University of Makeni

Sustainable Enterprise

This section of notes is a brief attempt to cover a wide range of topics. They help you to focus on the basics and then widen your knowledge through your own research and reading.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Climate Change

Carbon emissions have been identified as a source of greenhouse gases, which in turn are linked to global warming and climate change

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is currently been extensively encourage for the progress of join forces particularly in developing countries wherever there’s a necessity of intensive community and socioeconomic development programmes and initiatives.Reputation is one among the foremost necessary think about the regional and world extension set up ,as status secure the position of the corporate from at hand and expected contender, CSR helps cooperation in establishing a positive identity and repute that’s influencing their key stake holder teams, and indirectly leading to extension and growth of the business.

Linking climate change to business interests

While the strategic benefits of adopting voluntary GHG reductions are as varied as the companies undertaking them, the universal key to financial success is A Company’s assessment of its strategic positioning vis-à-vis GHG emissions. As a baseline model, companies have sought strategic benefits from voluntary GHG reductions within seven general frameworks: (1) operational improvement; (2) anticipating and influencing regulations; (3) accessing new sources of capital; (4) improving risk management; (5) elevating corporate reputation; (6) identifying new market opportunities; and (7) enhancing human resource management. Each presents new kinds of questions to help companies ascertain their vulnerability under a climate change protocol.

Operational improvement

In this framework, the links between climate change and business interests are forged when reductions in GHG emissions expose opportunities for process optimization (such as lower energy costs, reduced material utilization rates, minimized emissions, and decreased costs of transportation. Energy efficiency is the first and central issue for any assessment of the economics of GHG reductions. In conjunction with their GHG reduction programs, some companies have begun to ask, ‘How energy efficient are our operations? Is our company at the limits of efficiency?’ These companies have found economic gains waiting in energy-use reductions both as complex as plant alterations and as simple as lighting upgrades.

Going further, an assessment of GHG emissions and reduction opportunities often reveals new insights into taken-for-granted or under-studied operational parameters. Not all operational improvements lie within the operating plant. Some companies have found more benefit in focusing on improvements in transportation or distribution.

Anticipating and influencing climate change regulations

While regulatory compliance is typically viewed as a cost of doing business, the regulatory terrain of climate change is complex and emerging on many levels. In order to think strategically about climate change regulations, business managers must adopt a multi-pronged approach. Managers must be aware of developments in policy standards at the international, national and regional levels. They must be prepared to respond, if and when those standards emerge. And, they must be able to assess whether they can have an influence on the shape those standards will take. If a company can influence the final form of climate programs to align with their own internal plan, they will deflect the need for operational change in order to comply. Their competitors, on the other hand, will have to adapt existing operations. Companies that can anticipate and influence regulations are, in effect, setting their own programs as the regulatory standard. For example, BP’s expertise in cap-and-trade earned the company an advisory role in designing the United Kingdom GHG Emissions Trading System. Similarly, Shell’s experience with their own emissions trading desk won them an advisory role in developing the European Union’s (EU) Trading Directive. These national and international programs incorporate distinct elements reflecting the companies’ special experience and expertise in GHG trading.

Accessing new sources of capital

The availability of capital is directly related to the issue of GHG trading. In many cases, governments are introducing financial incentives to reduce GHGs. At the outset, the dividends are likely to come from government subsidies. Going forward, they will come more and more from inter-firm trading as trading directives (like that in the EU and UK) go into effect. How much money is at stake? Richard Sandor, chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange, estimates the market could be as large as the existing US$5 billion annual market for sulphur dioxide. The World Bank foresees a US$10 billion market in GHG emissions by 2006. CO2e.com estimates the range from US$10 billion to US$3 trillion by 2010. Others estimate it could be as large as US$100 billion per year after the Kyoto Treaty goes into effect.

Of course, these estimates include contingencies that must be weighed into the calculation of any climate change strategy. One such contingency is the inclusion of carbon sinks and the exclusion of trade ceilings, which sends conflicting signals through the market. Other contingencies depend on who participates. According to the research group Climate Strategies, the market will be about US$9 billion if the EU, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are potential buyers. This market figure would increase substantially if the United States were to join the group.

