On Monday 27th June, the Charles Telfair Centre gathered more than thirty professionals and academics at the Charles Telfair Campus to engage with Associate Professor Jess Auerbach (PhD) on what she names “conscripting communalism”: the system of diversity management that successive Mauritian governments have used through the best loser system.
The central question put to Professor Jess Auerbach when this research was commissioned was “Is Mauritius going to implode into ethnic violence?” The question is non-trivial given Mauritius’ history of ethnic riots in 1968 and 1999. She highlighted that “the perception of the threat of communal violence seems to always be latent such that Mauritian citizens have internalised that threat. It is managed by an inculcated national habitus of conflict avoidance referred locally as “Jay de” (Bhojpuri) or “Lesli” (Kreol) meaning ‘letting go’: when faced with anger or injustice, the advice is to walk away and calm the situation.”
Conscripting Communalism
Through her analysis of ‘peace management’ over the past fifty years in Mauritius, Jess Auerbach introduces the concept of ‘conscripting communalism’. Defined as a process of diversity management rooted in the best loser system*, conscripted communalism enabled the careful arrangement of voting population according to their ethnic and religious group allowing politicians to maximize votes during elections. The logic of such a system rests on the premise that people will vote for candidates who belong to their corresponding ethno-religious groups. Over the past fifty years, conscripting communalism, together with a social contract allocating resources along ethnic lines, were means to manage ethnic diversity and govern the country that enabled remarkable economic growth and social stability. Yet, Jess Auerbach argues that this model of governance no longer works in modern day Mauritius.
The factors which have rendered conscripted communalism obsolete in contemporary Mauritius are multiple. Transformations in demography, residence, educational levels, evolving social norms and expectations as well as the increasing use and preponderance of social media and digital connectivity over the island have all concomitantly contributed to new ways of living and new models of governance. The author points that “social media in Mauritius arrived in fertile soil and by the late 2010s most of the population was engaged in various forms of social media but without necessarily the capabilities to understand the implications in terms of their digital trace”. Public authorities, on the other hand, grabbed the opportunity brought about by social media and surveillance technologies to deploy surveillance tools and “control emerging forms of data and use it to consolidate the power of political-party loyalists”.
Popular resistance and national consciousness
In her presentation, Jess Auerbach reviewed two recent events to demonstrate how Mauritians are increasingly distancing themselves from being solely defined by and controlled through their ethno-religious identities.
The sinking of the M.V. Wakashio in August 2020 is the first incident cited by Jess Auerbach to show that Mauritians demonstrated their angst at the government to act pre-emptively and promptly to prevent oil spill in the marine park of Blue Bay. The peaceful protests following the oil spill as well as the mass mobilization of different groups of the Mauritian population served as reminders that the country is united beyond ethno-religious differences.
The second incident in 2021 was the proposed governmental amendment on Information and Communication Technologies Act (ICTA) to enforce surveillance on citizens’ internet activity which posed a serious threat to freedom of speech of the population. Interestingly, while the public had tolerated diversity management and control through electoral processes, the intention of the government to control social media platforms crossed a line Mauritians would not tolerate. As the author purports, digital connectivity and social media have revolutionized the lives of the local citizens who are able to move beyond their ethno-religious identities in order to create a national consensus over issues which matter to them and to their freedom. This could be the platforms for the rise of a national identity and consciousness.
In her analysis, Jess Auerbach manages to spot an important nuance in the behavior of the respondents. She observes that the transformations in people’s social status and rising prosperity meant that Mauritians adopted a more material culture. She highlights the rise of big houses with high walls, a change from the past whereby people would live close to each other. This growing distance amongst Mauritians together with rising digital connectedness imply that the population is changing. Mauritians are aware of a digital surveillance system to control them through fear yet increasingly resistant to it. Her work clearly highlights that tool of governance and control via conscripting communalism have reached their limit, the open question is what are the trade-offs that Mauritians will be willing to accept when it comes to surveillance, safety and peace?
*Best loser system was the political system established at independence whereby the first 63 seats in parliament are allocated on a first-past-the-post basis and the remaining eight seats allocated on ethno-religious groups so as to ensure that all ethno-religious as defined in Schedule 1 one of the constitution has political representation.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa, a Nairobi-based think tank.
NAIROBI – Having been thrust to the front lines of a climate crisis we did not cause, Africans have long urged rich countries to wean themselves off fossil fuels and slash their greenhouse-gas emissions. But, instead of heeding our calls, the rich have remained addicted to oil and gas – much of which, in Europe’s case, has come from Russia. Now they are taking this insult a step further: in their drive to end their dependence on Russian energy, the world’s wealthiest economies are turning to Africa.
Over the past few months, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi has been working tirelessly to secure new gas deals with Algeria, Angola, Egypt, and the Republic of the Congo. The closing of every single deal – the terms of which remain opaque – was attended by the CEO of Eni, the largest fossil-fuel company active on the African continent. In other words, Draghi, a public servant, has been using government resources to deliver overwhelmingly private gains to an Italian company.
Similarly, in May, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz started his first official trip to Africa in Senegal, where he announced plans to pursue energy projects “intensively.” Talks on gas extraction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production have already begun, with Scholz expressing willingness to offer technical investments in power-plant infrastructure in Senegal.
It is not only those seeking to import the continent’s fossil-fuel resources who believe that Africa should extract more of them. Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and United Nations high commissioner for human rights, recently argued that Africa should be exploiting its vast natural-gas reserves.
Robinson believes this would be just: by boosting energy access and spurring development on the continent, natural-gas extraction would help the hundreds of millions of Africans whom the fossil-fuel system has so far failed. But, ultimately, what she is advocating is not much different from Draghi and Scholz’s strategy: use European taxpayers’ money to help massive corporations expand gas exploration and exploitation on African lands.
Robinson envisions the gas (and profits) going to Africans, but it is far more likely to be sent to Europe. As the Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate recently pointed out, fossil-fuel development is nothing new for Africa, and it has long failed to reduce energy poverty or bring prosperity.
In fact, African economies that depend on fossil-fuel exports suffer slower rates of economic growth – sometimes up to three times slower – than those with diversified economies. In Mozambique, foreign companies, led by Eni and TotalEnergies, have invested nearly $30 billion in developing offshore natural-gas reserves and LNG capacity. Yet 70% of people still live without access to electricity.
It is unacceptable, not to mention unjust, that Germany and Italy are pushing African countries to pour their limited financial reserves into developing a fossil-fuel extraction and export industry for European consumers, especially with European demand set to plummet in a matter of years, as investments in renewables come online.
Such investments are an integral part of the European Union’s plan for ending its dependence on Russian energy. The EU now aims to increase renewables’ share of its energy mix to 40% – or even 45% – by 2030, and overall gas demand is expected to fall 30% by 2030. Moreover, Germany and Italy both plan to reach net-zero emissions within the next 30 years. The EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will further accelerate the transition, as it penalizes countries stuck on fossil fuels.
