Grouping of nations- essay

Countries organise themselves into groups in order to protect and enhance their domestic economies, their social status and level of development. Examples include the G7, the EU, NAFTA and the WTO. For example the EU are better protected against many issues such as wars and economic downfall. However there are certain drawbacks of being a member of a global social and economic grouping, for example in the EU if one country is in economic downfall, it can cause problems for the rest of the members. 
“A benefit of being part of a GON is that is can reduce barriers to trade. This means that there can be increased economy development as trade movement if free between the nations meaning there are no taxes placed upon them. For example NAFTA an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the USA, they agreed to abolish many tariffs which has increased trade and benefitted all three economies. NAFTA isn’t the only GON that has done this, the EU also saw the benefits of increasing trade. For example in 1970 just over 12% of the UKs GDP came from trade with European countries. After the UK joined the EU in 1973, this percentage increased rapidly in 2002, around 23% of the UK’s GDP came from trade in the EU. It can therefore be seen that this is a benefit to being part of a GON.

Another benefit of being part of a GON is increased economic development, which can lead to increased quality of life for members of the group. For example OPEC, who’s goal is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers. Which creates an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry. OPEC’s influence on the economy of the member countries is great, since most member countries such as Kuwait derive more than 80% of their foreign-exchange earning as well as a huge share of GDP, from oil and gas exports. Grouped nations can also provide support for declining regions or industries, for example the EU’s rural development policy gives funding to member states to be spent in rural areas to improve the rural economy and the quality of life for people living there. This is therefore an example of why it is in the greater interest of a country to part of a grouping of nations.

Within some grouping of nations people can move freely between member countries to find a job. For example the EU allows citizens of member countries to move freely between countries, which can be seen through Polish migration. Due to low quality of life Polish people, often men move to other more developed countries such as the UK to find jobs, there are currently 679,000 Poles living in the UK. There is also greater benefits for Poland as a country, when Polish workers send money back from the UK, the country’s economy is able to grow and quality of life is improved. This example shows how one better member can help another less developed member.

Another benefit of a GON would be better global representation particularly for smaller nations who join a larger group for example some of the tiny islands in the Caribbean have a greater global presence after joining the Caribbean community (CARICOM). Also GON’s reduce the risk of conflict for example the EU formed in 1993 with 28 member countries uses the incentives of trade and political cooperation to reduce the chances of violent conflict; like world war II. This is important as it reduces the chances of a third world war.


Grouped nations also provide global security for example NATO formed of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States primary purpose was to unify and strengthen the Western Allies. It focuses mainly on military response to a possible invasion of Western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. On the 16 of October Lord Robertson at a conference on NATO’s role in crisis management in Brussels said ‘Effective crisis management requires transatlantic unity, political vision and sufficient military power.’

However there are also negatives to grouping of nations for example in some groups, decisions are made centrally so member states may lose control over some aspects of how they run their country. For example the UK has seen a loss of financial control to the European Central Bank and the importance of adopting central legislation and regulations, which could potentially damage the UK economy. It reduces the amount of choice a citizen has, therefore it’s harder for them to migrate somewhere with a different society better suited to them. It can also lead to cultural homogenisation, which can mean places lose their identity.

Also individual countries may lose out when they have to share resources with other member countries e.g. fishing grounds. The UKs economy has suffered by sharing its resources, such as its traditional fishing grounds which it has had to allow Spain access to. Scotland only receives 41% of the UK’s European Fisheries Fund allocation and only 1.1% of total European fisheries funding. With Westminster unwilling to represent Scotland’s fisheries, this is below a fair allocation. Sometimes being a member of a global group can damage a country’s economy richer member states may have to support poorer member states financially if they are in economic crisis e.g. the UK contributed around £4 billion to the EU bailout of Portugal in 2011. Therefore economically a member might actually be doing better without being part of a GON.

Trade agreements made within a group increase trade between member countries, but can reduce trade with countries outside the group. This damages LIC’s whose development can be affected by lost trade. Also the TTIP is a proposed trade agreement and the subject of an ongoing series of negotiations between the EU and US aimed at creating the world’s biggest free trade zone spanning the north Atlantic. Concerns are mounting that TTIP could lead to more privatisation, with the prospect of US corporations providing vital UK public services such as transport, education, water and health.

