Report for War on Want (October 2018)
The expansion of mega-mining projects in Latin America is displacing indigenous communities, destroying local ecosystems, and costing lives and livelihoods. This report exposes the impact of British mining in Latin America, gathering 17 case studies from across the continent. It has a particular focus on Anglo American, BHP Biliton, Glencore and Antofagasta.
Report for Health Poverty Action (August 2018)
Curtis Research undertook research for this briefing which details how governments around the world are allowing billions of dollars to be diverted to corporations every year at the cost of human rights and public services. It estimates that the amount of money being diverted every year amounts to over $1 trillion – enough money to cancel all government debt of impoverished countries or triple the money spent on healthcare for half the world’s population. The report analyses a range of ways in which resources are directed towards corporations, including the extent of global corporate tax avoidance, excessive corporate profits, fossil fuel subsidies and agricultural subsidies.
Report for ActionAid (July 2018)
In the four years 2014-17, some 1.7 million people risked their lives by fleeing across the Mediterranean Sea for Europe, a journey in which over 13,000 have died or have gone missing. This report is a contribution to understanding what the proper policy responses to this movement of people should best be. It focuses on young people in one African country, The Gambia, thousands of whom have been seeking a better life in Europe – often called the ‘back way’. This study asks: Why have so many young Gambians become irregular migrants and what can be done to help them and The Gambia manage this exodus and promote national development.
June 2018
This paper reviews how several developing countries which can be considered successes (with qualifications) have progressed economically, briefly capturing what policies and institutions might explain their performance. The analysis considers Mauritius, South Korea, Ecuador, Cuba, and the Nordic model/Norway. It also briefly considers Chile – a country whose ‘success’ is sometimes explained by neoliberal policies – and Botswana – often held up as Africa’s most successful developer.
In recent decades, the British and US governments, in particular, have largely promoted neoliberalism in developing countries as a supposed strategy to reduce poverty and promote economic development. Perhaps better described as ‘market fundamentalism’, neoliberalism has tended to involve: privatising key areas of the economy; reductions in state spending and the general role of the state; de-regulation of the financial sector and of corporate activities (relying on voluntary ‘corporate social responsibility’); strong promotion of foreign investment with few barriers, often accompanied by cutting taxes, promoting tax incentives for foreign investors; and failing to address rising inequality. Some of these policies are beginning to change, given the obvious failures of this model, but its general thrust is often still in evidence in the economic policies and aid strategies (not to mention domestic policies) of Western states such as the UK and the US.
Countries which have successfully developed in the postwar world do not owe their progress to neoliberalism. It is more accurate to say that the kinds of policies promoted by relatively successful states have generally tended to involve the opposite: a strong, interventionist role for the state; privileging domestic over foreign investors; liberalising only once the domestic economy and local firms can compete in world markets; periods of trade protection; and explicitly pro-poor state spending.
Report for FERN (September 2017)
This study highlights the role of European Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) in alleged land grabs and questionable forestry projects in Africa. It documents nine such cases involving eight of the European DFIs. It raises the urgent need for more independent research into these projects and the need for much more scrutiny of the investment portfolios of the DFIs, including by the DFIs themselves and by national parliaments.
Report for ActionAid (November 2016)
The world is enduring an unprecedented combination of climate related crises. We are living through what will almost certainly be the hottest year on record, and have faced one of the strongest El Niño weather events of all time. In 2016, the Earth has recorded the highest ever level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are set to rise still further. The 2015-16 El Niño may yet prove to have caused the biggest drought that the world has ever seen and many countries are enduring their worst droughts in decades, affecting hundreds of millions of people. The Paris Agreement on climate change was celebrated with much fanfare less than a year ago, but the lack of an adequate response to the global El Niño drought shows that the world is not yet willing or able to respond properly to an actual climate crisis. The report argues that the world must now act to further cut greenhouse gas emissions, and that, since climate-induced extreme weather events are likely to become the “new normal,” far greater efforts are needed to prevent these from becoming humanitarian crises. Governments, donors, climate and humanitarian agencies must work together to prepare for and respond to an increasingly climate-chaotic world.
Report for Acord International (June 2016)
This study offers new analysis of Chinese, Brazilian and Indian investments in African agriculture. It brings together three new case studies of Chinese investment and aims to assess the impacts of investment on Africa’s small-scale farmers. The report aims to assess how appropriate these investments are for Africa’s small-scale farmers, including how aligned they are to Africa’s own agriculture strategies. The report finds that there are major problems with Chinese, Brazilian and Indian investments. Some investments are associated with land grabs, several projects are having adverse consequences on local farmers, and the kind of technology being promoted in Africa tends to be more suited to Chinese, Brazilian and Indian agribusiness interests than to Africa’s smallholder farmers. Above all, investments and cooperation programmes do not appear to systematically involve African smallholder farmers in project design or implementation, but appear more suited to large-scale farming. This is despite some projects which proponents claim are resulting in significant crop yield increases, although there are few genuinely independent evaluations of these projects.
Report for Global Justice Now (January 2016)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the world’s largest charitable organisation, with an asset endowment of $43.5 billion. In global health and agriculture policies, two of its key grant areas, the BMGF has become probably the most influential actor in the world. Bill Gates himself has become probably the single most influential voice in international development. But the BMGF’s increasing global influence is not being subjected to democratic scrutiny. Further, this study shows that the BMGF’s programmes are – overall – detrimental to promoting economic development and global justice. The world is being sold a myth that private philanthropy holds many of the solutions to the world’s problems, when in fact it is pushing the world in many wrong directions.
Report for ActionAid International (June 2015)
Ten African countries have signed up to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition – the G8 countries’ main strategy for supporting agriculture in Africa that was launched in 2012. As the New Alliance has been under way for three years, some of its likely impacts are becoming clearer. This briefing – covering Nigeria, Malawi, Tanzania and Senegal – shows that some large companies involved in the New Alliance are already accused of taking part in land grabs in some countries. It also presents new research to argue that the initiative is further increasing the risk of rural communities losing their access to and control over land to large investors, largely through policy commitments on land titling and land reform. Implicated in these reforms and risks of land grabs are the G8 donor countries bankrolling the New Alliance and the European Union. These governments must stop all engagement in and support for the New Alliance and replace it with genuine initiatives to support small-scale food producers and advance sustainable agriculture.
French version here – Nouvelle Alliance, Nouveaux Risques
Report for Greenpeace-Africa (May 2015)
This report analyses ecological farming as compared to industrial farming, assessing how much African governments are currently allocating to each and comparing the relative benefits for small farmers. It is based on field research with the World Agro-Foresty Centre and ICIPE, comparing groups of farmers using chemical pesticides/fertilizers, with those not. It finds that the average profitability of maize (per acre, per year) for small farmers is three times greater for farmers promoting ‘push-pull’ technology (ie, no use of chemical pesticides) than for farmers using pesticides. In Malawi, average profitability of maize (per acre, per year) was $259 for agro-forestry farmers (ie, no use of chemical fertilizers) compared to $166 for chemical farmers. The income benefits are especially large for women farmers. The report calculates that African governments are spending at least $1 billion a year on chemical fertilizer subsidies. It calls for a shift away from chemical farming towards promoting Ecological Farming Strategies.
Click on the link above to read the summary or read the full report here.