Oil and gas companies are well aware of the impact this shift will have on their bottom lines. For them, the goal of expanding output in Africa amounts to a cynical effort to squeeze every drop of profit out of their declining industry while they still can. The fact that they will leave African countries holding the stranded assets is just as immaterial to them as their contributions to climate change have been.
Robinson is right about one thing: Africans need access to energy to enjoy lives of dignity. But that is no reason to invest in a system that has already failed – precisely the system from which Europe is trying to wean itself. Instead, Africa must invest in distributed renewable-energy systems, which would bring true prosperity and security to our continent, rather than poisoning our food, polluting our rivers, and choking our lungs to profit remote shareholders.
African climate-justice champions are very clear that we want to avoid locking in planetary catastrophe as much as we want to deliver universal energy access. Unfortunately, African leaders do not seem to share our commitment to either goal. Rather than using their time with Western leaders to demand support for the renewable-energy transition, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi agreed to increase oil and gas production and exports to Europe. Senegalese President Macky Sall appears eager to join them, establishing Senegal as a fossil-fuel supplier for Europe.
During centuries of colonial rule, when European leaders told Africa to jump, we asked, “How high?” Now Germany and Italy are telling us to saddle ourselves with fossil-fuel infrastructure that will soon become a drag on our economies and propel us toward climate disaster. We must respond with a firm no, and instead demand that countries like Germany and Italy, and leaders like Robinson, support us in the development and implementation of renewable-energy systems.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Maria Figueroa-Armijos, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, EDHEC Business School
Les modèles économiques (ou business models) traditionnels, tenant pour référence le triptyque productiviste (exploitation, fabrication, mise au rebut), considèrent la nature comme étant prodigue d’une quantité infinie de ressources. Autrement dit, nos systèmes économiques sont conçus comme de vastes circuits ouverts qui n’ont de cesse de siphonner les ressources naturelles pour les transformer en produits qui, en bout de chaîne, sont entièrement ou en partie détruits.
Contrairement aux modèles économiques linéaires, les modèles circulaires se fondent sur un système à circuit fermé, qui vise à utiliser et transformer les matières circulant déjà dans l’économie, plutôt que d’en retirer à la nature. Ainsi, ces modèles circulaires présentent une empreinte environnementale plus faible sur deux plans : ils évitent l’exploitation des ressources naturelles et revalorisent les ressources qui pourraient être considérées comme des déchets.
La croissance exponentielle de la consommation mondiale, associée aux ruptures de chaîne d’approvisionnement dues à la crise sanitaire, aux bouleversements climatiques, réglementaires ou des marchés, a rendu plus évident l’impératif de faire évoluer nos pratiques commerciales vers les principes de l’économie circulaire en circuit fermé. Or, les stratégies commerciales qui valorisent des solutions et innovations systémiques circulaires peuvent permettre une plus grande efficacité d’utilisation des ressources et des économies annuelles estimées à mille milliards de dollars d’ici 2025, selon les chiffres de la fondation Ellen MacArthur lancée par la navigatrice britannique.
Source d’opportunités
La restructuration systématique de nos modèles d’entreprise pourrait donc faire diminuer très largement la pression que subissent les écosystèmes naturels. Repenser la création de valeur afin d’éviter l’extraction de matières premières vierges lorsque des substituts déjà en circulation existent, ainsi qu’une refonte de relations au sein de la chaîne d’approvisionnement pour éviter le gaspillage, apparaissent comme deux moyens fondamentalement différents de produire et de consommer des biens et des services.
Certains des changements attendus impliquent la reconception de produits durables, permettant ainsi d’utiliser des matériaux recyclés ou réutilisés, de créer une logistique renversée, des réseaux de collaboration répliqués dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement existantes et d’élaborer des parcours clients qui valorisent les produits circulaires.
Avec cette refonte en trois blocs, les entreprises peuvent modifier, ajouter, créer ou transformer différentes dimensions dans le cadre modulable proposé, afin de repenser méthodiquement leurs processus au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre des applications circulaires. Par exemple, les diverses initiatives de la marque de vêtements Patagonia, qui s’est lancée à la recherche de la circularité depuis deux décennies, visent à redéfinir en priorité ses produits de sorte que l’entreprise puisse récupérer et utiliser tous ses déchets.
Des acteurs de premier plan d’ici 10 ans
Malgré leur avantage concurrentiel durable certain, les modèles circulaires ne s’implantent cependant encore que dans des marchés de niche, ce qui signifie qu’ils bénéficient d’une part de marché plus faible par rapport aux modèles d’extraction traditionnels. En moyenne, les modèles économiques circulaires représentent environ 15 % de la production dans tous les secteurs. Néanmoins, les avancées technologiques, les changements générationnels, les risques commerciaux, ou encore la nouvelle réglementation supranationale au niveau de l’Union européenne augurent l’accélération de cette proportion.
Le plan d’action pour l’économie circulaire de l’UE adopté en 2020 dans le cadre du Pacte Vert européen introduit notamment des mesures comptant sur la participation des consommateurs, des entreprises et des citoyens selon un calendrier servant de prérequis pour devenir le premier continent climatiquement neutre d’ici à 2050.
Malgré leurs promesses, les modèles économiques circulaires doivent en effet encore relever un défi de taille : briser les barrières culturelles et commerciales. Une étude réalisée par Deloitte et l’université d’Utrecht a révélé que, malgré le battage médiatique et une appétence évidente pour les transformations du marché circulaire, tant les consommateurs que les entreprises rejettent les concessions qui doivent être faites à l’heure actuelle.
D’une part, les consommateurs sont partiellement inconscients des enjeux ou peu disposés à changer leurs habitudes de consommation, surtout lorsqu’ils sont pressés ou ont un budget limité. D’autre part, les entreprises doivent arbitrer entre satisfaire les intérêts des actionnaires, supporter les investissements initiaux élevés dans la transformation des processus, développer de nouveaux partenariats et de nouvelles voies d’accès au marché et former leurs collaborateurs aux processus circulaires. En outre, les matériaux circulaires (réutilisés, recyclés, upcyclés, biosourcés) restent toujours plus chers que les matériaux traditionnels (par exemple, les plastiques à base de pétrole).
