price them out of the market. But to get there the world will need to get over its objection to genetically modified agriculture products to reap the true benefits.

It’ll be interesting to see how this debate progresses because it will require debating over some sacred cows.

Free markets cut Chile quake’s impact

by Tim Wilson, March 3, 2010

A number of articles have been published since the Chilean earthquake rightly pointing out that its magnitude was much greater than the quake that hit Haiti, but the lives lost in Chile is smaller and the capacity to rebuild is much higher than in Haiti. And the reason, as outlined in this WSJ Article is a direct consequence of the free market therapy delivered by the ‘Chicago Boys’, led by Milton Friedman, during an otherwise unpleasant period in Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship.  We cannot condone the Chilean dictatorship or the methods they used, but few today would argue that the shock therapy delivered by Friedman et al wasn’t a good unintended consequence. And doubly so following this earthquake.

Who’s getting the benefits of aid …

by Tim Wilson, February 22, 2010

It’s rare that foreign aid becomes a headline story in Australia, but a front page story last week in The Australian highlighting the incredible salaries of aid contractors is no doubt making some aid activists stomachs churn about the supposed beneficiaries of lifting foreign aid contributions.

But for those who have worked in foreign aid it is hardly a surprise. It is hard to attract technically expert people to go and regularly work in the Pacific Islands unless they are well paid, but there is also a lot of other expenses that weren’t mentioned including when foreign government officials visit Australia under our aid program they stay in five star hotels, get paid good per diems and have most meals covered by the Aussie taxpayer.

For years the government has been contracting out foreign aid work for the very good reason that the expertise of the public service is in policy, not program delivery. But it has also meant many aid contractors have very fat stomachs funded by money to deliver programs to help the world’s starving and poor.

Foreign aid is important. Disaster relief aid is essential. But to be effective non-disaster relief aid has to be targeted and focused. There’s not enough discussion on the importance of targeting aid and what its priorities should be and these even a lack of discussion about this in fora designed to get to the bottom of how Australia’s aid program should be prioritised like at World Vision’s recent One just world debate.

Thankfully some in the media, like the Weekend Australian’s quality columnist, Rowan Callick, had a good piece highlighting the distorted priorities of the current government’s aid program.

But we still need to have a proper, informed public discussion about foreign aid and what our priorities should be. If for no other reason than to give confidence to the public for when it can be beneficial.

LUSH cosmetics washes their hands of poor’s fate

by Tim Wilson, February 17, 2010

Through a friend I received a copy of LUSH Cosmetics press release today regarding their new “Jungle Soap” which is palm oil free. The press release is part of their new promotion to sell Jungle Soap and highlight the claimed impact of palm oil on orangutan populations. All revenue from Jungle Soap will go toward the Australian Orangutan Project.

On face value LUSH’s campaign looks like a legitimate demonstration to care for the globe and draw customers. There’s just one problem. A deeper reading of their press release shows that instead of using palm oil they’re using other oil seeds.

As Sustainable Development has highlighted in the past the attacks on palm oil are bogus when the reason for forest clearing isn’t specifically for palm oil, but to grow crops by South East Asia’s poor to secure a sustainable livelihood. Palm oil is just the crop of choice because it is low cost and high yield.

By switching to other oils, like rapeseed, LUSH is actually using a lesser environmentally friendly oil that delivers a much lower yield – meaning more of the world’s resources will be used to produce less output.

And the cost of the decisions of discerning Australian cosmetic consumers against products with palm oil ingredients will simply be South East Asia’s poor who’ll lose out on income.

But these days I doubt anyone is surprised to see rich country consumers washing their hands of the interests of the world’s poor when they can be seen to be supporting a ‘good’ cause without having to watch the impact on those who suffer the consequences.

On the offensive | Alan Oxley takes aim at WWF …

by Tim Wilson, February 12, 2010

An interesting article appeared in The Australian yesterday by Alan Oxley, former Chairman of the GATT and current Chairman of pro-growth NGO, World Growth.

Oxley uses the recent exposure of the link between environmental NGOs attempts to ’sex up’ the questionable science used to justify anthropogenic climate change claims to take aim at the anti-development agenda of NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund. In particular the arguments ally well with Sustainable Development’s view that many environmental NGOs are running campaigns that will harm economic development that is necessary to be able to afford environmental preservation.

