Despite many experts arguing (and hoping) that the developing world would be sheltered from the economic crisis, it appears that the answer to the question ‘will the recession impact developing countries?’ is yes. And not only yes, but that the impact has been more severe than we might have expected.

2009 will be worse in terms of the severity of the impact than 2008 as the recession really begins to take hold, and much of the economic growth to date and the associated development gains will be undone throughout this period of global financial turmoil. A depressing story has begun to emerge. By the end of 2009, developing countries are expected to lose incomes worth at least $750 billion. In sub-Saharan Africa, the figure is over $50 billion. The consequences of this fall in income will be increases in unemployment, poverty and hunger. The ODI estimates that an extra 50 million people will be trapped in absolute poverty, with the number expected to rise to 90 million. As previously mentioned, hunger is going to increase significantly and is already on the rise, with 100 million more expected to go hungry because of the recession – having risen for the first time in 20 years.

There are a number of key ‘transmission belts’ which transmit the impacts of the recession to the developing world. These are explored further below:

1) Trade

The value of trade has been falling in some countries. Japan recently reported that it exported 50% less in February than it did a year ago. Falling trade is argued to be a result of a combination of falling demand for goods and a credit squeeze (npr). The ODI found that tightening credit conditions were happening for domestic bank lending in Cambodia, Ghana and Zambia.

Indonesian exports of electronic products experienced a fall of 25% (in value terms) in January 2009 compared to the previous year. Similarly the value of garment export in Cambodia has dropped from a monthly average of $250 million in 2008 to $100 million in January 2009 (ODI). This has inevitably led to decreases in employment, for example, Cambodia laid-off 15,000 construction workers in mid-2008 and 51,000 were laid off in the garment industry. Kenya, which is highly reliant on the labour-intensive horticultural industry, saw 1200 jobs lost this year and a 35% decrease in exports of flowers. Uganda, a traditional commodity exporter, has faced significant declines in the value of its exports, because of falling prices for coffee, flowers and cotton and declining demand since November 2008. The recession has been particularly damaging for countries highly reliant on one or very few commodities that have experienced falling commodity prices.

2) Remittances

The World Bank revised its estimates of remittances downwards, after remittances reached $305 billion in 2008, to $290 billion in 2009, the first decrease in a decade.

In all countries studied, remittances had decreased, but Africa is thought to have seen the most significant decline.  In Kenya, for example, remittances were down by 27% in January 2009 compared to January 2008, following a volatile year. In Bangladesh emigration fell by 38.8% between February 2008 and February 2009, jeopardising future remittances.

3) Private financial flows

Private financial flows have been affected by the downturn. In particular portfolio investment flows fell significantly in 2008, with some signs of significant shifts from inflows to net outflows. For example, in Bangladesh and Kenya, studied by the ODI, experienced net outflows of portfolio investment flows worth $48 million in July-December 2008 (for Bangladesh) and $48 million in June 2oo8 and $12 million in October 2008 (in Kenya).

Net private capital inflows to developing countries fell to $707 billion in 2008, a sharp drop from a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007. International capital flows are projected to fall further in 2009, to $363 billion (World Bank). In Indonesia, there has been a massive sell-off of government bonds and in Kenya and Nigeria there has been a significant drop in portfolio equity flows, consistent with the sharp fall of their stock markets (ODI).

The World Bank noted this trend in South Asia. It estimates flows to South Asia fell by 29% in 2008, among the sharpest declines posted among developing regions.  Credit conditions for bank lending has been tightening in Cambodia, Ghana and Zambia. Foreign Direct Investment has been less severely affected, but this has varied by country.

Economic policy and social protection provision responses

Economic and social protection policy responses have been extremely varied across countries in the developing world, with some adopting a business as usual approach and others being more-proactive (ODI). For example, Cambodia is implementing growth accelerating policies whereas Indonesia is implementing fiscal stimuli. Kenya, on the other hand, has done relatively little.

In terms of social protections, some countries are struggling to implement anything that even meets existing commitments such as Kenya and Uganda, whilst others are attempting to extend coverage of social protection provision to respond to the crisis (Bangladesh, Ghana and Cambodia).

During the recession it will be important to continue monitoring the impacts and the effectiveness of policy approaches, and building on any lessons learnt. This may enable developing countries and the developed world to better support the most vulnerable and avoid the further undoing of past progress.


