By Bridget Dooley
VIENTIANE, Laos, Oct 18 2022 – Mountainous terrain in northern Laos has until now restricted chances for farmers and producers in much of the nation to export their goods, limiting them primarily to subsistence farming and also curbing development, education and poverty reduction in their communities.

But as infrastructure and transportation in the “land of a million elephants” grows, the southeast Asian nation is moving from landlocked to land-linked. The Laos-China Railway is the most notable of these transformations, creating a high-speed means of bringing people and products through some of the most remote provinces, particularly in the north, and giving farmers access to new markets to sell their goods.

Living in a fertile and relatively large country with a small population, Laotian farmers are primed to move “beyond feeding themselves, from subsistence farming to enterprise farming, – Because farmers tend to plough their profits into their families and communities, supporting their earning potential directly benefits communities

Nasar Hayat, FAO Country Representative

It’s still too soon to gauge the economic impact of the railway, which opened in December 2021, on nearby communities. Through the Hand in Hand Initiative (HiH), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) aims to harness the potential of this blank slate to benefit Laotian farmers by attracting investors who will support the development of a green economic corridor along the track to sustainably empower the local communities that act as stewards of the land.

HiH is an evidence-based, country-owned and led initiative of the FAO to accelerate agricultural transformation, with the goal of eradicating poverty, ending hunger and malnutrition, and reducing inequalities. The initiative was supporting 52 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East as of May 2022.

Small markets limit production

Investment in Laos via the HIH has the power to expand market options for producers and also improve their collective bargaining power and earning potential. Currently many of these farmers yield small harvests not because of natural circumstances but because of the lack of buyers, processers and exporters of their crops and livestock.

Living in a fertile and relatively large country with a small population, Laotian farmers are primed to move “beyond feeding themselves, from subsistence farming to enterprise farming,” says FAO Country Representative Nasar Hayat. Because farmers tend to plough their profits into their families and communities, supporting their earning potential directly benefits communities, he added in an interview with IPS.

“When a farmer earns, they put that money into homes, into their children’s nutrition and education, into local businesses. They don’t take a trip to Europe and drain the funds from their communities.”

In order to tap into this earning potential, Hayat says that Laotian farmers must work collectively and be supported through market accessibility, scientific training, and research and development, all of which can be supported by investors. These advances can pave the way for positive long-term development, he added.

While the fertile southern and central plains of Laos have historically been seen as the country’s breadbasket, the initiative aims to increase the capacity of the mountainous north. As a result, tea (which grows in the mountain forests) cassava (which can be cultivated on slopes) and livestock (which can be raised in any terrain) are the commodities included in the HiH.

The owner of Nam Phu Vieng farm, Mrs. Vanheung Duanglasy, poses with her cattle outside of Vientiane, Laos. Credit: FAO

Only one tea factory

In the misty, mountainous northern province of Oudomxay, in the village of Ban Phouhong (population 270), members of the Khmu ethnic group have been earning their livelihoods by picking tea in traditional ways for the last eight years. Plucking the leaves takes skill and dexterity and the leaves are potentially highly valuable, but pickers in Ban Phouhong have unfortunately seen their profits limited by a meagre market: only one factory is accessible, giving its owner a de facto monopoly over the area’s tea.

As a result, the factory owner has kept the prices he pays growers low, not at all in step with inflation rates and the rising cost of living. Picked tea earns just 15,000-20,000 Lao Kip per kilo (US$1.20), a rate which has stayed steady while food and gasoline prices have soared.

The limited market also means that only two-thirds of the trees’ valuable leaves are being picked, because these older leaves are the only ones purchased and processed by the nearby factory. Meanwhile, the tea buds, which can be the most valuable part of the plant, are left unpicked. Investment in Ban Phouhong could give pickers access to their own means of processing these valuable buds.

Also, while the workers have been trained in picking, they lack the knowledge necessary to grow their own enterprises: “We want to plant more seedlings, but we don’t know how. Only one family knows how to plant seedlings, and they have not been here for years,” said one picker. With investment, the villagers hope to get the scientific training they need to take control of their own growing potential.

Outside of the capital Vientiane, in May Park Ngum, a group of cassava farmers has been wasting up to 15 metric tonnes of cassava per day of harvest, amounting to about 100 metric tonnes of wasted cassava each year, because of the limits of their local cassava market.

The story of these farmers highlights how the potential benefits of Laos’ new connectivity are not limited to rural, remote provinces. After one export middleman failed to pay the May Park Ngum growers for their cassava – a debt amounting to about $1,200 per family – the farmers have been reticent to accept anything but cash for their crops. As a result, they have reduced their growing area by half and have also been stockpiling unsold cassava, much of which they have had to throw away because it has gone bad.

