Dec 01

Myanmar: The Final Frontier

The Republic of Myanmar (commonly known as Burma) is not the most tourist-friendly place.  That may change soon, however, as the government seeks to capitalize on the benefits of 50 years of heavy tourist restrictions and isolation: beautiful, unspoiled landscapes and culture.  For decades the country has faced heavy sanctions because of the oppressive regime and poor human rights record, but now Myanmar is one of the last large frontier markets in Asia, and consequently many governments around the world (including the United States) are starting to ease sanctions against the Republic in order to take advantage of the potential financial benefits.  The tourism boycott against Myanmar is also fading away as a result of political and economic reforms; in 2010 the nation welcomed some 790,000 visitors, and an even greater number is predicted for this year.

Though tourism will bring a great deal of revenue to the country, the nation must be very careful not to go the way of rampant commercialization as it opens up to international tourism. The centuries-old buildings and unspoiled landscapes that are such a tourist draw can be ruined very quickly if the government and the people do not take steps to ensure that tourism is sustainable and manageable.  A huge boom in tourist traffic may be good economically, but as of now there is no infrastructure, no tourism institute or way to regulate the nascent industry and ensure that it is benefiting the local population without destroying the land.

Luckily, the isolation and sanctions that Myanmar has faced gave the country another boon besides mystery and pristine vistas: the ability to learn from their neighbors.  The government and tourism organizations can—and have—look to countries like China and Thailand to determine the best policies for making sure that tourism initiatives alleviate poverty for local populations without diluting their cultural heritage.  Luckily, the government seems to recognize that it is incredibly important to respect the fragile balance of eco-tourism and cultural tourism and intends to publish a tourism master plan and make sure that future developers abide by the rules.  This will ensure that the tourist industry does not boom out of control like it has in many other formerly unspoiled places, diluting culture and damaging the environment.

But is it okay to visit Myanmar, you may be wondering.  Sure, the countryside may be beautiful and there are hundreds of ancient buildings and temples, and the government may try to regulate the industry to make it sustainable and responsible, but what about the oppressive government and the human rights violations?  Well, it seems that the internal situation is beginning to change.  Last year the regime held Myanmar’s first election in two decades, and though the new civilian government is stacked with former generals, president Thein Sein seems sincere in wanting a departure from the past.  Since he came to office hundreds of political prisoners have been released, press restrictions have been loosened, and labor laws have been passed, among other things.  Even Aung San Suu Kyi, outspoken activist and long-time enemy of the regime, recently relaxed her stance that foreigners boycott mass tourism packages to Burma.  Of course, things have not progressed enough to declare Myanmar free of oppression, but if President Sein does indeed remain committed to democracy and human rights the situation will hopefully continue to improve.

I, for one, think that tourism could help.  Sustainable, responsible tourism can bring much-needed income to the greatly impoverished nation (Myanmar has the second-lowest per capita GDP in Asia, after Afghanistan), which could in turn spur more political and economic change.  What about you?  Do you support sustainable tourism in Myanmar, or do you want to wait until the new government has proven itself as committed to improving the internal situation?

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Dec 01

Good Men Doing Something

I have learned a lot over the past 7 months. The lesson that sticks out the most coincides with the name of this blog – that wanting to “do good” is not enough. Good intentions can only solve a problem to some degree. We need to develop sustainable solutions to efficiently make things better.

I was reminded of how good intentions can go awry when I read a story about Wyclef Jean’s charity Yele Haiti. Apparently, less than 1/3rd of the $16 million gathered for earthquake relief in Haiti actually reached the country. Among other supposed shenanigans, the charity paid $1 million to a nonexistent firm in Florida, over $300,000 to Jean’s brother-in-law’s construction company, and $250,000 to a Haitian TV station controlled by Jean.

Amidst accusations, Jean released a statement in which he reaffirmed his commitment to serve Haitian people. He also criticized the article accusing him as being “misleading, deceptive, and incomplete.” Jean pointed out that the damage and requirement for humanitarian aid in Haiti was unprecedented following the earthquake and that the lack of infrastructure made it expensive to serve. His organization still managed to help over 250,000 people and provide 100,000 meals.