In conclusion GSEG do have significant benefits for its members, however it can only go so far, as most positive aspects seem to have catches for example, the IMF bank offers many positives for countries in need but this can also cause them many issues after the IMF leaves. Overall when looking at the evidence presented, one could argue that there are many advantages and disadvantages to being part of a GON, however it would seem that there are many more positives for members than the negatives for example the EU presents many more positives than negatives such as the relaxed borders for members enabling all members to prosper.

Development issues in countries at very low levels of economic development. – Case study Bangladesh

 LIC classification

LICs are classified by the UN if it meets three criteria;

1) Low income (three-year average income per capita of less than US$750)

2) Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and adult literacy)

3) Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of exports, economic importance of non-traditional activities, handicap of economic smallness and percentage of population displaced by natural disasters)

Developing countries in general have not achieved a significant degree of industrialisation and have, a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth, low education standards, low life expectancy, etc.

BASIC FACTS – Bangladesh  

Key population facts:

Total population: 144.2 million (in 2005)

Annual population growth rate: 1.7%

Total fertility rate (births per woman): 3.2%

No. of people living below US$1 a day: 36.0%

No. of people living below US$2 a day: 82.8%

Gross national income per capita: US$400

Life expectancy at birth: 63.3 years

Infant mortality rate: 41/1,000 live births

Human Development Index rank: 137 out of 177 countries

Key economic facts:

	GDP – composition by sector (%)	Labour force – by occupation (%)
Agriculture	20.5	65
Industry and mining	26.7	10
Services	52.8	25

 The UK and Bangladesh- info from Dfid

 According to Dfid the UK has a ‘long-standing and positive relationship with Bangladesh, with strong cultural ties.’ The UK focuses on the areas which they can make the greatest difference, rather than trying to shape overall policy. As the largest grant donor, the UK is a significant role among development partners. The UK supports governments to lead donors and improve consistency with national strategies, budgets and planning. Bangladesh is not aid dependent, as aid only makes up 2% of its GDP. The development partnership is key to the UK’s objectives, as well as promoting prosperity and security, and works with Bangladesh’s own goals. The programme will help more than 15 million very poor Bangladeshis, as well as lift 5 million people out of extreme poverty and help at least help at least 1.15 million people to cope with the devastating effects of floods. This will be done by giving children get a better quality education as 1.5 million more girls and boys complete full cycle of primary education. Also by improving family planning and reducing deaths in childbirth as 1.2 million births are assisted by skilled carers. ‘Before (the project) maternal death was dangerously high. But now, the rate has gone down thanks to facilities offered under the ongoing maternal health programme’. Zohra Akhater, a nursing supervisor. Project: Accelerating Progress of Maternal Health (DFID). Furthermore by encouraging private investment, helping more people adapt for the future. Also strengthening key democratic systems and institutions, and strengthening the Government’s ability to provide basic services to its people, by advising the government on how to raise taxes to invest in healthcare and other essential programmes. In addition to this the UK hope to provide access to improved water sources for at least 1.2 million people and improved sanitation for at least 600,000 people. However Bangladesh is most off track on MDG7 (access to water and sanitation) and MDG5 (improving maternal health), although data from the 2010 maternal mortality survey show is showing significant progress. State capacity to finance and deliver social services is weak and hampered by unstable politics and extensive financial risks.

 

Bangladesh – development priorities

Bangladesh is developing, however it’s at a much slower rate than its neighbouring countries such as India. Therefore poverty remains widespread, especially in rural areas. Among the most of the country’s problems are:

>Many poor farmers are in serious debt, mostly caused by attempts by farmers to commercialise their farming by using more fertilisers, pesticides and machinery. However in an area where frequent floods and cyclones occur a farmer’s whole crop can be destroyed for a season leaving the farmer unable to pay back money. On top of this commercial banks often charge high levels of interest to these poor farmers, because it was felt that loans were insecure.

>Social problems, which include poor provision of education and health care

>The position of women in this Muslim society, means that women find it very difficult to find work outside the immediate confines of the home. 

In the 21^st century, investment has concentrated on four main areas of development:

>Education: the transition to democracy in 1991 has seen significant improvement in primary education particularly for young girls. Spending on education has been the largest item in the development budget, and has become an important part of the programmes of all the main parties.