Improving risk management

In the strategic framework of risk management, greenhouse gas reductions can reduce financial risks. According to the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), US$7.4 trillion in corporate assets today potentially are threatened by climate change. This leads the Coalition to conclude that corporate board members, senior executives, and institutional investors can no longer ignore such costs, and would be negligent in their fiscal responsibilities should they do so. The risks are enormous. They are both physical (the results of droughts, floods and hurricanes) and financial (the effects of GHG liabilities on share price and asset valuation).

Elevating corporate reputation

Greenhouse gas reductions also present an opportunity to enhance a corporation’s reputation. This can have an impact on a variety of important constituencies, including, but not limited to, voters who influence future policy, jurors who sit in judgment on legal cases, investors who consider environmental investment strategies, communities that influence corporate expansion and new construction, reporters who write about a company’s initiatives, activists who protest a company’s operations, employees who produce goods and services, and the consumers who purchase those goods and services.

Identifying new market opportunities

Greenhouse gas reductions can expose important information and insights for guiding new strategic directions. Companies can exit increasingly risky business areas in favour of more secure options by measuring environmental costs and risks associated with product or process lines. New market opportunities also emerge when a company remains alert to changes in consumer preference, media attention, community concerns, and regulatory program trends.

Enhancing human resource management

At the core of all these strategies lies an often overlooked and under-rated initiative: the engagement of the workforce. Technological and economic activity may be direct causes of climate change, but it is the culture of an organization that guides the development of solutions.

The organizational implications of climate change involve both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits. First, implementing strategies for GHG reductions requires substantive changes, in both the structure and the culture of an organization. Such changes include, among others, reward systems, training programs, management philosophy, employee involvement, reporting requirements, data collection, and analysis. In all of these and more, companies must engage workers as partners in identifying and enacting strategies for – and reaping the benefits of – reducing GHG emissions.

Second, the adoption of greenhouse emissions strategies can improve a company’s morale and consequently increase the retention rates of its skilled workers. Lower recruiting and training costs notwithstanding, a strong company morale contributes significantly to the attraction and retention of a high calibre workforce. Such organizational benefits may be difficult to quantify, but they are real.

We mentioned at the beginning of this section that addressing climate change and the coming market shift require a company to ask new types of questions about new types of issues. Here are some key questions that require attention within the frameworks outlined above.

Questions for developing a climate strategy

Operational improvement

What is the energy efficiency of your operations, and can you improve it? Do you know how to measure your company’s production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (methane,

nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride)? Do you know the available technologies or alternatives for reducing emissions and the cost/benefit trade-offs associated

with each?

Anticipating and influencing climate change regulations

Do you know how to monitor and forecast the development of GHG regulations at the state, federal and international levels?

Can you influence the form of those regulations?

Accessing new sources of capital

Do you know how to conduct commodity trading of GHG emissions and are You aware of government subsidies for efforts to reduce GHG emissions?

Improving risk management

Are any of your operations at risk due to the natural consequences of climate change and do you know the financial implications of that exposure?

Do you know how to quantify your emissions and the financial liabilities that may incur should a GHG disclosure scheme go into force?

Elevating corporate reputation

How is your company’s market reputation improved or harmed by its posture towards GHG reductions? Do you have good relations with key constituencies that care about that posture?

Identifying new market opportunities

Are there alternative product or process lines that you could be exploring that will become more attractive as GHG reduction programs proliferate?

Are there products or services (including GHG credits) that your company can sell to other companies who have decided to embark on voluntary GHG reduction programs?

Enhancing human resource management

Are your employees concerned about GHG emissions? Would voluntary reduction initiatives improve morale, increase the retention rates of skilled workers, lower the costs of

recruiting and training new ones, or attract and retain higher calibre applicants?

Integrating climate change and business strategy

In today’s business world, several companies already have a history of experience in working with climate-change issues. These are the companies now trying to shift their climate-related strategy from one focused on risk management and bottom-line protection to one that emphasizes business opportunity and top-line enhancements. While this does not mean that all such initiatives are singularly driven by the issue of climate change, nonetheless, climate change is a market shift that further enhances the value proposition of the initiative. Goldman Sachs, for example, identifies three climate-related ways to add value to the company portfolio: protect reputation, enhance competitive position, and develop new products.

