Africa

BBC's Maya Hayakawa explains how the virus might affect African countries' economies.

Nigerian Victor Olaiya, who died last month, was a musical pioneer and mentor to the Afrobeat legend.

Opposition activists urged protesters to stay inside to stop the spread of coronavirus.

The United Nations Country team in Kenya hosted a meeting on responding to the COVID 19 pandemic with the Government of Kenya and development partners observing social distancing etiquette. Credit: UNIC Kenya

By PRESS RELEASE
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 20 2020 (IPS-Partners)

The Government of Kenya, United Nations and International Community convened today at the UN Complex in Nairobi to combine their forces in their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya.

The United Nations Country Team in Kenya is in lockstep with the UN Secretary General’s call to action and it continues to mobilize full support to the Government of Kenya in its fight against the virus on all fronts.

Siddharth Chatterjee, UN Resident Coordinator to Kenya, said: “This crisis can only be solved through partnerships and we stand with the Government of Kenya and its people to fight COVID-19 in Kenya.”

As the COVID-19 outbreak takes hold in Kenya, the United Nations Country Team has continued support from the preparation phase to the current response in the areas of strengthening the Emergency Operations Centre, Coordination and Leadership, Case Management, Laboratory management, Surveillance strengthening, Communications and Resource Mobilization and Procurement. Dr Rudi Eggers, WHO Representative to Kenya is a key member of the National Public Emergency Steering Committee chaired by the Principal Secretary of Health.

The World Bank country director for Kenya, Felipe Jaramillo confirmed that his bank has allocated US$60 million to finance efforts to fight coronavirus in Kenya.

The United Nations is providing intense technical support to the coordination pillar of the National Task Force that developed the Kenyan COVID-19 Contingency plan, which has become the basis of all response activities. The UN has initiated an Incident Management System, in some cases repurposing some staff to assist in the COVID-19 response activities. A total of 15 technical officers have been seconded to the Ministry of Health in order to boost capacity as the response activities go countrywide.

One of the major issues during such emergencies is the availability of technical guidelines on how things should be handled. United Nations has been able to support the MOH in training of 34 County Rapid Response Teams and provided guidelines and the necessary tools. Another group of 32 level 4-5 clinicians from 9 counties were trained on critical care case management while another 33 frontline workers from level 4-5 health facilities were trained on infection control. The UN also supported the training of Health Promotion officers from all 47 counties. WHO training materials have been used in the roll-out of training to all health workers across the country.

“As indicated by the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, governments must do all they can to prepare for an eventual outbreak and respond rapidly to contain and isolate these initial cases: time is critical now,” Dr Rudi Eggers says.

As of yesterday, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in Kenya stood at seven since the time the government confirmed its first case on the 13th of March 2020. The Government of Kenya has already stepped up measures in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

The United Nations Secretary General Mr. Antonio Guterres has said, “All of us face a common threat – the coronavirus – COVID 19. This pandemic is a call to action – for everyone, everywhere. It’s also a call for responsibility and solidarity – as nations united and as people united. As we fight the virus, we cannot let fear go viral. Let’s overcome this common threat together”.

The convening of the entire United Nations family in Kenya and nearly 30 Ambassadors and Heads of International Cooperation in person and remotely is an incredible show of support and solidarity with the Kenyan response to Covid-19.

The European Union Ambassador to Kenya, Simon Mordue, said,” We stand with Kenya in solidarity in these challenging times and are swiftly reviewing our support to ensure that funds can be urgently mobilized to support the government’s efforts in addressing the health and socio-economic consequence of Covid-19.”

Today’s convening clearly demonstrated that the people of Kenya can count on the United Nations Country team and International Community as their ally in this fight.

Dr. Rashid Aman, the Chief Administrative Secretary in the Ministry of Health, stated, “Given the speed and scale of spread of Covid-19 that we have seen globally, the entire globe must stand together in this fight against the pandemic and stronger nations must stand by the weaker nations for us to succeed. The Government of Kenya appreciates the UN Country Team, World Bank, EU, and other Development Partners from the International Community for their support and solidarity.”

The post The UN and International Community united in fighting COVID-19 in Kenya appeared first on Inter Press Service.

'King of soukous' Aurlus Mabélé died on the same day he was taken into hospital.

By PRESS RELEASE
SEOUL, South Korea, Mar 20 2020 (IPS-Partners)

On Thursday 20 and Friday 21 February, the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC) and the University of Queensland (UQ) held a validation workshop on the 3Returns Model and Framework, presenting an Investment Case for Coastal Landscape Mangrove Restoration in Myanmar through the findings from an Economic Appraisal of Ayeyarwady Mangrove Forests, Bio-based Value Chains for Mangrove Restoration and Benefit Sharing Mechanisms. The event proved informative for both participants and presenters alike, providing critical insights and opening dialogue between multiple government departments.

The Importance of Mangroves on the Ayeyarwady Delta

The mangroves of the Ayeyarwady Delta are an important natural resource for local residents as well as the nation-at-large. They provide significant ecological, social and economic benefits. Ecologically, mangrove habitats provide breeding grounds and hatcheries for birds, fish, crustaceans and other organisms. Additionally, mangroves constitute a major source of carbon sequestration, making them an important asset for Myanmar’s climate change mitigation.

Mangrove forests support coastal disaster resilience through their protection of communities from inundation from tidal surges and strong winds. Importantly, for neighbouring communities, mangroves also provide economic benefits. The collection of fuelwood, fish and crustaceans supplements the incomes of many people in the delta, with products reaching as far afield as China. However, not all members of local communities have been able to share in the benefit from these activities, in particular landless – who account for 73% of people in coastal areas – and women.

Above: U Hla Maung Thein, Director General Environmental Conservation Department – ‘conservation of mangroves is a national responsibility’

The mangroves’ positive impacts have been degraded by unsustainable land use practices. Less than 10,000 hectares of good quality mangroves exist within a total habitat range of 85,000 hectares. This degradation has largely occurred as a result of illegal logging and fuelwood extraction and the conversion of mangrove habitat into agricultural rice paddy and large-scale shrimp ponds. The significance of the mangroves of the Ayeyarwady Delta from an ecological, social and economic perspective highlights the need for a change in landscape management practises in order to preserve their benefits.