It is difficult to say who is being truthful in this situation. The charity’s nepotistic spending is very suspicious if not damning, but as Jean said, the situation in Haiti is very complicated, and his organization probably has done a lot of good.

But lets take a further look at his self-proclaimed accomplishments. He gave Haitians individual meals, but does this actually address the crisis as a true social change agent? Jean is obviously a very notable and influential figure. Because of his notoriety, he was able to raise $16 million. Even if he didn’t waste the money with shady, selfish contracts, I question how much good his organization was actually doing. Spending $1 million to delve out 100,000 meals is simply not efficient. It does not provide sustainable or long-lasting change.

In fairness, his task was difficult. While Jean, as a Hatian American, has a vested interest in the recovery process, he has not lived there in a long time and probably does not understand all the ins and outs of the country. There are plenty of local organizations doing a lot of good in Haiti. These organizations understand the needs of their people. Unfortunately, so many people want to have a hands-on role in their efforts to help communities. This desire often supersedes actual ability to do good. Perhaps if people like Jean were more concerned with the overall lasting change on the social issues rather than feeling the need to play a controlling role in creating social good, charity work would be more efficient. If Jean used his time, fame, and clout to connect local organizations to big donors, we could very possibly see more rapid improvements.

Jean might be well intentioned and running a great charity. He might be doing a poor job running his charity in spite of good intentions. He might even just have bad intentions and be using his charity for ulterior and selfish motives. I do not know the facts that would allow me to make an accurate judgment. However, this news story reminds me of how important it is for philanthropists to be careful when they make donations. Nobody wants to spend millions of dollars for a good cause and find out that the money has been squandered.

Edmund Burke once said:

“”The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

This result is tragic, but it’s even worse if good men attempt to do something, but their efforts go to waste. Those of you with the funds and willingness to donate, make sure you take the extra couple of minutes to make sure the strategy or charity you are donating to will use your contribution appropriately.

Share

Dec 01

Accessorize for Good – World AIDS Day

Today is World Aid’s Day. We hope that you will use this day to support the local charities and organizations in your communities that are working to fight the spread of HIV and AIDS. We also hope that you will research and learn more about the impact of AIDS on global health, families and communities around the globe. If you don’t know your status, why not go find out today.

You can use the widget below to find a testing site near you.


For those of you that would like to help small health organizations provide more free testing and additional education services, The SISGI Group is providing donation clearinghouse services for the online accessories store Dose of Vitamin F. Their charity division, a Dose of Charity, supports organizations working to address health related issues such as HIV/AIDs, Breast Cancer, and Heart Disease. 50% of proceeds from all Dose of Charity items go to small charities that participate in a grant review process conducted annually by the SISGI Group.

As a small online fashion company, Dose of Vitamin F, wanted to create a charitable division within their business model that would create positive social change. But they did not want to support efforts that were ineffective or where there small annual donations would be insignificant. By partnering with the SISGI Group they can guarantee that every portion of their donated proceeds is used for strategic social good. They also can access small but strong nonprofit organizations and charities, who will benefit from their support. You can join them in addressing health issues by purchasing a Dose of Charity item. The collection includes pins, bracelets, and necklaces. They are tax free and 50% of the purchase will go directly to supporting a small nonprofit providing testing and education services. It is a great way to be fashionable and make a difference! To learn more visit shopdoseofvitaminf.com

Share

Nov 29

What do you know about Busan?

To begin with, today Tuesday the 29th, the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness opens in Busan, South Korea. The goal of this Forum is to focus on developing efficient ways of giving international aid while working to build stronger partnerships between donor and recipient governments.  This is the first time the forum is being held in Asia, where the three previous ones took place in Rome in 2003, Paris in 2005 and Ghana in 2008.

Now, recognizing that there has been three such meeting in the past, I would have expected to hear more of a buildup to this fourth Forum in Korea. After all, I follow developments in international news almost daily. However, since it has hardly registered on my radar, I can’t help but wonder why the international community has not taken greater notice. Or to phrase it differently, why they feel hopeless in reporting on it.

A Google search returns many articles that use words like “a weak un-ambitious agreement”, and “fall short on priority issues” regarding improving aid effectiveness and increasing transparency in international arenas. These articles all reference past Forums and what they have failed to address.