Heureusement, le cumul de pression sociétale, d’intérêt politique et d’influence des investisseurs dessine une voie qui a peu de chances d’aboutir si elle suit un modèle d’économie linéaire. Selon un récent article publié par le Forum économique mondial, les entreprises nées dans la circularité seront des acteurs de premier plan dès 2030, précisément en raison de leurs modèles fondés sur des principes circulaires qui leur confèrent un avantage certain. La marque de produits d’hygiène avec moins de conditionnement Unbottled en France et son homologue Lush au Royaume-Uni en sont deux excellents exemples. Hormis les causes éthiques et environnementales qu’elles défendent, ces entreprises circulaires dès leur création proposent toutes deux plus de la moitié de leurs produits sans emballage. Bien qu’aucun modèle d’entreprise ne soit encore véritablement circulaire, la transformation semble donc avancer à grands pas.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
« Et si nous pouvions faire soigner nos compatriotes par des chirurgiens mauriciens grâce au don de cornées mauriciennes ; le projet est réaliste et réalisable. »
Malgré le fait que le prélèvement d’une cornée soit relativement « simple » et rapide et qu’elle soit une ressource quasi illimitée, il existe une pénurie mondiale. A l’Ile Maurice le nombre estimé de nouveaux patients nécessitant une greffe de cornée est de 80 chaque année. Cependant il n’y a aucune activité de prélèvement localement. Dans cet article, Rémy Jullienne, chirurgien ophtalmologue, propose le projet de rendre l’ile Maurice non seulement auto-suffisante en matière de greffe de cornée mais également exportatrice, créant ainsi un nouveau secteur d’activité de pointe pour le pays.
La greffe de cornée
La cornée est la partie avant de l’œil (Photo 1a & 1b). Elle mesure en moyenne 11mm de diamètre pour 0.5 mm d’épaisseur. De par sa forme convexe (lui conférant son pouvoir optique) et sa transparence, elle joue un rôle essentiel dans notre vision. Plusieurs maladies peuvent affecter la cornée. En altérant son état de transparence ou sa géométrie, ces pathologies cornéennes vont dégrader la qualité de la vision à des degrés plus ou moins profond. En cas d’atteinte permanente de la cornée, l’acuité visuelle sera alors perturbée. Dans les formes d’altération importante de la cornée, il faudra alors envisager son remplacement, par une intervention chirurgicale. C’est la greffe de cornée.
Photo 1a. Photographie en face au biomicroscope d’un œil sain ; 1b. Photographie de ¾ au biomicroscope d’un œil sain.Source: collection personnelle du Dr Rémy Jullienne.
La greffe de cornée requiert une formation chirurgicale spécifique, un plateau technique et une instrumentation en microchirurgie de haut niveau et surtout une ressource extrêmement précieuse qu’est le greffon cornéen. C’est bien cette ressource qui conditionne l’accès à la greffe. Il existe cependant une pénurie mondiale. [1]
Le concept de greffe va au-delà d’une « simple » intervention chirurgicale. Classiquement il y a le patient et le soignant. Dans le cadre de la greffe il y a aussi le donneur. La greffe est en effet un Don, gratuit et anonyme. Cela fait appel à des concepts humanistes profonds par la générosité du don de soi et de la considération pour son prochain. Ceux qui bénéficient d’une greffe sont généralement les premiers à vouloir donner en retour. Il n’y a à ce jour aucune réelle alternative à la greffe. Malgré des décennies de recherche et d’essais avec des biomatériaux, le tissu cornéen humain demeure inégalé. [2] Il faudra donc compter sur le Don pour soigner ces patients.
Le concept de Eye Banking : du prélèvement à la distribution
Le prélèvement d’une cornée est relativement « simple » techniquement et rapide (moins de 30 minutes pour la paire de cornées). (Photo 2) Il peut être réalisé sur un donneur décédé (dans les 24 heures suivant le décès), à l’inverse d’autres organes qui nécessitent que le donneur soit maintenu sous assistance circulatoire dans une structure médicale. Le prélèvement n’entraine aucune atteinte visible du défunt ; les paupières étant soigneusement refermées. L’aspect esthétique du défunt n’en est absolument pas altéré et les rites funéraires seront réalisés comme à l’accoutumée.
Photo 2 : Prélèvement de cornée. Source: collection personnelle du Dr Rémy Jullienne
Le greffon est ensuite envoyé à la banque de cornée (Eye Bank) afin d’être analysé, testé et conditionné. Elles peuvent être conservées pendant plusieurs jours avant d’être distribuées à l’équipe chirurgicale qui réalisera la greffe. Concernant le principe de compatibilité immunologique bien connu des greffes, le greffon cornéen fait office d’exception. [3] C’est en effet un tissu humain dépourvu de vascularisation et faiblement peuplé en cellules immunitaires. Il n’y a donc aucun test de comptabilité. La cornée délivrée par la banque de cornée pourra être greffée chez tout patient.
Déséquilibre mondial entre l’offre et la demande
Les maladies cornéennes représentent la 3ème cause de cécité au niveau mondial. [4] Dans l’étude, Global Survey of Corneal Transplantation and Eye Banking, [5] ils étaient 12,7 millions d’aveugles cornéens en attente d’une chirurgie. Cette étude, réalisée dans le cadre de mon travail de thèse, portait sur 148 pays (équivalent à 95% de la population mondiale). 185 000 greffes avaient été comptabilisées sur une année. Pour 1 patient greffé, 70 ne le seront jamais. Les chiffres montrent l’ampleur du problème et de la difficulté de l’accès aux soins.
L’activité chirurgicale de greffe est indissociable de l’activité de prélèvement en greffon cornéen. La pénurie en greffon cornéen étant le principal facteur limitant dans l’accès à une greffe. C’est le paradoxe d’une ressource quasi illimitée mais qui fait grandement défaut. Chaque défunt peut donner ses cornées. Il n’y a pas de limite d’âge. Les contre-indications aux prélèvements sont rares et systématiquement éliminées lors des étapes de contrôle qualité du eye banking. Nous serons donc tous potentiellement donneurs à notre mort.
Toujours selon la même étude, nous avions estimé l’incidence de nouveaux patients nécessitant une greffe à 55 – 75 greffes/an/million d’habitants.
Il existe une forte hétérogénéité dans l’équilibre de l’offre et la demande en fonction des pays. 35,7% des pays ont un accès satisfaisant à la greffe alors que 53.3% des pays n’ont quasiment pas accès à la greffe. Très rares sont les pays qui bénéficient d’un surplus de greffons disponible à l’exportation. Nous pouvons citer l’exemple des Etats Unis, leader incontesté dans l’organisation du Eye Banking et qui fournit à lui seul 85 % des cornées exportées. Une cornée US importée coute en moyenne 3000 USD. [6] L’ensemble des cornées exportées ne représente cependant que 10% de l’activité mondiale. Dans une démarche d’offrir un accès satisfaisant à la greffe à sa population, un pays doit forcément avoir sa propre source locale en greffon cornéen.
La dure réalité mauricienne et de notre région
Les pathologies cornéennes n’épargnent pas les Mauriciens. Si nous réalisons une projection sur l’incidence annuelle dans notre population, nous pouvons estimer à 80 le nombre de nouveaux patients par an. Ces nouveaux patients venant hélas s’ajouter à ceux qui sont déjà en attente.
