People First

Valuing things over people is an embarrassing indictment to humanity’s conscience

The 2019 coronavirus disease (2019-nCoV, more widely known as COVID-19), is a human disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Emphasising the human dimension of this voracious pandemic that has rapidly morphed into a global health emergency of unprecedented proportion is nontrivial and as urgent as it gets.

The inordinate attention to things rather than to people even before the coronavirus crisis wanes is an embarrassing affront to humanity[1]. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic it is that people must be the main foci of attention in both academic and public discourse.  A system that values things more than people was bound to lead to the sorts of tragic outcomes and impacts currently witnessed across the world as nations scramble to fight the pandemic.

As if in lock and step, governments have been quick off the block to vote for hefty stimulus packages to bail out businesses. But, the pace with which testing, contact tracking and isolation has been doled out has, with a few exceptions, been lacklustre as best[2]^,[3].This is in spite of an overwhelming consensus among epidemiologists and the scientific community that, short of a vaccine, testing, tracing and isolation is the most effective bulwark humanity has to fight the pandemic.

In a characteristic mainstream valuation of (material) things over people, the lead story in The Economist of May 14, 2020, titled “Has covid-19 killed globalisation?” argues that the open system of trade (not people) that has hitherto been dominant is “suffering a body-blow due to lockdowns that have sealed borders and disrupted commerce”. To support this viewpoint, the following statistics is given:

“The number of passengers at Heathrow has dropped by 97% year-on-year; Mexican car exports fell by 90% in April; 21% of transpacific container-sailings in May have been cancelled. As economies reopen, activity will recover, but don’t expect a quick return to a carefree world of unfettered movement and free trade”.                

If there was any doubt, the above quotation, among many (see, for example, the article titled “The pandemic’s coming geopolitical second wave” in May issue of The Atlantic for a European perspective), puts to rest any pretence that proponents of globalisation care for much more than about protectionism, economic growth, finance, markets, costs, global trade, and foreign direct investment. Whatever the validity of contrary views, nothing can diminish the gravity of this matter. It is people’s lives at stake here!

---

[1] An editorial published on in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet (Vo 395, Issue 10236, May 16, 2020) suggests that the US prioritised politics over public health in its COVID-19 response. Incidentally, this is not the first time that an administration is playing politics with public health (see Editorial of The Lancet Vol 370, July 21, 2007).    

[2] Writing in the Financial Time of April, 3 2020, acclaimed novelist Arundhati Roy narrates how the Indian government bungled at each and every step of its response to the coronavirus pandemic, pointing out, for example, that…”the calamitous lack of planning or preparedness (that) turned the world’s biggest, most punitive lockdown into the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve” (https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca).

[3] Commenting on Kenyan politics, acclaimed journalist Tom Mshindi characterises it as “a battle that is of little benefit to the majority of Kenyans confronting life and death situations in the devastation Covid-19 is leaving in its wake, the floods and the inevitable starvation that will follow (Daily Nation of May 16, 2020).

Bemoaning potential loss of raw material export earnings shameful

Unequal Exchange

Africa has been involved in unequal exchange through the export of raw materials and import of finished products. This position means that Africa perpetually suffers unfavourable balance of trade, underdevelopment, and a general state of relative deprivation.

Any keen student of the dialectics of development and underdevelopment would therefore find it appalling to read commentaries bemoaning future loss of export earnings due to projected fall in (raw material) prices as a result of COVID-19 pandemic-inspired recession.

Time to change the narrative

Import substitution industrialisation (ISI) was once in vogue, until it got a bad name. How about giving ISI the good name it once had? Now is time to implement (not develop) strategies, such as Agenda 2063 and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement.

For avoidance of doubt, the AfCFTA Agreement entered into force on 30 May 2019 for the 24 countries that had deposited their instruments of ratification with the African Union Commission (see the visual below). Subsequently, at an Extraordinary Summit of the African Union held on 7 July 2019, the operational phase of the AfCFTA Agreement was officially launched.

Delivering sanitation and hygiene in Africa: a public health emergency

On 21 December 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 71/222 proclaiming the decade 2018 – 2028 as the International Decade for Action, “Water for Sustainable Development”.[1]  With the world currently laser focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to say something about public health.