Moving forward, this year in Busan the 2,500 policy makers and experts attending the conference aim to move away from this shaky past and begin analyzing what actually has worked with aid in the last five years. Now, typically an event like this would make me excited and optimistic about spreading the news and information about the developments being made in international aid. Typically, this should highlight what has been done and motivate future policy makers and leaders to carry on the torch of eradicating poverty and promoting transparency. However, I am fearful to say that I don’t feel all that optimistic that these positive outcomes will be recognized. Instead, I fear that it will draw attention to how little actually has been accomplished on behalf of the developed world in assistance towards developing countries.

One of the most moving calls to action comes from The Guardian writer Ivan Lewis, stating:

The rules of engagement that will govern aid effectiveness in the future may to some seem technical and dry. But in reality the stakes couldn’t be higher. It’s about … thousands of children who die unnecessary deaths from conditions such as diarrhea and pneumonia, and the kind of world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to do better and recognize that in an interdependent world self-interest and mutual interests are inextricably linked.

I fear that while these are the goals desired from this Forum, we will see only limited results and lip service to the international community. After all, this appears to be the trend from previous attempts.

One thing that I would like to see addressed in this round of discussions, is integration and a call to action of the BRIC countries, asking them to take a greater role in promoting development. BRIC is an acronym for countries such as China, India, Russia, and Brazil that are emerging markets. They are classified as developing at a more rapid rate in comparison to the rest of the world. They should join in the commitment as new donors to play their part in supplying international aid support and funding. In the past, these countries as well as the Arab world have allegedly been hesitant to play any major role in aid due to the predominant leadership of other stronger (typically Western) economies. However, this must change if we wish to eradicate poverty on a global scale. Problems like aid effectiveness are global issues, and will only be solved with combined efforts of all nations.

Over the next few days, it will be interesting to watch what resolutions come from Busan. While I would like to see a revolutionary new plan of attack and a significant increase in number of countries jump to action, I don’t have the highest hopes. Instead, I hope that small steps with regard to the BRIC countries are pushed forward, and the media attention to past failures are pushed under the rug. This Forum has an opportunity to shake up the current international establishment and demand for better work and effectiveness. Now, lets just hope they manage to achieve it.

–Katherine Peterson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on theories of development, globalization, and political ramifications of development work.
Share

Nov 28

Giving Back: Pencils of Promise

Every year when Thanksgiving comes around, I come up with a list of all the things I am grateful for, and then I try to give back to charitable organizations in my community or elsewhere.  This year, I decided to give back to a non-profit organization called Pencils of Promise.  Though it has been around for a few years, I recently stumbled across it on twitter and found it to be a rather wonderful group to give back to.  So, in honor of Thanksgiving and in the spirit of giving back, I have decided to introduce all of you to an organization that I feel is impacting the lives of thousands of children across the world.

Pencils of Promise was founded by Adam Braun, a young college student who was traveling around the world on a global trip.  During a stop in India, Braun asked a child begging on the streets a simple question whose answer would stimulate the start of a non-profit organization.  If he (the child) could have anything in the world, what would it be?  The answer, though short and simple, was a pencil.  Thus began Braun’s movement to create a non-profit organization that would focus on developing sustainable schools in villages across the globe.  Though Braun only had $25 to start off his operation to start building schools in developing countries, he came to the realization that spreading education is a global effort that requires the time and attention of the community that Pencils of Promise endeavors to aid.

The fact that Pencils of Promise gets in touch with community leaders, and works with locals to help create a school that is important to them is a key point in creating sustainable education in developing nations.  Pencils of Promise utilizes local labor to help build schools from the ground up, purchases building materials from the local economy, and helps develop a committee that will oversee school maintenance in order to make sure that the school remains a sustainable educational haven.  The committee is made up of local individuals, men and women, who make sure their village school functions smoothly and effectively.  Of course, Pencils of Promise continues to keep an eye on the schools it helped create by doing bi-yearly checks on the schools.  The organization monitors things like attendance and student enrollment, and then attempts to figure out ways to improve their school programs if and when they find the programs to be lacking in some way.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for an organization to get the community it is working with involved in the projects that will ultimately affect them.  No sustainable solution can be found for issues such as a lack of education on a global scale if organizations simply go in, create a school, and then leave.  For that reason, it is rather remarkable that Pencils of Promise involves local community members in every aspect of school building, and then monitors the schools after they are created.  Furthermore, 100% of the donations to the organization go to the education programs, and each school or project that Pencils of Promise is working on has a short summary so that it is easy to learn more about where the organization has created primary schooling.  Since it is important for me to know where my money is going, who is affected by my donation, and the overall cause of the organization, I can say that I am impressed with the work Pencils of Promise has done and will continue to do in the future.