The article is well worth a read and is likely to stir some emotions at WWF headquarters, especially because the accompanying cartoon was the Panda logo holding a chain saw.

Taxes on medicines are still a problem …

by Tim Wilson, January 27, 2010

Anyone following the long-running debate about access to medicines in the developing world will know that intellectual property is regularly sharply criticised as the culprit. It is a highly disputed claim. And even then, we know IP is necessary to help promote medicine innovation which is vital to ensure there are medicines to distribute.

But there are dead weight losses on the sale of medicines that only add to the final cost, without benefit, and particularly tariffs. A new report from the International Policy Network makes this point that highlights the current trend in medicine tariffs in the developing world.  The report finds that generally the tariff levels are going down, but still remain prohibitively high in the least developed countries of the world. Tariffs are also more widespread on antibiotics in places like Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ensuring universal access to medicines is one of the greatest challenges humanity faces. But first, and foremost, governments shouldn’t be shifting the blame when they’re still clearly responsible for high prices themselves.

Poverty maximises the human cost of natural disasters

by Tim Wilson, January 15, 2010

I was going to write an article along these lines, but Richard Fleming from the Global Poverty Project did it for me. Like with climate change, the biggest threat from natural disasters isn’t an unforeseen or unpredictable event but the amplification of its impact caused by poverty.

Fleming correctly points out that there are plenty of equivalent natural disasters around the world in rich countries that take a much smaller toll on human life. The reason is because the population is wealthy and can a) cope with the disaster better such as fresh water supply and distribution channels for food, and b) less damage is done to the country that increases the events impact such as the Japanese buildings in earthquake prone areas built on springs.

The situation in Haiti is an absolute disaster. But in addition to delivering a band aid solution through post-disaster aid, we must promote economic development that means the next natural disaster in Haiti isn’t as severe and enables the Haitians to better manage the consequences.

Day 12 | COP15 | Obama and Rudd third way dream team fails to deliver …

by Tim Wilson, December 19, 2009

The ambition for the city of Copenhagen to have its name bandied around as a major international treaty, like the Kyoto Protocol, is officially over.

After two weeks of mostly show-ponying by negotiators, Ministers, and now leaders the Copenhagen Conference has resulted in a weak Copenhagen Accord to commit countries to further cooperative efforts to cut emissions, and that is really about it.

Unsurprisingly green groups are outraged, but it begs the question – why? The Kyoto Protocol was a monumental failure and didn’t deliver any significant emissions reductions but still rallied activist and political campaigns to dupe the public into thinking its ratification would mean something. Why don’t they just go on that roundabout again?

To their credit leaders have managed to whittle down the pre-conference one hundred and eighty-odd pages of negotiating text down to just three, but it has come at the expense of meaning anything.

Some negotiators were clearly hanging out for President Obama’s arrival to either charm leaders out of their established negotiating positions or bring something new to the table. He did neither.

Instead Obama’s short speech to the conference plenary was probably the most insulting and patronising speech delivered by a US President in a long time. Obama poorly understood the mood of the audience and chose to behave like an infallible school master lecturing children about the importance of keeping their socks up to maintain school dignity, rather than appealing to each leader’s hopes to share in collective victory. It was put best by a journalist from The Guardian that Obama’s speech received “polite applause”.

Reportedly there was a lot of “mistrust” in negotiations, with bitterness in the mouths of some countries who have experienced the behaviour of leaders, like Kevin Rudd, who has allegedly personally bullied small Pacific island nations into gaining support for Australia’s position. But small Pacific island nations clearly responded to Rudd with the strength bullies cannot counter.

Now the politicking of the conference, at least in the English language press, has veered sharply in favour of Europe and the United States who have made it clear they believed the major barrier to an agreement was China. But calling out an entire country with a culture that believes in the importance of ‘saving face’ is unlikely to prompt endearment.

Instead Western leaders appeared to be accepting what the Chinese negotiators have been whispering for two days – worthwhile negotiations are over. As a consequence they’re calling out China to try and save their own ‘face’ for when their domestic constituencies rightly criticise them for lumping so much false hope onto the outcome of a conference any considered observer knew wasn’t going to deliver before it started.

