What is wrong with the global support facility for small-scale mining?

The World Bank, United Nations and UK Department for International Development (DfID) have spearheaded a recent global drive to regularize artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), and provide assistance to its predominantly impoverished participants. To date, millions of dollars have been pledged toward the design of industry-specific policies and regulations; implementation of mechanized equipment; extension; and the launch of alternative livelihood (AL) programmes aimed at diversifying local economies. Much of this funding, however, has failed to facilitate marked improvements, and in many cases, has exacerbated problems. This paper argues that a poor understanding of artisanal, mine-community dynamics and operators’ needs has, in a number of cases, led to the design and implementation of inappropriate industry support schemes and interventions. The discussion focuses upon experiences from sub-Saharan Africa, where ASM is in the most rudimentary of states.

Stock assessment for fishery management - A framework guide to the stock assessment tools of the Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP)

This document provides guidelines for fish stock assessment and fishery management using the software tools and other outputs developed by the United Kingdom's Department for International Development's Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP) from 1992 to 2004. It explains some key elements of the precautionary approach to fisheries management and outlines a range of alternative stock assessment approaches that can provide the information needed for such precautionary management. Four FMSP software tools, LFDA (Length Frequency Data Analysis), CEDA (Catch Effort Data Analysis), YIELD and ParFish (Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment), are described with which intermediary parameters, performance indicators and reference points may be estimated. The document also contains examples of the assessment and management of multispecies fisheries, the use of Bayesian methodologies, the use of empirical modelling approaches for estimating yields and in analysing fishery systems, and the assessment and management of inland fisheries. It also provides a comparison of length- and age-based stock assessment methods. A CD-ROM with the FMSP software packages CEDA, LFDA, YIELD and ParFish is included.

The challenges facing privatization of infrastructure projects in Libya

Libya with its strategic location and natural resources stands as a crucial link between the Arab world, Europe, and Africa. The people of Libya have an optimistic outlook with regard to the Libyan economy after the suspension of the United Nations sanctions in 1999 that had been imposed on Libya in 1992, as well as the recent emphasis on privatization from the government. Since then, local and foreign investors have been encouraged to take a more prominent role in order to help privatize some of the state run-industries; the attention to privatization is aimed to help Libya’s economic growth and reduce its heavy dependency on oil revenues. Considering the economic situation, Libya is a rich country. However, it needs to modernize, it needs more and better infrastructure, it needs non-oil based financing, furthermore, it needs to develop a financial model for development and investment from the private sector. Although the Libyan government is working on the improvement of the business environment to make it more attractive for foreign investors in a way to move towards privatization, they have ignored some of the challenges that privatization will be facing in Libya. Privatization can not be implemented overnight. They have taken this for granted without careful consideration of its challenges. This paper attempts to investigate and discuss the challenges that need to be taken into account before privatization of infrastructure projects can be introduced in Libya. This paper is based on interviews with senior technical officials in the government.

Evaluating the legacies of state-building: success, failure, and the role of responsibility

What impact do international state-building missions have on the domestic politics of states they seek to build, and how can we measure this impact with confidence? This article seeks to address these questions and challenge some existing approaches that often appear to assume that state-builders leave lasting legacies rather than demonstrating such influence with the use of carefully chosen empirical evidence. Too often, domestic conditions that follow in the wake of international state-building are assumed to follow as a result of international intervention, usually due to insufficient attention to the causal processes that link international actions to domestic outcomes. The article calls for greater appreciation of the methodological challenges to establishing causal inferences regarding the legacies of state-building and identifies three qualitative methodological strategies—process tracing, counterfactual analysis, and the use of control cases—that can be used to improve confidence in causal claims about state-building legacies. The article concludes with a case study of international state-building in East Timor, highlighting several flaws of existing evaluations of the United Nations' role in East Timor and identifying the critical role that domestic actors play even in the context of authoritative international intervention

Climate change and sustainable food production

One of the greatest challenges we face in the twenty-first century is to sustainably feed nine to ten billion people by 2050 while at the same time reducing environmental impact (e.g. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, land use change and loss of ecosystem services). To this end, food security must be delivered. According to the United Nations definition, ‘food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. At the same time as delivering food security, we must also reduce the environmental impact of food production. Future climate change will make an impact upon food production. On the other hand, agriculture contributes up to about 30% of the anthropogenic GHG emissions that drive climate change. The aim of this review is to outline some of the likely impacts of climate change on agriculture, the mitigation measures available within agriculture to reduce GHG emissions and outlines the very significant challenge of feeding nine to ten billion people sustainably under a future climate, with reduced emissions of GHG. Each challenge is in itself enormous, requiring solutions that co-deliver on all aspects. We conclude that the status quo is not an option, and tinkering with the current production systems is unlikely to deliver the food and ecosystems services we need in the future; radical changes in production and consumption are likely to be required over the coming decades.

Exploring socioeconomic impacts of forest based mitigation projects: Lessons from Brazil and Bolivia

This paper aims to contribute new insights globally and regionally on how carbon forest mitigation contributes to sustainable development in South America. Carbon finance has emerged as a potential policy option to tackling global climate change, degradation of forests, and social development in poor countries. This paper focuses on evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of a set of forest based mitigation pilot projects that emerged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The paper reviews research conducted in 2001–2002, drawing from empirical data from four pilot projects, derived from qualitative stakeholder interviews, and complemented by policy documents and literature. Of the four projects studied three are located in frontier areas, where there are considerable pressures for conversion of standing forest to agriculture. In this sense, forest mitigation projects have a substantial role to play in the region. Findings suggest however, that all four projects have experienced cumbersome implementation processes specifically, due to weak social objectives, poor communication, as well as time constraints. In three out of four cases, stakeholders highlighted limited local acceptance at the implementation stages. In the light of these findings, we discuss opportunities for implementation of future forest based mitigation projects in the land use sector.

Characterising loss and damage from climate change

Policy-makers are creating mechanisms to help developing countries cope with loss and damage from climate change, but the negotiations are largely neglecting scientific questions about what the impacts of climate change actually are. Mitigation efforts have failed to prevent the continued increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Adaptation is now unlikely to be sufficient to prevent negative impacts from current and future climate change1. In this context, vulnerable nations argue that existing frameworks to promote mitigation and adaptation are inadequate, and have called for a third international mechanism to deal with residual climate change impacts, or “loss and damage”2. In 2013, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) responded to these calls and established the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to address loss and damage from the impacts of climate change in developing countries3. An interim Executive Committee of party representatives has been set up, and is currently drafting a two-year workplan comprising meetings, reports, and expert groups; and aiming to enhance knowledge and understanding of loss and damage, strengthen dialogue among stakeholders, and promote enhanced action and support. Issues identified as priorities for the WIM thus far include: how to deal with non-economic losses, such as loss of life, livelihood, and cultural heritage; and linkages between loss and damage and patterns of migration and displacement2. In all this, one fundamental issue still demands our attention: which losses and damages are relevant to the WIM? What counts as loss and damage from climate change?