A Maurice, le premier constat est qu’il n’y a aucune activité de prélèvement. Nous sommes donc dépendant à 100% de pays exportateurs d’une ressource qui fait grandement défaut. Ce statut d’importateur exclusif est toujours synonyme d’un accès très limité à la greffe.
Le sujet légal pèse aussi très lourd dans la situation actuelle. L’acte de prélèvement et la réalisation d’une greffe nécessite impérativement un cadre légal. A Maurice, le Human Tissue Act de 2018 est en cours de finalisation et représente le principal pré requis pour la création d’une banque de cornée à Maurice de même que L’importation de greffons cornéens qui n’est pas autorisée actuellement.
L’offre de soin locale est de facto extrêmement limitée et exclusivement dépendante de quelques missions humanitaires par des chirurgiens étrangers avec des greffons cornéens étrangers autorisés dans le cadre de dérogations ministérielles. Ceux qui souhaitent se faire soigner tenteront un traitement coûteux et incertain à l’étranger. Se posera ensuite la question du suivi médical pour ces patients greffés.
La situation n’est guère mieux dans la région. La banque de cornée la plus proche se trouve à l’ile de la Réunion mais l’activité reste cependant limitée et l’accès à la greffe difficile. En 2020, 29 greffes étaient réalisées pour 61 nouveaux inscrits. 37 cornées avaient été prélevées localement. Je cite l’Agence Française de Biomédecine qui décrit la situation chez nos voisins réunionnais : « l’activité y est très faible tous indicateurs confondus ce qui confère une mauvaise accessibilité à la greffe de cornée aux patients qui y sont domiciliés ». [7]
Vers l’autosuffisance excédentaire
Et si nous pouvions faire soigner nos compatriotes par des chirurgiens mauriciens grâce au Don de cornées mauriciennes ; le projet est réaliste et réalisable.
Au travers de mon parcours médical en France et de mes différents travaux scientifiques, j’ai été particulièrement impliqué dans le monde de la greffe de cornée. Je souhaite mettre cette expertise au service de ce projet. L’ensemble du parcours greffe est parfaitement connu. (Figue 1) L’autosuffisance implique la création d’une banque de cornée localement. Dans cette mission, le soutien de plusieurs banques de cornée étrangères est déjà acquis. C’est un élément majeur pour la réussite du projet. L’Expertise chirurgicale locale est également présente. Et dans le même sens, le soutien d’équipes chirurgicales étrangères est disponible pour des formations complémentaires. A travers ces formations, les chirurgiens mauriciens pourront s’aligner sur les dernières innovations relatives à la greffe de cornée.
Figure 1 : Schéma représentant le circuit greffe de cornée du donneur au receveur. Source : Dr Rémy Jullienne.
Pour aller plus loin, Maurice pourrait être exportateur en greffons, distribuant à nos voisins cette précieuse ressource. Maurice pourrait être également un lieu pour que des patients étrangers puissent y trouver un environnement favorable pour bénéficier d’une chirurgie non disponible dans leur pays.
Les défis existent et je situerai au premier rang le cadre légal. Le législateur facilitateur est primordial dans ce projet national. Les spécificités du greffon cornéen la différentient des autres greffes d’organes. Les contraintes de prélèvement, de compatibilité immunologique et de sécurité microbiologique sont bien moindres pour la cornée. Plusieurs pays différencient d’ailleurs la greffe de cornée des autres greffes, afin d’avoir un cadre légal plus souple et adaptée à la cornée.
La ressource en greffon cornéen est décrite comme illimitée. L’autre défi concerne l’engagement des citoyens au Don. A Maurice, cela impliquerait de sensibiliser la population par des campagnes nationales. Le Brésil fait figure d’exemple et grâce à ses campagnes d’information, l’activité de prélèvement, auparavant faible, a augmenté sensiblement jusqu’au point d’atteindre l’autosuffisance. [8] La générosité et la solidarité mauricienne seront sollicités. Le donneur doit également pouvoir être accessible en prenant en considération les spécificités religieuses et funéraires à Maurice. Aucune religion ne s’oppose au Don.
Ces obstacles sont là pour être franchis. Un virage à 180° est possible pour passer d’une position de dépendant à celle d’autosuffisant excédentaire. A l’heure où Maurice aspire à être acteur dans le monde des biotechnologies, ce projet prend encore plus de sens.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Références :
[1] Wong KH, Kam KW, Chen LJ, Young AL. Corneal blindness and current major treatment concern-graft scarcity. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10(7):1154-1162.
[2] Holland G, Pandit A, Sánchez-Abella L, Haiek A, Loinaz I, Dupin D, Gonzalez M, Larra E, Bidaguren A, Lagali N, Moloney EB, Ritter T. Artificial Cornea: Past, Current, and Future Directions. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 12;8:770780.
[3] Borderie VM, Scheer S, Bourcier T, Touzeau O, Laroche L. Tissue crossmatch before corneal transplantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jan;88(1):84-7.
[4] Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;96(5):614-8.
[5] Gain P, Jullienne R, He Z, Aldossary M, Acquart S, Cognasse F, Thuret G. Global Survey of Corneal Transplantation and Eye Banking. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;134(2):167-73.
[8] Almeida HG, Kara-José N, Hida RY, Kara-Junior N. A 15-Year Review of Corneal Transplant in Brazil. Eye Contact Lens. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 2:S376-S381.
As part of the series “Outside the Box: Amplifying youth voices and views on YPS policy and practice” published by Interpeace in partnership with Irish Aid, Anupah Makoond explores the link between the expression of popular discontent that followed the Wakashio oil spill incident of August 2020 and the Mauritian Government’s underinvestment in environmental protection. She positions her brief within the frame of youth voice exclusion and the role of peaceful protest and dissent as a means to claim civic space for youth. For her, post-Wakashio protests have exposed the extent to which youth priorities such as the environment have been side-lined in formal policy-making processes in Mauritius.
Anupah Makoond (author) attributes the causes of the 2020 Wakashio environmental disaster to poorly managed environmental and risk response policies in Mauritius. The ensuing protests were driven by concerns over the lack of preparedness to such risk and seeming disregard for future resources by authorities. Their slow response to the disaster was widely criticised as the void was filled by civil society groups, ordinary citizens and businesses. They responded by building artisanal booms to contain the spill, before authorities were able to formulate a coherent response and take over operations.
Framing her argument around the resilience-based approach to peacebuilding, the author puts forward the importance of studying peaceful and relatively peaceful countries such as Mauritius, to expand the repertoire of approaches to sustaining peace. In a country with a history of ‘resilience for peace’, she argues that the failure to prioritise youth concerns represents a missed opportunity for updating and validating the social contract and strengthening the island’s resilience for peace.