Livestock workers on Nam Phou Vieng farm. Credit: Bridget Dooley/IPS

Growers turn to pesticides

As a result of this loss, the farmers have unfortunately begun looking for less environmentally-friendly ways of boosting their profits, even as they are unsure of who would buy those crops. “We’ve been experimenting with pesticides on a small portion of our land. We found this could increase our yield from three metric tonnes of cassava per hectare per year to five metric tonnes of cassava per hectare per year,” said one grower.

However, with more reliable buyers, the farmers could maintain their current organic growing methods while doubling their growing potential, in turn doubling the earnings of their 50 hourly workers and, most importantly, ensuring their crops are not wasted.

Taking full advantage of the railway’s market-expanding power depends on following strict export regulations. For livestock, export requires vaccination to prevent the spread of transboundary diseases. While initial vaccination is costly, it pays for itself several times over through profits.

The owner and operator of Nam Phu Vieng farm in Vientiane Province, Vanheung Duanglasy, says that the high cost of vaccinating against lumpy skin disease prevents her from selling more of her animals, despite the fact that she has the capacity to raise far more. While she has contacts with reliable buyers in Vietnam, vaccination costs about $45 per cow every three months, significantly limiting how many cows she is able to raise for sale.

Like the cassava farmers, the owner of Nam Phu Vieng says that with investment and more buyers her farm could produce far more, expanding her profits and allowing her to hire more workers from her local community.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Oct 18 2022 – Next month, the latest annual United Nations climate extravaganza, COP27, will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Last year it was in Glasgow. Next year it will be held in (drum roll please) … Dubai!

These big climate events have been around a long time. Since 1995, there has been a climate COP (short for “Conference of the Parties”) every year except 2020, when it was postponed due to the Covid pandemic. Over the years, the COP roadshow has traveled far and wide. From Berlin to Buenos Aires, Kyoto to Cancun, and Bali to Marrakesh, the COPs have criss-crossed the globe with the aim of finessing new agreements to see off the specter of climate change.

The United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels

These annual summits generate a lot of interest. The most recent in Glasgow attracted tens of thousands of participants. World leaders and celebrities often jet in and join the throng, while the global media reports every move in the corridors of power and concerned citizens protest outside. And yet the COPs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to UN-sponsored climate meetings.

If you add the several preparatory meetings in the lead-up to the COPs, plus a host of workshops and other events by various expert technical groups, you’re easily looking at several dozen gatherings every year.

Each event is supposed to help us move the needle on climate change, keeping our warming world within the 1.5o Celsius threshold beyond which we face potentially catastrophic consequences. But what, exactly, do all of these many meetings accomplish? Are they really worth all this time and effort?

The climate bandwagon: Roll up for the never-ending world tour!

There are plenty of arguments against letting the climate circus continue its endless circuit. For a start, science tells us that in spite of all the many meetings held, we’re still on a dangerous path. Groups like Carbon Action Tracker estimate that we’re currently on track for somewhere between 1.8-2.7 oC, with the lower number representing their most optimistic—and least likely—scenario. This is clearly well above where we need to be.

Another common complaint is that UN climate COPs are mostly just talking shops; in Greta Thunberg’s words, too much “blah, blah, blah” and not enough action. For all the millions, even billions, of words uttered at these events, they can often end in acrimony with little of substance agreed. Surely, the money used to hold these summits could be better spent on something else?

Even when agreement is reached, say the critics, there is no guarantee governments and other stakeholders will keep their pledges. History is littered with broken promises and diplomatic treaties that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

These arguments are all credible and we don’t disagree with any of them. But here’s the thing. For all their weaknesses and flaws, these summits actually matter a lot.

Like a rolling stone …

First, the United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels.

Take our global energy systems, for instance. From being a niche market in the 1990s that could not compete on cost with coal, oil and gas-generated electricity, in 2020 solar power became the cheapest source of electricity in history. The technology behind both solar and wind have moved on in leaps and bounds since the 1990s, thanks in large part to the flow-on effects of international lawmaking.

The much-maligned Kyoto Protocol of 1997, now largely superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement, brought the private sector firmly into the equation, launching carbon markets and spurring private sector investment that has begun to reshape our global economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels.

From electric vehicles to power generation to building design, the number of changes catalyzed by our international work on climate change are too many too list. Probably the best metric for judging the UN climate summits, however, is their impact on long-term global warming.