Above: Dr. Aaron Russell, GGGI Country Representative delivering welcome remark

The 3Returns Model and Framework

In order to assess sustainable landscape management practices and support green growth alternatives for the local communities, the Global Green Growth Institute has developed a 3Returns Model and Framework for analysing different green growth forest governance scenarios compared with continuation of current practices, known as a “Business as Usual” (BAU) scenario. The 3Returns Framework provides a holistic approach which considers each intervention’s benefits through natural capital, social and human capital as well as economic/financial capital. It differs from a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as the Return on Investment Analysis considers not only financial investment but also natural, social and human investment. This allows measuring a Return on Investment Ratio that considers the benefits from investment in capitals and defines a desired intervention scenario measured as the most efficient when compared with the Business as Usual (BAU) scenario. It also differs from a CBA as the Return on Investment Analysis also quantifies non-monetary benefits and capitals’ status as indicators for decision making.

The Economic Appraisal of Ayeyarwady Mangrove Forests used the 3Returns approach to consider four policy intervention scenarios. A key difference between each scenario was the percentage of land allocated between the two types of community user groups by 2026. The two community user groups types are Village Woodlots (VW) and Community Forest User Groups (CFUG). All the scenarios other than BAU implement the enhanced Myanmar Reforestation and Rehabilitation Program (MRRP).

The scenarios were the following:

1. Scenario 1, allocates 11% of mangroves to be managed by CFUG and an annual increase in area under VW management until 2026. The maximum community forestry mangrove area is 35% of the Reserve Forest area.
2. Scenario 2, allocates 25% of mangrove management to VW and 25% mangrove management to CFUG. The community forestry mangrove area is 50% of the Reserve Forest area.
3. Scenario 3, allocates 47% of mangroves to CFUG and only 3% to VWs. The community forestry mangrove area is 50% of the Reserve Forest area.
4. Scenario 4, allocates 39% of mangroves to be managed VWs and 11% to be managed by CFUGs. The community forestry mangrove area is 50% of the Reserve Forest area.

There are important differences between these two forms of community management. VW officially remain under the control of the Forestry Department, but are a community managed common with a mandate for sustainably managing logging/fuelwood production. They are regarded as democratic in structure, giving all local people the ability to influence decision making. An important aim of VWs is to reduce poverty through enabling community participation for marginalised groups.

CFUGs are less democratic in structure. They only require five people to form a group to apply for a land permit – as a result they have the potential to be susceptible to elite capture. CFUGs enable groups to participate in a wider range of activities including agriculture, aquaculture as well as logging.

CFUGs have a low rate of female participation – only 8% of female headed households are involved. The level of female participation in VWs is not yet know.

The results of the analysis revealed that scenarios 2,3 and 4 achieved roughly the same outcomes in terms of natural capital and net present value. However, Scenario 4 achieved the highest social and human capital not-monetary benefits, resulting in the engagement of 48,618 people in community forestry and capacity building by 2026. Furthermore, when analysing the loss of informal jobs and livelihoods through improved resource management scenarios, Scenario 4 shows the least reduction in jobs and livelihoods (64,978) compared to BAU (65,008). For this reason, the report concludes Scenario 4 is the most desirable landscape management strategy which best takes into account natural, social & human and economic capital benefits.

It must be noted that all scenarios are anticipated to reduce illegal logging activity. However, the removal of this activity will disproportionately affect poorer, landless groups who previously relied on mangrove resources to supplement their income. It is important that community management design incorporates these stakeholders, incentivising them to undertake sustainable activities with the larger landscape system.

Value Chain Interventions

In addition to analysing the impacts of forest governance structures, the report has identified two viable value chains which incentivise the conservation of mangroves. The two value chains are hard-shell mud crab and dried products through the implementation of solar dome dryers.

The hard-shell mud crab value chain provides a lucrative opportunity to connect people of the Ayeyarwady Delta with the markets of China. In 2016, the trade was valued at over 4 Million Euros. Currently 90% of mud crabs are exported to China. Mature crabs can reach over 20,000MMK/kg in local and export market. The value chain currently consists of small-scale village catchers and hatcheries, pond owners and farmers, and middlemen/traders who connect the crabs to markets in Yangon and China.

The financial assessment showed that primarily the pond owners/farmers and middlemen/traders are benefiting from the activity. The middlemen often provide informal finance to poor people engaged in crab catching. As part of this arrangement, debtors are required to provide juvenile crabs at discounted rates to the middlemen. However, the middlemen have also been found to provide equipment and interest free loans to the small-scale village catchers.

The middlemen gain from the higher prices associated with larger crabs through fattening them, earning a profit.

Several actions are required to fully realise the green growth opportunity of this value chain. Firstly, it is important that hatcheries are developed so that the natural populations of mud crabs are not depleted through overharvesting.

Secondly, it is important that an alternative pellet feed for the crabs are produced. Currently ‘trash fish’, small fish with no other practical use, are fed to the crabs. They are a cheap source of food for crab fattening; however, ongoing use of the resource could also have negative effects on fish stocks. Another reason to emphases the importance of feed is the cannibalistic nature of crabs – not feeding the crabs and relying on natural feeding results in an increased crab mortality rate. Investing in crab feeding enables crab farmers to operationally perform better.

Providing financial support to communities at the farmer production stage of the value chain will hopefully allow them to share in the benefits of the value chain by enabling them to grow crabs to larger sizes and receive higher prices than what is currently demanded by the middlemen.

An additional reason to prioritise this intervention is its capacity to empower women. Often it is women who are in charge of the crab ponds.

Left: Intensive hard-shell mud crab fattening; right: natural hard-shell mud crab fattening

Dried products through the implementation of a solar dome dryer is another intervention in the value chain which will assist in protecting mangrove habitat. It achieves this by reducing the amount of fuelwood which is sourced from mangroves required to dry fish, crustaceans, and other agroforestry products. There is also an indication that the dryer dome increases the success rate and quality of preservation, which will be hoped to increase the price at sale.

Dried shrimp production modelling from the report found that if drying occurred for 180 days within a solar dryer dome, the amount of fuelwood required would be 40% less than current drying methods. Savings from fuelwood are reduced to 15% if the facility is operated at its maximum capacity during the year (for 260 days).

Solar dome dryers are estimated to have a life-span of 10 years and are suitable for community-level or user group association investments as they are too expensive for one person to purchase. Through the increased efficiencies in drying and input use, the analysis based on dried shrimp found that most communities would be able to pay off their investment loan in less than 2 years.

Above: traditional sun-drying process of shrimp in Ayeyarwady Delta

Workshop Insights from Policy maker

A number of interesting insights arose during discussions and activities at the workshop. One observation made by a government participant was the need for more co-ordination and dialogue between government departments. There are multiple government departments which have jurisdiction over the Ayeyarwady Delta, often with significant overlap and conflicting policies and procedures. A possible solution to this problem was based on a delegate’s personal experience. They highlighted the need to firstly locate the conservation area, then discuss with other departments to consolidate laws and enforcement.