Globalwaters.org has a simple definition of “sanitation” and “hygiene”. Sanitation includes facilities, behaviours, and services that prevent diseases caused by contact with human waste. “Hygiene” refers to behaviours that can improve cleanliness and lead to good health. The former encompasses facilities and behaviour whereas the latter is purely behavioural. In other words, sanitation and hygiene is all about public health.

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention offer the following explanation. Sanitation and hygiene are critical to health, survival and development.  Premised on this, it follows that investing in basic sanitation as well as providing services such as garbage collection, waste (domestic and industrial) management, and wastewater treatment and disposal would significantly improve global health conditions.

Both World Health Organisation and UNICEF data show that more than 32% of the world’s population are at risk due to lack of basic sanitation. Globally, investing in water and sanitation would add 1.5% to the GDP with a 4.3 return on every dollar invested in water and sanitation services. Considering the baseline,[2] returns on investment in Africa are undoubtedly higher.

Over and above the economic returns, co-benefits such as higher productivity in agricultural, commercial and industrial enterprises due to improved workforce participation would be enormous. The other side of the equation is real savings from avoided medical-related costs and lost productivity due to worker absenteeism. Self-evidently, delivering sanitation and hygiene in Africa is no brainer.

More, better managed and targeted investment is required if African countries are to attain clean water and sanitation goal (SDG 6) of ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030. Currently, total investment in water and sanitation is woefully inadequate. Globally, private sector participation in the water and sanitation sector, for example, accounted for only about 5.4% of the gross value of private investments in infrastructure during the 1990s.

According to a World Bank Report, at its peak in 1997, private participation in the water supply and sanitation sector brought US$9.4 billion in investment to emerging markets, approximately one third of the estimated amount needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. By 2002, private participation in this critical sector had fallen to US$1.9 billion (Baietti and Raymond, 2005)[3].

Private sector financing needs to be ramped up to complement the water- and sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan. To be clear, financing is only one side of the equation. The other side which is related to political, legal, and contractual risk is just as important. Meaningful partnership between public and private sector is therefore as desirable as it is unavoidable.

Going forward, mobilisation on a massive scale will be crucial in ensuring sufficient financial and technical resources capable of dramatically increasing the proportion of the population using (1) safely managed drinking water services, and (2) safely managed sanitation services, including hand-washing facility with soap and running (sic) water.

Furthermore, enhanced action is urgently needed in terms of the proportion of wastewater that is safely treated as well as proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality.

In terms of demand management, there needs to be a significant change in water-use efficiency over-time.

---

[1] Human right to water and sanitation is explicitly recognized by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 64/292.

[2] Seventeen African countries, including Benin; Burundi; Comoros; Democratic Republic of Congo; Republic of the Gambia; Kenya; Liberia; Libya; Malawi; Mali; Morocco; Mozambique; Niger; Nigeria; Uganda; Zambia; and Zimbabwe have signed up for voluntary national review (VNR) that will give a status report on trajectories towards realisation of sustainable development goals. The VNR presentations which are planned to begin on Monday, 13 July 2020 as part of the high-level political forum on sustainable development under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council will hopefully provide up-to-date picture of where countries stand.

[3] Baietti, Aldo, and Peter Raymond. "Financing water supply and sanitation investments: utilizing risk mitigation instruments to bridge the financing gap." (2005).

Mobility in a post-COVID-19 world: Choices and consequences

People will be forced to make difficult choices between using private or public transport as economies begins to move out of the now ubiquitous stay-at-home lockdowns. In an ideal world where public transport is a realistic option, people would prefer to use public transport as the mode of choice from a social welfare standpoint.

But, due to social distancing measures that now appear likely to stay in place for the foreseeable future, individuals would be incentivised to use private transport modes (e.g., private cars for commute). It is reasonable to assume that in a post-COVID-19 world shared ridership will not be an option for the simple reason people should prefer private to public transport (i.e., for fear of contracting the disease). In effect, this should shift mobility systems farther away from sustainable low carbon modes of transport.

However, for the majority of people around the world the choice between public and private transport simply does not exist for a number of reasons. The obvious one is the fact that for many families owning a car is impossible given their level of income (Fig. 1). Or there is simply no provision for public transport as is the case in many countries.[1] Or if it exists, it is unaffordable.