Share

Nov 23

Taking Back Our Rights

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a writer who published a biography on philosopher Voltaire in 1906, concisely summarized Voltaire’s beliefs with the now widely recognized phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The Founding Fathers of the United States also seemed to take Voltaire’s teachings to heart. In the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they granted freedom of religion, press, speech, and the right to assemble. Many of us have taken these as inherent and unalienable rights that are always granted to us. But in light of recent events, I must question whether these ‘rights’ are actually just privileges that can be revoked.

As you may have guessed, I am referring to the police violence that has occurred at UC Berkley and UC Davis over the past few weeks. While I have discussed my qualms with the Occupy movement in another protest, the actions that the UC Police has carried out over the past fortnight is morally reprehensible and unacceptable.

On November 9, protestors at Occupy Berkley were beaten with batons. Many other students on University of California campuses, UC Davis included, banded together in support of Berkley. Students at UC Davis responded with a rally in which they planned on expressing their concerns via non-violent civil disobedience. Linda Katehi, Chancellor of UCD, ordered students to remove tents from the quad. However, since the protestors refused to move, Katehi ordered the UC Police to order the police to move them. What happened next was horrifying. 50 students linked arms and sat peacefully on the ground, posing absolutely no threat to the police. Nonetheless, the campus police officers, dressed in riot gear, casually pepper sprayed them in the face. This move was eerily similar to policemen hosing down protestors during the Civil Rights Movement. When I first saw the video of the brutality, I could not believe that our country could still be so barbaric. I really hope that not long from now, images such as the one on this article are viewed as shameful reminders of how our authority figures can oppress us.

I understand that the students were told to leave. But the response by the administration was excessive. Policemen should not have the right to physically harm peaceful citizens who are exercising their rights. Perhaps the administration can justify allowing the police to arrest the students, but they cannot allow the police to inflict bodily harm without provocation. In January, President Obama stated:

I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. This includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.

This sentiment is admirable. Great things can happen from non-violent expression. Peaceful politics gave India independence, made the Civil Rights Movement productive, and ended apartheid. But actions speak louder than words, and it seems as if we have begun to lose this fundamental right to peaceful assembly. It is time to prevent future violations of this right and for those who have violated it in the past to be held responsible.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Nov 22

Festival of Thinkers

This last week, I had the honor to attend the Festival of Thinkers conference in Abu Dhabi. In what turned out to be essentially a whirlwind trip, I was chosen to represent NYU over a weekend, and by the following Wednesday I was on an airplane to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Now for someone who was not quite sure where the UAE even was, (on the Arabian Peninsula, by Saudi Arabia and Oman) I was ecstatic to jump at the opportunity for a new adventure. Upon returning to the US, and fighting the inevitable jetlag, looking back to my week I am realizing it has been an extraordinary experience.

The goal of this festival was to bring together students from all over the world to discuss and think about the growing problems facing our future. What added to this was the integration of nearly 100 Nobel Laureates and field experts bringing their expertise on diverse topics to the discussions. Unlike the many conferences I have attended in the past, we were broken down into small tables of a few students alongside these notable individuals to analyze problems ranging from the global economic crisis to creating a sustainable world for the future. While understandably we are not going to be asked to solve these issues in an hour among four individuals, the process of thinking and brainstorming with one another was the valuable takeaway.

