Saturday, 18 October 2014

Wateraid in Mali

What is Wateraid?
Safe water pump technology transforms lives in Mali
Wateraid is an international NGO (non-governmental organisation) which works to promote and aid acces to safe water, sanitation and hygiene education in developing nations to help sustainable community development. Wateraid currently works in 26 countries and helps transform the lives of millions living in poverty.

What is the crisis in Mali?
Mali, a landlocked country in West Africa, is one of the world's poorest nations. Political instability, violence, widespread poverty and irregular rainfall are contributing factors to Mali's water crisis which has lead to one third of its population lacking access to safe water and over 11 million without sanitation.
The water crisis in Mali has lead to widespread health problems including outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and typhoid due to people being forced to use unsafe water sources. It is estimated that one in five children die before the age of 5.
Access to education is also severely impacted by the water crisis, particularly for girls. After walking long distances to search for water each day, there is limited time to study to gain an education, limited the opportunities of many women and girls.
Despite these devastating issues, health, education and water and sanitation supply remain among the sectors recieving the lowest proportion of the national budget. This presents a huge challenge for Wateraid's work and may limit Mali's success in reaching its millenium development goal targets of 80% access to safe water by 2015.

What is Wateraid's approach in Mali?
During 2006-2010, Wateraid helped 360,000 people in Mali get access to safe water and sanitation services, which is an outstanding achievement. However, in its new country programme strategy which began in 2010 and is expected to complete in 2015, wateraid aims to tackle issues such as sustainability, learning rights of women, equality, and talent management (involving local people in desicion making and training), as well as continuing its work in safe water and sanitation in rural communities. With partner NGOs in Mali, 23 local governments, and health and education departments, Wateraid hope to help a further 415,000 people benefit from the scheme.
Community hygeine education as part of CLTS
Wateraid has been using the CLTS (community led total sanitation) approach, a scheme also used in countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh. CLTS schemes help educate small communities about the importance of good hygiene, safe water and sanitation, and them helps them to build hygenic latrines, dispose of waste in safe ways and educate the wider community about good hygenic practices.
To ensure the sustainability of its legacy in Mali, Wateraid, members of the local communities are trained to maintain the technology used such as water pumps and latrines, and also to continue to train other communities about hygiene and safe water.

Further reading:
- There is a link to a publication on Wateraids strategy in Mali here. The page also contains links to information pages about the work Wateraid do in other countries.
- The bbc website provides an overview of Mali and some data about its development 
- A fantastic resource page about the effects of lack of safe water access on women by another water charity called the Voss Foundation is available here

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Shale Fracking - behind the headlines

anti-fracking protest in the UK
Fracking is a highly controversial 
method of fuel production which has sparked heated debate between many different groups within the UK, with less than 50% of the UK public supporting it. Amid concerns over depleting fossil fuel reserves many see fracking as the answer to the UKs energy demands. However opponents argue fracking poses threats to people the environment, and also reduces the UKs ability to invest in greener and more renewable energy sources.

What is fracking?
Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is a process which involves drilling into the earth to depths of around 1km, with the aim of recovering natural gas or oil from shale rock, which can then be combusted as fuel. It has been carried out since the 1940s in the US, is growingly important as our supplies of conventional crude oil resources are running out. Technology and research means that fracking activity in areas of the UK is rising.
The natural gas obtained is predominately methane and is held in minute fractures in shales.
When slick water, which is a mixture of water and chemicals to aid the process, and a proppant, for example sand, are pumped at high pressures into the well, the fractures are made larger and the shale more permeable. When the pressure is released, the liquid and natural gas rise up the borehole to the surface.

What are the issues with fracking?
There is widespread opposition to the UK fracking movement. Many opposers believe that the contreversial method of energy production poses environmental, economic and societal threats.