The Australian population now rightly should be asking Kevin Rudd why he kept pointing to a presumed new Copenhagen treaty to justify his failed Emissions Trading Scheme when he knew deep down it was misleading at best, and deceptive at worst.

Negotiations continued late into the night with the ambition of the US delegation to bring China to the table with a signing pen in hand. It appears to have succeeded. But rather than being remembered for a significant global commitment to cut carbon emissions the city of Copenhagen is likely to be recognised as the first of many uncrossed hurdles to secure a credible post-Kyoto pact.

Day 11 | COP15 | China and India’s game of “the US started it” …

by Tim Wilson, December 18, 2009

Apparently the arrival of Gordon Brown, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez and Kevin Rudd in the Danish capital wasn’t enough to seal a climate change deal and everyone is now waiting on Barak Obama to arrive and deliver. But the warning from US negotiators today was “No, he can’t” break any deadlock between countries because what’s on the table is as good as he’s able to get through the US Congress.

But then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, arrived to declare “Yes, she can” by offering the US’ help to create a $100 billion-a-year climate adaptation for developing countries on the condition that they also seek emissions cut. Developing countries now finally have the adaptation slush fund they want, but with strings they don’t want attached.

The test is now whether developing countries can now get past their childhood taunting games where the United States emits carbon, then India and China reciprocates, and when daddy Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, intervenes India and China claims “the US started it” as a means of absolving themselves of any wrongdoing.

But China’s view isn’t shared by all countries. The focus of the last scheduled day of the conference tomorrow is whether developing countries will hold together and take the US’ adaptation fund bait or whether the mounting criticism of India and China’s hardline negotiating position will break them apart. It’s not clear, but like separating a politician from tax dollars, it’s hard to stand between developing country governments and a pot of gold especially when the obligations that come with it will fall onto their successors.

Meanwhile Kevin Rudd has been trying to deal himself into the negotiations by pulling at heart-strings in a speech to the conference arguing for an agreement to make Canberra primary school girl “little Gracie” proud. It’s cute, but is more likely to sway the Australian public that many developing country governments who have, and in some cases let, thousands of little Gracies die each year from a lack of food because they’d rather protect the interests of their mates or use food money to line their Swiss bank accounts.

Speaking of Robert Mugabe, his attendance is correctly causing a stink after his recent speech declaring that the West responsible for any anthropogenic climate change. It is certainly a safe claim for him to make since his thinly veiled dictatorship has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy ensuring they couldn’t emit greenhouse gases even if they wanted to.

And it may shock some readers, but today I agree with Deputy Greens Party leader, Christine Milne, when she said on Sky News yesterday that “There is a real risk here (in Copenhagen) that you will get a political agreement because world leaders are not coming here to go home with a loss of face and they will want some sort of photo opportunity”. And her criticism is spot on because a bad deal is actually worse than no deal at all.

A bad deal is likely to only be a puff political statement that all leaders can agree to. But the risk is also that it sets out the architecture for an agreement while pushing all of the unresolved issues to contact groups, reference groups or sub committees.

That’s a risk because it means issues start to be dealt with in isolation rather than being negotiated as part of a broader package where costs in one stream are offset by gains in other streams.

If a bad deal is struck it would be better for the meeting to fail because the risks of doing so are comparatively small, climate aside, and that is where discussions are now heading.

And before everyone loses perspective international negotiations regularly fail, and normally more than once. In fact most take at least five years to secure an insufficient agreement and longer for a semi-good one.

Take the Doha Round of trade negotiations that are stalled in their eighth year, and they’re about liberalising trade to increase economic gain. This round of climate change negotiations is only in its second year and is all about how we’re going to distribute economic pain.

A Copenhagen failure will be like getting an extension on a school assignment where everyone aims to get it done by the deadline, but work, or in this case the global economic crisis, and breaking up with your boyfriend, meaning insufficient political will, always seems to hit right at the part when you were about to put pen to paper.

Eventually you do get the assignment done, it just tends to be when you have more breathing space, or you just push off dealing with something else. And for punishment you get a little knock down in your final grade for being late or if climate change evangelists are to be believed, a couple of more floods per year.