Transport corridors between major cities generally already exist, so investments in large projects, such as HSR, can be viewed as a means to reduce the cost of travelling (time and cost savings, reliability, comfort and externalities) with respect to the situation prevailing without the project. As the type of assets invested in HSR infrastructure is essentially irreversible and subject to cost and demand uncertainty, the optimal timing is a key economic issue.

The benefit-cost analysis of infrastructure requires an explicit consideration of pricing. The average fare to be charged is an important component of the generalized cost of travel. Producer costs (infrastructure and operation) are basically included in the generalized cost of traveling by road or air. This is not always the case with HSR. Railways are far from full cost recovery when infrastructure costs are included. Therefore, the decision on which kind of pricing principle is going to be followed for the calculation of railway fares is critical.

The Working Paper by de Rus tries to shed some light on the economic dimension of HSR investment decision, which not only affects the transport sector but has significant effects on the overall allocation of public resources.

The analysis shows that the case for investing in HSR requires several conditions to be met: an ex ante high volume of traffic in the corridor where the new line is built, significant time savings, high average willingness to pay of potential users, and the release of capacity in the conventional rail network and airports.

It is suggested that the economic rationale of spending public money on new HSR lines depends more on its capacity to alleviate road and airport congestion, and to release capacity for conventional rail where saturation exists, than in the pure direct benefits of time and cost savings and the net willingness to pay of generated demand. Therefore, the justification of investment in HSR is highly dependent on local conditions concerning airport capacity, rail and road network, and existing volumes of demand. Net environmental benefits are suggested as being insignificant in influencing the social desirability of HSR investment.

The UK case

In the UK proposal for a link between London and Birmingham, much of the justification comes from the fact that existing rail links are rapidly approaching saturation as rail passenger traffic continues to increase.

An interesting part of the debate is whether time cost savings should be included in economic calculations. Part of the 'benefits' in economic analysis are pricing of time 'saved' by shorter journey times, with the value put on this time saving depending on whether the passenger is a leisure or business traveller, and the seat class they are in.

The case for HS2 depends partly on the idea that time spent on the train is unproductive, so that if you can make the journey shorter there will be big productivity gains for the economy.

The government document setting out the cost/benefit analysis puts the value of that time saving at £7.3bn by 2043 for the section running from London to Birmingham. But as pointed out by columnists on the BBC and Forbes, business travellers can spend any time on a train working on their laptops and smartphones, so that rather than being unproductive the train journey can be as productive as time in the office.

The first phase of the HSR development in the UK will cost £17bn, and cut the journey time from London to Birmingham to 49 minutes by 2026. The entire cost of the project - including a second phase Y-shaped section extending to Manchester and Leeds, by 2033 - is expected to be £32bn.

The government argues the project will generate £44bn of benefits to the economy over 60 years. In future decades, the line could be extended further north to Scotland. Business leaders in Birmingham and Manchester, and a number of trade union leaders have spoken out in favour.

"As representatives of workers across the rail industries, we welcome the thousands of construction and engineering jobs that HS2 will immediately bring to the UK economy, as well as the jobs it will create in the long-term within the rail industry," said union leaders in a letter to the Guardian newspaper. "The creation of one million long-term British jobs outside of the south-east rely on the building of HS2."

Opponents of the scheme claim that HSR will fail to bring the economic benefits promised by the government, and that the money would be better spent on improving existing lines. Network Rail says that alternative proposals to upgrade the existing railways would be too costly and disruptive. See the links below for more information on the arguments, and to access the full Working Paper by de Rus.

Reference

The BCA of HSR: Should the government invest in high speed rail infrastructure? Ginés de Rus, November 2011. Documento de Trabajo 2011-12.