Some companies have focused their efforts on fundamental technology shifts. DuPont, for example, has identified the most promising growth markets in the use of biomass feedstock’s. These can be used to create new bio-based materials such as polymers, fuels and chemicals, applied bio surfaces, and biomedical materials. The company’s goal is to have 25 percent of its revenue come from such non-depletable resources, and today is two-thirds of the way toward meeting that goal. One promising development is the Sorona® polymer, a result of the joint venture between DuPont and Tate & Lyle plc. In 2006, DuPont will produce 1, 3-propanediol, the key building block for the new polymer, using a proprietary fermentation and purification process based on corn sugar. This bio-based method consumes less energy, reduces emissions, and employs renewable resources instead of traditional petrochemical processes.

Another promising development is the 2006 creation of a partnership between DuPont and BP to develop, produce and market a next generation of biofuels. The two companies have been working together since 2003 to develop materials that will overcome the limitations of existing biofuels. The first product to market will be bio butanol, which is targeted for introduction in 2007 in the UK as a gasoline bio-component. This biofuel offers better fuel economy than gasoline-ethanol blends and has a higher tolerance of water contamination. Both of these developments represent a significant change in product lines and research focus for DuPont, and one that dramatically reduces the company’s environmental footprint. DuPont’s R&D leadership predicts that over 60 percent of DuPont’s future business will come from the use of biology to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Alcoa is another experienced corporation that believes future climate policies will create market opportunities, in their case by expanding aluminium recycling. Recognizing that aluminium produced from recycled materials requires only five percent of the energy needed to make primary aluminium, and that energy prices probably will continue to rise, the company has pledged that 50 percent of its products (excluding raw ingot sold to others) will come from recycled aluminium by 2020. Alcoa views increased recycling as one of the company’s more significant long-term strategic opportunities. Another one is the expected boost in demand for aluminium as a material for lighter weight vehicles. Alcoa has developed ‘Dura Bright’ commercial truck wheels that are lower in mass than conventional wheels, and do not require polish or scrubbing. Current Alcoa data indicate that a ten percent reduction in vehicle weight typically yields a seven percent reduction in GHG emissions.

The insurance underwriter, Swiss Re, also is looking at ways in which to augment existing climate change activities and create new business opportunities. Insurance is perhaps the one industry most directly affected by the physical impacts of climate change because it underwrites natural catastrophes and property loss. Since climate change directly affects Swiss Re’s core business, with or without regulation, the company is integrating related concerns into its underwriting practices. Notable in this regard are insurance packages for Directors’ & Officers (D&O) and Business Interruption (BI). Moreover, the company now channels considerable investments into a number of environmentally impacted sectors, including alternative energy, water, and waste management/recycling. Specifically, Swiss Re seeks opportunities representing medium to high risk-return investment profiles: infrastructure (wind farm, biomass, solar); publicly quoted, small- to medium-capitalized growth companies; and cleantech venture capital (the highest risk-return profile). Tightening policy frameworks increase the demand for such projects, and the company’s investment strategy is beginning to pay off. The value of Swiss Re’s market portfolio rose substantially in 2005, thanks to both a strong share performance and new investments.

Yet another example of climate change/business strategy integration is found among the oil companies. The Shell Group has discovered that their operations, and more importantly their products, are squarely in the middle of the climate controversy. This is an issue the company cannot ignore. In 2005, Shell’s operations emitted 105 million metric tons of CO2, while downstream combustion of its fossil fuels generated an additional 763 million metric tons. Together, these emissions account for some 3.6 percent of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

A primary source of GHG emissions is the flaring of methane gas in exploration and refining operations. Shell is working to end the flaring practice and now captures the gas, either pumping it back underground to enhance well production or feeding it to nearby facilities for power production. When the economics are right, methane can be converted into liquid natural gas (LNG), a major area for potential growth. Looking ahead, the 2005 edition of Shell’s Global Scenarios to 2025 articulates a vision of how worldwide forces may shape markets over the next two decades. The conclusion is that the world and its business enterprise eventually will face a price for carbon. This conclusion justifies Shell’s efforts to increase natural gas production (especially LNG), and the company’s investments in wind, solar, biofuel, coal gasification, and experimental hydrogen delivery systems – all of this while still working to make its core fossil fuel business succeed in a carbon-constrained world.