>Health care: Bangladesh has improved life expectancy, child mortality and reproductive health. Bangladesh has lower child mortality rates, higher access to drinking water and sanitation, lower maternal mortality and higher contraceptive use than its neighbour, India. The national health programme has, over the years focused on the provision of affordable rural primary health care (through Family Wealth Centres) and on developing partnerships with NGO’s. NGO’s have been key in the development of Bangladesh particularly in the area of family planning and immunisation services. 

>Agricultural development: especially through provision of loan facilities for all farmers, even the poorest, also liberalisation of the market. This means that now high yielding variety seeds have spread to about 65% of rice cropped area, and irrigation facilities are available to over 40% of the cultivated area. Fertiliser use has grown by 10% per year over the last 30 years. Some of the most important developments have been in the production of ‘dry-season’ rice varieties. As floods can destroy crops during the rainy season this fall-back crop has been vital in increasing food security for the poor.

>Micro-finance projects: these have become widespread throughout Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank is the biggest of these, but several others are run by NGO’s such as ActionAid. These loans support a range of enterprises linked to farm production, processing and marketing. However, the biggest portion is in the garment industry, often producing clothes for export. One recent estimate suggests that the total number of borrowers is 5 million, of whom about 90% are women. As most of them are poor rural their enterprises play a vital part in stabilising their family economies. It is important that the work can take place in and around the home because of the need for modesty among Muslim women. 

 

Bangladesh – industry and trade

Agriculture in the remoter rural areas of Bangladesh needs aid from the
Bangladesh government, foreign governments and NGO’s if it is to develop and feed the growing population. However, the country’s industry is developing quickly from a very low base. This development has come largely because of trade liberalisation. The Bangladeshi government continues to court foreign investment, something it has done fairly successfully in private power generation and gas exploration and production, as well as in other sectors such as cellular telephony, textiles and pharmaceuticals. The government has also set up a number of export processing zones (EPZs) around the country. Companies operation in these areas are granted big reductions in taxes and in bureaucratic restrictions as long as all production is exported from the country. It was hoped that the EPZ’s would help attract foreign direct investment in industry. However, the main trade union organisation in the US (AFL-CIO) has asked their government to deny Bangladesh preferential access to US markets. They cite Bangladesh’s failure to meet promises to allow trade unions to operate in EPZs. They are concerned that un-unionised companies will undercut prices in those countries where workers are allowed more rights.

 

OPEC - GoN case studies

WHO

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an example of a grouping of nations. OPEC was created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960. The original countries were; Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were then joined by nine other members; Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962) – suspended its membership from January 2009; Libya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) – suspended its membership from December 1992-October 2007; Angola (2007) and Gabon (1975–1994). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland), in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna (Austria), on September 1, 1965.

OPEC's goal is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers. Which creates an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry.

WHEN

The 1960s

OPEC’s formation by five oil-producing developing countries in Baghdad in September 1960 occurred at a time when the worlds political and economic landscape were changing and many countries were beginning to become new independent states. The global oil market was dominated by the ‘seven sisters’ which were multinational companies. OPEC set up its objectives and established its purpose, first in Geneva and then, in 1965, in Vienna. It created a ‘Declaratory Statement of Petroleum Policy in Member Countries’ in 1968, which emphasised the right of all countries to exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources in the interest of their national development. Membership grew to ten by 1969.

The 1970s

In the 70’s OPEC became established across the globe as its member countries took control of their domestic petroleum industries, this gave them a major say in the pricing of crude oil on world markets. On two occasions, oil prices rose steeply in a volatile market, triggered by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. In 1975 in the interests of world economic development and stability OPEC held the first Summit of Heads of State and Government in Algiers, which addressed the plight of the poorer nations and called for a new era of cooperation in international relations. This led to the establishment of the OPEC Fund for International Development in 1976. Member Countries created socio-economic development schemes. Membership grew to 13 by 1975.