  • Environmental threats: evidence from monitoring sites in the US indicates both air pollution and water contamination linked to fracking activity. For example one Colorado based report shows at least 1000 spills of chemical waste, oils and diesel which are trongly related to fracking activity. In another study, over 50 hazardous air pollutants, 35 of which are potentially toxic to the brain and nervous system, were also found in unusually high levels near fracking sites in western Colorado, US. This evidence shows a link between fracking and a reduction in both water and air quality, putting at risk the health of communities and the sustainability of ecosystems. However, a report by the government agnency Public Health England (PHE) concludes that "the risk to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated" 
  • Fracking also requires large amounts of water consumption. A report by the Tyndell Centre suggests that “development of shale reserves at levels sufficient to deliver gas at a level equivalent to 10% of UK gas consumption would increase industrial water abstraction across England and Wales by up to 0.6%". This may impact the UKs water reserves considerably, threatening other industries, the environment and society.
  • Social threats: As well as the potential public health risks associated with fracking and possible risks to local economy, many communities in the UK where fracking is being proposed have growing concerns about how they will be impacted by shale gas extraction in their local area. Some impacts include increased traffic;visual intrusion into the local setting and areas of natural beauty; flood risk; noise and light levels; and the question of residents' rights as home-owners to prevent fracking beneath their homes. 
  • Economic threats: while there is no solid estimates to indicate the negative impact of fracking on the local economy, a number of industries express concerns about how fracking will effect them. Many areas where drilling is proposed in the UK rely heavily on the income agriculture and tourism. The water and land contamination which could potentially occur with fracking may harm agricultural practices and have a detrimental impact on farmers' income and therefore the local economy. Shale gas fracking also threatens areas of natural beauty, reducing the local area's ability to generate income from tourism.
  • However the UK government strongly supports the potential for fracking to create jobs and boost economies. A report for Cuadrilla, a company looking to drill in the UK, suggests that shale gas production in Lancashire could create up to 6,500 full-time jobs. The UK government also proposes community benefit packages to develop local economies. However, many argue that investment in renewable energy, a much more sustainable option for delivering energy, has the opportunity to create many more jobs and benefit communities in a much greater way than fracking. According to a government report the renewable energy sector could support 400,000 jobs by 2020.
Sources and further reading:
- Friends Of The Earth briefing paper - gives detailed information about the nature and threats of fracking, May 2013
New scientist article reporting the UK governments response to concerns over the public health risks of fracking, November 2013
- Uk gov report - information about fracking in the uk and planning permission, February 2014
- Sustainanalytics paper about the social and environmental impacts of shale gas developement, August 2011
BBC news article - Fracking's risks and benefits, January 2013.

Friday, 4 July 2014

Essay - Costs and Benefits of Gobalisation

What are the costs and benefits of globalisation
Globalisation is the process in which countries, people and companies become increasingly connected and interdependent through increase in global trading and communication. It has huge social, economic, political and environmental impacts on society, and these are both positive and negative.

Social:
The increased connectivity of people from all over the world that globalisation brings leads to a spread of culture and the social benefit of increased cultural understanding across nations. This can alleviate cultural tension and make communities more cohesive. The spread of culture can also bring more range of goods from across the world, enhancing the consumers’ experience. Another social benefit of globalisation is the propagation of democratic ideals globally. An example of this is the increasingly important economic and political role of women in the developing world, an ideal influenced by western equality due to increase in interconnectivity of nations. However, a social problem with cultural diffusion brought by globalisation is loss of cultural diversity in many parts of the world. In Cuba for example, where tourism has seen a sharp increase, tourist enclaves are created, and western influence leads to a loss of Cuba’s traditions and parts of their culture.

Globalisation allows violations of human rights to be exposed in media coverage to highlight problems and to inhibit individuals from being exploited. For example, the poor working conditions of foreign employees of TNCs working in sweatshops in developing countries can be made visible globally, so there is more public action to stop exploitation of this kind. This global media communication also means that in the case of a catastrophic natural disaster, such as the Philippines typhoon Haiyan, the world can be made aware of it and so the public are more active in donating aid in response.

Economic:
Globalisation enables countries with emerging economies in the developing world to gain economic prosperity and opportunity. TNCs favour employing workers for lower skilled jobs in developing countries because they are able to pay a lower wage and there is less regulation on working conditions. These countries are then able to trade on a larger scale and so their economy increases and they attract more overseas loans and investment from developed countries such as the US. This then gives them a firmer foothold in the global economy and allows governments to improve the living conditions of its population. However, this can create a dependency of foreign aid in the developing world and countries with smaller economies could be controlled by multinational corporations.