Conclusion

Early warning signals, identifiable business interests, and integrated business strategy all inform us that inaction is not a viable option with regard to the impending market shift caused by climate change. As a start, companies should understand their vulnerability by developing a clear understanding of their emissions profile and of the risks and opportunities this profile creates. Next, companies should understand the possible policy options of future regulation. Finally, companies that have experience with GHG reductions should try to influence policy formation so as to reduce the uncertainty of the market shift.

Companies that are now taking action view those that do nothing as not only missing out on a myriad of near-term financial opportunities, but also setting themselves up for long-term political and financial challenges. Advancing climate regulation, rising energy prices, and the investment community’s increasing attention on climate change all bring a fluid business environment into

stark relief. The rules of the game are changing in ways that cannot be ignored. In the near term, companies need to be prepared for a carbon-constrained world that will alter existing business models. In the long term, they need to be prepared for a carbon-constrained world in which they will be transformed.

In the end, sustainable climate-related strategies cannot be an add-on to business as usual. Instead, climate-related strategies must be integrated into a company’s overall business strategy for success. Linda Fisher, DuPont’s Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, has articulated this mandate for the entire business community: ‘We need to understand, measure, and assess market opportunities. How do you know and communicate which products will be successful in a GHG-constrained world? How should we target our research? Can we find creative ways to use renewables? Can we change societal behaviour through products and technologies? The company that answers these questions successfully will be the winner.'

Tri-Sector Partnerships

The need for partnerships between companies, communities, government and civil society for development. While many companies have created and implemented successful community development projects on their own, partnership can bring additional expertise and resources to projects and transform them into opportunities to foster communities’ ability to take responsibility for their own development. In fact, all can benefit from partnerships that coordinate and capitalize on each sectors’ capabilities. Most importantly, partnership can achieve greater and more sustainable development

Many oil, gas, and mining companies have created and implemented successful community development projects on their own. However, ‘going it alone’ can involve risks both for development efforts and companies for several reasons. First, development is not a core competency for most companies, and they may lack the development expertise and knowledge needed to design appropriate and effective development projects. A project which fails to meet community expectations can damage company-community relations and company reputation on a broader scale. Second, even the best-intentioned companies may find they lack sufficient resources to mobilize or sustain development efforts. Communities must be able to show that they can manage their own development and in ways that are acceptable to the majority of their population.

Companies are only one of several local actors working for change. Government, civil society, and communities themselves share the goal of development and bring different skills, information, and resources to the effort. Partnerships between industry, government, civil capability, and community, when well-planned and managed, can build on the strengths and capability of each actor to produce greater and more sustainable development impacts. In essence, partnership avoids duplication of effort, capitalizes on each actor’s expertise, and pools resources to tackle the most challenging and complex social problems. Partnership is nonetheless challenging, requiring communication and commitment from all partners.

PARTNERING ACROSS SECTORS

Partnership is more than consultation; it means sharing responsibility and authority in the design, execution, and monitoring of development projects. Business partners can include companies, their contractors and financial institutions. Companies often move rapidly in decision-making and project execution, and can contribute innovation and planning abilities to development.

Governments have primary responsibility for community development and may have formal development planning processes. National and regional governments can offer legitimacy, capacity building, and scale to development efforts, while local governments can help ensure their quality and sustainability. Governments, however, can vary in their capacity, credibility, and transparency.

Civil Society can include a wide range of organizations of all sizes. Multilateral institutions are some of the largest development actors, with extensive funds and technical expertise, but can be bureaucratic. Bilateral agencies are associated with particular governments and reflect their policies. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) operate at the international, national, and local levels and can pursue advocacy, service delivery, or mix of both. They can provide funding resources, advocate for local needs, share local knowledge, and engage community members. Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) help mobilize local, national, and international volunteers who can provide labour and expertise. Research institutions help to create knowledge of communities and project impacts through research. Donors can provide funds, development expertise, and local contacts, but often prefer to contribute to established development programs.

