La Conquista del Atlántico – la Continuación del Proyecto de Cristobal Colón

Este informe se escribió por Guido Bilbao y se publicó por el Centro Pulitzer. Guido Bilbao es periodista argentino quien ha vivido quince años en Panamá. El Centro Pulitzer es una innovadora y galardonada organización de periodismo sin fines de lucro dedicada a apoyar el compromiso en profundidad con asuntos globales poco informados. También apoyó una parte del trabajo hecho para el informe el Rainforest Foundation y la Alianza para la Conservación y el Desarrollo, una organización panameña. Se produjó el informe en cuatro informes especiales para el periodico panameño La Prensa. Estoy muy agradecido a Guido y al Centro Pulitzer por el permiso a proporcionar un ‘link’ a este reportaje muy importante para los y las lectores de este sitio web.

Les recomiendo este informe como una de lo más significativa ilustraciones del proceso de desarrollo y de la manera en la cual ese proceso opera en los paises en vía de desarrollo. Saca los parecidos entre el actual modelo extractivista de desarrollo y el modelo de desarrollo piratical basado en el robo de hace quinientos años. El informe refiere especifícamente al país de Panamá, pero el estilo de desarrollo descrito es tan pertinente a muchos otros paises latinoaméricanos.

http://pulitzercenter.shorthand.com/laconquista/index.html

Definitions: GDP, GNP, HDI & HPI

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The total value of the output of goods and services produced by an economy, by both residents and non-residents, regardless of the allocation to domestic and foreign claims. It is used to show the relative wealth of different countries and through yearly comparisons to show levels of economic growth.

Gross National Product (GNP)
The total domestic and foreign value added claimed by residents and therefore equals the GDP + net income from abroad (which is the income residents receive from abroad for services (labour and capital) less similar payments made to non-residents who contribute to the domestic economy).

Human Development Index (HDI)
A summary measure of human development. It measures a broader definition of well-being and provides a composite measure of three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. Data availability determines HDI country coverage.
(Source: Human Development Report 2010. http://hdrstats.undp.org)

Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)
This measure adjusts the HDI for inequality in distribution of each dimension across the population. The IHDI accounts for inequalities in HDI dimensions by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI equals the HDI when there is no inequality across people but is less than the HDI as inequality rises. In this sense, the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for this inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of ‘potential’ human development (or the maximum level of HDI) that could be achieved if there was no inequality. The ‘loss’ in potential human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI and can be expressed as a percentage. For the first time, the 2010 Human development Report examined HDI data through the lens of inequality, adjusting HDI achievements to reflect disparities in income, health and education.

Human Poverty Index (HPI)
Introduced in the Human Development Report 1997. Rather than measure poverty by income, the HPI uses indicators of the most basic dimensions of deprivation: a short life, lack of basic education and lack of access to public and private resources. The HPI concentrates on the deprivation in the three essential elements of human life already reflected in the HDI: longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living.

  • The first deprivation relates to survival: the likeliness of death at a relatively early age
  • The second dimension relates to knowledge: being excluded from the world of reading and communication and is measured by the percentage of adults who are illiterate.
  • The third aspect relates to a decent standard of living, in particular, overall economic provisioning.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The Report features a new multidimensional poverty measure that complements income-based poverty assessments by looking at multiple factors at the household level, from basic living standards to access to schooling, clean water and health care. About 1.7 billion people—fully a third of the population in the 104 countries included in the MPI—are estimated to live in multidimensional poverty, more than the estimated 1.3 billion who live on $1.25 a day or less.

The Gini Coefficient
Differences in national income equality around the world as measured by the national Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income). It is often given as a value between 0 and 100, a value of 0 representing absolute equality and 100 absolute inequality. The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution.
(Source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/161.html)

State of the world — Poverty is Everywhere

By Rod Driver

13 April 2021

The focus of attention of ‘The Violence of Development’ website is clearly the problems of development in the region of Central America, and a high proportion of the articles we include in our monthly additions to the website relate directly to the region. Just occasionally, however, we include a more general article such as this one. Although the data it presents is global, the issues it raises with clarity and simplicity relate indirectly to Central America as much as they do to other regions of the world. We are grateful to Rod Driver for permission to reproduce the article in our website and for the clarity with which he articulates the problems of development. His website is called ‘Elephants in the Room’ because it covers topics which the mainstream media fails to discuss honestly, and it can be accessed at: https://medium.com/elephantsintheroom/

Rod’s articles explain how the international economic system is rigged to transfer wealth from poor countries to rich. 

The article was first published by Global Research an online resource of The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent research and media organisation based in Montreal: globalresearch.ca/

Key words: political economy; poverty; slavery; GDP; neo-colonialism.


“Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings” (former South African President, Nelson Mandela)

The world’s population was about 7.8 billion people in 2020. About 2.2 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and over 4 billion do not have safe sanitation[i]. About 800 million suffer from chronic undernourishment. A fifth of all children under 5 suffer from stunted growth[ii]. Each year approximately 6 million children and many millions of adults die of easily preventable diseases[iii], and 9 million people die of hunger[iv]. Some progress has been made on some of these issues, particularly in China. However, things have been getting worse in other regions, such as Africa[v]. Since 1960, the income gap between rich countries and poor countries has roughly tripled in size[vi].

Economic Exploitation — Rich Countries Keep The Poor In Poverty

We have seen in earlier posts that rich countries, led by the US, will use extreme violence to get their chosen leaders into power in other countries, in order to control resources and trade. These leaders have little interest in the welfare of their poorest people, and are prepared to use brutal methods to control their citizens. We have also discussed some of the ways in which the economic system transfers immense wealth from poor people to rich. Rich countries, led by the US, reinforce a global financial and trade system that perpetuates inequality. The exploitation of the world’s poorest people is like a modern-day form of slavery. Some of them earn just enough to die very slowly of malnutrition. Rich nations inflict what has been described as “protracted death-by-deprivation”[vii].

