Which value chain are you part of?

On 30-31 May 2007 my colleague and I participated in an interesting conference on Value Chains for broad-based development in Berlin, Germany (www.valuelinks.de). Of course we were concentrating on developing countries, Africa, Caribbean and Pacific.



Promoting value chains has become an important field of economic cooperation and due to time constraints we can even not respond to all invitations for value chain conferences and symposia. Today, as a result of economic globalization, many development programmes build on market incentives and assign an important role to the private sector in sustainable development. The most challenging question for development policy is how to make this process more socially inclusive? In other words, how to ensure that economic development is pro-poor oriented and improve the position of small enterprises and farmers? Actually this question also applies to developed countries!

Here again there is not just ONE solution. Innovation, Knowledge sharing and Communication of best practices are key to be able to respond to this challenge.



Now I participate at another important gathering in Johannsburg, South Africa, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa's (FARA) 4th General Assembly (10 - 16 June 2007, http://www.fara-africa.org/). Here again we talk a lot of adding value to agricultural production, value chaines and how this can be improved. Interesting though was a study that showed that from the farmer (who most probably does not know what a value chain approach means or could mean to him) to the consumer abroad (in Europe or elsewhere) there are some nine steps where the product changes the owner. Only two steps are taking place in the African producing country. This shows clearly that most of the value chain is out of the hands of the (poor) farmers.



While such international conferences are definitively adding value (to another chain) and have an important role to play, I doubt that I could offer the golden key and could provide you with concrete recommendations on the way forward. If you could help us out here.....?



Thanks and see you soon.



Hansjoerg Neun

The G8 decisions: just for the show?

Strategic and environmental issues have been settled. As they walked into the meeting room, the world leaders were far from agreeing on them. When they came out, they were smiling and proud of themselves. Yes! They found an agreement.

They agreed on spending US$60 million to fight pandemic diseases. The anti-missile defense system could be established possibly outside the borders of the European Union….and they also agreed to take measures against climate change!

The consequences of not protecting the environment 30 years ago are felt today only. We know them (but we might not know all of them) and we all suffer from them one way or another. Now, imagine what the situation will be like 30 years from now. That is in 2037. The G8 met. That's good. They decided to act… that's also good. Unfortunately, bringing down global warming is planned for 2050!

Do you remember the Stern report? I mentioned it in my blog last February. It would only take 1% of the world GNP (Gross National Product) to avoid THE disaster – today. Is it really much to ask for?

Those of us who are not entirely satisfied with the results of the G8 Summit can at least still get some comfort in the fact that man has always found a solution to survive and has huge capacities to adapt to any situation.

If we do not react today, it will be for tomorrow or for the day after tomorrow. In that case, costs to turn things around will shoot up and it will take 2 or 3% of the GNP, even more!

What is the problem? Have a look at my post of June 1 on military spending. Given the amounts spent in that field, it is really not that expensive to ensure the future of earth and mankind.

I would have much preferred more concrete G8 decisions – now.

Yet another G8 Summit

The representatives of the 8 leading industrialized nations (G8) are meeting again, this time in Germany. All medias talk about it especially as Africa is discussed. But this has a cost: the medias mention about Euros 100 million! It is true that security is costly, so is preparing the Summit, the interpreters and the chefs…

Would you believe that the budget of the Summit is SEVEN (7) TIMES the CTA ANNUAL BUDGET! Imagine what we could do with this money for ACP countries, i.e. in Africa.

Besides, one of the "side effects" is worth mentioning: about 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions ... So when is the G8 going to take place through the Internet?

CTA understands this as we organize more and more electronic fora. They sure are much cheaper and cleaner than the Summit!

Military spending and poverty, an endless issue?

Life hangs by a thread. Is it the thread of development ? One could say so, among others. But the latest figures of world military spending make you realize that brother will turn on brother.

The English magazine The Economist published a table showing these figures. The table is based on a report of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (London). These sure make you think. In 2005, the total world military spending amounted to US$ 1 208 billion. This represents nearly US$ 1 100 per capita per year for 21% of the population who lives with than 1 dollar/day (1.09 billion people) and US$ 447.4 per capita per year for 52% of the world population who lives with less than 2 dollars/day (2.7 billion people).

Why? For national security reasons? Is it instinct? Or is this in our history? Amendment 2 of the US Constitution gives the people the right to keep and to bear arms. For the US citizen, this means, as it happened recently, that a Grandfather is free to buy a gun for his 10 month old grandson. And the kid was also granted the license!

How did this happen? Back in 2000, all of us hoped the situation of the world’s poorest populations would improve through setting, for example, the Millenium Development Goals. But contrasting facts can be found in the SIPRI 2006 Yearbook (pocket size summary edition) especially on pages 11 (Military expenditure) and 14 (International arms transfer). Can this overall scenario be different? Up to us!