Community Organizations are formal or informal associations rooted in communities. They often have few financial or technical resources but have extensive local knowledge and ability to mobilize community participation and resources. They may vary in the extent to which they represent all community interests and may require time to develop community consensus for decisions. They also may require capacity building for participation on development planning and implementation

Building Partnerships

Innovation and Developing Economies

Innovation has always been about people in rich nations getting the latest stuff and the rest of the world getting our castoffs as our markets scale and prices come down. So why is Nokia looking to use Kenya to debut a free classifieds service (think a mobile-phone version of Craigslist), complete with a first-ever feature that lets people shop using voice commands to browse for goods? And why are Western banks seeking ideas from India's ICICI when its average deposits are one-tenth of those in the West?

The answer is that the traditional model of developing new products is quietly reversing course. Call it "trickle-up innovation," where ideas take shape in developing markets first, then work their way back to the West. "If it's radically innovative and reduces costs, it's going to get looked at and will accelerate," says Michael Chui, the consultant doing heavy lifting on a McKinsey Technology Initiative report on this subject that includes more than 100 PowerPoint slides crammed with examples. As the credit crunch forces frugality on companies everywhere, it should turbocharge the shift toward developing markets.

Nokia, for one, has for several years seen most of its growth come from the developing world, so it was quick to notice when poor Kenyans started using their cell phones for banking as well as paying for things. "People aren't saying, 'Give me the Web-based version of this,' " says Jonathan Ledlie, the Nokia researcher developing Mosoko (mo for "mobile," soko from the Swahili for "market"). "They've never used a Web version."

Ledlie's friends in the United States all tell him they'd love to use Mosoko, which is expected to debut in April. But Ledlie is skeptical. "I tell them, 'Oh, c'mon, you'd just look at some mashup of Craigslist over Google Maps.' “There’s a growing graveyard of companies that tried to get Americans to embrace cell-phone payments. Ever hear of MobileLime or Black Lab Mobile? Exactly. In Kenya, Mosoko's competition is for-sale signs hammered up on posts or pricey classified ads.

The need to innovate in global markets is already changing the strategy at firms such as Infosys. Ten years ago, most of its technology was meant for the developed world, says Infosys COO S.D. "Shibu" Shibulal. Last July, when the company unveiled cutting-edge data tracking for retailers called ShoppingTrip360, it first tested the technology with an Indian one.

Shibulal is a fan of trying out innovations in emerging markets — he calls them "blank slates" — in part because it doesn't cost so much if an idea fails. He learned that the hard way during the 1990s Internet boom, when an Infosys spin-off, OnMobile, tried and failed to sell U.S. wireless carriers on plug-and-play services such as mobile-advertising support and ringtones. OnMobile pulled back to India, where it became the largest provider of such services and is now expanding internationally. "It's inevitable," Shibulal says, that "innovation will start moving both ways."

Even from Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on the planet. France's Groupe Danone started a joint venture there with microfinance pioneer Grameen Bank. As part of the business plan, it agreed to build local micro plants that produced one one-hundredth of the yogurt of a standard Danone facility, in part due to the lack of refrigerated storage. The micro plants produced yogurt almost as cheaply as the larger ones. "It was a big surprise," says Emmanuel Marchant, deputy general manager of DANONE. Communities, which operates its social business ventures. "It has inspired a plant in Indonesia, which we've already built. Now we're talking about other business markets where the plant could be adopted." Lessons from operating in Bangladesh have also

helped Danone launch Eco pack, a low-cost yogurt line, in France. Marchant eventually expects Danone to mainstream other ideas first tried in Bangladesh.

A similar example might come from Indian banks, where transactions are about one-tenth of the typical U.S. bank's. India's ICICI operates profitably in such a climate, thanks to its highly efficient systems. Suddenly cash-starved U.S. financial firms are looking to ICICI — and the substantial number of lower-income consumers in their own backyard — and asking, "How is it that companies in emerging markets can serve these customers and we can't?" says McKinsey's James Manyika.