Another interesting insight relates to attendees’ perceptions of different management types (e.g. BAU, MRRP, VWs, CFUG). There was a broad understanding that BAU is untenable for mangrove landscape restoration, especially in regards to livelihoods and mangrove restoration. However, there was a recognition that it provides some beneficial employment opportunities though some of these are unsustainable or illegal.

Participants generally had positive perceptions on MRRP, CFUG and VWs. Despite the beneficial nature of VWs in terms of participation, conservation and job creation, the survey revealed on average a larger preference towards MRRP and CFUG by participants. In particular, this was displayed in the results in the livelihood and mangrove restoration sections.

This prompts the need for further advocacy on the benefits of inclusive and democratic institutions based off the principle of free, prior and informed consent of local stakeholders. This message should focus on the weakness of government management of forest reserves (MRRP) in order to convince the government to allocate more mangrove habitat to CFUGs and VWs for management. In all, the workshop was a success as it progressed the green growth agenda in the Ayeyarwady Delta.

Above: Group activity during workshop

The post 3Returns Blog appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The greatest marathon runner in the world, Eliud Kipchoge, is keeping a video diary for the BBC while he is self-isolating.

By Ifeanyi Nsofor
ABUJA, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

Coronavirus is now a pandemic and the World Health Organization considers Europe as its new epicenter. Italy, Spain and France are on lockdown and several nations are banning travelers from countries where cases are on the rise.

But it’s a problem beyond Europe too, and governments in 61 countries have closed schools to slow the spread of the virus. In the U.S., President Trump recently declared a national emergency after the virus had spread to nearly every U.S. state, and he urged state governments to set up emergency operation centers immediately.

Most of these measures occurred after a significant number of cases were documented. In contrast, Nigeria, where I am based, has shown a remarkable level of preparedness and response to the Coronavirus pandemic even with just 12 cases diagnosed.

These efforts are led by the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Nigeria’s past experiences of quickly responding to the 2014 Ebola outbreak and continuously responding to other infectious diseases such as Lassa fever, have strengthened its health security capacity. Consequently, there are lessons that other countries can learn from Nigeria’s response to Coronavirus.

Nigeria’s past experiences of quickly responding to the 2014 Ebola outbreak and continuously responding to other infectious diseases such as Lassa fever, have strengthened its health security capacity. Consequently, there are lessons that other countries can learn from Nigeria’s response to Coronavirus

First, invest in epidemic preparedness before an outbreak occurs. The Director-General of NCDC, Chikwe Ihekweazu believes that nations should build systems in ‘peace time’ that can be used during outbreaks. Working with subnational governments and partners, the NCDC since 2017 have been supporting Nigerian States to set up Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOCs).

At the last count, 23 States in Nigeria have set up PHEOCs. The PHEOCs serve as an epidemic intelligent hub for effective communication and efficient resource management during any outbreak. Therefore, the U.S. should have set up PHEOCs long before this Coronavirus pandemic.

Second, be open and transparent about Coronavirus cases. The index Coronavirus case recorded in Nigeria was reported within 48 hours of the Italian arriving Nigeria. The federal minister of health, NCDC and the Lagos state commissioner of health did not waste time informing Nigerians.

They have also continuously followed that with regular updates. The NCDC now has a microsite to provide regular updates to Nigerians and the international community. Other information available on the microsite are videos on risk reduction and summaries of the global Coronavirus situation report.

Third, invest in laboratory diagnoses of Coronavirus. Within weeks after the Coronavirus outbreak began, NCDC, with the support of partners, upgraded four of its reference laboratories to diagnose Coronavirus.

This led to quick diagnosis of the Italian despite his falling ill in a neighboring state to Lagos. These reference laboratories are located strategically around the country, so that delays in moving samples are reduced.

Fourth, the highest political will is imperative for epidemic preparedness. In 2018, after 7 years of operating without a legal backing, the NCDC was legalized through a bill signed into law by President Buhari.

This action puts NCDC in its rightful place as the national public health institute, with the mandate to lead the preparedness, detection and response to infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies. President Buhari backed the legal mandate with an approval for NCDC to receive 2.5% of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund – a funding mechanism designed to improve primary health care in Nigeria. This is unprecedented in the history of health security in Nigeria.

Likewise, some Nigerian legislators are advocating for increased funding for epidemic preparedness. For instance, the chairpersons of Nigeria’s senate committees on health and primary health care/communicable diseases have been advocating for increased budgetary allocation to NCDC.

Without a doubt, health security is an area that Nigeria’s executive and legislature agree. With hindsight, the U.S. should not have cut its Centres for Disease Control’s budget by 20% in 2018.

Fifth, pay attention to what is happening outside of one’s own country. Infectious diseases do not respect borders. Perhaps the most important lesson we should learn from Nigeria’s response to the Coronavirus is what Chikwe Ihekweazu said when he was interviewed by an international media outlet; “The concept of every country trying to look only within its own borders is completely, mindbogglingly, a waste of everybody’s time”.

To be sure, Nigeria is currently dealing with its largest Lassa fever outbreak, attempting to rebuild its health system and still requires more funds to prepare for the next epidemic. However, NCDC has shown what is possible in reducing the impact of a virus with accountable leadership, use of science for decision-making and ensuring value for money in epidemic preparedness.

Chikwe Ihekweazu’s admonition on borderless approach in responding to infectious disease outbreaks is very important because as far as global health security is concerned, the world is as prepared as its weakest link.

Other countries do not have to reinvent the wheel in managing this Coronavirus pandemic. Nigeria has succeeded in containing Coronavirus and is willing to share lessons learnt.

 

The post Lessons from Nigeria in Responding to Coronavirus appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Dr. Ifeanyi Nsofor is a medical doctor, the CEO of EpiAFRIC, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Nigeria Health Watch

The post Lessons from Nigeria in Responding to Coronavirus appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Primary School students in Grenada are seen here working together to promote awareness on water conservation on World Water Day. Credit: Global Water Partnership

By Inge Kaul
BERLIN, Germany, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

Water is essential and indispensable for life on earth. We know that; and many of us have perhaps heard, written and uttered these words themselves a ‘million’ times.

Therefore, I am astonished and increasingly worried about the relatively low-level of attention and priority accorded to water at the practical-political level.