Another economic advantage of globalisation is lower consumer prices. Globalisation means there is greater competition from all over the world and this protects from domestic monopolies, keeping prices low. There is also a ‘race to the bottom’, as corporations compete for the lowest possible prices to attract consumer markets. The standardisation of cargo ship containers and improvements to transport links also mean that transportation costs are lower so companies are able to make profits without driving up prices. Globalisation also means that goods are produced all over the world so this leads to greater specialisation of production in countries, leading to lower consumer prices and larger export markets for developing nations. In contrast, some of the least economically developed countries are left behind in economic growth as they are not set up for industry and trade, so while many countries become richer as a result of globalisation, the poorest of countries become poorer. This is the case in sub-Saharan Africa, where countries striken by ongoing conflict, political corruption, drought and famine, and a battle with Malaria and HIV/AIDS, are simply left behind in the global economy as there are not able to compete in trade and industry.

Globalisation leads to a freer movement of labour, as economic migrants move to different areas to search for employment opportunities. This benefits the economy of host nations as the immigrants are able to fill gaps in employment, for example, due to shortages in nurses in the UK, foreign migrants from the Far East were brought over to be employed. The movement of labour also benefits the source nations as remittances from family working overseas are sent back, which adds to the source nations’ economy. There are however problems caused by the free movement of labour because there is a ‘labour drain’ as a countries working age population is reduced as many move overseas to more economically developed nations, and so their economic growth is slowed. There is also a ‘brain drain’ has highly skilled workers move out of countries in search of better wages elsewhere, leaving the country with less trained workers and so there is less innovation and technological progress in the country.
An economic cost of globalisation in the developed world is the threat to jobs as multinational companies begin to outsource manufacturing and white collar jobs from overseas where they are able to pay lower wages in for example India. This creates job insecurity and large redundancies in countries such as the US. Moreover, local industries and shops can be taken over by multinational companies, whose offices are based elsewhere, threatening smaller businesses and subsequently the overall economy of an area.

Environmental:
Globalisation means that nations of the world can cooperate together to discuss and solve global environmental issues such as pollution, over fishing of oceans and climate change, at conferences such as the UN Earth Summit and the Kyoto Protocol. A combination of solutions from different countries can be made universal and more pressure can be put on developed nations to reduce their carbon footprints.

Another positive environmental impact of globalisation is that nations emerging in the global economy such as India have greater access to modern technology and are able to ‘leap frog’ older ones. For example, for decades, post-industrialised countries such as the UK and Japan used primarily coal, which, when combusted is a pollutant and contributes to greenhouse gases, however developing nations are able to use greener, more energy efficient technology which have less environmental effects. Despite this, however, globalisation means that the use of non-renewable energy is expected to grow, as more goods are able to be produced on a much bigger scale than ever before. This contributes to pollution and atmospheric greenhouse gases and therefore accelerates global warming. The transportation of raw materials and finished goods all over the world also requires much more oil to fuel cargo ships, trains and planes. Moreover, due to a higher demand for goods, multinational companies have to look for raw materials in ever more remote areas, and so previously untouched environments are being exploited, destroying habitats and the areas’ ecology.


In conclusion, globalisation does bring opportunities of economic prosperity and improvements to social equality and living standards for many. Additionally it brings a global reduction in consumer prices and there is a significant sharing of culture and ideals across the globe as people become more connected. Although, many are also left behind in the global economic growth and people in developing nations and also ecosystems can be exploited by multinationals competing for lower prices and bigger consumer markets. So whilst globalisation has many advantages, the costs of it are very important to consider in today’s society.

Friday, 18 April 2014

Flooding in the Somerset Levels and the dredging debate

The winter of 2013/14 saw the UK battered by the St Jude's Storm of early December and persistent heavy rainfall and storms which lasted into early February, likely to be linked to abnormal patterns in the North Atlantic Jet Stream.
Submerged Somerset Levels, January 2014

      As well as intense coastal erosion in parts of Devon, Dorset and Cornwall, the Somerset Levels was submerged for weeks, with unprecedented flooding threatening homes, businesses and farmers' livelihoods.The flooding sparked nationwide debate as who should take responsibility for the floods and their impacts, and of the future of flood management of the area and the rest of the UK.

 The Somerset Levels, which is the home to 170,000 acres of high quality farmland, is a natural floodplain which is served by four main rivers: the Parrett, Tone, Brue and Axe. Flooding is not in any way new to the region, however this years flooding has caused serious and potentially long-lasting impacts:
- 600 homes were affected in the area, causing loss of possessions, psychological effects, and long term consequences of potentially tripling insurance costs and plummeting house prices.
- Villages were completely cut-off and major road links were blocked, causing transport delays, disruptions to emergency services and local businesses.
- Farmers were amongst the hardest hit, with 17,000 acres submerged, many farmers had to sell or slaughter cattle. The economic cost of the floods to the region's agriculture industry is likely to be £10 million.