When people cannot earn a decent living any other way, they will resort to selling cocaine, heroin, sex, blood and organs. When they are really desperate some will even sell their own children into slavery. It is estimated that there are at least 40 million slaves in the world[viii], and there are still 150 million children involved in child labour[ix]. The scale of these problems is immense — the number of avoidable deaths each year is similar to a world war. However, dealing with some of the biggest problems, such as diarrhoea, is technically straightforward. A simple combination of salt, sugar and water is all that is required, yet still millions of people die from it. Dealing with starvation is also straightforward. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) regularly measures food production and every year the total amount of food produced in the world is easily enough to feed everyone on the planet with a considerable amount left over.

Numerous observers have pointed out that poverty and inequality are the real Weapons of Mass Destruction. If we had a global war on under-development, just a small fraction of global military spending would be enough to solve these problems worldwide[x]. Unfortunately, there is currently no serious attempt to do so. Politicians from advanced nations often make statements about dealing with poverty, yet their actions make it clear that this is propaganda. They have no intention of making the changes to the global economic system that would solve these problems, because their focus is on structuring the world’s economy to benefit themselves and their biggest companies.

Measuring Poverty — Lies, Statistics and Propaganda

There is a great deal of propaganda surrounding the economics of poor countries and development. Leaders from rich countries want us to believe that the economic system is working for poor countries, so they try to manipulate the figures to tell us how many people have escaped poverty. However, they focus on a definition of extreme poverty, which refers to people earning under $1.90 per day. This figure is so absurdly low that it is meaningless. Many people earning more than this are unable to meet their basic needs, such as eating enough food. One of the leading researchers on the subject, Jason Hickel, has suggested that a figure of $7.40 per day is a better benchmark for measuring poverty, and other researchers have come up with a similar figure[xi]. His data shows that more than 4 billion people — that is over half the world’s population — are below this line, and therefore unable to meet their basic needs.

Measuring Progress — The Absurdity of GDP

In order to measure how well a country is doing economists use what is called GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It is supposed to be the total value of all the goods and services that we buy and sell, but it is extremely misleading. The former governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has noted that decorative diamonds are mostly useless, but we attach a huge price to them, whereas water is the most important substance on Earth (along with air and sunlight) but it has almost no economic value[xii]. If a mother looks after her child, this is not measured in GDP as no money changes hands. If a mother pays a nanny, money does change hands, so this increases GDP, yet the same work has been done. The most important source of nutrition for babies, human breast milk, has no value according to economists. As one leading expert pointed out:

“as far as economics is concerned, if you are ironing, shopping or child rearing, you are ‘at leisure’”[xiii]

Huge swathes of important human activity, such as caring for children, caring for elderly relatives and simply running a household, are not included in economic data.

GDP measures some activity that is bad for society. Spending large amounts of money solving crimes, mopping up after an oil spill or treating car crash victims all counts as GDP, when it is clear that having fewer crimes, car crashes and oil spills in the first place would be better. Illegal transactions such as drugs are also counted. It is commonly accepted that the fastest way to increase GDP is to go to war.

Natural resources such as trees are only counted in GDP if we are intending to cut them down and use them for timber. They are not counted if we leave them in the ground as part of the natural landscape, yet they play many important roles in relation to climate change, land stability, flooding[xiv] and air quality[xv]. All of the things that are not counted in GDP are actually worth far more than the things that are counted[xvi]. GDP is clearly not a good way to measure how well a country is doing.

Some groups have been trying to develop indicators that provide a better measure of progress and quality of life, such as the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). This includes things like educational standards and healthcare. Some of these indicators show that since 1970 much of the world has made little progress[xvii]. If you take a simple measure like how many children die before the age of five, we find that medical care for poor people in the US is far below the standards of most advanced nations and is on a par with many poor countries.

The Distribution of Wealth Matters

The use of GDP is misleading because it ignores how wealth is distributed. Even the poorest countries have some incredibly rich people and most countries have a group that would be called middle class. If a small number of people get much richer and the rest go backwards, the GDP of a country can increase, and the ‘average’ wealth can increase, creating the illusion of progress, when in fact poverty and inequality can be getting worse. GDP does not tell us how many children receive good education or how many people have access to healthcare[xviii]. Analyses that look at different sectors of society, such as the richest and poorest parts of the population, are better, but governments do not like these being discussed because it then becomes apparent that many poor people are making little progress, or even going backwards, under the current system. The GDP for India has been rising quite rapidly, but over half of the population still earn below $3 per day[xix].

The economic system has to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. What we should be aiming for is a better quality of life for everyone, and in particular, to improve the standard of living for the poorest people in both rich and poor countries. There is a strong case to suggest that advanced nations do not need any more growth. They simply need better distribution. As one leading expert has noted:

“We could live in a highly educated, technologically advanced society with zero poverty and zero hunger, all with significantly less resources and energy than we presently use.”[xx]

Neocolonialism — Some Countries Were Doing Better Before We Interfered

The media tend to blame foreign governments for poverty, but do not mention that the US and Britain regularly overthrow governments that were trying to improve living standards for their poorest people, or that the economic system has been manipulated to exploit poor countries. Journalists often talk about corruption in poor countries, but usually fail to mention that it is companies from advanced nations that pay the biggest bribes. During the 1950s and 1960s, many poor countries progressed quickly, because rich countries did not interfere as much as they do today. Many of those countries went backwards rapidly once the US and other rich nations interfered again, in what is sometimes called neocolonialism.

Providing healthcare and good education to the whole population, and getting people off the lowest rung of poverty is not difficult. Socialist countries such as Cuba, or the Indian state of Kerala, have excellent life expectancy. Iraq and Libya had socialist systems, and were very close to being first world countries before the US and Britain destroyed them. If poor countries are allowed to choose their own leaders, and to determine their own policies, many of them might make a genuine effort to get all of their people out of poverty.

To Understand Poverty, Study The Rich

If we want to understand poverty, we can only learn a limited amount by studying the poor. We really have to study the rich and the powerful, in advanced nations as well as poor countries. They determine relationships between countries, and they determine how the national economy is structured. They determine how industrialised a country is, and they play a major role in determining the distribution of wealth within society.

We saw in earlier posts that international companies obtain huge amounts of ‘free lunches’ (extra profits that they have not earned). We also saw that the total transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich countries each year is over $2 trillion[xxi]. A large part of that wealth transfer becomes extra profits for the world’s biggest companies. The US government has a range of methods to force countries to participate in this rigged system. These can include bribery, sanctions and war. The single biggest obstacle to the elimination of global poverty is US foreign policy.

Key Points

There is huge poverty around the world, because people with power are actively keeping it that way.

Getting whole populations off the lowest rung of poverty is not difficult if governments make that a priority, and advanced nations do not interfere. To understand poverty we have to study the rich and powerful in both rich and poor countries.


Useful Websites

Worldbank.org has good data (but don’t take any notice of their policy recommendations)

Jason Hickel, ‘Does the West really care about development’, Guardian, 5 Mar 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/mar/05/does-west-care-development

 

Further Reading

Jason Hickel, The Divide: A brief guide to global inequality and its solutions, 2017

Zak Cope, The Wealth of Some Nations, 2019

 

References

[i] WHO/UNICEF JMP, ‘1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water’, WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program, 18 June 2019, at https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-06-2019-1-in-3-people-globally-do-not-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-unicef-who

[ii] 2018 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics, at https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

[iii] WHO, ‘A child under 15 dies every 5 seconds around the world’, 18 Sep 2018 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-09-2018-a-child-under-15-dies-every-5-seconds-around-the-world-

[iv] theworldcounts, ‘Around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined’, updated daily, at https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year

[v] Roge Karma, ‘5 Myths About Global Poverty’, Current Affairs, 26 July 2019, at https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-poverty

[vi] Jason Hickel, The Divide: A brief guide to global inequality and its solutions, 2017

[vii] Nafeez Ahmed, ‘The Hidden Holocaust — Our Civilizational Crisis part 3: The End Of The World As We Know It?’, 1 Jan 2008, at https://www.nafeezahmed.net/thecuttingedge//2008/01/hidden-holocaust-civilizational-crisis.html

[viii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

[ix] UNICEF, ‘Child Labour’, 3 Sep 2020, at https://www.unicef.org/protection/child-labour

[x] SIPRI, cited in Reuters, ‘Just 10 percent of world military spending could knock off poverty: think tank’, 4 April 2016, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-military-goals/just-10-percent-of-world-military-spending-could-knock-off-poverty-think-tank-idUSKCN0X12EQ

[xi] World Bank, ‘Nearly half the world lives on less than $5.50 a day’, 17 Oct 2018, at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day

[xii] Mark Carney, ‘From moral to market sentiments’, 2020 Reith lectures, BBC Radio 4, 4 Dec 2020, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000py8t

[xiii] Marilyn Waring, ‘The unpaid work that GDP ignores — and why it really counts’, TED talk New Zealand, Aug 2019, at https://www.ted.com/talks/marilyn_waring_the_unpaid_work_that_gdp_ignores_and_why_it_really_counts?language=en#t-329180

[xiv] Emma Kemp, ‘Planting trees to tackle flooding’, The Ecologist, 14 March 2019, at https://theecologist.org/2019/mar/14/planting-trees-tackle-flooding

[xv] Simon Williams, Online calculator shows how trees improve air quality and reduce health costs’, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 12 July 2019, at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/online-calculator-shows-how-trees-can-improve-air-quality-and-cut-health-costs

[xvi] Jason Hickel, ‘Is the world poor or unjust’, 22 Feb 2021, at https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2021/2/21/is-the-world-poor-or-unjust, The absurdity of GDP is illustrated in the following discussio of ‘Leprechaun economis’ when Ireland’s GDP changed 35% due to re-calculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

[xvii] Genuine Progress Indicator, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_progress_indicator, UNHDI at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/, 2020 Human Development Report at http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report

[xviii] Victoria Fan et al, ‘Valuing health as development: going beyond gross domestic product’, British Medical Journal, 23 Oct 2018, at https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4371

[xix] World Bank, ‘$1Billion from World Bank to protect India’s poorest from Covid-19 (Coronavirus)’, 14 May 2020, at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/05/13/world-bank-covid-coronavirus-india-protect-poor

[xx] Jason Hickel, ‘Is the world poor or unjust’, 22 Feb 2021, at https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2021/2/21/is-the-world-poor-or-unjust

[xxi] Dinyar Godrej, ‘A brief history of impoverishment’, New Internationalist, 20 April 2020, at: https://newint.org/features/2020/02/10/brief-history-impoverishment

 

Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are 17 global goals set by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015. The SDGs are part of Resolution 70/1 of the United Nations General Assembly: “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That has been shortened to “2030 Agenda.” The goals are broad and interdependent, yet each has a separate list of targets to achieve. Achieving all 169 targets would signal accomplishing all 17 goals. The SDGs cover social and economic development issues including poverty, hunger, health, education, global warming, gender equality, water, sanitation, energy, urbanization, environment and social justice.

The 17 goals

There are 169 targets for the 17 goals. Each target has between 1 and 3 indicators used to measure progress toward reaching the targets. In total, there are 304 indicators that will measure compliance. The United Nations Development Programme has been asked to provide easy to understand lists of targets and facts and figures for each of the 17 SDGs. The 17 goals listed below as sub-headings use the 2-to-4 word phrases that identify each goal. Directly below each goal, in quotation marks, is the exact wording of the goal in one sentence.

The paragraphs that follow present some information about a few targets and indicators related to each goal. The full set of goals and targets can be found on Wikipedia at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals  which includes a full set of references, criticisms of the goals and a comparison with the MDGs of a decade earlier.

A diagram listing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals

Goal 1: No Poverty

“End poverty in all its forms everywhere.”

Extreme poverty has been cut by more than half since 1990. Still, more than 1 in 5 people live on less than the target figure of US$1.25 per day. That target may not be adequate for human subsistence, however. Some suggest it may be necessary to raise the poverty line figure to as high as $5 per day. Poverty is more than the lack of income or resources. People live in poverty if they lack basic services such as healthcare, security, and education. They also experience hunger, social discrimination, and exclusion from decision-making processes.

Children make up the majority – more than half – of those living in extreme poverty. In 2013, an estimated 385 million children lived on less than US$1.90 per day. Still, these figures are unreliable due to huge gaps in data on the status of children worldwide. On average, 97 percent of countries have insufficient data to determine the state of impoverished children and make projections towards SDG Goal 1, and 63 percent of countries have no data on child poverty at all.

Gender inequality plays a large role in perpetuating poverty and its risks. Women face potentially life-threatening risks from early pregnancy and frequent pregnancies. This can result in lost hope for an education and for a better income. Poverty affects age groups differently, with the most devastating effects experienced by children. It affects their education, health, nutrition, and security, impacting emotional and spiritual development.

Achieving Goal 1 is hampered by growing inequality, increasingly fragile statehood, and the impacts of climate change.

Goal 2: Zero Hunger

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture“.

Goal 2 states that by 2030 we should end hunger and all forms of malnutrition. This would be accomplished by doubling agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers (especially women and indigenous peoples), by ensuring sustainable food production systems, and by progressively improving land and soil quality. Agriculture is the single largest employer in the world, providing livelihoods for 40% of the global population. It is the largest source of income for poor rural households. Women make up about 43% of the agricultural labor force in developing countries, and over 50% in parts of Asia and Africa. However, women own only 20% of the land.

Other targets deal with maintaining genetic diversity of seeds, increasing access to land, preventing trade restriction and distortions in world agricultural markets to limit extreme food price volatility, eliminating waste with help from the International Food Waste Coalition, and ending malnutrition and undernutrition of children.

Globally, 1 in 9 people are undernourished, the vast majority of whom live in developing countries. Undernutrition causes wasting or severe wasting of 52 million children worldwide, and contributes to nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five – 3.1 million children per year. Chronic malnutrition, which affects an estimated 155 million children worldwide, also stunts children’s brain and physical development and puts them at further risk of death, disease, and lack of success as adults. As of 2017, only 26 of 202 UN member countries are on track to meet the SDG target to eliminate undernourishment and malnourishment, while 20 percent have made no progress at all and nearly 70 percent have no or insufficient data to determine their progress.

A report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) of 2013 stated that the emphasis of the SDGs should not be on ending poverty by 2030, but on eliminating hunger and under-nutrition by 2025. The assertion is based on an analysis of experiences in China, Vietnam, Brazil, and Thailand. Three pathways to achieve this were identified: 1) agriculture-led; 2) social protection- and nutrition- intervention-led; or 3) a combination of both of these approaches.

Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being for People

“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

Significant strides have been made in increasing life expectancy and reducing some of the common killers associated with child and maternal mortality. Between 2000 and 2016, the worldwide under-five mortality rate decreased by 47 percent (from 78 deaths per 1,000 live births to 41 deaths per 1,000 live births). Still, the number of children dying under age five is extremely high: 5.6 million in 2016 alone. Newborns account for a growing number of these deaths, and poorer children are at the greatest risk of under-5 mortality due to a number of factors. SDG Goal 3 aims to reduce under-five mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births. But if current trends continue, more than 60 countries will miss the SDG neonatal mortality target for 2030. About half of these countries would not reach the target even by 2050.

Goal 3 also aims to reduce maternal mortality to less than 70 deaths per 100,000 live births. Though the maternal mortality ratio declined by 37 percent between 2000 and 2015, there were approximately 303,000 maternal deaths worldwide in 2015, most from preventable causes. In 2015, maternal health conditions were also the leading cause of death among girls aged 15-19. Data for girls of greatest concern – those aged between 10-14 – is currently unavailable. Key strategies for meeting SDG Goal 3 will be to reduce adolescent pregnancy (which is strongly linked to gender equality), provide better data for all women and girls, and achieve universal coverage of skilled birth attendants.

Similarly, progress has been made on increasing access to clean water and sanitation and on reducing malaria, tuberculosis, polio, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. From 2000-2016, new HIV infections declined by 66 percent for children under 15 and by 45 percent among adolescents aged 15-19. However, current trends mean that 1 out of 4 countries still won’t meet the SDG target to end AIDS among children under 5, and 3 out of 4 will not meet the target to end AIDS among adolescents. Additionally, only half of women in developing countries have received the health care they need, and the need for family planning is increasing exponentially as the population grows. While needs are being addressed gradually, more than 225 million women have an unmet need for contraception.

Goal 3 aims to achieve universal health coverage, including access to essential medicines and vaccines. It proposes to end the preventable death of newborns and children under 5 and to end epidemics such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and water-borne diseases, for example. 2016 rates for the third dose of the pertussis vaccine (DTP3) and the first dose of the measles vaccine (MCV1) reached 86 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Yet about 20 million children did not receive DTP3 and about 21 million did not receive MCV1. Around 2 in 5 countries will need to accelerate progress in order to reach SDG targets for immunization.

Attention to health and well-being also includes targets related to the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, deaths and injuries from traffic accidents and from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

Goal 4: Quality Education

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.”

Major progress has been made in access to education, specifically at the primary school level, for both boys and girls. Still, at least 22 million children in 43 countries will miss out on pre-primary education unless the rate of progress doubles.

Access does not always mean quality of education or completion of primary school. 103 million youth worldwide still lack basic literacy skills, and more than 60 percent of those are women. In one out of four countries, more than half of children failed to meet minimum math proficiency standards at the end of primary school, and at the lower secondary level, the rate was 1 in 3 countries. Target 1 of Goal 4 is to ensure that, by 2030, all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education.

Additionally, progress is difficult to track: 75 percent of countries have no or insufficient data to track progress towards SDG Goal 4 targets for learning outcomes (target 1), early childhood education (target 2), and effective learning environments. Data on learning outcomes and pre-primary school are particularly scarce; 70 percent and 40 percent of countries lack adequate data for these targets, respectively. This makes it hard to analyze and identify the children at greatest risk of being left behind.