Certainly, quite some attention has been paid to increasing people’s access to safe drinking water and sanitation services; and important progress has been achieved in this respect.

However, what will happen to this achievement, in the case of water scarcity – when pipes run dry? For many people and countries, an estimated one quarter of the world’s population, dried-up water pipes are not only a hypothetical risk but already reality.

Analysts warn that the spillovers from water scarcity can be serious and many.

Agricultural and industrial production, mining and transport could, for example, be disrupted, economic growth falter, social tensions, conflict and, even, war be funneled, leading, in turn, to swelling flows of internal displacement and international migration. Importantly, while some spillovers may ‘just’ be of local, national or regional reach others will be worldwide. Just think of the high volume of so-called virtual water trade.

About 40% of Europe’s water footprint is virtual water, i.e. water embedded in imported goods, including goods from water-stressed countries.

Clearly, water stress is a global challenge. It concerns us all, current and future human generations, animals and plants – the planet as a whole.

Given these facts and figures, isn’t it odd that policymakers tend to treat water as, what I call, a second-tier policy issue, i.e.: as a good (thing) that matters, because it is needed for the production of desired first-tier policy outcomes, such as wheat, maize, avocados, bananas, cotton (including cotton clothes), urban development and road construction, lithium mining, or swimming pools and other spa-facilities?

Water as an input is in high demand. Many need it; and forward-looking investors have already obtained water-use rights. Not only land-grabbing but water-grabbing, too, could soon intensify, as global warming proceeds.

But global warming is only one driver of water scarcity besides population growth and increasingly water-intensive production and consumption patterns. Water, too, is a most complex good and, importantly, one that is available only in limited supply, even if we manage its use carefully.

All the more to govern it efficiently and equitable so that it can meet to basic conditions viz. (i) be there for all and (ii) be used sustainably.

However, who is in charge of water at the national and international levels? Where is the global intergovernmental water forum mandated to address water as a global policy issue in its own right and complexity – a first-tier issue?

And who would be the national counterparts of this global intergovernmental water forum?

My impression is that we urgently need to build a global water architecture that deals with the various national and international, public and private facets of water in a comprehensive and integrated manner and is endowed with competencies and resources commensurate with water’s essential role for life on earth.

Therefore, on 22 March, this year’s World Water Day, let’s not just pour out more nice words about water as a human right or that progress towards SDG 6 should be scaled-up and accelerated. We said it all before. Let’s shift policy gears and translate words into deeds!

This year’s Water Day is the 27th! In three years, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of this Day which was proclaimed in 1992 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and observed, for the first time, in 1993.

Therefore, my recommendation to concerned UN Member States, civil society and business is: Please, do consider requesting the UN Secretary-General to establish a small special commission on water security to hold worldwide multi-actor and stakeholder consultations on national and international water governance, report on its findings in the autumn of 2021 so that delegations have time in 2022 to prepare for a high-level debate and decision-making on a new global water governance architecture in 2023 –in honor of the 30th World Water Day.

Aren’t you, too, thirsting for water security, for doing first things first?

The post Thirsting for Water Security? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

This article is to commemorate World Water Day on March 22

 
Inge Kaul is Senior Fellow, Hertie School, Berlin and Non-resident Senior Fellow, center for Global development, Washington, DC. Comments are welcome and can be sent to: contact@ingekaul.net

The post Thirsting for Water Security? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

In Iran, which has seen some of the highest COVID-19 infection and death rates in the world, a number of reporters are now facing jail after being detained earlier this month for challenging official statistics about the outbreak of the disease in the country. People in Rasht, Gilan Province, Iran, taking precautions to prevent infection by wearing masks in public. unsplash-logomojtaba mosayebzadeh

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

Growing intimidation and repression of journalists reporting on the coronavirus is threatening public health in some countries, press freedom monitors have warned.

Repressive regimes desperate to control the narrative around the disease’s spread have stepped up their harassment of journalists challenging official information on cases and their handling of the outbreak, they say.

And by cracking down on those trying to report accurately on the disease, these regimes are jeopardising the dissemination of essential facts the population may need to keep themselves safe, the groups argue.

“When the truth is repressed, everyone’s lives are put in danger, not just journalists,’” Robert Mahoney, deputy executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), told IPS.

Since the emergence of the disease at the end of last year in China and its subsequent transformation into a global pandemic, there have been growing concerns over the treatment of reporters covering virus outbreaks in some states.

In China, there have been reports of local journalists who criticised the government’s response to the virus being harassed by security forces. Some have even vanished, presumed taken by police and detained in an unknown location.

Meanwhile, last month, three Wall Street Journal reporters were expelled from China over an article about the impact of the virus on the Chinese economy. And just this week 13 journalists working for The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post had their credentials revoked by Chinese authorities.

Beijing said this followed United States authorities’ tightening of rules for Chinese media outlets operating in the country, but the editors of the three newspapers all condemned the decision. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said it was “especially irresponsible at a time when the world needs the free and open flow of credible information about the coronavirus pandemic”.

But it is not just China where journalists are facing problems for not toeing the government line.

In Iran, which has seen some of the highest COVID-19 infection and death rates in the world, a number of reporters are now facing jail after being detained earlier this month for challenging official statistics about the outbreak of the disease in the country.

Fardin Moustafai, the editor of a news channel on the Telegram instant messaging app, was this month formally charged with publishing figures contradicting official information about the epidemic’s progress, according to press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

It says two journalists were detained for questioning in Rasht, one of the Iranian cities worst hit by the disease, after publishing information about the situation in the city and the number of victims while four journalists were questioned over official information about the epidemic.

Reza Moisi, head of the Afghanistan-Iran Desk at RSF, told IPS that some journalists who had been brought in for questioning over their reporting will now stand trial and could face jail sentences.

He said though that the regime’s approach to such journalists would “do nothing to help combat the coronavirus epidemic, quite the contrary.”

“The repression of press freedom in Iran is systematic and therefore the control of information there is implacable. This repression targets journalists, of course, but also the public’s right to be informed. Researchers and journalists themselves have said this is one reason why situations, especially in a crisis, worsen.

“In the current crisis, the concealment of information and lack of complete and independent information has clearly put the population in danger,” he said.

The crackdown on journalists in Iran, and in other places such as China, is little surprise, said Mahoney.

“We have seen journalists face repression in places like China and Iran in the past. There are governments which want to control the narrative when something embarrassing, something they appear to be dealing badly with, or has got out of their control, like a pandemic, happens,” he said.