One interesting skill we were encouraged to adapt was from Edward De Bono’s theory of the Six Thinking Hats. This was an approach to problem solving by looking at the issue from six different points of view. Examples include white hat representing facts, the yellow showing positive aspects of a proposed solution, the green hat representing the development of new solutions, and blue is taking into account the whole process. While this philosophy is hard to think about in the abstract, when approaching a difficult problem we were all asked to put on different hats and propose solutions. I found these workshops stimulating in that this practice leveled the playing field between Laureates and students. Similarly, this brought forth interesting solutions and took a number of groups in divergent directions when solving such large-scale issues.

I feel like I could go on and on with a list of noteworthy names that I was privileged to have met last week, but I will leave it at saying that this conference had many perks outside of the lecture hall. As students, one of the nights we were honored to have met Sheikh Nahayan Mabarak Al Nahayan, the Minister of Higher Education in the UAE as well as hundreds of likeminded students from around the world. We were treated to a gala at the Palace, as well as housed throughout Abu Dhabi; all with the goal of constant interaction and fostering networks amongst our peers. One of my colleagues Tochi Onyebuchi said it best when he reflected:

This reminds me of a quote by Miriam Beard. She said, “Certainly, travel is more than the seeing of sights; it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent, in the ideas of living.” And if it may take a while for some of the wisdom I’ve received to sink in, it is only because those seeds have just been planted. And it takes only patience for me to see, whether in three days or in three months or in three years, the sublime and gorgeous garden that will have been made of such seeds.

I think it is safe to say that all of us students left the conference with a renewed sense of purpose and understanding of why we are studying our chosen paths. I realized that when one speaks of the financial crisis, for example, we acknowledge that it has had a global impact. However, it is not until I was eating breakfast with students from Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Brazil that a human’s perspective of the impact can be truly understood. This recognition brought light to why we chose to become academics and personally why I chose to study politics and development.

To bring such disperse students together is to plant the seeds of motivation to change the world, and I think that the future is in our hands.  Although it often does not feel like it in the middle of all night library hours and stacks of research, I now recognize that there are other students on my same path and with similar goals. Also, there are scholars who have paved our way and want to push us to challenge their successes for the future.

I must admit that I have come back with a renewed sense of purpose in working towards my degree.  I feel as though I was taken into the folds of people much smarter than I and asked my opinions and thoughts on some very important issues.

While we were far from identifying a magic bullet to solve any of the global problems we discussed, such an opportunity was priceless. I can only hope that many more students in similar positions get the opportunity to find a reawakening within the academic field, and renew the challenge within themselves to work towards a better future for our world.

–Katherine Peterson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on theories of development, globalization, and political ramifications of development work.
Share

Nov 22

Inversiones peligrosas

Read this post in English

Durante los últimos años en los países del sur se está experimentando un aumento de la inversión extranjera directa en tierras agrícolas. Motivados en parte por la crisis alimentaria, los inversores públicos y privados están comprando millones de hectáreas de tierras agrícolas en África, Asia y América Latina. Sin embargo, muchas inversiones de gran escala no cumplen con el objetivo de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, o de promover un desarrollo sostenible y equitativo.

Es un error pensar que las inversiones para la producción agrícola industrializada y de biocombustibles puedan asegurar las necesidades ambientales y de desarrollo del planeta. La apropiación de tierras constituye una seria amenaza a los derechos humanos de las comunidades de los países que reciben estas inversiones. Al negar a los usuarios y terratenientes el acceso a la tierra y a los recursos naturales vitales, los inversores de gran escala ponen en peligro la manera de vivir de la gente de la comunidad. Los usuarios de la tierra no saben que hacer al ser desalojados de las tierras que han estado cultivado durante décadas. Los pueblos indígenas y las poblaciones de pastores están siendo deslocalizadas. Estas poblaciones se enfrentan a la disminución de seguridad de alimentos, ya que aumenta la competencia por los recursos como la tierra y agua. De hecho, la mayoría de los cambios en la agricultura será orientada a la exportación. No sólo las poblaciones están siendo deslocalizadas, sino que también están agotando sus recursos usándolos de manera insostenible.

Esta no es la primera vez que algo así sucede en los países en desarrollo (leer sobre México). Bajo la bandera de la “revolución verde” y la necesidad de aumentar la productividad, los derechos humanos están siendo violados.

