Ethical investment: Flower power
It is good to learn that Kenya's rose-growing industry has been transformed since we reported on its damaging impact
In a world of many bad news stories, it is good to learn that Kenya's rose-growing industry, worth $500m a year, has been transformed since we reported, in 2003, on its damaging impact on the people and environment of the shores of Lake Naivasha. Better, safer working conditions and a dramatic new emphasis on sustainability are the upshot of a mix of public criticism and a devastating drought followed by floods that left no alternative but a radical rethink about the way the growers and their workforce used water. Backed by huge charitable organisations like the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, there is an upsurge of interest in this kind of impact investment, where developed-world capital seeks projects in Africa, Asia and South America which can generate commercial returns from sustainable development. Wealthy individuals prefer social enterprise to charity; ethical fund managers look for vehicles that do good at the same time as doing well.
The dilemma is how to judge at what point the costs outweigh the benefits. The current controversy over another Kenyan project, to grow the poisonous and invasive South American plant jatropha for biofuel, shows just how difficult it is to strike a balance. The project's critics protest at damage to the Dakatcha woodland, an important habitat, warn against the extensive planting of an exotic species, and argue that jatropha will produce more carbon than it saves. Its supporters promise jobs and investment in an arid, poverty-stricken part of Kenya. In the wake of land grabs by China, Asia and the Middle East seeking food security for their own people, there is widespread suspicion of an agribusiness invasion, and persuasive arguments against commercial agriculture in countries where more than 90% of the people still rely on subsistence farming. But their backers claim projects that promote food security, create opportunities for smallholders and are environmentally sustainable in countries like Tanzania or Malawi show what can be delivered by good design and careful management.
The best way to judge is by an internationally recognised set of standards. The Global Impact Investment Network's IRIS project seeks to do just that. Yet some impact investment funds are still reluctant to sign up: they recognise the protection such a system would offer; but they are reluctant to commit to anything that might slow the cash flow. Plenty of African entrepreneurs find some funds' concerns to promote equity and transparency irrelevant in a marketplace desperate for cash. Our report today makes clear that consumer pressure is a powerful incentive. That Mother's Day bunch of roses smells a little sweeter now than 10 years ago.
The dilemma is how to judge at what point the costs outweigh the benefits. The current controversy over another Kenyan project, to grow the poisonous and invasive South American plant jatropha for biofuel, shows just how difficult it is to strike a balance. The project's critics protest at damage to the Dakatcha woodland, an important habitat, warn against the extensive planting of an exotic species, and argue that jatropha will produce more carbon than it saves. Its supporters promise jobs and investment in an arid, poverty-stricken part of Kenya. In the wake of land grabs by China, Asia and the Middle East seeking food security for their own people, there is widespread suspicion of an agribusiness invasion, and persuasive arguments against commercial agriculture in countries where more than 90% of the people still rely on subsistence farming. But their backers claim projects that promote food security, create opportunities for smallholders and are environmentally sustainable in countries like Tanzania or Malawi show what can be delivered by good design and careful management.
The best way to judge is by an internationally recognised set of standards. The Global Impact Investment Network's IRIS project seeks to do just that. Yet some impact investment funds are still reluctant to sign up: they recognise the protection such a system would offer; but they are reluctant to commit to anything that might slow the cash flow. Plenty of African entrepreneurs find some funds' concerns to promote equity and transparency irrelevant in a marketplace desperate for cash. Our report today makes clear that consumer pressure is a powerful incentive. That Mother's Day bunch of roses smells a little sweeter now than 10 years ago.
Libya: Defections and dilemmas
From the beginning of the intervention the encouragement of defections has played an absolutely central role
From the beginning of the intervention in Libya the encouragement of defections has played an absolutely central role. Indeed it has been the constant refrain of prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers as they sought to explain how they thought the coalition would achieve its aims in north Africa. Libyan civilians of course had to be protected from attack. But otherwise the military measures, the economic sanctions and even the threat of international legal proceedings were not ends in themselves.
They were instead means, as William Hague, Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama repeatedly made clear, to signal to Libyan soldiers, civil servants and high functionaries that the regime had no future – and nor would they, if they stuck with it. The important thing was to peel away from the Gaddafis the supporters without whom they could not maintain their rule. The defection of the Benghazi garrison in the early days of the protests brought about the swift collapse of the Gaddafi government's authority in the east, while the resignations and declarations of many Libyan diplomats undermined what little was left of the regime's legitimacy abroad. Defections were the way to go, and the prospect of more was relished.
When it was a matter of barely known military officers changing sides, or western-educated diplomats whose unease at representing the regime had long been noted, or even of Gaddafi ministers migrating to the Benghazi camp in Libya itself, all was grist to the mill. But there was a contradiction looming. When defection is vital to success, can amnesty be far away? This is the problem dramatised by the defection of Moussa Koussa to Britain this week. Koussa has both harmed and helped Britain in the past, with the emphasis in recent years more on the latter than the former. And, with his knowledge of the workings of the Gaddafi inner circle, he can still help us now by pinpointing its weaknesses and identifying other figures who might come over soon.