“The apparatus of censorship is already in place, this is just another time that it has been turned on to control the flow of information,” he added.

But concerns over the press’s ability to report accurately on the crisis are not confined solely to countries seen to have repressive regimes.

In the U.S., for instance, there has been criticism about the way the White House has informed about the disease. Critics say there has been a litany of scientifically baseless, false, misleading or confusing statements from President Donald Trump and other officials for months.

U.S. media also reported that Trump tried to have at least one health expert, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Centre for Immunisation and Respiratory Diseases, muzzled after she publicly contradicted the President’s statements and that the White House tried to gag health officials who wanted to warn elderly people to avoid air travel.

Officials have also openly attacked media for their reporting on COVID-19. At the end of last month, acting White House chief of staff David Mulvaney said the media was overplaying the dangers of the disease as a way to “bring down the president”.

Mahoney said that in situations where governments effectively bypass the press and speak directly to the people, or do not give them proper access to relevant officials and experts, incorrect or misleading information can end up being passed out to the population unchecked.

“Look at the US where the White House was telling people for weeks that the coronavirus was just like seasonal flu, and then suddenly it’s an emergency,” he said.

“The work journalists do in uncovering things, such as corruption or political scandals, is important but often does not have an immediate impact on normal people’s lives. But their work now has real-time consequences – it could be a matter of life and death. This is why journalists need to have, and be able to disseminate, correct information. If the truth is repressed, the correct information is not getting out,” he explained.

The importance of ensuring accurate information is relayed to not just the public but healthcare workers and scientists has recently been pointed out by health professionals.

Last month, dozens of public health scientists wrote in The Lancet medical journal of their concerns that misinformation about COVID-19 could be hindering efforts to contain the disease.

Previous studies, including on recent Ebola outbreaks on Africa, have shown that misinformation can worsen infectious disease outbreaks.

To this end, governments around the world have taken action to stop the spread of hoaxes and fake news about the disease. Some of this has been drastic, including criminalisation and long jail terms for people found guilty of posting or sharing misinformation about the virus and its spread.

This has led to fears that in some countries these measures are being used to silence critical voices, including journalists.

In China alone, as of February 21, China’s Ministry of Public Security had registered more than 5,500 cases of people “fabricating and deliberately disseminating false and harmful information”.

In Malaysia, for example, dozens of people, including a journalist, have been arrested for allegedly spreading false information about the virus via social media. There have been similar arrests across Asia, including in India, Thailand and Indonesia, in recent weeks.

Moiri told IPS that in Iran, more than 130 people have been arrested since the end of February for publishing false information. “Not all these people are journalists, but many of them are probably citizen journalists who have published something that contradicts official information,” he said.

Journalism experts have cast doubt over the effectiveness and motivations behind such measures.

Lynette Leonard, Associate Professor at the Journalism and Mass Communication Department of the American University in Bulgaria, told IPS: “Censorship is always a concern even with ‘fake news’. There is rarely a clear way of distinguishing the political goals of criminalising information dissemination from public health goals.

“Fake news, the intentional spread of false information to gain influence or power, is a real problem but the term has been manipulated so much that any legislation that is enacted quickly will likely lack the precise definitions needed to be useful in the fight [against it].”

With no end expected to the pandemic anytime soon, it is unclear what further threats journalists in some countries will face for challenging their governments’ handling of the crisis.

But in at least one country they are unlikely to be effective in completely suppressing critical reporting.

During a string of crises over the last year, including floods in March 2019, popular protests last November, the shooting down of a Ukrainian airliner in in February, and now the coronavirus outbreak, the regime has made increasing use of censorship and repression, particularly to control the population, according to Moisi.

“But the question is, will the Islamic Republic of Iran win this war on information? The country’s recent history shows that repression and imprisonment have not kept journalists quiet,” he said.

Related Articles

• Why Nigeria Knows Better How to Fight Corona Than the US
• Why Rich Countries must Protect Developing Nations from Coronavirus Pandemic
• Could the Coronavirus Be a Biological Weapon in the Not-Too-Distant Future?

The post Harassment of Journalists Jeopardises Keeping Public Safe amid Coronavirus Pandemic appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By IPS International Desk
NEW YORK, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

For Dr Edna Adan Ismail maternal health and midwifery is deeply personal. In an interview with Women Deliver Young Leader Musu Bakoto Sawo, Ismail recalls her mother’s devasting experiences which impacted on her own life’s choices.

Dr. Edna Adan Ismail

“As detailed in my memoir, ‘A Woman of Firsts,’ my own parents lost two of their five children because of poor maternal and child health services in my country,” the former Somaliland Foreign Minister and founder of Edna Adan Hospital says.

“My mother lost one baby to a forceps delivery when a Caesarean section could have saved the foetus that had become impacted in her narrow bony pelvis.”

Several years later her parents lost a second baby who was “delivered alive but was then accidentally dropped by the untrained midwife who had delivered it. The newborn fell on his head and died instantly.”

Because of this tragedy, midwifery became her lifelong passion.

When Ismail returned from the UK to Somaliland as the country’s first qualified nurse-midwife, she found herself faced with a myriad of problems during pregnancy and childbirth. These were due to education, poverty, unemployment and because of the damage caused by female genital mutilation (FGM).

Women also did not have a political voice.

These conditions led her to a lifetime of activism which led to the setting up of women’s organisations which could put pressure on the government and political parties. Working for the World Health Organisation also helped in spreading the word.

“What really inspires me today is how far we have come but also how far we still have to go to achieve our goal of equal human rights for all,” Ismail says.

The distance to needed to travel was starkly highlighted in WHO’s “Cost Calculator” released earlier this year. The organisation estimated that FGM incurs a massive economic cost of about for $1.4 billion annually treating health complications arising out of FGM practices. This is based on 27 countries on its dataset.

“I know many battles have been won during the past 42 years and the fact that the world knows about it is proof that our message has been heard,” she says.

“Sadly, however, little girls are still cut, damaged and killed all because of this cruel tradition that has no place in the world. While every action that saves even one child is good, we should broaden our campaigners and now include college and university students who are the parents of tomorrow.”

Women Deliver Young Leader Sawo agrees there is no easy solution to FGM.

“In my experience in The Gambia, there is sometimes a gap between the laws, knowledge and practice, whereby existing laws to combat FGM or knowledge of the negative health consequences of FGM do not always influence the exercise of this practice within communities,” Sawo says, pointing out that there “instances where gaps in the law create minimal protection of women and girls from FGM.”