In recent years, projections for the expected long-term warming have fallen from as much as 4-6C before the Paris Agreement was inked, to around 1.8-2.7C now, assuming we implement pledges made at UN summits. And while anything above 1.5C is still very, very bad and the need for more action remains urgent, it’s not as unimaginably catastrophic as those higher numbers would be.

The worst approach … except for all the others

That’s not to say the UN climate process can’t be improved. Some people would like to see them shrunk back to their size in the early days, when just a couple of thousand people—key negotiators and a smaller number of other stakeholders—met in person. This, they say, would render it more manageable, reduce the carbon footprint, and make it less of a “circus.”

There are arguments on both sides here. While on the one hand it is true that arguably only a few hundred diplomats could handle the haggling over the official UN documents under negotiation, it is worth noting the impact those other participants can have.

For a start, many new pledges and promises are emerging on the sidelines of the official negotiations; “coalitions of the willing” wishing to make progress in specific sectors like, say, green investment, electric vehicles, reducing methane emissions or halting deforestation.

These alliances of governments, private companies and other stakeholders are able to make advances in specific sectors where the official UN negotiations—which require consensus among more than 190 governments—cannot. The groups involved in such coalitions choose to network, negotiate, and announce their plans during the COPs because of the public interest in these events.

Attend just one of these COPs and you will soon notice how many connections are made, partnerships are formed, and ideas generated, by participants not involved in the formal UN business of treatymaking. The benefits of these meetings and collaborations are hard to measure, but certainly considerable.

UN negotiations can often feel glacial. With the scientific community—and the daily news of extreme weather events around the world—reminding us of the need for urgency, it can feel like the discussions are going far too slowly. Obviously, there is much more to be done in a short space of time given that we are still hurtling towards some pretty frightening outcomes without more progress. Still, the UN process has made a difference and started to move the needle, even if is not yet happening fast enough.

And what are the alternatives? No single country or private entity stands a chance of dealing with this threat alone. Neither Amazon nor Google can conjure up an online answer to this type of problem. The US or China can’t “go it alone” and no coalition of governments has been able to deliver what’s needed. It is clear, therefore, that a multilateral, global process involving all governments and stakeholders presents our only chance of containing such a global threat.

Winston Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others. The same applies to multilateralism and climate change. It is flawed, frustrating and at times agonizingly slow. But it is still without doubt our last best hope of success.

Stepping up

So what needs to happen at COP27 in Egypt? Many are describing it as the “implementation COP” where we begin to turn pledges and well-laid plans into action. There will be pressure for countries to come with bolder measures to reduce their national emissions and for wealthier nations to bring more money to the table when it comes to supporting the developing world. In particular, more support for adaptation, as well as financial help dealing with the loss and damage already wrought by climate change, will need to be addressed promptly.

We will also need to see inspired leadership. In our new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy, we argue that dedicated and committed individuals can make a significant difference at these events. Examples from the recent past, such as the dedication of a handful of scientists and diplomats who helped create the Montreal Protocol and save the ozone layer, show that we can all play our part in turning the tide.

More recently Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN climate office and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, is an example of the type of leadership that will be required at the next COP. Figueres is an advocate of “stubborn optimism” and the need to blend urgency with action. We agree. Persistence, combined with a belief that there is still time to make a difference, should be our guiding light during this critical time.

Currently, the UK as hosts of COP26 still hold the climate presidency, which they will hand over officially to Egypt at the start of COP27 in November. Glasgow exceeded many insiders’ expectations, with Alok Sharma delivering a poised performance in spite of the UK’s recent domestic political turmoil. How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting?

As we look to COP27 and beyond, we wonder who the heroes of tomorrow might be? With time running out, we need environmental champions now more than ever.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022).

Excerpt:

The 27th annual UN climate summit is taking place in November. Will it be worth all the time and effort? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence—who have attended many of them—share what they’ve learned.

By Cecilia Russell
Johannesburg, Oct 18 2022 – An aging population needn’t be a burden, experts told Parliamentarians at a conference co-hosted by UNFPA Asia Pacific Regional Office and the Asian Population and Development Association (APDA).

Two National Transfer Account (NTA) experts told the session that with good planning and policy, it was possible to change the trajectory so that those in retirement were not only reliant on the state.

NTAs provide a coherent accounting framework of economic flows from one age group or generation to another.

UNFPA’s short video outlined the impact of an aging population in Thailand. Currently, adults take care of three elders and two children, but with the aging population in 2025, this will increase to four elders and three children, but by 2035, the number of dependents will increase to six elders and three children.