Advertisements

Recession, tighter finances, job loss and other consequences impact crime types, levels and location. Crime by its nature tends to be localised, yet some cause global ripples.

ayeFor instance, there are strong links between rural development in developing countries and illegal drugs trade and use. Most of the supply comes from developing countries, such as The_Golden_Triangle. Small farmers, small crops, high value, low visibility.

While demand is widespread, it is concentrated by volume in developed countries. US leads illegal drug use.  New Zealand is a close second. And there is emerging evidence that demand for this illegal category appears recession-proof.

Yet, production evidence from the fields are opposite – opium cultivation in Afghanistan fell by 19% in 2008 while cocaine production in Colombia dropped 28%, says new UNODC report .

Does this show success in eradication techniques? such as increased incentives for rural farmers to change to alternative produiction and livelihoods? What does higher demand and lower supply mean for producers? For conventional goods, we would expect some higher prices and possibly stronger bargaining position. But this is uncoventional production, supply chains, trade, export, import and sale.

The complex trade has a range of trends:

  • One of the major reasons for this year’s drop in supply is what one drugs official called a “perfect storm“. With falling opium prices – more farmers opted to grow wheat, which has seen prices shoot up.
  • Production and consumption of synthetic drugs are reported to be growing. 
  • Traders and middlemen are reported to becoming stronger, competition among middlemen is becoming fiercer.
  • Purity levels and seizures in main consumer countries are reported to be down.

This appears to be bad for the coffers of rural parts of developing countries, but there are signs that production of synthetic substances has shifted to developing countries – reportedly in the Greater Mekong sub-region – and yet mostly in urban areas.

While Sustainableslump never condones illegality, we all live alongside this trade, we venerate it on TV and our police and governments tolerate it. Recession proof trades that provide resilient support to rural populations in developing countries have distinct advantages from a development perspective and raise arguments about official interventions even support along the supply chain. A shift to urban production raises many questions about the nature and targeting of support to these countries and our role in helping these countries develop appropriately.

Meat eating and its connection to climate change has suddenly come to dominate the media, with the likes of celebrities Paul McCartney, Kevin Spacey and Chris Martin (Coldplay) urging people to have one meat free day a week (Reuters, Bloomberg). As mentioned in a previous post, animal protein production (particularly large-scale) is a bigger contributor to greenhouse gas emissions globally than the transport sector – it is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases (this includes both gases emitted from livestock and land use change). Greenpeace estimates every kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef eaten represents about the same greenhouse-gas emissions as flying 100 kilometers (62 miles).

meat free mondays

Unfortunately the types of gases livestock release (Methane, Nitrous Oxide) have far more powerful global warming power and potential than the typically demonised CO2 (nitrous oxide, for example, has 296 the global warming potential of CO2). This direct impact on climate change is exacerbated by the loss of forests to accommodate this growing industry, particularly in tropical zones such as Brazil and South America, that have significant potential to store carbon and help slow the current alarming rate of climate change. To add to the severity of the situation, production of meat is estimated to double from 2006 to 2050 (FAO, 2006), driven by growing demand in low and middle income countries as incomes rise.

Whilst climate change is evidently a serious issue, its consequences for society, particularly in the developing world, is of particular concern. Research suggests that the developing world is most vulnerable to climate change and its effects will be most strongly felt in the developing world. For example, whilst changes in the climate may be positive for agriculture in the developed world, the developing world is likely to see significant reductions in yields, due to decreases in rainfall and increases in temperature: ‘Results from a case study in Mali ..indicate that climate change could reduce forage yields by as much as 16 to 25% by 2050 and crop yields with a reduction from 9% to 17% for sorghum. In contrast pastures in cold areas are expected to benefit from rising temperatures’ (FAO, 2006).

I previously asked how the recession might impact demand for meat – suggesting that the recession could both reduce the amount of meat being bought (as a relatively expensive protein source and consumption being strongly correlated with income) and reduce the quality and types of meat being purchased. Some anecdotal trends suggest that this has been happening, particularly in the US. One industry expert argues that people are eating less beef, pork and poultry and that per capita consumption in the US is the lowest its been since 1982. In addition, people have been buying cheaper cuts of meat. This fall in consumption may give sustainable development a temporary reprieve from the negative impacts of animal protein production, but there are equity issues to bear in mind.

There are important differences in regards to global patterns of meat consumption. Whilst 100 million people go hungry and could benefit vastly (both in regards to physical and mental capacity, particularly children) from an introduction of more meat and dairy products into their diets, 1 billion people are either overweight or clinically obese and are far more prone to suffering from cardio-vascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers because of excessive meat consumption. In India people consume 5kg per year of meat on average whilst in the US people consume 123 kg of meat, on average, per year.