Ismail acknowledges this but says: “I know many battles have been won during the past 42 years and the fact that the world knows about it is proof that our message has been heard.”

“Sadly, however, little girls are still cut, damaged and killed all because of this cruel tradition that has no place in the world. While every action that saves even one child is good, we should broaden our campaigners and now include college and university students who are the parents of tomorrow.”

Ismail advocates for fathers and young leaders to become involved in the fight against FGM. “We strongly wish for and welcome the support of fathers whose daughters are the ones who are being damaged to the point that they may not be able to one day give them the grandchildren every parent wishes for,” Ismail says.

The solution to saving the young girls, is, however, for society to take a stand. Parents, traditional and religious leaders, legislators, activists, and women’s organisation tall have a role to play.

“Passing a law alone will not be enough, and at the end of the day, we cannot put all our mothers and grandmothers in jail. Legislation that punishes the one who performs FGM is the kind of legislation that I would like to see.”

Young people’s voice in this is vital – and Ismail is adamant that within her university, all must take a stand against it.

“In my university … every student must have a course on the harmful effects of FGM and every student must make a public statement condemning FGM. Any student who does not wish to do this cannot remain in my university.”

It’s been more than 25 years after the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD. Governments and civil society are in the process of developing ambitious programmes of action for the next decade to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

As an African woman, who is a health practitioner and a gender equality activist, Ismail wishes to see “concrete actions that prioritise the health and rights of girls and women.”

While organisations and governments left the 2019 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Nairobi motivated to achieve the development goals for women and girls, is task not going to be an easy one.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), puts the cost of delivering Sustainable Development Goal #5 on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls over the next decade at $264 billion, with $683 million needed to address sexual and reproductive health services for women and girls in conflict areas.

For Ismail and her interviewer Sawo young people in particular have a critical role to play.

“Become better educated, study the issue thoroughly, develop your strategies collectively, make your voices heard as a group and through written articles, research results for publication and discussions in the local media and journals,” Ismail says.

Most of all Ismail’s message is:
“Learn what works from others and share with them what has worked for you. Never give up!”

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

The post Never Give up on Women’s Rights – Edna Ismail appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 20 2020 (IPS)

The devastating spread of the deadly coronavirus across every continent– with the exception of Antarctica– has triggered a conspiracy theory on social media: what if the virus was really a biological weapon?

And more specifically, was it an experimental weapon that accidentally escaped from a laboratory in China?

Or as others contend, is it a weapon surreptitiously introduced to de-stabilize a country with more than 1.4 billion people and described as the world’s second largest economy, after the United States.

Both narratives are considered false, and probably part of a deliberate disinformation campaign, according to military experts.

Still, in the US, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has repeated the charge that the virus was a creation of the Chinese military while others source it to North Korea.

And US President Donald Trump has been roundly condemned for “a racist remark” after describing the deadly disease as “a Chinese virus.”

But one hard fact remains: the potentially destructive power of biological weapons, which were banned by an international convention, going back to 1975.

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates predicted in a TED talk in 2015: “If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it is likely to be a highly infectious virus, rather than a war.”

They will not be missiles, he warned, but microbes.

And two years later, according to GeekWire, Gates repeated the same warning at a side event during the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos: “It’s pretty surprising how little preparedness there is for it,” Gates was quoted as saying in 2017.

Addressing the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Seattle last month, Gates said the impact of COVID-19 could be “very, very dramatic,” particularly if it spreads to areas like sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.

Meanwhile, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has pledged about $100 million to fight the virus, “as part of its broader efforts in global health”.

Dr Filippa Lentzos

Dr Filippa Lentzos, Associate Senior Researcher, Armament and Disarmament Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS a biological weapon comprises a biological agent and a delivery mechanism.

In theory, she pointed out, any virus could be used as a weapon, but historically some agents have been viewed as more effective than others, e.g. anthrax, brucellosis, Q fever, tularaemia, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, glanders, plague, Marburg virus disease and smallpox.

She pointed out that much will depend on what ends or purpose the weapons are being used for.

“In terms of the coronavirus, there would no longer be a surprise factor, and resistance to the virus may in future have been built up, though the jury is still out on that one”.

As of March 19, the coronavirus has accounted for over 208,000 positive cases worldwide and over 8,700 deaths—and rising.

In the United States, there have been 49 deaths so far, and over 10,000 positive cases of the spreading virus.

The New York Times of March 18 cites a study by Imperial College, London, which estimates the virus can kill over 250,000 in the UK and more than a million in the US –- “unless officials took action to slow its spread.”

Asked if there are any countries identified as still manufacturing or hoarding biological weapons despite their ban, Dr Lentzos said over the past 100 years, about 25 countries are believed to have possessed a biological weapons programme for some period of time.

“Most programmes were of a short duration. They were small and developed limited, unsophisticated capabilities”.

Credit: United Nations

Only two countries are known to have had sophisticated capabilities that could inflict mass casualties or extensive economic harm: the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia), said Dr Lentzos, who is also a Senior Research Fellow at King’s College London and a biosecurity columnist at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Today, she said, “there is limited public information on possible illicit biological weapons activity. The main concern today is not really that countries have offensive biological warfare programmes, but that they are building dual use capabilities.”

https://thebulletin.org/2018/07/darpas-prepare-program-preparing-for-what/

Asked about the use of biological weapons as part of germ warfare during World War I, she said there was some covert use by Germany during World War I to infect horses with biological agents to block their use by Allied military forces.

“In World War II, there were substantial covert attacks on China by Japan, as well as some clandestine use in Europe against Germany. There has been very limited known use since 1945”, said Dr Lentzos, who is also an Associate Editor of the journal BioSocieties, and the NGO Coordinator for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is a legally binding treaty that outlaw biological arms.

Opened for signature on April 10, 1972, the BWC entered into force on March 26, 1975. It currently has 182 states-parties. Ten states have neither signed nor ratified the BWC, including Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Kiribati, Micronesia, Namibia, South Sudan and Tuvalu.

*Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group.

The post Could the Coronavirus Be a Biological Weapon in the Not-Too-Distant Future? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Jude Ikuenobe was falsely accused on social media of using a Covid-19 patient to extort money.

A selection of the best photos from across the continent this week.

Jude Ikuenobe was falsely accused on social media of using a Covid-19 patient to extort money.

The post Young People Bring Solar Energy to Schools in the Argentine Capital appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Australian Catherine Hamlin helped women treated like "modern-day lepers" after giving birth.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM / ROME, Mar 19 2020 (IPS)

The human factor is intimately involved in the origin, spread, and mitigation of the Coronavirus and we cannot afford to ignore that our future existence depends on compassion and cooperation. Response matters!