Professor Sang-Hyop Lee of the East-West Center and the University of Hawaii, succinctly in an “elevator pitch,” explained his interests in population. These included “looking at how a changing population structure affects society and economy, current and future,” and “what public policies could be pursued to influence the outcome.”

Lee said that using NTA tools with disaggregated data, including consumption (both private and public sector) and other variables like income and savings, could assist with policy development.

By 2080, he said, the whole Asia Pacific region would have an aging population – and public policy could change the outcomes by including evidence and knowledge-based policy to influence labor patterns of the female, youth, and elderly labor force; increasing productivity through effective education, health investments, training and finally to improve the work-to-retirement transition.

Eduardo Klein, Regional Representative of HelpAge International, who chaired the session, commented that the key takeaway was that the NTAs were a crucial tool for developing strategies to adapt to population aging.

In her keynote address, Maldives Minister for Gender, Family, and Social Services, Aishath Mohamed Didi, said that her country, which was a small island state the country, faced “unique development challenges and is vulnerable to economic shocks and climate change.”

The population is about 500 000 people, 70% of whom are Maldivians and the rest foreigners; 64% are working age, and more than 37% are under 25; those 65 and older account for 3.4% of the population.

“The Maldives entered the window of opportunity in 2010 when the majority of the population was working, and it’s estimated that the democratic transition will be completed by 2030,” Didi said. “Due to a rapid fertility decline and increased life expectancy, it’s estimated it will become an aging population by 2030.”

She outlined various policy changes in the Maldives, including addressing the investment in children, which was lower than in other economies with similar fertility or development levels. The country had included free basic education from ages four to 16 and also spent US$ 30 million supporting 15,000 students to achieve their first degrees. This has been expanded to include zero-interest rate loans. In the past two to three years, the Maldives had spent over US$ 64 million to support about 2000 students studying abroad in 31 countries. Other efforts to improve education included investing in technical and vocational education and providing skill development opportunities for youth, including apprenticeship programmes, particularly in the outer regions away from the capital or the central areas.

Didi said the Maldives depended highly on tourism, but foreign workers (primarily men) comprised 60% of the workforce. Women only play a small role in the industry and hold the most informal sector jobs.

“Young people are required to become skilled and equipped to compete with foreign workers in the domestic economy,” Didi said, adding that the demographic dividend transition was expected to create both opportunities and challenges. “The aggregate public spending on healthcare and other social protection needs to grow by more than 2 percent per year until 2050 to maintain the same level of service enjoyed by the population in 2022 – even with per capita benefits, the government’s budget needs to grow substantially.”

Klein noted that Didi’s overview showed how the Maldives was in the demographic dividend and was investing in the future and that investment had a “return in improved health and a better educated, more productive, more engaged, and a healthier population living in a harmonious society.”

Rikiya Matsukura, Associate Professor at Nihon University, noted that opportunities arose with planning and strategic policymaking. While an aging population was “inevitable” and “wasn’t curable,” policymakers played a crucial role in changing the trajectory.

Matsukura outlined four demographic dividends: The first demographic was achieved through the expansion of the workforce. The second demographic dividend is achieved through investing in human capital – leading to higher productivity. The third demographic dividend, which he termed the “longevity dividend” or “silver dividend,” was achieved through investing in longevity and longer working life. Finally, the fourth dividend would be achieved by investing in education, especially in the STEM fields.

While people aged 55 to 70 may not be working, if they are healthy, they could work, Matsukura said, that this could create an additional workforce.

“In the case of Japan, the income generated by additional elderly workers could correspond to 3.2 to 6 percent of Japan’s real GDP,” he noted.

This elderly workforce could be assisted by technology – artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics and the economy could grow by 35% if technology could make housework easier.

Lee noted that there was no easy answer but what was required was short and long-term planning which took into account crises. This aging population issue will not go away.

Klein too, noted said future planning was complex. For example, India (among other countries) had invested in education, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, children could not attend school for two years, which would have consequences for the future workforce. Climate change, in addition to aging, would need to be planned for in Bangladesh.

During the discussion, parliamentarians were concerned about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr Jetn Sirathranont, an MP from Thailand, noted that policymakers needed to use the NTA tools, but post-pandemic, every country, including Thailand, was experiencing a situation where there was “less income and less revenue but high expenses.”

Sirathranont asked how one could apply NTA tools in these circumstances.

While Klein quipped that this was a million-dollar question, Lee said what was required was short and long-term planning which took into account crises like the pandemic. However, he noted, “this aging population issue will not go away.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);