Some are demanding he be put on trial if evidence emerges of responsibility for attacks on western targets. But it would be amazing, whatever David Cameron says in public, if Koussa had not been given assurances about his own future. And it would be foolish not to listen to what other Gaddafi associates who come to Britain have to say.
One does not have to look far in regional history for examples of the practical taking precedence over the ideal. General Eisenhower confirmed the Vichy Admiral Darlan as chief in north Africa in order to secure the allegiance of Vichy army units. Later the second world war allies installed Field Marshal Badoglio, a general who had fought in Libya but abandoned Mussolini, as head of an interim Italian government.
The short history of the international criminal court, which has since earlier this month been investigating the possibility of charging members of the Gaddafi regime with war crimes, shows that an indictment can have the effect of isolating a head of state, as it did in the case of Slobodan Miloševic. The wider the criminal net is cast, however, the more it may stiffen rather than undermine a faltering regime. There is sometimes, in other words, a choice to be made between absolute justice and bringing a desperate and dangerous phase in a nation's affairs to an end.
Ultimately the decisions about who should be punished, who pardoned, and who allowed, in spite of past sins, to continue to play a part in Libya's political life, should be made by Libyans themselves. But the coalition has for the moment the responsibility of measuring how high a price we should pay for the defections we encourage. The line should surely be drawn at the ruling family itself. How much wider it should go is a hard question. But there may be some unpalatable compromises ahead.
They were instead means, as William Hague, Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama repeatedly made clear, to signal to Libyan soldiers, civil servants and high functionaries that the regime had no future – and nor would they, if they stuck with it. The important thing was to peel away from the Gaddafis the supporters without whom they could not maintain their rule. The defection of the Benghazi garrison in the early days of the protests brought about the swift collapse of the Gaddafi government's authority in the east, while the resignations and declarations of many Libyan diplomats undermined what little was left of the regime's legitimacy abroad. Defections were the way to go, and the prospect of more was relished.
When it was a matter of barely known military officers changing sides, or western-educated diplomats whose unease at representing the regime had long been noted, or even of Gaddafi ministers migrating to the Benghazi camp in Libya itself, all was grist to the mill. But there was a contradiction looming. When defection is vital to success, can amnesty be far away? This is the problem dramatised by the defection of Moussa Koussa to Britain this week. Koussa has both harmed and helped Britain in the past, with the emphasis in recent years more on the latter than the former. And, with his knowledge of the workings of the Gaddafi inner circle, he can still help us now by pinpointing its weaknesses and identifying other figures who might come over soon.
Some are demanding he be put on trial if evidence emerges of responsibility for attacks on western targets. But it would be amazing, whatever David Cameron says in public, if Koussa had not been given assurances about his own future. And it would be foolish not to listen to what other Gaddafi associates who come to Britain have to say.
One does not have to look far in regional history for examples of the practical taking precedence over the ideal. General Eisenhower confirmed the Vichy Admiral Darlan as chief in north Africa in order to secure the allegiance of Vichy army units. Later the second world war allies installed Field Marshal Badoglio, a general who had fought in Libya but abandoned Mussolini, as head of an interim Italian government.
The short history of the international criminal court, which has since earlier this month been investigating the possibility of charging members of the Gaddafi regime with war crimes, shows that an indictment can have the effect of isolating a head of state, as it did in the case of Slobodan Miloševic. The wider the criminal net is cast, however, the more it may stiffen rather than undermine a faltering regime. There is sometimes, in other words, a choice to be made between absolute justice and bringing a desperate and dangerous phase in a nation's affairs to an end.
Ultimately the decisions about who should be punished, who pardoned, and who allowed, in spite of past sins, to continue to play a part in Libya's political life, should be made by Libyans themselves. But the coalition has for the moment the responsibility of measuring how high a price we should pay for the defections we encourage. The line should surely be drawn at the ruling family itself. How much wider it should go is a hard question. But there may be some unpalatable compromises ahead.
Unthinkable? Honours even
Is it to be imagined that Sachin Tendulkar should fail in Mumbai, to emerge a World Cup winner
Is it really to be imagined that Sachin Tendulkar, one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game – and one capable, as we saw against Pakistan, even when playing erratically and repeatedly being dropped, of making 85 runs and emerging as man of the match – should fail on this day in his home town, Mumbai, to emerge a World Cup winner, and possibly with his 100th international century under his belt? Even were he to fail, then surely some other Indian star – the rampaging Virender Sehwag, perhaps, or Yuvraj Singh, with his knack of coming up with something decisive when it's needed – would do the job for him. And yet is it really conceivable that a second of the world's greatest cricketers, even when struggling with injury, should fail, if he plays – and they may not be able to stop him – to stamp the name Muttiah Muralitharan on the result? Or that tested performers like the valiant wicketkeeper-opener captain Kumar Sangakkara, from a nation which may remember that a generation ago Sri Lanka was deemed by many English wiseacres unfit for test cricket, should fail to ensure that he leaves on a winning note? For Murali, at 39 – as for now-retiring captains Ricky Ponting, Andrew Strauss and Daniel Vettori, and very likely too for Tendulkar, who'll be 41 in 2015 – it is going to be the commentary box next time. On that basis, the non-aligned, which of course after last weekend includes the English, ought perhaps to hope for a tie. But that surely is truly unthinkable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment