From Huffington Post: NRA Wants to Kill Elephants

Childhood images of Dumbo and family afford elephants an iconic status in the United States and much of the west and their size and apparent human like emotions and characteristics make them ideal charismatic species. In certain parts of Africa elephants are at severe risk of extirpation (for a very thorough discussion of elephant issues check out WWF--   http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/african_elephants/).

 I was reading the news/opinion pages yesterday and came across this piece:
The NRA Is Quietly Fighting For Your Right To Kill Elephants For Their Ivory ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/nra-ivory-elephant-hunting_n_5671332.html?utm_hp_ref=miami&ir=Miami). The article is mainly a cheap shot at the NRA (and I am no defender, just think that the article could make a more important point) but points out the difficulty of regulating the trade in a product that is illegal to harvest in one place and legal in another. 

Ivory, taken legally (in Southern Africa for example) or illegally (in the East for example) ends up in the hands of hunters and traders. Because ivory is ivory and figuring out where it comes from is difficult poached ivory leaves the continent often through apparently legit means. This means that many conservation organizations oppose all legalized elephant hunting in Africa, and they have some very strong arguments to support their view. Unfortunately many poor communities in Southern Africa benefit from legal elephant hunts and use the income from the hunts to improve welfare. Total bans harm these folks, but partial bans encourage poaching. These are the type of sticky problems that conservation-with-development proponents encounter these days and it seems as though the solutions rely less on science and logic and more on ethics and values. As long as we have competing values--conservation and hunting ban; welfare and elephant hunting--we will be challenged as above. 

Charity, responsibility, and AID

I have not had the chance to write in a few days, life, as per usual, got in the way of best intentions. I had the chance to see an old friend in the Twin Cities (one who grew up in Central America, travels extensively, and has a great blue collar head on his shoulders) and meet a new friend. While in the cities the president of Somalia was in town to discuss plans for that country with the thousands of Somalis and other interested folks. While I did not go to the meetings or hear the address by the Somali president I did have the chance to listen to people think out loud about how Somalia, the homeless in America, and other sundry surprisingly related issues were vexing.
One of the most interesting aspects of these discussions revolved around the international development aid movement (for any number of reasons--guilt, soft power, NGO reproduction) and the continuing problem of money being used for unintended causes (e.g. corruption, warlord enrichment, ...). One side of the table (metaphorically speaking, it was actually at a bar) argued that aid fueled corruption and should be re-examined. The other side thought that aid organizations could not control uses of money and that processes internal in the receiving country had to rectify bad uses of good money.
This theme was repeated with the issue of homeless people in St. Paul. The Dorothy Day Center (the local well known center for homeless assistance) was seen as a magnet for the homeless who used the precious resources for drugs, alcohol, or for all I know Pokemon cards. A similar argument to the international aid argument was offered, that money should be withheld rather than be misspent.
These discussions/arguments arise frequently in the development-conservation-aid world and are most likely no closer to being solved than they were when they began, and indeed when they began prior to our current conceptions of aid (see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm) for a scathing satire over this very issue from 1729) were formed.
Francisco Toro's outstanding blogs (http://boringdevelopment.com/ and http://850calories.com/) offer insight into the at times apparent futility of development work and I have mentioned Ed Carr's (http://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/) site as well. What these authors, and I guess I, have arrived at is that the key to interventions that work is helping folks achieve what they want and need. Funds may be misused or misappropriated because the intended use did not matter than much in the first place to the targeted groups or missed the mark. Your thoughts are welcome, it is late and I know I need to revisit this one.

Ebola, Africa, Ignorance

People are afraid of Africa. My friend Ed Carr pointed this out recently in a post on social media when he described his frustration that Americans believe that Ebola Fever is coming for them (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/we-still-dont-know-how-deadly-the-ebola-outbreak-in-west-africa-will-be/). Spoiler alert: it isn't. I am not shushing anyone or stepping up on a pedestal. Africa, and the 2/3rds world are very, very different from the United States and from Western Europe (and honorary places like Japan/Aus/NZ...). Traffic sucks, people look different, sanitation is unusual from these perspectives. Seasoned workers and travelers get it and don't mind it, at least don't admit to minding it. But really what I just wrote speaks to folks who travel to the have not world; not those who see it only vis-a-vis the media.
If you learn about Africa and other scary places on tv, the internet, in books, in conversation you have every right to be terrified of ebola, boko haram, aids/hiv, hippos/buffalo, you name it. What good do we know about Africa except Paul Simon found some folks to play nice music for what should be in everyone's top ten albums of all time (for the unwashed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyrIsvAp0A).  My friend and former student, Ryan Good (http://plaza.ufl.edu/ryangood/uf/home.html) wrote a  really compelling paper about how Africa appears in video games that needs to get more air time. BIG SPOILER--it ain't good but essentially the games repeat and highlight every scary thing you ever could of thought of and make it all in Africa.
My exegesis of public media of Africa and the developing world is easy and I am not the first, and definitely not the best to do it. But here is the kicker--YOU THINK AFRICA AND THE DEVELOPING WORLD SUCK BECAUSE POWERFUL PEOPLE WANT YOU TO THINK SO. Why would those in power want us to believe that the developing world doesn't work...  ...(for emphasis)--because there are very valuable resources in the developing world including, but not limited to minerals, wood, food, animals, people, labor, soccer players, ruggers, fish, plants, and on and on. If we are continually reminded that folks in the 2/3rds world cannot manage than how can we justify being opposed to pro-western dictators as long as they provide order? The current story about China's grab for Africa as horror? Who should be grabbing it?
Good information is hard to come by and causes for concern far outweigh causes for hope. But think of this, as horrible as 700 plus people dying of Ebola is, as horrible as what Boko Haram has done and will continue to do, most of the 800 MILLION PEOPLE (soon to crest a billion if the UN has any skill at prediction) in Africa, and more than 3 BILLION in the rest of the developing world raise families, live well, and have the same cares and concerns as you do. Don't be fatalistic but don't be complacent either.