Oil spill protests in streets of Port-Louis. Image by Matt Savi – CC BY-SA 4.0
Sustaining Peace and Resilience
In 2016, the United Nations introduced the concept of ‘sustaining peace’ to its policy lexicon. However, as highlighted in the brief, there is ongoing debate on what sustaining peace entails. For the author, we need a resilience-based approach which can address some of the limitations of peacebuilding orthodoxy. Scholars are increasingly recognising the value of studying peaceful societies and several projects have been initiated to study the determinants of peace. The latter requires all individuals to engage with peace proactively, rather than merely as a response to conflict. One of the most important practical implications is that peace becomes a national priority for all countries, not only those that are considered ‘fragile.’ The approach also calls to challenge perceptions and often gendered-stereotypes around youths, often cast as either threats, or as victims of violence. The voice of the youth making positive contributions to sustaining peace remains to be heard.
Sustaining Peace in Mauritius: harnessing resilience through the social contract
Mauritius’ resilience to peace is rooted in the institutions, policies, unwritten social norms, and historical legacies that have sustained peace. These include regular elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary, all of which constitute mechanisms for participation in public policies. Within Mauritius’ multi-ethnic fabric, an electoral best-loser system guarantees the representation of each ethnic group in parliament, hence ensure ethnic minority representation in decision making. The author further points to more informal norms, including a culture of tolerance for different ethnic groups and opportunities for cross-ethnic socialisation in the workplace, at school, and in other venues as important mechanisms of sustaining peace. Yet, the aging Mauritian social fabric is bringing new challenges to peace resilience in the country.
The Marginalisation of Youth Priorities
Anupah Makoond argues that there is a marginalisation of youth priorities by Mauritian authorities. In a context of extensive social welfare benefits such as free healthcare and universal pension, the high life expectancy and low fertility rate of the population create an ageing population whose burden will rest on the youth’s shoulders. Social policy spending in Mauritius has always been highly biased in favour of the elderly but the pandemic pushed further budgetary cuts in education, health, environmental protection, and youth empowerment. For the author, the authorities’ policy focus on citizens over 60 and away from environmental matters further marginalises youth priorities and youth voice. She argues that such marginalisation weakens the country’s sustained resilience to peace.
The MV Wakashio Incident: a call to action for updating the social contract
The authorities’ lack of preparedness in its ability to respond to the 2020 Wakashio can be explained by the budgetary cuts in disaster risk reduction and environmental protection. This lack of preparedness created a void filled by civil society and pushed environmental activists to raise the alarm on the island’s vulnerability to climate change. For Anupah Makoond, the August 2020 peaceful protest, led by youth activism, was a call of action for authorities to review their priorities and consider sustainability as a cornerstone of policy making.
She calls for greater inclusion of youth in decision making and for the social contract of Mauritius to be updated: a rethink beyond free education and universal pension. The needs and aspirations of the youth need to be factored through engagement of youth in government’s policies. With no official channels to hear their voice or to represent them, the author calls for increased channels of communication between government and the youth. For her, the promotion of a future-oriented outlook in policy making can help in reflecting youth’s expectations in policies while sustaining peace and security.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Heather Alberro, Lecturer in Global Sustainable Development, Nottingham Trent University
Bron Taylor, Professor of Environmental and Social Ethics, University of Florida
Helen Kopnina, Senior Lecturer, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle
The accelerating loss of other species around the globe is so extensive that many experts now refer to it as the sixth mass extinction. It’s driven in large part by an unprecedented loss of vital ecosystems such as forests and wetlands, the result of social and economic systems that are focused on constant growth.
The latest UN Biodiversity Conference, COP15, the second session of which is due to take place in October 2022, aims to implement ambitious measures for stemming biodiversity loss. The ultimate goal is to establish harmony between humans and nature by 2050.
However, in a recent academic article, we argue that key players such as the body of conservation scientists that produces reports on biodiversity for the UN, continue to prioritise human wellbeing above all else. This prioritisation may stem from an anthropocentric culture that typically considers humans to be separate from and of greater value than other species.
To effectively address our extinction crisis, we argue that we need more than merely technical advances or policies that remain mired in anthropocentric assumptions. Rather, we need fundamental changes in how we view and value nature and other species.
Human supremacy
Anthropocentrism results in the treatment of other species and nature as objects and resources for human ends. This assumption still underlies the way many people approach conservation.
In environmental science and resource management, the concepts of “natural resources” and “ecosystem services” reflect the prevailing anthropocentric approach for assessing natural value, especially through cost-benefit economic analyses.
COP15 will be partly informed by the work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), conservation scientists’ equivalent of the IPCC group of climate scientists. The IPBES’s most recent Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, published in 2019, promotes the term “nature’s contributions to people” as a more inclusive framework for capturing natural value beyond mere economic indicators.
The stated aim is to emphasise that nature and other species are “not just commodities”, and to highlight nature’s range of contributions, both material and non-material, to “the quality of life for people”.
The report is commendable for attempting to include a wider range of environmental worldviews and values as a basis for biodiversity conservation. We maintain, however, that its approach remains human-centered. Non-human species are still valued only instrumentally, in terms of what they can provide for us.
The relationship between people and natural entities is still centred around other species’ perceived utility for helping humans live the “good life”. There is no explicit reference to the good lives of our earth kin, to what they might need to thrive.
The report also fails to advocate for the inherent value of all Earthly inhabitants. We believe this is a profound flaw for any platform that seeks to promote the fundamental cultural transformations required to meet the UN’s “harmony with nature” goal by 2050.
Towards ecocentric conservation
An alternative would be to broaded the focus of conservation science and policy from “ecosystem services” and “nature’s contributions to people” to explicitly include peoples’ moral obligations to nature. We argue that this would require a shift towards ecocentrism, a moral point of view in which every species and ecosystem type is seen as having intrinsic value.
This kind of moral sentiment, which rests on lots of religious and philosophical work, means in essence that non-human organisms and environmental systems have value in and of themselves, not merely as means to human ends.
From this perspective, we would ask not only what nature can do for us, but also how we can contribute to the health and resilience of the entire biosphere and all of the living things that animate it. With this approach we would also ask how we can ensure that other species have what they need to have a “good life” too.
From resources to kin
Motives matter. If we continue to value nature and other species based only on what they can provide for us, we won’t be able to radically transform our relationship with them. Their lives are priceless, and their loss cannot be quantified or recovered. After all, extinction is forever. Their proliferating absence doesn’t just threaten our existence – it constitutes a grave ethical failing.
As the final session of COP15 looms, it is critical to recognise that the innovative policies that are needed to prevent biological annihilation cannot possibly be rooted in entirely anthropocentric premises. An adequate response to the biodiversity crisis requires a fundamental shift in our values wherein we see other species as kin and all of Earth’s diverse environmental systems as inherently valuable.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Hervé Martinez, Professeur des Universités – Physico-Chimiste des matériaux et des surfaces, Université de Pau et des pays de l’Adour (UPPA)
Rémi Dedryvère, Enseignant-chercheur, Institut des sciences analytiques et de physico-chimie pour l’environnement et les matériaux, CNRS, Université de Pau et des pays de l’Adour (UPPA)
Les batteries lithium-ion se sont imposées progressivement dans de très nombreux secteurs industriels, de la microélectronique à l’électronique portable, en passant par le transport (véhicule électrique, mobilité douce, transport ferroviaire et aérien) et le stockage des énergies de conversion alternatives telles que le solaire photovoltaïque ou l’éolien.