Goal 5: Gender Equality

The logo of the United Nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

According to the UN, “gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.” Providing women and girls with equal access to education, health care, decent work, and representation in political and economic decision-making processes will nurture sustainable economies and benefit societies and humanity at large. A record 143 countries guaranteed equality between men and women in their constitutions as of 2014. However, another 52 had not taken this step. In many nations, gender discrimination is still woven into the fabric of legal systems and social norms. Even though SDG5 is a stand-alone goal, other SDGs can only be achieved if the needs of women receive the same attention as the needs of men. Issues unique to women and girls include traditional practices against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, such as female genital mutilation.

Child marriage has declined over the past decades, yet there is no region that is currently on track to eliminate the practice and reach SDG targets by 2030. If current trends continue, between 2017 and 2030, 150 million girls will be married before they turn 18. Though child marriages are four times higher among the poorest than the wealthiest in the world, most countries need to accelerate progress among both groups in order to reach the SDG Goal 5 target to eliminate child marriage by 2030.

Achieving gender equality will require enforceable legislation that promotes empowerment of all women and girls and requires secondary education for all girls. The targets call for an end to gender discrimination and for empowering women and girls through technology. Some have advocated for “listening to girls”. The assertion is that the SDGs can deliver transformative change for girls only if girls are consulted. Their priorities and needs must be taken into account. Girls should be viewed not as beneficiaries of change, but as agents of change. Engaging women and girls in the implementation of the SDGs is crucial.

The World Pensions Council (WPC) has insisted on the transformational role gender-diverse that boards can play in that regard, predicting that 2018 could be a pivotal year, as “more than ever before, many UK and European Union pension trustees speak enthusiastically about flexing their fiduciary muscles for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG5, and to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

Example of sanitation for all: School toilet (IPH school and college, Mohakhali, Dhaka, Bangladesh)

Unimproved sanitation example: pit latrine without slab in Lusaka, Zambia

“Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.”

Main article: Sustainable Development Goal 6

The Sustainable Development Goal Number 6 (SDG6) has eight targets and 11 indicators that will be used to monitor progress toward the targets. Most are to be achieved by the year 2030. One is targeted for 2020.

The first three targets relate to drinking water supply and sanitation. Worldwide, 6 out of 10 people lack safely managed sanitation services, and 3 out of 10 lack safely managed water services. Safe drinking water and hygienic toilets protect people from disease and enable societies to be more productive economically. Attending school and work without disruption is critical to successful education and successful employment. Therefore, toilets in schools and work places are specifically mentioned as a target to measure. “Equitable sanitation” calls for addressing the specific needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations, such as the elderly or people with disabilities. Water sources are better preserved if open defecation is ended and sustainable sanitation systems are implemented.

Ending open defecation will require provision of toilets and sanitation for 2.6 billion people as well as behavior change of the users. This will require cooperation between governments, civil society, and the private sector.

The main indicator for the sanitation target is the “Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water”. However, as of 2017, two-thirds of countries lacked baseline estimates for SDG indicators on hand washing, safely managed drinking water, and sanitation services. From those that were available, the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) found that 4.5 billion people currently do not have safely managed sanitation. If we are to meet SDG targets for sanitation by 2030, nearly one-third of countries will need to accelerate progress to end open defecation including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan.

The Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) has made it its mission to achieve SDG6. SuSanA’s position is that the SDGs are highly interdependent. Therefore, the provision of clean water and sanitation for all is a precursor to achieving many of the other SDGs.

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

“Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.”

Targets for 2030 include access to affordable and reliable energy while increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. This would involve improving energy efficiency and enhancing international cooperation to facilitate more open access to clean energy technology and more investment in clean energy infrastructure. Plans call for particular attention to infrastructure support for the least developed countries, small islands and land-locked developing countries.

As of 2017, only 57 percent of the global population relies primarily on clean fuels and technology, falling short of the 95 percent target.

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

“Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.”

World Pensions Council (WPC) development economists have argued that the twin considerations of long-term economic growth and infrastructure investment weren’t prioritized enough. Being prioritized as number 8 and number 9 respectively was considered a rather “mediocre ranking and defies common sense.

For the least developed countries, the economic target is to attain at least a 7 percent annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Achieving higher productivity will require diversification and upgraded technology along with innovation, entrepreneurship, and the growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Some targets are for 2030; others are for 2020. The target for 2020 is to reduce youth unemployment and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment. Implementing the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization is also mentioned.

By 2030, the target is to establish policies for sustainable tourism that will create jobs. Strengthening domestic financial institutions and increasing Aid for Trade support for developing countries is considered essential to economic development. The Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries is mentioned as a method for achieving sustainable economic development.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

“Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation“.

Further information: Resilience (engineering and construction) and Urban resilience

Manufacturing is a major source of employment. In 2016, the least developed countries had less “manufacturing value added per capita”. The figure for Europe and North America amounted to US$4,621, compared to about $100 in the least developed countries. The manufacturing of high products contributes 80 percent to total manufacturing output in industrialized economies but barely 10 percent in the least developed countries.

Mobile-cellular signal coverage has improved a great deal. In previously “unconnected” areas of the globe, 85 percent of people now live in covered areas. Planet-wide, 95 percent of the population is covered.

Goal 10: Reducing Inequalities

“Reduce income inequality within and among countries.”

One target is to reduce the cost of exporting goods from least developed countries. “Duty-free treatment” has expanded. As of 2015, 65 percent of products coming from the least developed countries were duty-free, as compared to 41 percent in 2005.

The target of 3 percent was established as the cost that international migrant workers would pay to send money home (known as remittances). However, post offices and money transfer companies currently charge 6 percent of the amount remitted. Worse, commercial banks charge 11 percent. Prepaid cards and mobile money companies charge 2 to 4 percent, but those services were not widely available as of 2017 in typical “remittance corridors.”

Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

“Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.”

The target for 2030 is to ensure access to safe and affordable housing. The indicator named to measure progress toward this target is the proportion of urban population living in slums or informal settlements. Between 2000 and 2014, the proportion fell from 39 percent to 30 percent. However, the absolute number of people living in slums went from 792 million in 2000 to an estimated 880 million in 2014. Movement from rural to urban areas has accelerated as the population has grown and better housing alternatives are available.