Sports and underdevelopment

I love sports, playing them, watching them, arguing about them. I would watch the world cup of nearly anything because I like to watch national teams play against each other. After all, how often can we see a nation of three or four million dominate one of 1 billion, or in the case of the US 330 million (depending on what figure you want to use)? But the latest out of Qatar (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jul/28/qatar-world-cup-migrants-not-paid-building-office) and other reports from Sochi, Brazil, and South Africa make it clear that international sporting events do not foster development, especially in the case of nation-states somewhere on the development spectrum (this is worthy of probably 1,000 blog posts if not more alone). This issue, the high costs of international sporting events in financial, social, and environmental measures is well known so I am not breaking any ground there (eg. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazil-world-cup-fails-to-score-environmental-goals/). What I still don't understand, and I have tried, is why states think that hosting these events indicates some amorphous development goal. In essence Brazil or Russia or Qatar host these events to 1. line the pockets of builders, etc. who are friends with the bidders but more importantly 2. TO ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THAT THEY HAVE ARRIVED. This type of thinking, essentially a middle school sensibility, is akin to the 13 year old who needs the newest athletic shoe, video game, and whatever else. Hosting these events embraces old, and hopefully soon outmoded, concepts of state legitimacy. As long as "developing/global south/you get the idea) states are compelled to arrive via developed world measures they will be behind. And actually, does anyone view S. Africa or Brazil differently after they hosted the World Cup without any major disasters (which is pretty much all we are evaluating)?
New models of nation-state achievement can look to the 1960s and 1970s non-aligned movement for cues and clues.

Ed Carr, livelihood approaches, and recognizing local conditions

During my career I have carried out research in the have and the have not world, and spaces in between. A lot of this work employed traditional asset or income based approaches, and a lot of it has been published. During all of these research experiences, however, it was clear that land users, resource exploiters (in the most literal sense of word--"users", just did not want to repeat myself), and others rarely pointed to material gain as their goal. Keeping score vis a vis stuff seems to be mainly a conceit of the have world. Householders mentioned creating a future for their newly educated children (Mexico for example), being left largely alone by the government (Guatemala), or decreasing life on the edge of subsistence (Botswana and Namibia) as their aspirations. Income, and assets were seen as vehicles to travel to these goals, not the goals themselves.

My friend and colleague Ed Carr (go here for his thoughtful blog and resource: http://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/) has just published a theory and practice article on using a livelihoods approach in economic development, resilience, and vulnerability reduction (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622814000824) (Carr, E. 2014. From Description to Explanantion: Using the Livelihoods as Intimate Governance (LIG) Approach. Applied Geography. 52: 110-122). I recommend the article to folks interested in development, fieldwork, and research methods and to open methods and expectations more generally. It is a great example of how critical reflection can lead to improved techniques and outcomes.

One of the strongest contributions of the livelihood as intimate governance approach as Ed presents it comes from the EXPLICIT recognition that local conditions, and household aspirations are central to fostering meaningful development and resilience enhancement. Another reminder and breath of freshened air into this discussion is Carr's key point that within households, aspirations may compete or align and that even when aligned, with alignment methods for achieving the aspirations may differ. This is like many other situations that many of us encounter in research, teaching, coaching, etc. We need to understand what is important to a community, a research project, a field team, or a team on the field. The LIG approach demands work upfront but can result in improved results for the most important stakeholders and ultimately for those who support development.

Inauguration: Hi, thanks for taking a second to read my wandering thoughts. I started this blog to keep track of my thoughts, and those of others, on topics of interest to me--economic development and conservation, coaching and teaching, and learning from experience. Thinking back to the start of my career as a geographer, teacher, coach, and parent I am amazed at how right I was. That is...how right I thought I was. The most remarkable revolution I have seen in research methods, writing, economic development and conservation, and coaching over the last 20 years is the embrace many of us now have of the partial view, the mistake, and the ability to learn from past experiences. In development circles we call this monitoring, evaluation, and learning or impact assessment. In coaching and teaching we refer to learning outcome assessments or facilitated feedback. In parenting I guess we refer to it as try, try again, try something different.
I will be commenting on news items, personal experiences, and things I learn from others from time to time and hope to hear from you. If you have a suggestion please let me hear it.