Cette technologie représente aujourd’hui le meilleur compromis (comparé aux alternatives de stockage) entre densité d’énergie massique et volumique (quantité d’énergie pouvant être stockée ou transportée pour un volume ou une masse donné), une faible autodécharge, une longue durée de vie, une maintenance faible et une utilisation sur une plage de température conséquente. Leur coût et leur empreinte carbone unitaire ayant considérablement diminué ces dernières années, les batteries lithium-ion représentent un élément clé de la décarbonation du transport : en France, la production électrique s’appuyant essentiellement sur des centrales nucléaires, l’empreinte carbone (fabrication/usages/fin de vie) d’un véhicule « milieu de gamme » est divisée par trois, comparée à son équivalent essence.
Autant d’éléments qui font apparaître les batteries lithium-ion comme une solution technologie pertinente pour la transition écologique.
Cobalt et lithium, deux ingrédients essentiels mais peu disponibles par rapport à la demande
Néanmoins, cette technologie est fortement consommatrice de métaux avec une forte « criticité » : d’ici 2025, cette technologie devrait mobiliser une grande partie de la production mondiale de cobalt (qui rentre dans la composition des électrodes positives, pour 65 % de la production mondiale) et de lithium (pour les électrodes positives, négatives et l’électrolyte, pour 75 % de la production mondiale), sans parler des autres métaux (nickel, cuivre…) ni du carbone graphite constitutifs des éléments pour batteries.
À titre d’exemple, la consommation globale de lithium a augmenté de 283 % entre 2010 et 2021, le prix de la tonne est passé de 4450$ en 2012 à 78000$ en 2022. Cette forte croissance des besoins en matières premières pourrait faire apparaître des tensions sur les marchés ainsi que des risques géopolitiques majeurs, et démultiplie le problème de l’impact écologique de l’extraction minière, généralement consommatrice d’énergies fossiles et de produits chimiques pour séparer les métaux du minerai.
Ces tensions soulignent l’importance d’aborder, en parallèle aux solutions techniques, les questions sociétales concernant le rapport de l’individu au véhicule. Par exemple, limiter la course à l’autonomie permettrait de diminuer la taille des batteries et donc de la consommation en matières premières.
En parallèle de pratiques plus vertueuses, deux voies de recherche apparaissent nécessaires à court terme : le développement du recyclage des batteries et le développement du « post lithium-ion ».
Des batteries « post lithium-ion » pour éviter les tensions d’approvisionnement en lithium
Par « post lithium-ion », on entend des technologies nouvelles de batteries bénéficiant de l’expérience acquise pendant des décennies dans le développement du lithium-ion, voire des technologies en rupture complète, pour lesquelles il faut tout repenser. La recherche académique mondiale est actuellement en pleine effervescence dans le développement de ces systèmes.
Ainsi, de nouvelles voies sont explorées pour remplacer l’élément lithium par d’autres éléments bien plus abondants sur terre, comme le sodium, le calcium, le magnésium et le potassium, qui peuvent, comme le lithium, jouer le rôle d’électrode négative dans une batterie. Ces voies de recherche permettent d’anticiper les possibles futures tensions sur les approvisionnements en lithium en raison de la distribution très inégale de cette ressource sur Terre.
Le sodium par exemple, très abondant et proche du lithium par ses propriétés chimiques et électrochimiques, ne présente pas tout à fait les mêmes performances en termes de densité d’énergie massique et volumique. En revanche, il a été montré que les batteries sodium-ion pouvaient avoir des performances en puissancesupérieures aux batteries lithium-ion, ce qui, pour certaines applications, se révèle particulièrement intéressant.
Les batteries à base de calcium, de magnésium ou de potassium font actuellement face à des verrous scientifiques importants (disponibilité et coût des matériaux d’électrodes positives, réactivité aux interfaces) qui laissent présager une commercialisation à plus long terme.
Remplacer les constituants liquides inflammables des batteries Li-ion
Par ailleurs, « post lithium-ion » ne signifie pas nécessairement « fin du lithium », puisque parmi les voies nouvelles qui bénéficient des investissements industriels les plus importants aujourd’hui figurent les batteries dites « tout solide », dont le but n’est pas de remplacer le lithium lui-même, mais les constituants liquides inflammables des batteries lithium-ion (dits électrolytes) par des constituants solides non inflammables, dans l’objectif d’un gain de sécurité pour les utilisateurs.
Cette voie offre également des perspectives d’augmentation des performances en termes de densité d’énergie (c’est-à-dire des batteries plus légères et permettant une plus grande autonomie), grâce à l’utilisation du lithium métallique (par opposition à ions lithium des batteries lithium-ion) comme électrode négative. Ce type de batterie est particulièrement prisé aujourd’hui par les constructeurs automobiles pour qui la sécurité et la densité d’énergie sont des éléments clés.
Cette technologie « tout solide » fait également face à des verrous technologiques importants mais il est certain que compte tenu des efforts financiers et humains engagés, des progrès considérables sont à attendre dans les années à venir.
Une diversification des technologies en réponse aux besoins
On assiste à une diversification des technologies en réponse à des besoins spécifiques en fonction de la nature de l’application.
Tant que les prix du lithium resteront acceptables pour un système économique mondial globalisé, la technologie lithium-ion a encore de beaux jours devant elle, dans le domaine de l’électronique portable en particulier.
Pour le véhicule électrique, ce sera plutôt la technologie lithium « tout solide », si tous les verrous scientifiques et logistiques peuvent être levés. Les alternatives au lithium restent légèrement moins performantes mais pourraient s’avérer acceptables si le prix du lithium venait à croître fortement à cause de tensions géopolitiques. Les batteries électriques ne sont pas la seule solution technologique. Le stockage d’énergie grâce à l’hydrogène « vert » par exemple est une solution complémentaire.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Juliano Palacios Abrantes, Postdoctoral researcher, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia
Shared fish stocks of hundreds of marine species have been historically exploited by many countries across the world.
As oceans get warmer and marine species move across international borders toward waters with more favourable environmental conditions, these fish stocks face additional pressures, further challenging the achievement of international sustainability goals.
The United Nations has set ambitious sustainable development goals (SDGs) including SDG 14 — life below water — which includes the sustainable management of all fisheries by 2030. Achieving this goal will have clear benefits for several other societal SDGs such as zero hunger (SDG 2), reducing inequalities (SDG 10) and ensuring good health and well-being (SDG 3).