In theory, individuals have a choice either to walk or use any other form of non-motorised transport – NMT (e.g., bicycle, particularly where cycling is a realistic option).  NMT is regarded as healthier and environmentally friendlier - even though it is worth mentioning that cost (time and distance), as well as personal safety, are the primary considerations in majority of commuting choices.

The advent of the novel corona virus that causes COVID-19 heralded a new normal in mobility. Whilst personal safety has always been a concern for the commuting pubic, henceforth it is likely to be much more significant a factor. This situation is not likely to change until such a time when there will be a vaccine available, or society would have built herd immunity to allow pre-COVID-19 mobility patterns to resume.

My hypothesis is that self-preservation instincts and the rules of the game as defined by public authorities will be the main determining factors in mobility choices going forward. This would be tragedy in the sense that the decarbonisation dividend[2] observed under the stay-at-home lockdown orders imposed in cities and regions around the world could easily dissipate. That would turn the Paris Agreement ambitions[3] on their head. With that said, a pertinent question is to ask would be: what should be done to minimise the likelihood of such reversals happening?

Of course, none of the above is inevitable. Given that most countries are going to suffer severe recession, or deep depression through at least 2022, the slowing down of economic activities globally could mean less emission. If countries are able to clearly define pathways and mitigation actions to decarbonise transport in their second Nationally Determined Contributions, they can count on extending the decarbonisation dividend resulting in significant reduction in global emissions.[4]

A well-thoughtout and transformative pathways towards greener carbon neutral economy is a smart way to reimagine economies and innovate ways out of the hole countries find themselves in thanks to the coronavirus pandemic.

Admittedly, this is rather optimistic in an increasingly polarised world. However, a valuable lesson from COVID-19 is that the world should, and indeed must, be better prepared to deal with emerging crises such as climate change.

---

[1] An extreme but tragic example is the case of migrant workers in India who were forced to walk back to their homes (rural villages) since there was no alternative means of transport due to the COVID-19 lockdown in the cities. Fatigued from walking for 36 kms, 16 people are reported to have crusted to death (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52586898) as they slept on rail tracks in the state of Maharashtra due to exhaustion.   

[2] Decarbonisation dividend refers to the observed reduction in carbon emissions directly as a result of COVID-19 induced stay-at-home lockdowns orders and closures. This has been a boon for climate change and sustainable development.

[3] Under the Paris Agreement, countries pledged to transform their development trajectories through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) i.e., post-2020 actions by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change.  Several initiatives and solutions aimed at developing sustainable mobility systems to catapult society towards greener and healthier ways to move around are currently underway.

[4] According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), transportation is responsible for almost one quarter of direct CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Road vehicles – cars, trucks, buses and two- and three-wheelers – account for nearly three-quarters of transport CO₂ emissions.

Could DRC joining the EA Community provide the spark that triggers an economic take-off?

The diplomatic blitz following the application of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to join the East African Community (EAC) might have surprised many. There is a palpable sense of camaraderie between President Felix Tshisekedi and his regional counterparts – Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta of Kenya, Tanzania’s John Pombe Magufuli, and Paul Kagame of Rwanda.

Any other country applying to join a regional economic community (REC) would have probably gone unnoticed. But not in this case; DR Congo (roughly the size of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania combined) joining Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi is certainly a game changer as reported in The East African. The significance of DRC joining one of the most dynamic regional blocs was captured in the application letter sent to the current chair of EAC, President Kagame, which read in part:

“This request follows the ever-increasing trade between the economic players of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and those of the states of the Community”.

It is precisely on trade that President Tshisekedi has his finger on the pulse. As recent analysis of regional trade ties suggests, there is huge potential for growth in intra-African trade with the EAC scoring the highest in trade integration compared with the Southern Africa Development Community, Economic Community of West Africa States, and the Arab Maghreb Union.

Another promising area is productive integration, where EAC also leads the pack. According to Bloomberg Economics, sub-regional integration is more likely to deliver gains with the East African Community. It might be tempting to go to town about the many challenges facing the region, such as security and infrastructure. But a hedonic approach will be needed to realise the enormous potential that the region has.

It has long been observed that the counties of the region have untapped agricultural potential and natural resources, and a labour endowment that is trained, relatively inexpensive and well-positioned to compete globally. Could DRC joining the EA Community provide the much-awaited spark that finally sets the region alight for economic take-off?

Tit-for-Tat in International Trade is a Zero Sum Game

The global trade war is intensifying with every passing day. And it is making markets jittery.