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

“Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.”

Further information: Sustainable products

The targets of Goal 12 include using eco-friendly production methods and reducing the amount of waste. By 2030, national recycling rates should increase, as measured in tons of material recycled. Further, companies should adopt sustainable practices and publish sustainability reports.

Goal 13: Climate Action

“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy.”

The UN discussions and negotiations identified the links between the post-2015 SDG process and the Financing for Development process that concluded in Addis Ababa in July 2015 and the COP 21 Climate Change conference in Paris in December 2015.

In May 2015, a report concluded that only a very ambitious climate deal in Paris in 2015 could enable countries to reach the sustainable development goals and targets. The report also states that tackling climate change will only be possible if the SDGs are met. Further, economic development and climate change are inextricably linked, particularly around poverty, gender equality, and energy. The UN encourages the public sector to take initiative in this effort to minimize negative impacts on the environment.

This renewed emphasis on climate change mitigation was made possible by the partial Sino-American convergence that developed in 2015-2016, notably at the UN COP21 summit (Paris) and ensuing G20 conference (Hangzhou).

As one of the regions most vulnerable to the unprecedented effects of climate change, the Asia-Pacific region needs more Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to successfully implement its sustainable development initiatives.

Goal 14: Life Below Water

“Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.”

Oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth’s surface. They are essential for making the planet livable. Rainwater, drinking water and climate are all regulated by ocean temperatures and currents. Over 3 billion people depend on marine life for their livelihood. Oceans absorb 30 percent of all carbon dioxide produced by humans.

The oceans contain more than 200,000 identified species, and there might be thousands of species that are yet to be discovered. Oceans are the world’s largest sources of protein. However, there has been a 26 percent increase in acidification since the industrial revolution. A full 30 percent of marine habitats have been destroyed, and 30 percent of the world’s fish stocks are over-exploited. Marine pollution has reached shocking levels; each minute, 15 tons of plastic are released into the oceans. 20 percent of all coral reefs have been destroyed irreversibly, and another 24 percent are in immediate risk of collapse.

Approximately 1 million sea birds, 100 000 marine mammals, and an unknown number of fish are harmed or die annually due to marine pollution caused by humans. It has been found that 95 percent of fulmars in Norway have plastic parts in their guts. Microplastics are another form of marine pollution.

Individuals can help the oceans by reducing their energy consumption and their use of plastics. Nations can also take action. In Norway, for instance, citizens, working through a web page called finn.no, can earn money for picking up plastic on the beach. Several countries, including Kenya, have banned the use of plastic bags for retail purchases.

Improving the oceans contributes to poverty reduction, as it gives low-income families a source of income and healthy food. Keeping beaches and ocean water clean in less developed countries can attract tourism, as stated in Goal 8, and reduce poverty by providing more employment.

The targets include preventing and reducing marine pollution and acidification, protecting marine and coastal ecosystems, and regulating fishing. The targets also call for an increase in scientific knowledge of the oceans.

Goal 15: Life on Land

“Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.”

This goal articulates targets for preserving biodiversity of forest, desert, and mountain eco-systems, as a percentage of total land mass. Achieving a “land degradation-neutral world” can be reached by restoring degraded forests and land lost to drought and flood. Goal 15 calls for more attention to preventing invasion of introduced species and more protection of endangered species.

The Mountain Green Cover Index monitors progress toward target 15.4, which focuses on preserving mountain ecosystems. The index is named as the indicator for target 15.4. Similarly, the Red Index (Red List Index or RLI) will fill the monitoring function for biodiversity goals by documenting the trajectory of endangered species. Animal extinction is a growing problem.

Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

“Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

Reducing violent crime, sex trafficking, forced labor, and child abuse are clear global goals. The International Community values peace and justice and calls for stronger judicial systems that will enforce laws and work toward a more peaceful and just society. By 2017, the UN could report progress on detecting victims of trafficking. More women and girls than men and boys were victimized, yet the share of women and girls has slowly declined (see also violence against women). In 2004, 84 percent of victims were females and by 2014 that number had dropped to 71 percent. Sexual exploitation numbers have declined, but forced labor has increased.

One target is to see the end to sex trafficking, forced labor, and all forms of violence against and torture of children. However, reliance on the indicator of “crimes reported” makes monitoring and achieving this goal challenging. For instance, 84 percent of countries have no or insufficient data on violent punishment of children. Of the data available, it is clear that violence against children by their caregivers remains pervasive: Nearly 8 in 10 children aged 1 to 14 are subjected to violent discipline on a regular basis (regardless of income), and no country is on track to eliminate violent discipline by 2030.

SDG 16 also targets universal legal identity and birth registration, ensuring the right to a name and nationality, civil rights, recognition before the law, and access to justice and social services. With more than a quarter of children under 5 unregistered worldwide as of 2015, about 1 in 5 countries will need to accelerate progress to achieve universal birth registration by 2030.

Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals

“Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.“

Increasing international cooperation is seen as vital to achieving each of the 16 previous goals. Goal 17 is included to assure that countries and organizations cooperate instead of compete. Developing multi-stakeholder partnerships to share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial support is seen as critical to overall success of the SDGs. Public-private partnerships that involve civil societies are specifically

‘Panama’s Atlantic Conquest – Columbus’s Project Continued’

This report was written by Guido Bilbao and produced for the Pulitzer Centre. Guido Bilbao is an Argentinian journalist who has lived in Panamá for fifteen years. The Pulitzer Centre on Crisis Reporting is an innovative award-winning non-profit journalism organisation dedicated to supporting in-depth engagement with under-reported global affairs. Some of the work behind this report was also supported by the US Rainforest Foundation and by the Panamanian Alliance for Conservation and Development. It was produced as four separate special reports in the Panamanian daily newspaper La Prensa. I am grateful to Guido and to the Pulitzer Centre for permission to provide a link to this important report in this website.