The 1980s

In the early 80’s prices reached record levels before prices began to weaken and eventually crash in 1986, due to a big oil glut (surplus) and consumer shift away from this hydrocarbon. OPEC’s share of the smaller oil market fell heavily and its total petroleum revenue dropped below a third of earlier peaks, causing severe economic hardship for many Member Countries. In the final part of the decade prices rose again but only to half the levels of the early part. However OPEC’s share of newly growing world output began to recover. This is because OPEC introduced a group production celling divide among member countries and a Reference Basket for pricing, as well as significant progress with OPEC/non-OPEC dialogue and cooperation, seen as essential for market stability and reasonable prices. Environmental issues emerged on the international energy agenda.

 

 

The 1990s

Between 1900-1991 the market impact was reduced due to OPEC action. This meant that prices moved less dramatically than in the 1970’s and 1980’s. However excessive volatility and price weakness dominated

 But excessive volatility and general price weakness dominated the decade, and the South-East Asian economic downturn and mild Northern Hemisphere winter of 1998–99 saw prices back at 1986 levels. However, a solid recovery followed in a more integrated oil market, which was adjusting to the post-Soviet world, greater regionalism, globalisation, the communications revolution and other high-tech trends. Breakthroughs in producer-consumer dialogue matched continued advances in OPEC/non-OPEC relations. As the United Nations-sponsored climate change negotiations gathered momentum, after the Earth Summit of 1992, OPEC sought fairness, balance and realism in the treatment of oil supply. One country left OPEC, while another suspended its Membership.

The 2000s

An innovative OPEC oil price band mechanism helped strengthen and stabilise crude prices in the early years of the decade. But a combination of market forces, speculation and other factors transformed the situation in 2004, pushing up prices and increasing volatility in a well-supplied crude market. Oil was used increasingly as an asset class. Prices soared to record levels in mid-2008, before collapsing in the emerging global financial turmoil and economic recession. OPEC became prominent in supporting the oil sector, as part of global efforts to address the economic crisis. OPEC’s second and third summits in Caracas and Riyadh in 2000 and 2007 established stable energy markets, sustainable development and the environment as three guiding themes, and it adopted a comprehensive long-term strategy in 2005. One country joined OPEC, another reactivated its Membership and a third suspended it.

2010 until now

The global economy represented the main risk to the oil market early in the decade, as global macroeconomic uncertainties and heightened risks surrounding the international financial system weighed on economies. Escalating social unrest in many parts of the world affected both supply and demand throughout the first half of the decade, although the market remained relatively balanced. Prices were stable between 2011 and mid-2014, before a combination of speculation and oversupply caused them to fall in 2014. Trade patterns continued to shift, with demand growing further in Asian countries and generally shrinking in the OECD. The world’s focus on multilateral environmental matters began to sharpen, with expectations for a new UN-led climate change agreement. OPEC continued to seek stability in the market, and looked to

Globalisation outcomes - overview

Globalisation can be defined as a set of processes leading to the integration of economic, cultural, political and social systems across geographical boundaries. It refers to increasing economic integration of countries especially in terms of trade and the movement of capital. TNCs are the driving force behind globalisation, as they invest huge amounts of FDI into the countries they work in. For example, Nike manufactures loads of its products in China, the outcome of this is good for china. This China is payed money by Nike for allowing the business to operate there whilst also creating jobs and improving general wellbeing for people in the area.

The outcomes of globalisation are both positive and negative. For example, it leads to global development, when development occurs the demographic structure changes. Equal distribution of wealth, education, healthcare, and opportunity occurs. There is also a less corrupt government for example if you compare the UK’s stable democratic government to Somali with a highly corrupt system in place. This also means that there is a higher standard of living as education is improved, which also leads to greater levels of literacy and therefore in many cases equal rights for women. Again if you compare the UK to Somalia, In the UK women and men are equal whereas in Somalia women have no rights.