Some quarantined Italians might recall Giovanni Boccaccio´s The Decameron from 1353 in which people escaping the plague are secluded in a villa where they tell stories to each other. Boccaccio introduced his collection of short stories with an eyewitness account of horrifying human suffering in Florence, which in 1348 was struck by a ”pestilence” that every day ”grew in strength” while it swept relentlessly on from one place to another. In the face of its onrush all the wisdom and ingenuity of man were unavailing. Large quantities of refuse were cleared out of the city by officials appointed for the purpose, all sick persons were forbidden entry, and numerous instructions were issued for safeguarding the people´s health, but all to no avail […] it seemed that all the advice of physicians and all the power of medicine were profitless and unavailing. Perhaps the nature of the illness was such that it allowed no remedy: or perhaps those people who were treating the illness […] being ignorant of its causes, were not prescribing the appropriate cure.1

Boccaccio describes the Black Death as a natural phenomenon and it was common to consider epidemic outbreaks as an inevitable scourge beyond human control. In the mid-1400s the Black Death killed between thirty and eighty percent of Europe’s population. It was not spread by a virus, but by a bacterium nurtured within a flea, that fed on the Black Rat. Everything indicates that the plague’s rapid spread was supported by human action. By the beginning of the 1330s Mongolian armies attacked the Chinese Yuan Empire. During three years following the Mongol conquest, the plague decimated the population of the Hebei Province by ninety percent. Five million people died, while millions fled from the misery caused by war and disease. The plague rapidly expanded throughout Asia, almost simultaneously with the conquering Mongolians. It reached Europe with Genoese galleys arriving in Italy in 1347. They came from the port of Kaffa on the Crimean Peninsula, which had been captured and looted by the Mongolian Ulug Ulus, the Golden Horde.

Even more devastating than the Black Death were diseases that Europeans and Africans, together with cows, pigs and poultry, after 1492 brought with them to the American continent. Millions of people succumbed to viral diseases such as influenza, smallpox, chickenpox, and hepatitis. The effect was generally syndemic, i.e. several diseases coincided to infect and kill people. However, in the mid-1500s the bacterial disease salmonella singlehandedly killed eighty percent of Mexico’s population, which already had been decimated by syndemic epidemics, the disease returned 25 years later killing half of those who had escaped its first attack.

Between 1600 and 1650 malaria and yellow fever, carried by parasites brought by the slave trade, decimated large populations in South America. During the 1700- and 1800s, smallpox killed 80 percent of the indigenous populations in North America.

What made the situation in the Americas unique was that indigenous populations rarely recovered from the pandemics. In Europe, the economy and public health were generally boosted after ravages of epidemic diseases. Due to reduced labour supply, farmers and workers were generally treated better than before the onslaught of a pandemic. The shock effect of mass death made people aware of the importance of cooperation and respect to make life more bearable for their fellow beings. On the contrary, in the Americas, indigenous peoples and imported slaves continued to be treated ruthlessly and their numbers were further decimated by deliberate extinction and inhuman oppression.

The three most deadly plagues recorded by history were the Justinian Plague, which in the mid 500s CE killed an estimated 30 million people, the Black Death and the so-called Third Plague Pandemic, which during the second half of the 19th century killed at least twelve million in China and India. Just like other pandemics the Third Pandemic was worsened by human behaviour and triggered several social upheavals. The natural reservoir of the Third Pandemic was located in southern China. Like the current nCoV-2019, bats were probably infected with the disease, while other kinds of mammals served as intermediate hosts between bats and humans. The plague erupted after Han Chinese had been brought into Western Yunnan to exploit mineral deposits. Returning miners spread the plague to urban centres, while the outbreak helped to recruit desperate and uprooted people to the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1863). Taiping means ”general equality” and was to a great extent a reaction to repression from Imperial Government. Most sources estimate the number of deaths during the rebellion to have been between 20 and 30 million, most of them attributed to plague and famine.2

The plague was brought from Hong Kong to British India, where it in a short time killed at least 10 million and subsequently killed millions more until it abated after thirty years. Colonial Government measures to control the disease included quarantine, isolation camps, and travel restrictions, all enforced by the British military. By 1899, it was apparent that the use of force to implement plague regulations had been counter-productive. Public reactions to the health measures had revealed how medical interventions had been forged by a colonial mentality making a difference between people according to class and ethnicity, thus triggering several revolts and inspiring independence movements.3

Plagues are caused by bacteria, Yersinia pestis, while influenza is spread by a virus. However, both diseases generally originate in rodents, or bats, spreading the disease to other mammals, which transmit it to humans. The worst recorded influenza pandemic is the Spanish Flu, which agonized the entire world by the end of World War I and during a year following the final truce. Tightly-knit groups in trenches and barracks, or during troop transports spread the virus at great speed. Spain was not harder hit than most other European nations, but since this nation did not participate in the war and furthermore had better health control than most other countries, the flu epidemic could be ascertained and tracked, while containment was enforced earlier than in other nations. The pandemic raged at its worst between March 1918 and June 1920, reaching Inuit in the Arctic and Polynesians in the Pacific. The Spanish Flu became the pandemic known to have killed most humans in the shortest time. In twenty-five months, it killed three to six percent of the world population. Human suffering was terrifying. Symptoms were gruesome, lack of oxygen from infected lungs gave faces of the sick a blue tinge, hemorrhages filled their lungs with blood, causing uncontrollable vomiting and nosebleeds with victims drowning in their own fluids. Families were decimated and many orphans were left to die since people were afraid of taking care of them. Just as now, several authorities were for political reasons reluctant to act, thus hastening and widening the spread of the disease.4

Humans are undoubtedly involved in the original extension of the current pandemic. Like many other influenza viruses, nCoV-2019 probably originates in bats. The virus transmitting animal was likely the endangered pangolin, which meat is in many places in South East Asia considered to be a delicacy, while its scales are erroneously assumed to be a remedy for rheumatism. The pangolin is an anteater and may have been infected by insects feeding on dead bats.