I recommend this report as one of the most important current-day illustrators of the development process and the way that process operates in so-called developing countries. It draws out the similarities between the current extractivist model of development and the 500 year old piratical and theft-based model of development. The report relates specifically to Panamá, but the style of development that it describes is just as pertinent to many other Latin American countries.

Read the full article here: http://pulitzercenter.shorthand.com/atlanticconquest/index.html

Guatemala paralyzed by campesino road blocks

[Leer en español]

In western, relatively high income countries, environmentalists are often – perhaps mistakenly, perhaps appropriately – assumed to be middle class professionals. Environmental issues and environment-centred organisations are seen as benevolent causes, attract widespread interest and support and are associated with a growth of interest in sustainable lifestyles. The increasing development of middle class fractions and the growth of what may be termed the new middle classes have been accompanied by and are associated with a concern with ‘otherness’ which includes an interest in minority cultures, religion, ethnicity and, arguably most significant, a concern with environment and ecology.

Such a trend can also be seen in the growth of environmentalism in low income countries of the global south. But a more conspicuous trend is for environmental causes to be represented by the campesino population, a population certainly not associated with the new middle classes of the western world. It is campesinos whose land and resources are coveted by transnational corporations and it is they who suffer the losses caused by the associated development projects. It is campesinos who face up to the threats to their environment and resources and who stand in the way of the bulldozers, tractors and lorries of the companies which aim to profit from their environment.

The following short article uses reports in Guatemala’s daily newspapers ‘Nuestro Diario’ and ‘Prensa Libre’ and from Martin Mowforth’s own experience of events at the time. It illustrates the significance of the campesino movement to struggles which can be defined as environmental.

Guatemala paralyzed by campesino road blocks

On Wednesday 11th May much of Guatemala was paralyzed by road blocks set up by campesino groups demanding, among other things, the nationalisation of the electrical energy supply in the country. From the early hours of the day, thousands of people were mobilised to block the country’s main roads. In total nineteen major highways were affected by the road blocks which in some cases lasted up to 9 hours.

The blockages were organised principally by CODECA (the Committee of Campesino Development), although three other organisations were also involved.

The demands of the campesino groups included the following.

  • The end to tax subsidies for large companies
  • Denunciation and punishment for corrupt deputies in the National Congress
  • Renationalisation of services and commons that have been privatised in the country
  • A minimum of 15% of cultivable land in the country should be destined for the cultivation of basic grains for the sake of food security
  • The prohibition of the expropriation and diverting of the rivers, lakes and other sources of water by private companies
  • The beginning of the process of creating a People’s Constituent Assembly made up of representatives of communities.

Neftalí López, a CODECA representative, indicated that “If we don’t get positive replies, above all from President Jimmy Morales, we’ll take to the streets again.”

A delegation of the campesinos were received by the Congress President, Mario Taracena, who offered to set up working technical groups to analyse each demand.

A delegation of the campesinos were received by the Congress President, Mario Taracena, who offered to set up working technical groups to analyse each demand.


Ambientalismo y el Movimiento Campesinado

En los países ricos del mundo occidental, a menudo se asumen que los ambientalistas sean miembros de la clase media y profesionales – tal vez en error, tal vez apropiadamente. Los temas ambientales y las organizaciones ambientalistas se ven como causas benévolas, atrayendo interés extendido y apoyo amplio y se asocian con un crecimiento de interés en estilos de vida sostenibles. El desarrollo creciendo de las fracciones de la media clase y el crecimiento de las así llamadas nuevas clases medias han sido acompañado por y se asocian con una preocupación con ‘alteridad’ que incluye un interés en las culturas minoritarias, religión, etnicidad y, podría decirse, la cosa la más significativa, una preocupación con el medio ambiente y la ecología.

También se puede ver tal tendencia en el crecimiento del ambientalismo en los paises de bajos ingresos del Sur – los países en vía del desarrollo. Sin embargo, una tendencia más clara es la representación de las causas ambientales por la populación campesina, una populación no asociada con las nuevas clases medias del mundo occidental. Son las tierras y los recursos de los campesinos que son buscado por las corporaciones transnacionales y son los campesinos que sufren las pérdidas causado por los proyectos de desarrollo. Son los campesinos que enfrentan a las amenazas a sus medios ambientes y sus recursos y los que se interponen en el camino de las excavadoras, los tractores y camiones de las compañías que intentan hacer ganancias del medio ambiente.

El breve artículo siguiente se aprovecha de informes en los periódicos guatemaltecos ‘Nuestro Diario’ y ‘Prense Libre’ y de la experiencia de los eventos en el momento de Martin Mowforth. Ilustra el significado del movimiento campesino para las luchas definido como luchas ambientales.

Paralizan el País

Amenazan con más bloqueos

Desde tempranas horas, miles de personas fueron movilizadas para bloquear las principales rutas del país, exigiendo al Estado respetar las propuestas hechas a la población.

El Comité de Desarrollo Campesino (CODECA) fue el organizador de la movilización que exigía a las autoridades pago de salarios atrasados, nacionalización de la energía eléctrica, anulación de los subsidios tributarios a las grandes empresas, castigar el apropiamiento y desvío de ríos, lagos y fuentes de agua por parte de las empresas privadas.

El Zarco (Retalhuleu), Patulul (Suchitepéquez), El Boquerón y Taxisco (Santa Rosa), La Ruidosa (Izabal), Cuatro Caminos (Totonicapán), Nahualá y Las Trampas (Sololá), Cubilgüitz y Fray Bartolomé (Alta Verapaz) y Pajapita (San Marcos) fueron algunos de los puntos más afectados.

Estudiantes, trabajadores e inclusive pacientes de hospitales tuvieron que esperar horas para poder cruzar las rutas.

Los manifestantes fueron recibidos por el presidente del Congreso, Mario Taracena, quien los ofreció efectuar mesas técnicas para analizar cada petición.

“Si no tenemos respuestas positivas, sobre todo del presidente Jimmy Morales, volveremos a salir a las carreteras”, señaló Neftalí López, representante de CODECA.