However, the main outcome of globalisation would be global economic growth. Positives of this would be the increase of trade between countries as more countries are creating more goods. Also outsourcing which has led to a high increase of jobs in LICs/NICs for example China has manufacturing factories and, India has call centres. The global economic growth has also drastically improved quality of life and standard of living for many people in poorer regions of the world particularly Asia as that is where most of the manufacturing has taken place. It has also made it possible for entrepreneurs to come out of poorer countries for example Infosys is from India. It has taken the knowledge and experience gained through outsourcing to create it’s on TNCs. Although there are many negatives to this global economic growth for example the environmental impacts of globalisation. This is because TNCs take huge advantage of the relaxed environmental laws and the fact that are not adhered to. Also there is a huge problem with labour exploitation for example Coca Cola employs 30,000 children in the sugar cane fields in El Salvador, where they miss school and put themselves in danger using machetes. It was found that the workers were victims to 139 human rights violations. Also the loss of cultural diversity as TNCs overtake smaller local companies that cannot compete with larger companies with much lower prices such as Wal-Mart who can offer everything you could find in 10 small local highstreet shops in one supermarket

In conclusion the outcomes of globalisation are both positive and negative, there are many factors that contribute to create one issue. The main negative issues seem to exploit either the environment or the poor and the positive issues are involved in economic gain

 

Globalised food in the USA (GCSE)

Globalisation changes how the world is run, food is produced, manufactured, and sold differently from just 100 years ago. For example, rice grown in Thailand may be packaged in India and sold in a supermarket in the UK. In this essay I will be discussing impacts on the food industry caused by globalisation, the role our government plays in this, and what individual consumers can do.

The source of food

A big problem in the food industry is that they don't want the consumer to know what they're eating or where it comes from because the consumer may not want to eat it after finding out. This is why many people have no idea where their food is coming from. Although the average supermarket has 47,000 products many of these come from the same companies and crops making it look as though there is a wide selection when in reality there is not. This is especially evident in the meat industry; only a handful of TNCs are controlling the entire food industry. Globalisation has fuelled this massively which is evident as in 1970 the 5 top beef packers controlled 25% of the market where as today the top 4 control 80% of the market!  

Globalised corn

Due to its cheap, easy to grow and store qualities corn is now the major food source for the world. In the USA 30% of the land base is used to grow corn and due to government policies farmers are paid to overproduce the crop. Farmers are producing so much corn that scientists had to make new uses for it. (see limited food options below*)  This excessive amount has led one food scientist to suggest that 90% of the processed food in supermarkets contain 'either a corn or soybean ingredient and most of the time they contain both'. This therefore allows companies like Monsanto to control the whole food industry as they patent corn seed. They produced a herbicide which kills weeds but not the crop and sold it to farmers. Now due to this patent, many small farmers have been sued for saving a replanting the seed the following year many losing their business and life savings in the process. This is because of mounting legal fee's which are always in vain as Monsanto has never lost a case. Due to corn being so cheap and available farmers are feeding corn to animals such as cows who should naturally be eating grass. However feeding cows corn evolves a certain mutation creating E. Coli which is extremely harmful. (More information in Human and animal health**)

Corn is so cheap and fattens chickens quickly, therefore it has driven the price of meat down. Over 200lbs of meat per person per year would not be possible without this cheap corn diet. But it is it worth risking our own health and ethics for economic gain.

Limited food options. (genetically modified food)

There is a problem with the limited options of our food as so much processed food is just a rearrangement of corn* e.g. cellulose which can be found in products like bottled milkshakes, white bread, and low-fat ice cream. Also high fructose corn syrup which can be found in products like soft drinks, cereal, yogurt, and chocolate. There is also a problem when manufacturers add chemicals into our food for example the tomatoes you find in supermarkets are picked when green and ripened with ethylene gas. Cows are often fed antibiotics to speed up growth then naturally due to the food chain when we eat beef we are ingesting antibiotics. This consumption has been linked to people becoming immune to antibiotics. WHO said 'emerging drug resistance in bacteria is one of the world’s greatest health threats.' Some companies have now stared to cleanse hamburger meat with ammonia to help kill E. coli which is becoming more common in beef. Food scientists are constantly reengineering our food so that it lasts longer on our shelves this reduces the amount of food waste however in the UK £12 billion of good food is still thrown away each year. This reengineering does allow mass production to feed our growing population as much more, food can be produced. In the article 'the future of the global food system' it says 'The supply and availability of food has been a crucial factor shaping the emergence, development and persistence of human civilizations throughout the ages'. Due to globalisation as the world population grows the demand for food increases. Chickens are being raised in half the time they were in the 1950s (49 days vs. 3 months) but are ending up twice as big due to antibiotics among other things. All because people like white meat so scientists redesigned the chicken to have bigger breasts.