Innovation won't always trickle up, of course. At Nokia, Ledlie isn't sure something like Mosoko will ever break through the West's cluttered retail market. But he's confident that Nokia has a proving ground for voice recognition in a sales application. And, Ledlie says, “there is trickling sideways." If it works in Kenya, it should work in other developing markets’

The emerging world, then, is no longer a dumping ground for trailing-edge technology. Brace yourself for the next wave of immigrants: ideas

Indigenous Technologies

From The World Bank

Academia and the development institutions has not yet led to a unanimous perception of the concept of indigenous knowledge. None of the definitions is essentially contradictory; they overlap in many aspects. Warren (1991) and Flavier (1995) present typical definitions by suggesting:

Indigenous knowledge (IK) is the local knowledge – knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society. IK contrasts with the international knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for local-level decision making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural-resource management, and a host of other activities in rural communities. (Warren 1991)

Indigenous Knowledge is (…) the information base for a society, which facilitates communication and decision-making. Indigenous information systems are dynamic, and are continually influenced by internal creativity and experimentation as well as by contact with external systems. (Flavier et al. 1995: 479)

While using similar definitions, the conclusions drawn by the various authors are, controversial in a number of aspects. The implications of this will be discussed in the section "Public debate on indigenous knowledge". Most authors explain their perception of indigenous knowledge, covering only some aspects of it. In contrast, Ellen and Harris (1996) provide ten characteristics of indigenous knowledge that are comprehensive and conclusive.

Why is Indigenous Knowledge Important?

In the emerging global knowledge economy a country’s ability to build and mobilize knowledge capital, is equally essential for sustainable development as the availability of physical and financial capital. (World Bank, 1997) The basic component of any country’s knowledge system is its indigenous knowledge. It encompasses the skills, experiences and insights of people, applied to maintain or improve their livelihood.

Significant contributions to global knowledge have originated from indigenous people, for instance in medicine and veterinary medicine with their intimate understanding of their environments. Indigenous knowledge is developed and adapted continuously to gradually changing environments and passed down from generation to generation and closely interwoven with people’s cultural values. Indigenous knowledge is also the social capital of the poor, their main asset to invest in the struggle for survival, to produce food, to provide for shelter or to achieve control of their own lives.

To name but a few:

· Medicinal properties of the neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which, among others, IDRC is researching

· Traditional pastoralists as guardians of biological diversity.

· Egyptian architecture for urban areas.

For more examples see our database of indigenous knowledge practices.

Today, many indigenous knowledge systems are at risk of becoming extinct because of rapidly changing natural environments and fast pacing economic, political, and cultural changes on a global scale. Practices vanish, as they become inappropriate for new challenges or because they adapt too slowly. However, many practices disappear only because of the intrusion of foreign technologies or development concepts that promise short-term gains or solutions to problems without being capable of sustaining them. The tragedy of the impending disappearance of indigenous knowledge is most obvious to those who have developed it and make a living through it. But the implication for others can be detrimental as well, when skills, technologies, artefacts, problem solving strategies and expertise are lost.

Indigenous knowledge is part of the lives of the rural poor; their livelihood depends almost entirely on specific skills and knowledge essential for their survival. Accordingly, for the development process, indigenous knowledge is of particular relevance for the following sectors and strategies:

· Agriculture

· Animal husbandry and ethnic veterinary medicine

· Use and management of natural resources

· Primary health care (PHC), preventive medicine and psychosocial care

· Saving and lending

· Community development

· Poverty alleviation

Indigenous knowledge is not yet fully utilized in the development process. Conventional approaches imply that development processes always require technology transfers from locations that are perceived as more advanced. This has led often to overlooking the potential in local experiences and practices. The following experience from Ethiopia food security program may illustrate the consequences if local knowledge is not considered adequately.

Higher yielding sorghum varieties were introduced in Ethiopia to increase food security and income for farmers and rural communities. When weather and other conditions were favourable, the modern varieties proved a success. However, in some areas complete crop failures were observed, whereas local varieties, with a higher variance of traits, were less susceptible to the frequent droughts. The loss of an entire crop was considered by the farming community as more than offset by the lower, average yields of the local variety that performed also under more extreme conditions. (Oduol, W. 1992) An approach, that had included the local experience of farmers, might have resulted in a balanced mix of local and introduced varieties, to reduce the risk for the producers.

Introduced varieties and commercially marketed seeds are replacing local varieties – along with them, the concomitant local knowledge disappears. For many years, the international community is establishing - with considerable effort - gene banks to preserve the genetic information of local varieties or indigenous species. However, the seeds and clones do not carry the instructions how to grow them. This knowledge needs to be captured, preserved and transferred as well.