Environmentalism and the campesino movement

[Leer en español]

In western, relatively high income countries, environmentalists are often – perhaps mistakenly, perhaps appropriately – assumed to be middle class professionals. Environmental issues and environment-centred organisations are seen as benevolent causes, attract widespread interest and support and are associated with a growth of interest in sustainable lifestyles. The increasing development of middle class fractions and the growth of what may be termed the new middle classes have been accompanied by and are associated with a concern with ‘otherness’ which includes an interest in minority cultures, religion, ethnicity and, arguably most significant, a concern with environment and ecology.

Such a trend can also be seen in the growth of environmentalism in low income countries of the global south. But a more conspicuous trend is for environmental causes to be represented by the campesino population, a population certainly not associated with the new middle classes of the western world. It is campesinos whose land and resources are coveted by transnational corporations and it is they who suffer the losses caused by the associated development projects. It is campesinos who face up to the threats to their environment and resources and who stand in the way of the bulldozers, tractors and lorries of the companies which aim to profit from their environment.

The following short article uses reports in Guatemala’s daily newspapers ‘Nuestro Diario’ and ‘Prensa Libre’ and from Martin Mowforth’s own experience of events at the time. It illustrates the significance of the campesino movement to struggles which can be defined as environmental.

Guatemala paralyzed by campesino road blocks

On Wednesday 11th May much of Guatemala was paralyzed by road blocks set up by campesino groups demanding, among other things, the nationalisation of the electrical energy supply in the country. From the early hours of the day, thousands of people were mobilised to block the country’s main roads. In total nineteen major highways were affected by the road blocks which in some cases lasted up to 9 hours.

The blockages were organised principally by CODECA (the Committee of Campesino Development), although three other organisations were also involved.

The demands of the campesino groups included the following.

  • The end to tax subsidies for large companies
  • Denunciation and punishment for corrupt deputies in the National Congress
  • Renationalisation of services and commons that have been privatised in the country
  • A minimum of 15% of cultivable land in the country should be destined for the cultivation of basic grains for the sake of food security
  • The prohibition of the expropriation and diverting of the rivers, lakes and other  sources of water by private companies
  • The beginning of the process of creating a People’s Constituent Assembly made up of representatives of communities.

Neftalí López, a CODECA representative, indicated that “If we don’t get positive replies, above all from President Jimmy Morales, we’ll take to the streets again.”

A delegation of the campesinos were received by the Congress President, Mario Taracena, who offered to set up working technical groups to analyse each demand.

A delegation of the campesinos were received by the Congress President, Mario Taracena, who offered to set up working technical groups to analyse each demand.


Ambientalismo y el Movimiento Campesinado

En los países ricos del mundo occidental, a menudo se asumen que los ambientalistas sean miembros de la clase media y profesionales – tal vez en error, tal vez apropiadamente. Los temas ambientales y las organizaciones ambientalistas se ven como causas benévolas, atrayendo interés extendido y apoyo amplio y se asocian con un crecimiento de interés en estilos de vida sostenibles. El desarrollo creciendo de las fracciones de la media clase y el crecimiento de las así llamadas nuevas clases medias han sido acompañado por y se asocian con una preocupación con ‘alteridad’ que incluye un interés en las culturas minoritarias, religión, etnicidad y, podría decirse, la cosa la más significativa, una preocupación con el medio ambiente y la ecología.

También se puede ver tal tendencia en el crecimiento del ambientalismo en los paises de bajos ingresos del Sur – los países en vía del desarrollo. Sin embargo, una tendencia más clara es la representación de las causas ambientales por la populación campesina, una populación no asociada con las nuevas clases medias del mundo occidental. Son las tierras y los recursos de los campesinos que son buscado por las corporaciones transnacionales y son los campesinos que sufren las pérdidas causado por los proyectos de desarrollo. Son los campesinos que enfrentan a las amenazas a sus medios ambientes y sus recursos y los que se interponen en el camino de las excavadoras, los tractores y camiones de las compañías que intentan hacer ganancias del medio ambiente.

El breve artículo siguiente se aprovecha de informes en los periódicos guatemaltecos ‘Nuestro Diario’ y ‘Prense Libre’ y de la experiencia de los eventos en el momento de Martin Mowforth. Ilustra el significado del movimiento campesino para las luchas definido como luchas ambientales.

Paralizan el País

Amenazan con más bloqueos

Desde tempranas horas, miles de personas fueron movilizadas para bloquear las principales rutas del país, exigiendo al Estado respetar las propuestas hechas a la población.

El Comité de Desarrollo Campesino (CODECA) fue el organizador de la movilización que exigía a las autoridades pago de salarios atrasados, nacionalización de la energía eléctrica, anulación de los subsidios tributarios a las grandes empresas, castigar el apropiamiento y desvío de ríos, lagos y fuentes de agua por parte de las empresas privadas.

El Zarco (Retalhuleu), Patulul (Suchitepéquez), El Boquerón y Taxisco (Santa Rosa), La Ruidosa (Izabal), Cuatro Caminos (Totonicapán), Nahualá y Las Trampas (Sololá), Cubilgüitz y Fray Bartolomé (Alta Verapaz) y Pajapita (San Marcos) fueron algunos de los puntos más afectados.

Estudiantes, trabajadores e inclusive pacientes de hospitales tuvieron que esperar horas para poder cruzar las rutas.

Los manifestantes fueron recibidos por el presidente del Congreso, Mario Taracena, quien los ofreció efectuar mesas técnicas para analizar cada petición.

“Si no tenemos respuestas positivas, sobre todo del presidente Jimmy Morales, volveremos a salir a las carreteras”, señaló Neftalí López, representante de CODECA.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Essentially this is a book about development issues. It asks: what is development? How has development shown itself over recent decades? Is it the goal that the world should aim for? I wish to be skeptical about the term ‘development’ and to recognise that it has become something of a religion. I am aware of the dangers of simply carrying on with the assumption that it is unquestionably a good thing.

Keywords
development | globalisation | westernisation | international financial institutions | dependency | gross domestic product | Human Development Index | Human Poverty Index | Inequality | neoliberalism | institutional violence | physical violence | environmentalism | Washington Consensus