Local residents call for the Environment Agency to dredge
Many argue that dredging is the Somerset Level's answer to reduce the impacts of future flooding in the area and local residents and MP's have crcriticizedhe Environment Agency for not dredging the rivers in the area efficiently, and blames this as the cause of the flooding.

What is dredging?
Dredging involves removing silt and other built up materials from the river channel to increase it's capacity and therefore limit fluvial flood risk. Experts suggest that managing rivers can increase the river channel's ability to hold higher levels of water flow following extreme weather. Farmers and residents of the somerset levels have expressed concern that their rivers have not been dredged enough, with one farmer explaining to the BBC that the rivers were '42% silted up'.

Are there arguments against dredging?
Despite dredging, or de-silting, having the potential to alleviate flood risks in many parts of the UK, some experts and environmental groups protest that dredging does not provide an environmentally or economically sustainable solution to flooding.
- Expense: dredging and river management often involves very specialist and costly eqequipment which can limit the environment agency or a local council flood defence budget. Dredging is also not a long-term fix as silt build up is continuous and therefore dredging needs to be carried out frequently. Therefore, in the somerset levels the cost of dredging would need to be weighed against the value of the land protected.
- Increased downstream flood risk: removing river silt can increase its flow velocity and  therefore can increase the risk of flooding downstream from the dredged site.
- Increased erosion: dredging can also increase the erosive power of the flow due to reduced friction from sediment, which in high energy river systems particularly can cause banks to erode, potentially increasing the risk of flooding.
- Wildlife and ecological impacts: wildlife and environment groups such as the RSPB warn that dredging can lead to unexpected negative knock-on effects to river ecosystems Scientists suggest that removing vegetation from river channels reduces shade and therefore increases temperatures. This can lower the oxygen levels in the water, impacting river species and the whole ecological cycle.Surveys also suggest dredging impacts birds, with some areas where dredging as been used experiences falls in the number of some wading bird species. The somerset levels has several SSSIs (sites of specific scientific interest) and is home to a vast variety of rare species, therefore the  ecological impacts of dredging would need to be considered carefully.

Are there effective alternatives to dredging?
Managing land-use on flood plains, such as reducing intensive use and introducing floodplain woodlands or wetlands, can encourage natural infiltration and prevent widespread flooding. These management techniques can be described as working with nature to protect valuable landscapes, rather than working against it, as dredging has been accused of doing. It is important that these management methods are used alongside dredging where it used to maintain a holistic approach to flood management that minimizes unwanted effects to the environment.

What are the current plans for the Somerset Levels' future?
The environment agency have released a full briefing into their action plan for flood control in the somerset levels, an executive summary can be found here.
With the risk of flooding in the somerset levels is almost certain to increase with factors such as climate change, rising sea levels and urbanisation increasing surface run-off, there is mounting pressure from local business, residents and farmers in the region to protect their land and resources. However, whatever response methods used to protect the region, a compromise must be made to protect the ecology and ensure other areas do not suffer increased flood risk as a result of dredging.

Further reading:
- A report by CIWEM about the risks and merits of dredging:                         http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Floods_and_Dredging_a_reality_check.pdf
- This BBC article, and others in the 'related articles' section give balanced perspectives on   the flooding and dredging: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25911391

Sunday, 19 January 2014

Essay - Why do similar kinds of hazards have different impacts in different places? (10 marks)


Hazards are natural processes which effect a population or cause damage to property or environment; they can be geophysical, for example earthquakes and volcanoes, or hydro-meteorological, for example hurricanes, flooding and blizzards. The impact is not only determined by the magnitude of the hazard, but how vulnerable the population or area affected is, this can be shown in the equation: hazard risk = (vulnerability x magnitude of disaster) / capacity to cope. Populations with a low capacity to cope with a hazard are more vulnerable than areas which are prepared well and have the resources to respond quickly. Vulnerability is also influenced by environmental factors, population density and urbanisation.