While the China-US spat is the most discussed in public media, there is simmering tensions, if not fully blown trade wars, between US and EU, Japan and US, and now India and the US. According to Reuters, India announced it will impose tariffs (some as high as 70%) from the 16th June 2019 on 28 US products, including almonds and apples, in retaliation to Washington's refusal to exempt Delhi from higher taxes on steel and aluminum imports.

These spasms in international trade couldn't have come at a worse time. The global economic outlook doesn't look great with most projections pointing to a slump in growth within the next eight to twelve months (if not sooner). There is already uneasiness in most industrial economies about the projected sluggish growth, not least in Europe, thanks to the unending debate about Britain's intended withdrawal from the European Union, Brexit.

In an oped in the Namibian of July 13, 2018, I argued that "the US-China trade war should be a source of consternation for many countries". As I pointed out then and here, trade wars do not only have economic consequences, equally, if not more so, they are a problem in politics as well. There is enough reason to be concerned about the direction that the emerging global order is taking which is arguably more protectionist.

A tit-for-tat in international trade is a zero sum game that will leave the global economy worse off even in the most optimistic outcome. Suggesting that international trade wars is a threat to peace and prosperity would be a gross understatement.

Impact of 4 Degree Celsius Warming

Downscaled Global Climate Models (GCMs) projections across three different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (SRES A2, A1b, B1), all downscaled to a 0.5 degree resolution (~50 km) for the time periods of 1961-1999, 2046-2045, and 2071-2100 show the likely trajectory the climate is likely to take in the coming decades. From different types of climate analyses, we can predict how much more often extreme events, such as droughts and flooding, will occur in the future.

The projected mean temperature and rainfall (from the World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal Website, http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm) for the period 2046-2065 and 2081-2100 (A2 emissions) is shown in the following panels.

These temperature and precipitation projections form the basis of climate metrics and impact modeling results on agriculture, water supply, fire risks, human health, urban energy demand, biodiversity, etc., which can be used to support climate planning and action. The results are not reproduced here due to space limitation. However, suffice it to say that both temperature-based derivative metrics (e.g., average high and low temperature; hottest and coldest temperature; hot days temperature; number of frost days; number of warm days and nights; number of cold days and nights; heat wave duration index; growing degree days; heating degree days; and cooling degree days) and precipitation-based derivative metrics (i.e., total precipitation; consecutive dry days; number of dry periods; number of wet days; wet days; wet day rainfall; 5 day rainfall; and daily rainfall) calculated from daily downscaled future climate projections are robust and have applications in planning crop productivity, water supply, human health, energy demand, and ecosystem resilience in a changing climate. This resource, among others, must be used to inform local and national decision making processes about which policies or specific measures are needed to tackle climate impacts.

Naturally, future climate change analysis is more complicated than it is for the past because there is not a single, but many sets of time series projections from different GCMs runs with a range of CO₂ emissions scenarios. For example, using ensemble analysis to combine the analysis of multiple GCMs and quantify the range of possibilities for future climate under just one emission (A2) scenario, we develop the following climate model maps of ensemble average for change in temperature and precipitation in 2046-2065 and 2081-2100.

These ensembles of climate models tell a story; mean temperatures will increase while annual precipitation will decline. But, this is not futuristic; the impacts of a changing climate are already being felt, with more frequent droughts and more floods, which are forecast to increase with further climate change. This, according to the World Development Report 2010, “is taxing individuals, firms, and governments, drawing resources away from development … continuing climate change, at current rates, will pose increasingly severe challenges to development.” The WD Report further notes that “even relatively modest additional warming will require big adjustments to the way development policy is designed and implemented,…. changing the kinds of risks people prepare for; where they live; what they eat; and the way they design, develop, and manage agro-ecological and urban systems”.

It is very important for Zimbabwe, the Southern Africa region, and Africa to act now, act together and act differently. The imperative of acting now is because of the tremendous inertia in both climate and socioeconomic systems: today’s actions will determine tomorrow’s options; .act together to keep costs down , to protect the most vulnerable and to ensure adequate food and water for all countries; and act differently to transform energy, food production and risk management systems. By acting now, acting together and acting differently, Zimbabwe and Africa will be able to transition to a low emission, climate resilient development path, as well as contribute to stabilizing concentration of greenhouse gases.