The recession is likely to undo some of the economic growth and associated income gains in the developing world, potentially reducing any increases in animal protein consumption that are much needed. Meanwhile, for a vast majority in the developed world, the recession and any reductions in consumption may bring much needed health advantages and be benefical for the environment and society. Let’s hope the recession instills deep-seated changes in regard to how much animal protein consumption is necessary and ethical in the developed world. Maybe, just maybe, the recession has added fuel to Paul McCartney’s fire.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) has commissioned a report by Economists at Large assessing the value world wide of whale watching to support their position of an outright ban on whale hunting at the current International Whaling Commission meeting.  The report estimates that whale watching generates $2.1 billion per year.

The director of Ifaw, Patrick Ramage, is quoted by the BBC as saying “Whale watching is clearly more environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial than hunting and whales are worth far more alive than dead.”

Mr Ramage is setting up the economic argument as an “either or” but various people (such as the Icelandic whaling commissioner) have suggested that you can have some of both.  We’re back to economics 1.1 as shown in the diagram below.  The curved line shows the marginal rate of substitution between eating whales and watching whales, and the straight budget line shows the relative price of the two goods.  The “optimal” point is (theoretically) where the gradient of the lines are equal.  At this combination the maximum value is extracted.

whaling1

This piece of basic under-graduate economics probably gets us not very far to the answer of “how much hunting, how much watching?” but it does go some way to debunking the argument that if one good is more valuable than another you should only produce the first good.  People corporately probably want a bit of both.

And what of the recession? How does this affect the logic of maintaining whale populations as tourist attractions?  Again considering the properties of the two goods in the model above may be useful. Consuming whale watching is by its nature lumpy. To go whale watching I need to travel to the country in question, probably as part of a larger holiday and I will probably do various other touristy things while I’m there.  When money gets tight it is difficult for me to cut the cost of the combined single good of “holiday to a place where I can go whale watching.” As such I’m likely not to go at all, or to go to some place cheaper without whales.  My demand for whale watching is reduced by 100%.

The problem is that whales can only be watched whole and in their natural environment. However if I shoot the whale, cut it up and put in tins it becomes a lot more transportable and less lumpy (economically speaking, I’ve never eaten whale so can’t comment on its texture). If say I would usually consume ten cans of whale meat in a year and money gets tight, presuming whale meat to have a cheaper substitute, I can chose to consume only eight tins this year. My demand for this product has only reduced by 20%.

As with so many good and markets considered by Sustainable Slump the consumption is defined by the properties of the goods themselves but also there substitutes. Is whale watching a luxury good? Probably. Is global travel going to get more expensive in the future? Probably.  Will whale watching still be worth $2.1 billion if the recession continues? Possibly not.

Debate has raged over the ability of luxury fashion to contribute to sustainable development and of the industry’s potential to be a trailblazer in setting an example of how business can contribute to wider ethical, social and environmental good. The recession has brought this debate into even sharper focus.

A report by WWF entitled Deeper Luxury argues that: “Luxury companies must do more to justify their value in an increasingly resource-constrained and unequal world. Despite strong commercial drivers for greater sustainability, luxury brands have been slow to recognise their responsibilities and opportunities. We call upon the luxury industry to bring to life a new definition of luxury, with deeper values expressed through social and environmental excellence.” It rates ten luxury brands on their environmental and social performance and none score highly.

Others argue that despite their reputation for being less than ethical that ‘change is in the air’ for luxury brands. The guardian argues that “Major players [in the luxury fashion industry]….appeared to be tripping over themselves to reduce energy consumption, announce water projects or phase out excess waste (in an industry where faulty or end-of-line products are incinerated to “protect” the brand) at a recent sustainable-luxury conference in Delhi. Meanwhile LVMH, returned to the FTSE4Good Index Series, has just become a shareholder in Edun, the socially conscious clothing company set up by Ali Hewson and her husband Bono.”

Luxury fashion has not been necessarily immune from the financial crisis, but it has certainly been faring better than its less luxurious counterparts. Some luxury brands have bucked all recession trends with Hermes and Mulberry reporting strong profits for the first quarter of 2009, particularly with the sale of accessories, such as handbags, which satisfy consumers’ shopping itch and are longer-lasting and more versatile than a season-only dress. Hermes and Mulberry have effectively targeted consumers move away from conspicuous consumption: ‘Mulberry with its authentic and understated designs is striking a chord, not just in the UK, but also worldwide, because over-the-top extravagant consumption just isn’t in favour right now.”

mulberry-bayswater-handbag

Does luxury fashion therefore have an even more important role to play in upholding high social and environmental standards in the context of a struggling global economy where other sectors struggle to survive and perceive their immediate priority to be their bottom line, let alone a second or third bottom line?