Health humans and animals 

At the super market sweets, crisps and soft drinks are all cheaper than fresh fruit and vegetables. This is because the corn, wheat, and soybeans in these snacks are cheap and heavily subsidised. This is a massive cause of worldwide obesity levels rising especially in poorer countries such as Mexico. Even in the UK we are directly impacted as type 2 diabetes only used to affect adults and now it is affecting children on a massive scale. Modern food production is all about doing things faster, bigger, and cheaper people working at 'Smithfield hog processing plant' said the company has 'the same mentality towards workers as they do the hogs'. They slaughter 32,000 hogs per day (2,000 hogs an hour) and employees get infections from handling the guts so much thus making meat packing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the US and it is done by a lot of illegal immigrants. Animals at factory farms stand ankle deep in their manure all day long so if one cow has E. Coli others can get it too, at a slaughter house the cows are covered in manure therefore if you are slaughtering 400 cows per hour it’s hard to keep it from spreading. So this harmful strain of E. Coli, that didn’t used to be in the world, is now a problem. In the USA there are only 13 slaughterhouses for the majority of beef. Ground beef from the supermarket has thousands of different cows mixed up in it so the chance of one of those cows in meat having a disease is increased. After eating a burger contaminated with E. Coli a woman’s 2-year-old son went from a perfectly healthy boy to being dead in 12 days. In the 90’s some industrial meat factories were tested for E. Coli and if they failed they were supposed to be shut down however there was not enough authority to close the contaminated plants. E. Coli is even in spinach and apple juice because of the run off from factory farms however regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies they are supposed to be scrutinizing. There has always been food poisoning, but food is not getting safer it is becoming more contaminated because with the bigger factories it spreads the problem far and wide. Chicken farms produce a lot of food, on a small amount of land, for a very affordable price. A Tyson Chicken farmer said 'the chickens never even see sunlight they are kept day and night in chicken houses with no windows'. When chickens grow from a baby chic to a 5.5 lb. chicken in 7 weeks the bones can’t keep up with growth which means some can’t handle weight that they are carrying so when they try to take a few steps they fall down.

The government’s role

The Government is controlled by the industries it is supposed to be regulating due to former industry executives that are now government regulators. In the USA 70% of processed foods contain some sort of GMO the food industry fought against having to label foods as GMO and won. It is also against the law to criticize the food industry’s foods thanks to the “Veggie Libel Laws” which saw Oprah getting sued after she said she wouldn't eat another burger. In the US state Colorado it is actually illegal and you can go to prison for criticizing their foods.

Change by consumer

The average consumer does not feel very powerful and it is the exact opposite because when we buy our food we are choosing local or not or organic or not. Individual consumers changed Wal-Marts milk options to now offer organic. The tobacco industry had huge control over public policy and it is the perfect model on how an industry’s irresponsible behavior was changed. The food industry will deliver to the marketplace what the marketplace demands so if good wholesome food is demanded it will be delivered. Choose foods that are in season, local, organic and read the labels when you go to the supermarket.

Over all the globalisation of the food industry is mainly fuelled by an increase in demand due to a growing population. The positive points of this seem to be the cheap and widely available sources of food. However it is a double edged sword because we could have these positive impacts without the majority of the extensive negative impacts such as death, disease and poor health, if it wasn't for the economic greed of large companies like Monsanto.

Famine

Famine is defined as a scarcity of food, often it is not a lack of food but a lack of resources to obtain the food. Famine is a non-communicable disease that effects LICS's. The FAO states we have enough food for everyone in the world approximately 2,700 calories a day. However 30 million people die every year from starvation and a further 800 million people suffer from chronic malnutrition.

 

Famine is caused by a mix of environmental and political factors. Environmental factors include drought often caused by a dry climate leaving extremely little or no rain. This means people can't access water to irrigate crops therefore masses of food crops die leaving people without food. For example in Ethiopia between 1984-85 rains failed affecting 43% of the population. The rains failed again in 2000. This meant livestock died as people and animals migrated to try and find water this put tons of pressure these areas causing the livestock to die. People's nutritional status began to decline as milk a main component in meals became scarce which caused food prices to rise many people could no longer afford food. Many people had to leave there homes to move to cities however they ended up in refugee camps with some such as a camp on the outskirts of Denan containing 13,000 people. Large amounts of foreign aid was needed and malnutrition rates were estimated to be over 50% many visitors say 'they are waiting to die'.