Las fuerzas que impulsan las inversiones a gran escala son tres. En primer lugar, la volatilidad de los precios en el mercado mundial de alimentos ha causado que los países que padecen inseguridad alimentaria se preocupen por la precariedad de su situación. Los Estados del Golfo, por ejemplo,  son muy dependientes de los mercados internacionales de alimentos y por ende han invertido mucho en el agua y el suelo de África. Los países con problemas de seguridad alimentaria por el rápido crecimiento de la población, como India y China, también están buscando la oportunidad de producir alimentos en el extranjero.

En segundo lugar, la creciente demanda de biocombustibles ha llevado a los inversores a controlar vastas extensiones de tierra en los países en desarrollo para la producción de biocombustibles. La gran demanda se debe principalmente a que los países dependientes del petróleo han establecido objetivos ambiciosos de producción de biocombustibles, bajo el pretexto de disminuir las emisiones de carbono y aumentar la proporción de biocarburantes en el transporte terrestre.

Finalmente, muchos grandes inversionistas, incluidos los bancos de Wall Street y los individuos ricos, han comenzado a ver la inversión directa en la tierra como una inversión segura en un entorno financiero inestable. Esto es aún más un problema, porque los inversionistas no tienen la experiencia ni el conocimiento para gestionar la producción de tierras a gran escala. Inversiones de la tierra se han vuelto más atractivos como una “cobertura contra la inflación”.

Aunque muchos culpan a las corporaciones y a las instituciones de inversión por estas apropiaciones de tierras, es importante recordar que el gobierno también debe rendir cuentas. Los gobiernos de los países en los que la apropiación de tierras están ocurriendo también son responsables, no son sólo espectadores. Los estados, tanto los gobiernos que acogen a la inversión como los que las originan, han negado la obligación de regular la conducta de los inversores. Si los gobiernos no representan los intereses de las personas que están siendo afectados negativamente por las inversiones extranjeras directas no habrá ninguna solución. Por otro lado, el activismo de los accionistas de las compañías privadas y de los grupos de interés que quieren proteger los recursos tienen que exigir más acción de los gobiernos también.

Julia Naime (@julianasah) es Asistente a la Investigación y Programas del SISGI Group. Es estudiante de Economía en New York University. Durante su pasantía en el SISGI Group, investigará sobre Desarollo rural, Problemas ambientales y Economía internacional
Share

Nov 21

Starbucks to the Rescue

The other day I was waiting in line at my local Starbucks, and noticed the coffee shop was selling what appeared to be bracelets.  Upon further inspection, the bracelets claimed to be a part of a national job creation program.  Anyone who purchases a bracelet for $5 or more is showing his or her support for Starbucks’ grand plan to revitalize the economy during these difficult times.  However, it was never clear to me exactly how Starbucks planned on getting our stalling economy up and running again.  The bracelets did not have an in-depth explanation on what Starbucks planned on doing or who were the recipients of my $5 contribution.  So, I decided to a little research to figure out whether or not I should buy the bracelet and get my college community involved in this job creation program.

As most people know, Starbucks is one of the most well-known coffee chains in the United States as well as abroad.  Howard Schultz, the current CEO of Starbucks, has made it his mission to make sure Starbucks keeps its customers satisfied by providing excellent coffee as well as top rate customer service.  In 2009, due to the recession, he was forced to make the difficult decision of closing 300 Starbucks stores as well as cutting thousands of jobs.  Nevertheless, Schultz has jumped back from those dark times, and has decided to help invigorate the U.S’s economy by creating a loan system that will not include banks.  How is this system going to be made possible?  To make it simple: by every day customers like you and me, and of course the coffee giant itself.  The idea is known as Create Jobs for USA, and it is a partnership between Starbucks, a lending institution, and customers.  Starbucks has decided to collaborate with Opportunity Network Finance, the lending institution, which will provide loans to small businesses that have been refused loans by banks.  Customers who purchase the $5 bracelet will be giving 100% of their contributions to the loan system, which Shultz claims will help create thousands of jobs via these small businesses.