However, to achieve this we need anticipatory, equitable, adaptive and internationally collaborative work because the successful management of fish stocks shared among nations depends on it in a changing world.
Nobody asked the fish
In 1982, the United Nations created exclusive economic zones (EEZs) — areas of sea that provide exploitation rights over marine and energy resources to coastal nations. One of the main reasons for this delineation was to improve the management of fish stocks.
However, it did not consider the natural geographical distribution of living marine resources — that is, nobody asked the fish. And since distribution of marine species in the ocean is partially shaped by environmental preferences, fish freely cross EEZs.
In view of this, the UN created the concept of shared fish stocks. Fish stocks that cross neighbouring EEZs are known as transboundary stocks. These transboundary stocks are exploited by multiple nations — each one in their own EEZ. Recent research found that fish stocks of 633 of marine species have been exploited in these zones globally for the past 70 years.
These species include Pacific salmon shared between the United States and Canada and Peruvian anchoveta shared between Chile and Peru, among other important commercially exploited fish. Between 2005 and 2014, national fleets targeting these transboundary species within EEZs caught an annual average of 48.5 million tonnes.
However, despite their economic importance, the exploitation status of marine species is largely worse when a stock is shared than when it is contained within a single EEZ. While the sustainability of these stocks depends on international co-operation, that’s a challenge when stocks shift their distribution because of climate oscillation and global climate change.
Climate change is here to stay
Oceans are getting warmer, less oxygenated and more acidic. In response, marine species are on the move, looking for new places with the environmental conditions they have historically preferred.
As stocks move across international jurisdictions, fisheries management plans for transboundary stocks might not be adapted to cope with species on the move. We can imagine that if a fish stock is shifting from our EEZ to our neighbour’s, we would catch as many fish as possible before it leaves for good. In contrast, our neighbour has the incentive to save the stock because of its increasing future stake.
My team estimates that 4,119 transboundary stocks will experience a similar shift across 81 per cent of the world’s EEZs by the end of the 21st century.
While these fish have been changing their geographical area since 2006, our models predict most shared fish stocks will shift over the next two decades. Changes in catch proportion — the quantum of shared stock each EEZ can take — will follow the shift in the geographical distribution of the fish stock for 85 per cent of EEZs. So, if a fish stock is moving south, the southern country will have more catch.
The distribution of the shifting shared fish stock has led to international conflicts like the “mackerel war”, over-exploitation of important fish stocks like the Pacific salmon and the breaking off international treaties as in the case of Russia and Norway.
Existing international fisheries agreements need to be assessed for their capacity to address the implications of climate-change-driven transboundary shifts. The new agreements will need to be anticipate these uncertain shifts to be resilient to global change.
Evaluating management plans
Fisheries management plans that are not designed or prepared to respond to species on the move will be less resilient to climate change. Climate change needs to play a part in the plans and agreements.
We need adaptation strategies like the strengthening of current partnerships by, for example, transforming verbal agreements into binding official agreements. These strategies also include improving international co-operation and management rules that capture the distributional shifts of fish stocks by, for example, setting catch limits based on where the fish are.
Quota allocation methods — the amount of fish that we can take from the water — are often based on a stock’s fixed-historical distribution, but must be more agile and potentially move toward a dynamic method that captures the shifting stock.
In some cases, rules will need to be implemented to deal with nations that weren’t part of the original agreement and want to fish a stock that reaches their waters for the first time, or to establish management boundaries in newly occupied regions. However, the transition from historic to dynamic methods may encounter strong resistance from stakeholders that are “losing” benefits from a fishery they have historically been entitled to.
Further research and documentation on how to move toward inclusive dynamic management (quota allocation formula, conflict management) is key to adapting and building resilience in transboundary fisheries management to shifting stocks.
Entering an uncertain future
The future is uncertain. We experience that in everyday life, and probably even more now in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Climate change is no different.
Mathematical models help us understand the natural world, imagining how the future will look, but they can always be wrong. Just think about how many times you’ve been mislead by your weather app, yet you still bring an umbrella if there is slight chance of rain.
That means developing anticipatory policies that deal with shifting transboundary fish stocks and the uncertainties associated with climate change is key to achieving the SDGs while ensuring effective governance of the world’s oceans.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Seta Tutundjian, Founder and CEO of Thriving Solutions, is a member of the High-Level Expert Group to assess the need for the International Platform for Food Systems Science and a co-leader of the global Food is Never Waste initiative.
DUBAI – Global food prices are soaring. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index – which covers a basket of basic food commodities (cereals, meat, dairy, vegetable oils, and sugar) – reached an all-time high of 159.7 in March, up from 141.1 the previous month. While it declined slightly in April, to 158.5, ongoing developments – not least Russia’s war in Ukraine – are set to keep driving prices to new highs, with devastating implications for global hunger.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility and dysfunctionality of the world’s food systems, with movement restrictions and supply-chain disruptions driving up prices, damaging rural livelihoods, and exacerbating food insecurity, especially for the poor. Now, the war in Ukraine is compounding these challenges, because both sides are major exporters of food, fuel, and fertilizer.
Moreover, climate change poses an even larger threat to global food security. Already, extreme weather like heatwaves, floods, and prolonged droughts has triggered shocks to agricultural production and food availability. As temperatures rise, these shocks will become increasingly frequent and powerful. If global warming crosses the 1.5° Celsius threshold (relative to Earth’s pre-industrial temperature), they are likely to become catastrophic.
As the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report shows, avoiding the threshold will require immediate and drastic action. But mitigation is only part of the challenge. Large-scale investments in adaptation will also be needed to protect vulnerable communities from the warming that is already locked in.
Even under the most optimistic mitigation scenario, global warming is expected to hit the 1.5°C threshold in a decade, before receding. This will result in shifts in climatic zones, rising sea levels, and disruptions to the water cycle that increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather. Beyond raising economic and health risks, the resulting disruptions to food and water supplies are likely to drive social and political upheaval, fueling a vicious cycle of poverty, hunger, instability, and even conflict, accompanied by sharp rise in migration.
A more resilient, sustainable, and equitable food system must be a pillar of any climate mitigation or adaptation agenda. But the barriers to building such a system should not be underestimated, especially for countries and regions where soil is poor, land has little agricultural value, other natural resources, such as water, are limited or degraded, and socioeconomic conditions are difficult.
Given the low productivity of their agricultural land, such marginal environments are unable to support the sustainable production of sufficient food to meet local people’s nutritional needs. In fact, while marginal environments are home to less than 25% of the global population – an estimated 1.7 billion people – they account for 70% of the world’s poor and most of its malnourished.
Poverty and hunger can lead farmers to overuse fragile environmental resources in order to ensure their short-term survival, even at the cost of long-term depletion of their lands and impoverishment of their households and communities. Those living in remote areas with minimal infrastructure, few alternative economic opportunities, and limited market access are particularly likely to make such choices.