After causing the pandemic, humanity has now entered phase two – trying to mitigate its spread and treat those who have been smitten by it. Let us hope that nCoV-2019 will not bring so much misery and death as the Spanish Flu. We live in different times and can now see the actual virus through electron microscopes, researchers can isolate it and establish its genetic sequence, test antiviral drugs and develop vaccines. People can be tested and respirators provided for those in a critical state of infection. Furthermore, we can count upon experiences from earlier epidemics. However, preparedness for a looming pandemic has proven to be utterly deficient. Test kits are lacking. There are not sufficient beds and respirators for moribund patients. Protective gear for hospital staff is insufficient and even missing. Lonely people are isolated in their homes, while information is inadequate and even contradictory. Patients with other ailments than influenza are blocked from medical care. In short – social services, our entire society, are actually badly prepared to cope with an ever worsening situation.

Scientific findings and medical resources have to be implemented and mobilized by decision-makers. Several highly influential politicians have nevertheless, due to ignorance, prestige and political deliberations, allowed critical time to pass before ordering the deployment of necessary measures to attack a ruthless killer like nCoV-2019. Some of them have even had the audacity to bamboozle us with obvious lies and stupidities. People are currently dying and suffering from the ineptness of such elected leaders who are supposed to be servants of the people. If they do not react in time we have to force them to do so and not accept their indifference to human suffering. We all have to support the battle against nCoV-2019 – #StayAtHome.

1 Boccaccio, Giovanni (2003) The Decamaron. London: Penguin Classics.
2 Spence, Jonathan D. (1996) God´s Chinese Son: The Taiping Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan. New York: W.W. Norton.
3 An analysis of the interaction between humans and plagues is provided by McNeill, William H. (1998) Plagues and Peoples. New York: Anchor Books.
4 Deadliest Plague of the 20th century, the Spanish Flu of 1918. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDY5COg2P2c

The post Plagues and People – The Coronavirus in a Historical Perspective appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The continent has a low number of confirmed Covid-19 cases, but is warned to prepare for the worst.

By Vladimir Popov and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
BERLIN and KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 19 2020 (IPS)

It is now clear that most East Asian government responses to novel coronavirus or Covid-19 outbreaks have been effective. In Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, the number infected have remained relatively low despite their proximity and vulnerability, while containment in China and South Korea has been impressive.

Vladimir Popov

Some other countries hit by the Covid-19 pandemic are trying to replicate East Asian policy responses, not only in public health, but also in handling economic contraction. More than two decades after the 1997-1998 Asian financial crises, some media are praising East Asia again.

Structural recession?
The contraction is largely due to the government lockdowns to ensure ‘social distancing’ to check the spread of the virus. Mainstream economists call this a structural or supply side recession, to be overcome by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy, predicted to trigger higher inflation.

Less work has reduced incomes and hence demand. To make matters worse, share price collapses have also reduced wealth income. The crisis also offers an opportunity to reallocate resources, among industries and services, or even spatially, from one region to another.

While the pandemic has hit some activities far more than others, e.g., travel, tourism, retail, events, restaurants, entertainment, schools, universities, etc., the crisis offers an opportunity to shift resources to activities of the future, e.g., renewable energy and care work, besides the urgent need to cope with public health emergencies and order.

But a quicker and more efficient solution is elimination of supply constraints by expediting or even mandatorily reallocating labour and finance. One analogy is the transition from manufacturing gramophone records to producing tape-recorders, CDs, DVDs, i-pods, and smart phones with better techniques. Another is the conversion of energy intensive industries into much more energy efficient operations.

Such structural changes are happening all the time, and should not cause recessions if gradual and small scale. But sudden, large scale structural shifts may be more disruptive as time and effort are needed to reallocate resources. Thus, output drops in declining industries are not immediately compensated by production increases in the emerging new industries.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

In a market economy, adjustments typically increase unemployment: industries that become less profitable, due to higher costs, may lay off workers; growing unemployment lowers wages, and it may take a while before the lower labour costs make it worthwhile to raise production in other industries.

Without government assistance to retrain laid off workers and encourage new investments, adjustment will be more painful, lengthy and costly. The recessions in Western countries following the oil price rises in 1973, 1979 and 2007 were due to poorly managed ‘structural shifts’.

Transformational recessions in post-communist economies in the 1990s also exemplify poor management of such structural shifts. In many countries, output reductions during such transitions were greater than in the US Great Depression of the 1930s.

Coping with recession
Managing structural shifts was generally more successful in East Asia as costs and benefits were generally better shared and governments have been less reluctant to intervene in markets and direct investment finance accordingly.

In China, production of protective masks increased from 15 million daily in early February to over 100 million every day by the end of month! Over 3000 enterprises that previously had nothing to do with health products started producing masks, special protective suits, sanitizers and hygiene goods.

The South Korean company Seegene developed a Covid-19 test kit in three weeks and started mass production with its 395 employees dropping all their other work to focus on making kits. Production of the company’s fifty or so other products temporarily ceased for two weeks. Molecular biologists with PhDs stopped research and development to work on the kit assembly line, as senior scientists packaged the kits.

In Western countries, similar examples can be seen in the conversion of industries to defence production during war. In most countries, state assistance has eased and accelerated such transitions. Increased defence procurement caused US economic growth to speed up after the 1937-38 recession to 17-20% annually during 1941-43.

Centrally planned economies were even better at quickly achieving structural shifts while maintaining full employment. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, just before and during the Second World War, the Soviet Union moved considerable resources from agriculture to industry, and from light to heavy industry, especially for defence.

In 1940, Germany produced twice as much steel and more armaments than the Soviet Union, but by 1943, the USSR had surpassed Germany in producing tanks, aircrafts and artillery, decisively changing the course of the war.

Eight decades later, Professor Jamie Galbraith has argued that there is “no acceptable alternative” to the US government covering the full costs of testing and treating Covid-19 cases, without exception and legal risk; to be effective, care should be universal and free of cost.

If the Covid-19 epidemic continues to spread quickly, the ability of countries to quickly redeploy resources will be crucial, not only for fighting the pandemic, but also to overcome the likely recession.

During the 2008-09 Great Recession, China’s huge fiscal stimulus package mitigated the economic slowdown. Its growth rate dropped from 14% in 2007 to 9% in 2009, as some other countries experienced their deepest post-war recessions, even contractions.

Betting only on market forces to do the necessary is not only slow, but also dangerous. The capacity to cope with the inevitable forthcoming slowdown will depend crucially on how governments manage resources to guide structural transitions.

This opinion draws on an earlier paper by Popov which can be read at:
https://doc-research.org/2020/03/how-to-deal-with-the-coronavirus-economic-recession-social-solidarity-and-state-intervention/

Vladimir Popov is a Research Director in the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute in Berlin.

The post State Intervention Necessary to Overcome Covid-19 Threats appeared first on Inter Press Service.