Of course, the next question is who will be paying for the production of the bracelets, marketing of the idea, and anything else associated with Create Jobs for USA?  Surprisingly enough, the answer is Starbucks.  The company has decided to foot the bill of the bracelets and associated costs through its own accounts.  Overall the whole plan seems rather ingenious, and quite interesting to say the least.  However, one lingering thought that continues to linger in my mind is the sustainability of Schultz’s new job program.  What if small businesses are unable to keep themselves up and running after they have received loans through Starbucks’ loan system?  Since the economy is doing so poorly right now, there is a fear that a small business may be unable to survive; even after it has been given a start-up loan.  The other issue then is, how does Starbucks figure out which small businesses should be given loans and which should not?  There has to be a set of criteria for ascertaining which businesses should receive the Starbucks loan.  If Starbucks ends up giving loans to businesses that are unable to stay afloat, then it will have created jobs only to have them lost again if the business is unable to survive.  Not only that, the small business owner will be left with a loan to pay, and perhaps no way to pay it.

The Starbucks job program is an extraordinary idea that has come about from a surprising place; a coffee chain CEO’s mind.  There are positive aspects to the program, but at the same time there is room for doubt and questions.  However, I personally have decided to go out and buy the $5 bracelet in the hopes that my $5 will go to a small business that will prove to be prosperous in the near future.  After learning more about the program and understanding the message behind the bracelets, I personally believe the program has some potential.  The important thing for other young people, as well as adults, is to understand the significance of researching new initiatives before blindly taking part in them.  Buying a bracelet from a well-known company may seem like a great idea at the time, but if you do not know what the bracelet signifies then you do not know who or what you are supporting.  Now that I know more about the Starbucks job program, I will be spreading the message to my college buddies, and let them decide whether or not the program is something they support.

Share

Nov 18

Land grabs

During recent years the Global South is experiencing a surge in foreign direct investments in agricultural land. Prompted in part by the food crisis, state and private investors are buying and leasing millions of hectares of farmland in Africa, Asia and Latin America. However, many large-scale land investments do not service the goal of ensuring equitable and sustainable food security.

It is a misconception that large-scale industrialized agricultural production and biofuel investments can ensure the environmental and developmental needs of the planet in a sustainable and equitable way. Land grabs pose serious threats to the human rights of host communities. By denying land users access to vital natural resources, large-scale land investment may undermine local livelihoods. Land users face possible eviction from lands that have been cultivating for decades. Indigenous peoples and pastoral populations are being delocalized. Host populations face decreased food security as well as increased competition for land and water resources.  Not only populations are being delocalized but they are also being depleted of their resources. Indeed, most of the agricultural changes will be export-oriented.

This is not the first time something like this happens in the developing nations (read about Mexico). Under the flag of the “green revolution” and necessity to increase productivity, human rights are being violated.

The driving forces behind those large-scale investments are threefold. First of all, the price volatility in the global food market has led food insecure countries to realize the precariousness of their situation. The gulf states for example, whose water and soil resources make them heavily dependent on international markets for food, have invested a lot in Africa. Countries with food security concerns and fast growing population, like India and China, are also seeking opportunity to produce food overseas.

Second, the surging demand for biofuels has led investors to target vast tracts of land in developing countries for biofuel consumption. This increased demand is largely a result of ambitious targets that oil dependent countries have established for biofuel production and for increasing the proportion of biofuels in land transportation.

Finally, many large-scale investors, including Wall Street banks and wealthy individuals, have begun to view direct investment in land as a safe investment in an otherwise shaky financial climate. This is even more of a problem because those investors lack the expertise to manage land scale agricultural production. Land investments have become more attractive to private sectors financiers as a “hedge against inflation”.

Although many blame the corporations and the investment institutions for these massive land grabs, it is important not to forget that government must also be held accountable. Governments in the countries where those land-grabs are taking place are also responsible, they are not only spectators.  The states- both  the governments that host the investment but also the home states of the private investors-have an obligation to regulate the conduct of these investors abroad. If the governments don’t stand for the interests of the people who are being negatively affected by the foreign direct investments there won’t be any solution. Stockholder activism and any interest groups that want to protect the resources and the people have to demand more action from the governments too.

Julia Naime (@julianasah) is a research intern at the SISGI Group. She is a senior at New York University majoring in Economics. During her internship, she is researching rural and international development and environmental policies. To learn more about the SISGI Group, please visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share