Sustainable slump argues that the recession is an ideal opportunity for luxury brands to forge a new image for themselves based on real, reportable and transparent efforts towards environmental and social sustainability. This will provide an important source of competitive advantage and consolidate market share, even whilst the recession rages, adding value for consumers – not just through the quality and presitge of their brand, but through their potential for superior environmental and social perfomance – and setting a precedent for how businesses can work with producers (and all the players in the value chain) and the environment to deliver long-lasting, meaningful change at scale.

The UN approximates that an additional 100 million people will now go hungry as a result of the recession, as total numbers of those suffering from hunger hit 1 billion – a 6th of the world’s population. Many experts predicted that the recession would impact poverty levels, despite the recession’s origins in the West, and that through rising unemployment and food prices and falling incomes, hunger would be ever more pervasive. Despite these predictions they had not been quantified, until now. And what a depressing figure it is, demonstrating how something so seemingly detached (sub-prime mortgages) has led to the undoing of significant progress made to date. This number has fed fuel to the debate of just how globalised the economy has become.

In Asia and the Pacific, an estimated 642 million people are suffering from chronic hunger; in Sub-Saharan Africa 265 million; in Latin America and the Caribbean 53 million; in the Near East and North Africa 42 million; and in developed countries 15 million in total (FAO).

Whilst the crisis appears to have been indiscriminate for the poor, it is thought to have affected urban populations more severely than rural areas, due to the stronger connection between jobs in urban areas and falling export demand and foreign direct investment. However, rural areas have been by no means immune and migration from urban to rural areas has become a phenomenon. Remittances have also thought to have declined this year as a result of the recession, delivering another blow to the poor, whilst more recent falls in food prices have yet to benefit the developing world:

“While food prices in world markets declined over the past months, domestic prices in developing countries came down more slowly. They remained on average 24 percent higher in real terms by the end of 2008 compared to 2006. For poor consumers, who spend up to 60 percent of their incomes on staple foods, this means a strong reduction in their effective purchasing power.” (FAO).

The FAO Director-General, Jacques Diou, has argued that investment in agriculture is vital as a solid basis for further development and economic growth and because of the dominance of agriculture as the mainstay for a significant proportion of the developing world.

Whilst a clear solution may not be obvious, what is clear, is that this is a global recession, with global ramifications and one that makes us all responsible for its solutions. Even though the ethical and moral grounds for eradicating hunger are powerfully clear, the threat posed to global peace and security makes finding a solution a global imperative.

Evidence is showing that across the board, niche markets are appearing to do well in the slump. Bespoke tailoring, super-expensive Hermes bags, large yachts and Fair Trade chocolate are just some examples.

beans

While niches are often occupied by smaller businesses with a lot of time, experience and sweat invested in promoting and supporting that niche, it isn’t taking long for the bigger suppliers to realise that in this slump, carving up their market segments into smaller pieces and hypothecating their marketing at these, is one strategy for beating the recession into submission.

A great article by Damian Joseph in Business Week argues that “supermarkets may not be able to pull shoppers away from the competition by putting 2-liter sodas on sale, but convenience, green products, or a ready-to-eat meal just might do the trick……Differentiation works for the retailer who can truly master it.” Supermarkets may be able to capitalise on several trends – for example offering the high quality ready meal for those who want to ‘trade down’ and avoid the cost of eating out, whilst also offering greater variety in their ‘own brand’ budget lines for basic goods. Waitrose is a good example of offering its customers a new lower-price range of ‘essentials’ to prevent customers defecting to competitors and Sainsbury’s profit growth for the first quarter of 2009 has been attributed to the expansion of its budget line.

Within commodified goods supply chains, those goods with sustainable development (SD) criteria are often occupying niches – for example, ecotourism in SE Asia, Fairtrade flowers, green beans from Kenya, BEE wine from South Africa.

 Does a renewed focus on these niches by the bigger businesses spell boom or disaster for these SD poster-goods?

 Will profit motives crowd out good SD intentions within these supply chains by increasing competition and price pressures between retailers and ultimately reducing the price premium for producers?

 Or will good intentions that also turn a profit open these businesses eyes to the potential for business-led SD throughout their businesses?