Given this, countries with significant marginal lands rely on food imports – in some cases for more than 80% of their needs. But pandemic- and war-related disruptions, together with the price increases they have fueled, have shown just how vulnerable such countries are. According to the FAO’s State of Food and Agriculture 2021 report, an additional 161 million people were affected by hunger in 2020, compared with 2019. And the World Food Program is now cautioning that the combination of conflict, COVID, the climate crisis, and rising costs has pushed 44 million people in 38 countries to the edge of famine.
With countries struggling to secure enough food to meet their populations’ nutritional needs, many are now re-evaluating their food dependencies and seeking to expand local production. But unless sustainability is taken into account, efforts to increase short-term resilience by shortening supply chains could undermine medium- and long-term resilience by further depleting agricultural resources like soil and water.
Sustainability isn’t cheap. Efficient production amid biophysical and climate constraints requires investment in costly technologies. But poor governance structures, limited growth prospects, and high debts pose major challenges for many countries. The pandemic has placed massive strain on public budgets, and debt crises loom for many governments, as loans taken out to address the pandemic come due.
Poor and vulnerable countries cannot be expected to address the myriad interconnected challenges they face, from pollution and biodiversity loss to hunger and poverty, without help. To bolster long-term food and nutritional security, we must look beyond country-level solutions to regional and international ones that consider the needs of communities living in marginal environments. Otherwise, there will be no escaping destabilizing cycles of hunger, migration, and violence.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
Hippolyte Fofack is Chief Economist and Director of Research at the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank).
CAIRO – On May 4, the United States Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point in an aggressive attempt to curb surging US annual inflation, which currently stands at a four-decade high of 8.3%. And eurozone inflation reached a record 7.5% year on year in April, according to preliminary estimates.
These sharp, sizeable price increases – accelerated by the war in Ukraine – are raising the specter of stagflation and may significantly erode households’ purchasing power. Vulnerable lower-income groups are likely to be most severely affected because they have limited access to financial markets, making it difficult for them to smooth their consumption. Furthermore, because prices increase more for the basic goods which dominate low-income households’ consumption basket, the rich-poor inflation gap – a phenomenon economists call “inflation inequality”– could widen further.
Just a few months ago, the price stability objective was exceptionally low in the growth-inflation trade-off. Central banks, it was argued, should continue to focus on supporting the post-pandemic economic recovery. But now the critical question is whether monetary policymakers are doing enough to fight inflation. In the case of systemically important central banks, it is difficult to argue convincingly that they are considering the risks which have emerged.
For starters, major central banks’ forecasting failures enabled inflation to overshoot their 2% targets and potentially become entrenched. Inflation was trending upward and exceeded official targets on both sides of the Atlantic in the first half of 2021, but officials at the Fed and the European Central Bank stubbornly insisted that faster price growth was transitory.
That view contradicted their own monetary-policy rules and was inconsistent with the breakeven inflation rates – in the US, the difference in yield between a nominal Treasury security and a Treasury Inflation-Protected Security of the same maturity – from implied market expectations. The five-year US breakeven inflation rate is currently about 3% (down from the record high of 3.59% in March 2022), and the Fed’s long-run neutral rate is around 2.4%.
Well-calibrated pre-emptive strikes are often desirable when managing inflation. The risk of wrongly accepting the low-inflation hypothesis and doing too little to prevent the threat from metastasizing greatly outweighs the risk of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis of low inflation. This is particularly true when the economy is overheating, because reversing inflationary trends becomes even tougher once inflationary expectations become de-anchored.
But this is precisely where the world now finds itself. Some leading central bankers – as part of their well-intentioned attempts to support the fragile post-pandemic recovery – decided not to pre-empt inflation, or even to respond to current price pressures until they were proven to be persistent.
A succession of shocks over the past few months have sustained the climb of consumer prices. These include supply-chain disruptions and bottlenecks, supply-demand imbalances, semiconductor shortages, and rising commodity prices. Upward wage pressures also have played a part, with a tighter labor market feeding through to higher prices, especially in the US.
While some of these shocks are potentially transitory consequences of the pandemic-induced downturn, most have been driven by structural changes, including the deglobalization process triggered by the US-China trade war. Likewise, supply-chain disruptions – which are estimated to have added one percentage point to core inflation in 2021 – were exacerbated by the pandemic but in fact predated it.
Moreover, the earlier prolonged period of low inflation fueled the misguided belief that money creation is no longer inflationary. In 1993, then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan argued that the historical relationships between money and income, and between money and the price level, “have largely broken down, depriving the aggregates of much of their usefulness as guides to policy.”
But the current inflation overshoot has perhaps validated Milton Friedman’s famous maxim: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” The continued expansion of the money supply pushed the ECB and the Fed’s balance sheets to record levels in 2021, with M2 in the US increasing by $2.5 trillion last year. This was surely inflationary.
Jerome Powell, the current Fed chair, says that the US central bank has the necessary tools to rein in inflation. The Fed has begun deploying some of its arsenal, including tapering its asset purchases and raising interest rates, and may turn to other less commonly used tools to shrink the money supply further.
Unfortunately, the Fed must undertake these measures at a time of increasing stagflationary risks. Global growth is decelerating rapidly, and inflationary pressures are intensifying because of the commodity-price shock exacerbated by the Ukraine crisis.
The tools now being used by leading central banks will certainly help to contain inflation. But they will impose a high economic cost and could push the most vulnerable economies into recession. Targeting the neutral rate of interest, at which monetary policy is neither contractionary nor expansionary, is difficult at the best of times. It is even trickier in a high-inflation environment when trade-offs must be made. A wrong move now could easily spoil the incipient post-pandemic recovery.
Should that happen, the costs will likely fall disproportionately on emerging-market economies, and especially on low-income countries that are net importers of oil. Most of these countries were overleveraged when they emerged from the pandemic-driven downturn, and now face higher servicing costs on their US dollar-denominated debt. Their currencies are also depreciating sharply at a time when increasing current-account deficits and higher imported inflation have already forced some countries to make difficult monetary and fiscal policy trade-offs.
Striking the right balance between economic expansion and price stability is more art than science, but systemically important central banks must strive to achieve it in order to sustain global growth. Lately, the pursuit of that goal has been made markedly more difficult by the increasing frequency of policy-induced economic crises of choice, from the Sino-American trade war to the globalization of the Ukraine conflict.
“The job of the central bank is to worry,” said Alice Rivlin, a Fed vice chair in the late 1990s, and central bankers do have a lot on their minds these days, as globalization hastens the transmission of economic shocks generated by heightened geopolitical tensions. That is even more reason for them to avoid suboptimal policy choices that neither restore price stability nor foster economic growth.
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
We use cookies to help us to learn about you and how you use our website.
To accept cookies, click on Accept & Close, and continue browsing, or if you want to know more, please view our Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