Comparing two category 5 hurricanes, hurricane Andrew in the U.S, August 1992, and hurricane Mitch in Honduras and Nicaragua, October 1998, can demonstrate the contrasting impacts of similar hydro-meteorological hazards in an LEDC and MEDC. The number of fatalities caused by Hurricane Mitch is estimated to be a staggering 19,000, and many towns were completely destroyed, leaving 600,000 homeless in Honduras. The devastating impact of the hurricane can be attributed to the affected countries’ low GDP per capita and low preparedness. Honduras and Nicaragua are two of the poorest countries in Central America and therefore, lack of money and effective resources meant that there was not proper warning and evacuation systems or effective storm drains, making them more vulnerable. Moreover, houses were not properly constructing and often built on steep slopes due to poor building regulations. In contrast, Hurricane Andrew’s death toll was considerably smaller and stood at 29 people. The affected states were all in the United States, an MEDC; this meant that while the damage caused by the hurricane was severe, advanced communications allowed early predictions and warnings, allowing people to take action to protect themselves. Furthermore, the country’s economic wealth meant buildings and infrastructure could be built and maintained in a way that made them more likely to withstand the effect of a hurricane.                                                             
Another noticeable difference between the effect of the two hurricanes is the economic impact; while the U.S was more prepared for hurricane Andrew and so the damage was less extensive than that caused by Hurricane Mitch, the areas affected by hurricane Andrew have more expensive infrastructure and  buildings which cost the economy more to replace. The overall economic impact of the hurricane was $26.5 billion, whereas the cost of hurricane Mitch was $6.2 billion. Despite the economic cost after hurricane Mitch was lower than that of hurricane Andrew, due to less expensive infrastructure needing repair, the cost of hurricane Mitch was a much higher percentage of the affected countries’ GNP than of the U.S and therefore the countries heavily depended on international aid to support in the rebuild.
The same natural hazard event can cause different levels of impact in different areas of the place affected. This is evident in the varying effects of Hurricane Katrina across districts in New Orleans of varying wealth. It was found that as the percentage of the population living in poverty in different neighbourhoods increased, the percentage of those with a vehicle in which they could evacuate with, and the percentage of those with flood insurance, both decreased. This demonstrates that poverty is a key factor in determining the amount of resources people are able to cope and recover from a disaster, and so vulnerability is positively correlated with poverty of an area.

There can also be different impacts between similar natural disasters in MEDCs due to certain environmental and structural factors. For example, two earthquakes of very similar magnitude occurred within a year of each other and had very different impacts: the Northridge earthquake, January 1994 in Los Angeles, and the Kobe earthquake, January 1995 in Japan. While there was little differences between the power of the two earthquakes and the economy of both the U.S and Japan, 6,000 people and there were 210,000 heavily damaged buildings following the Kobe earthquake, and there were only 61 deaths and 15,000 damaged buildings following the Northridge earthquake. The differences between the scale of the impacts could be explained by two major factors, the soil quality of affected areas and the structural style of the buildings. Studies have shown that the soil in Kobe is much softer than the soil in the affected areas of Los Angeles, making the ground much more susceptible to liquefaction, which would have made the foundations of structures such as buildings and bridges weaker. It was also the case that decades before, the older buildings in Los Angeles had been reinforced, making them more earthquake resistant, whereas in Japan, many of the older buildings could not withstand the force of the earthquake.

Another factor which affects the scale of impact from a natural hazard is population density and how close the event was to an urban area. This is evident when comparing the effects of the September 2010 Canterbury earthquake and the January 2011 Christchurch earthquake, both in New Zealand. While the earthquake in 2010 was of magnitude 7.1 and the 2011 earthquake was much smaller with a magnitude of 6.3, the effects of the 2011 were much greater. In the 2010 earthquake, although there was some damage to buildings, roads and pipes, nobody was killed and very few were injured. However, in the earthquake 4 months later, there were in total 185 casualties, most of which were when the six-storey CTV building in Christchurch collapsed; there were also significant damages to buildings and infrastructure caused by the quake and liquefaction. There are many possible factors which could have caused the large difference in the scale of impacts between the two events. The Canterbury earthquake’s epicentre was much farther from Christchurch city centre than the January 2011 earthquake, and therefore the area affected was much less densely populated and the buildings were mostly smaller, suburban houses rather than tall office buildings, which are much more easily collapsed in an earthquake. Another possible reason for there being far more casualties in the 2011 earthquake is that the 2010 earthquake occurred early in the morning, when the majority of people were still in bed, however, the 2011 earthquake occurred after midday, when more people were out in the city and at work.