Indigenous knowledge is relevant on three levels for the development process.

· It is, obviously, most important for the local community in which the bearers of such knowledge live and produce.

· Development agents (CBOs, NGOs, governments, donors, local leaders, and private sector initiatives) need to recognize it, value it and appreciate it in their interaction with the local communities. Before incorporating it in their approaches, they need to understand it – and critically validate it against the usefulness for their intended objectives.

· Lastly, indigenous knowledge forms part of the global knowledge. In this context, it has a value and relevance in itself. Indigenous knowledge can be preserved, transferred, or adopted and adapted elsewhere.

The development process interacts with indigenous knowledge. When designing or implementing development programs or projects, three scenarios can be observed:

The development strategy either

· relies entirely or substantially on indigenous knowledge,

· overrides indigenous knowledge or,

· incorporates indigenous knowledge.

Planners and implementers need to decide which path to follow. Rational conclusions are based on determining whether indigenous knowledge would contribute to solve existing problems and achieving the intended objectives. In most cases, a careful amalgamation of indigenous and foreign knowledge would be most promising, leaving the choice, the rate and the degree of adoption and adaptation to the clients. Foreign knowledge does not necessarily mean modern technology, it includes also indigenous practices developed and applied under similar conditions elsewhere. These techniques are then likely to be adopted faster and applied more successfully. To foster such a transfer a sound understanding of indigenous knowledge is needed. This requires means for the capture and validation, as well as for the eventual exchange, transfer and dissemination of indigenous knowledge.

Sustainable Technologies and Energy

Sustainable energy is the form of energy obtained from non-exhaustible resources, such that the provision of this form of energy serves the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. [1]

Technologies that promote sustainable energy include renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, wave power, geothermal energy, bioenergy, tidal power and also technologies designed to improve energy efficiency. Costs have fallen dramatically in recent years, and continue to fall. Most of these technologies are either economically competitive or close to being so. Increasingly, effective government policies support investor confidence and these markets are expanding. Considerable progress is being made in the energy transition from fossil fuels to ecologically sustainable systems, to the point where many studies support 100% renewable energy. Renewable energy is derived from natural processes. It has various forms and can be derived directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. There are electricity and heat energy generated from the renewable energy resources

Conceptually, one can define three generations of renewables technologies, reaching back more than 100 years

First-generation technologies emerged from the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th century and include hydropower, biomass combustion and geothermal power and heat. Some of these technologies are still in widespread use.

Second-generation technologies include solar heating and cooling, wind power, modern forms of bioenergy and solar photovoltaics. These are now entering markets as a result of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) investments since the 1980s. The initial investment was prompted by energy security concerns linked to the oil crises (1973 and 1979) of the 1970s but the continuing appeal of these renewables is due, at least in part, to environmental benefits. Many of the technologies reflect significant advancements in materials.

Third-generation technologies are still under development and include advanced biomass gasification, bio-refinery technologies, concentrating solar thermal power, hot dry rock geothermal energy and ocean energy. Advances in nanotechnology may also play a major role.

 

21st Century Challenges

Just some to think about and discuss

Equalising education Air quality for all Escape to the city Mobile middle class Big data, big impact? Feeding the 9 billion Countryside in Crisis? The Energy Water Food Stress Nexus Unsustainable Fishing Keeping pace with a digital revolution Global health in the 21st Century Adapting to an urban future Educating for tomorrow

Digital technology in Africa – some to look NICHOLAS NEGROPONTE Founder and Chairman, One Laptop Per Child,ERIK HERSMAN Co-Founder of Ushahidi, Afrigadget and iHub - Nairobi's innovation hub HERMAN CHINERY-HESSE Founder and Chairman, theSOFTtribe, Ghana

The future shape of Capitalism Migration: skills and the job market Razing the Rainforest Future of low carbon energy Africa in the 21st Century

Some resources to visit

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/trade-vs-aid/

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/climate-change-impacts-in-africa/

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/sub-saharan-africa/

My thanks to friends at The Royal Geographic Society for allowing me to include the above.