For the niche product champions, it is clearly time to raise their game, look the Board in the eye and spell out the concessions that they are not willing to make. For the Board, they need to realise that profit isn’t everything [honest].

Indeed, the fugacious consumer is a persistent worry for retailers aiming to imbue brand loyalty “Grocery stores lose or gain about 10% of their customer base each year,” says Neil Stern, a senior partner at Chicago-based retail consultancy McMillan Doolittle. “So the question is: Can you grab your share of new customers?”

And it isn’t just the recession, the “global village” is also driving differentiation: As the purchasing power of minorities grows, grocers are increasingly attempting to accommodate their tastes. Wal-Mart’s Supermercado and Publix’s Sabor are examples of smaller, ethnic stores that cater to Latinos or immigrants from Asia and the Middle East.

It sounds like mid-Slump might be the right time to start marketing new niche products to the big players in your industry – assuming they are listening!

Either way, SustainableSlump will keep an eye on these emerging trends.

One thing that can be said for the recession is its ability to be thought-provoking. Having read an article about rising demand for meat and leather and its damaging impact on the Amazon and on its significant contribution to greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate change, I pondered how the recession might either exacerbate or alleviate deforestation through its impact on meat demand.

cattle-ranching-brazil-one

There are several things that could happen:

  • Total demand for meat decreases as it’s a relatively expensive form of protein. This trend is supported by other changes in consumption, for example the increase in sales of eggs, which offer a cheaper protein source.
  • Demand for more expensive or ‘niche’ meat decreases (for example organic, or free-range meat, which may have less negative impacts on the environment, because it is less intensively farmed), whilst overall demand for meat remains static (picture meat on this graph).
  • Demand from the developed world drops for beef from international origins decreases, as ‘local’ produce becomes more important. These farming systems may have less direct impact on the rainforest, but their environmental impacts remains unknown and they will still contribute to GHG emissions.

In the first scenario – where total demand for meat drops, this may be a positive for the environment. In the second scenario, the impacts on the environment are likely to be negative. In the third scenario, the impact on the environment is uncertain.

To complicate matters further is the impact changing demand will have on the livelihoods of those who rely on meat production and for those who already have limited incomes to afford meat, the recession may shift consumption to wildmeat or bushmeat (much of which is illegally hunted and can contain endangered species) as a cheaper alternative.

What the recession has certainly shown us is just how interconnected income, consumption and sustainable development really is.

During the recession, consumption has been changing for a range of products. But we are concerned with how products that are sustainable [for environment and development] are faring. This graph [“recession’s crosshairs”] attempts to capture two simultaneous trends — in total product sales during recession and in those sustainable niches. untitled1While this graph has its problems — for instance, quality issues are not displayed — broad trends and crucially differences among products is evident. This means, different policy prescriptions for different economic times. Here, coffee category sales are up, but niche sales [e.g. Rainforest Alliance] way down; while chocolate [Fair Trade] up – partially owing to chocolate’s role as a “treat” but also owing to Cadbury’s inclusion of Fair Trade cocoa in its Dairy Milk bars.

  • Is this a good way to represent these Slump-induced changes?
  • Are our calculations/positionings correct?
  • How could all this be improved?

In the UK, consumption of frozen food is up, but what does this mean for sustainable development through consumption? Does this mean healthier Brits upping their veg intake or a rational bargain-hunters’ substitute for fresh produce? How is the health of fresh produce suppliers from the developing world faring?

frozenfood

Hot freeze: frozen-food retailer Iceland’s bullish comments “we are not taking part in this recession”, frozen food sales rising 7% across the category at supermarkets, total frozen food sales expected to top £5billion this year.

Favouring developed world: Frozen foods favour the highly capitalised larger firms with access to freezing facilities and cold chains. They favour those companies with ability to store product for several months, even years, in order to take advantage of market conditions. Many developing country producers are able to access these markets.

Furthermore, frozen has been a forgotten category for the past ten years and declining. Investments from companies in sustainable development aspects to their supply chains are conspicuously absent and certainly far below those for fresh produce.

Sustainableslump is keeping a watching brief to see if this trend is a substitute or a complement for the fresh produce sector. The exacting conditions that many internationally traded fresh produce are grown under in developing countries are among the world’s most stringent, according to GlobalGAP and DFID. IIED has calculated over one million livelihoods in Africa depend on the UK consumption of imported fresh produce from rural Africa.

Is there a market opportunity for more sustainable standards to enter the frozen foods market?