Another environmental factor would be natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, landslides, and earthquakes. For example in 2012 hurricane sandy hit Haiti leaving 1.5 million people without proper access to food and at risk of famine this is because the hurricane had destroyed 70% of yam, corn, and banana crops.

Political factors include the denial of food to locals often during times of famine food is still being deported to other countries however the people don't have the status, money, or bargaining power to access this food. Countries such as Somalia with no real government after the civil war are being controlled by terrorist groups such as al-shabab. These groups stop vital international aid in parts of famine stating the areas are fine. In the 1990's 300,000 people died because of warlords stopping food entering the area. Currently 4 million Somalians are at risk of famine, the UN doesn't know how many people have died saying it is most likely in the 10,000's mostly of which are children!

 

The consequences of famine are rife and devastating. Malnutrition is one of the most prevalent consequences of famine it is caused by a poor diet with almost no nutrition. It makes the sufferers immune system extremely weak meaning they often die from illnesses that could be prevented such as diarrhoea, anaemia, and the common cold. The life expectancy drastically decreases and quality of life is very poor as they spend the remainder of their lives in chronic pain caused by starvation. Millennium development goals aim to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger however according to the 2014 progress report areas such as sub-Saharan Africa are still suffering with 'high hunger'. Most people agree the best solution to end famine is educating farmers in areas affected cheap sustainable methods of irrigation, improved farming techniques and higher yielding value

 

Famine is an issue that affects LIC’s as they don’t have the money of government to control the spread of the disease.

‘Economic sustainability versus environmental sustainability’

Sustainability can be defined as the ability of something to be maintained. Its talking about how we live now without jeopardising the potential for people in the future to meet their needs. The question is whether economic sustainability can be compatible with environmental sustainability. China is an example of a country who chose economic benefits over environmental sustainability. Where-as Antarctica was protected for environmental purposes.

Chinas economic growth meant that environmental sustainability was compromised. This is because China had rapid urbanisation which saw the destruction of many natural areas. Like Brazil, China had to use its natural wealth in order to develop however, they did not do this sustainably. For example, it used bamboo as scaffolding which caused the loss of tons of bamboo. This has aided in the placing of the panda on the Appendix 1 conservation list. Pandas eat bamboo as their main source of food, so the rapid loss of bamboo meant they were dying. However, this rapid urbanisation has seen a huge economic growth of 8-10% per year. This growth has massively improved its populations livelihood, as now only 19% live below $1 per day. Although this does leave pockets of poverty in china particularly in the rural areas. This growth has been fuelled by TNC’s which has meant that 80% of its GDP has come from FDI making the economy strong. However, it is not sustainable as eventually the FDI will stop coming unless china produces its own TNCs. China has exploited its natural resource coal which has meant that China has become extremely polluted. WHO said China has 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world and China as well as being the second largest consumer of oil in the world.

 

Antarctica has put aside the economic benefits of exploiting the Antarctic oil has to offer. This is because Antarctica is the last pristine part of the earth left over. Antarctica is also used for scientific use. In order to protect the area tourism is limited by the Antarctic treaty. The environment is protected and managed as the whole world and future generations rely on the Antarctic for fresh clean water, minerals, scientific research among many other things. This is important for long term environmental sustainability as once we destroy the Antarctic we can never get it back and sustainability relies on the fact that it will last forever. The Antarctic also maintains ecological processes and life support systems which the whole planet relies on. The treaty ensures the utilisation of species and ecosystems without destroying them by placing strict rules on anyone who visits. The reason this is significant is that Antarctica is estimated to have up to 203 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface which is worth more that Kuwait or Abu Dhabi. Thus exploiting the area would see huge economic gains, however maintaining the pristine state is of the greatest global interest.

 

In conclusion the global economy depends upon the natural environment as a source of resources and as a sink for emissions. However, the development of countries strongly relies on the development of infrastructure. This development often means that countries often disregard the environment in order to develop economically. The issue is whether environmental sustainability can go hand in hand with economic growth. It seems at the moment that it can only be one or the other.