External links

Department for Transport's assessment of the economic case (PDF file)

Institute of Economic Affairs critique of UK's HSR plans

BBC business reporter analysis of cost and benefit debate

Climate change is undeniably happening and it is expected to hit poorer and developing countries the hardest. It is well known now that its effects, such as higher temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, rising sea levels and more frequent weather-related disasters pose risks for agriculture, food and water supplies. All organizations, large and small, are getting involved on the fight to stop climate change through mitigation and adaptation. Read on to see details of an Apps for Climate Competition, launched by the World Bank, that aims to bring together the best ideas from scientists, application developers, civil society organizations and development practitioners to develop innovative apps using World Bank data.

The competition challenges scientists, software developers, development practitioners and others to develop software applications related to climate change. The applications should serve to raise awareness, measure progress, or to help in some other way to address the development challenges of climate change. Submissions may be any kind of software application, be it for the web, a personal computer, a mobile handheld device, console, SMS, or any software platform widely available to the public. The only other requirement is that the proposed application use one or more datasets from the World Bank Data Catalogue available at data.worldbank.org or the Climate Change Knowledge Portal at climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org.

Apps For Climate is open to individuals, teams, and organizations.  Winners will receive cash prizes (First Prize - $15,000 USD; Second Prize - $10,000 USD and Third Prize - $5,000 USD ) and have their application featured by the World Bank.  The submission deadline is March 16th, 2012, and winners will be announced in June 2012.

More information, including criteria, official rules, and updates is available at http://worldbank.org/appsforclimate or on Twitter at #app4climate.

Link to resources page for developers, contestants, bloggers, journalists, etc.

A changing climate is expected to impact the global hydrological cycle and vary the patterns of supply and demand of water for agriculture, which is the main user of freshwater, and affect the world’s food resources. An article in the Guardian online says that “massive droughts affected some of the world's richest and poorest communities. The worst drought in 60 years affected more than 10 million people and led to the death of thousands of people and millions of animals in Somalia and the Horn of Africa.” Droughts are a clear example of what changes in the hydrological cycle can do. An FAO report summarizes current knowledge of the anticipated impacts of climate change on water availability for agriculture and examines the implications for local and national food security. The report is aimed at helping policy makers and planners to frame their adaptation responses when considering both the water variable in agriculture and the competing demands from other users. 

The world population reached 7 billion in 2011, which will also mean an added pressure to food and water resources, and talking about billions, the Worldwatch Institute published a press release on Wednesday showing how in some parts of the world, close to one billion people go hungry, while over one billion ton of food is wasted in other parts, especially this time of the year, when food is an important part of the Christmas tradition. Over one billion people are overweight while close to one billion are undernourished. Clearly, we’re already living in a world where extremes are becoming the norm. I will try and not over-do it during the Christmas holidays, by buying and cooking just enough food to feed the family and avoid throwing anything away. I don't want to add to the billion ton of waste food!

Season’s greetings from all of us at CABI's handpicked and carefully sorted team! 

There were a few clashes between the European Union (EU) and developing countries. At one point during the talks, Connie Hedegarrd, the EU Climate Change Commissioner, said she was prepared to offer developing countries the prize they had sought for many years – a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the only treaty that commits rich countries to cut greenhouse gases. But the price of the offer was for all nations to agree to be "legally bound" to a new agreement by 2020. The Guardian report on the conference said there were cheers as she said: "We need clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period to the Kyoto protocol. We don't ask too much of the world that after this second period all countries will be legally bound."

India’s Environment Minister’s reply was “Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the EU 'roadmap' contains? I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible for climate change. I am told that India will be blamed. Please do not hold us hostage." He was backed by China, who asked what qualifies the EU to tell them what to do. The Venezuelans, represented by their Ambassador, was also against the UN and accused them of ignoring the views of developing countries and said that it was immoral to ask developing countries to sell themselves for 100 billion dollars. 

The EU ‘roadmap’ would establish a new over-arching agreement that would commit all countries to emission cuts. The main objection developing countries have is to the fact that developed countries want emerging economies, e.g. China and India, to be equally bound legally as developed countries; after all China is seen by some developed countries as the biggest emitter. The talks over-run by 36 hours and in the end of the fierce exchanges between the EU, on one side, and India and China on the other, the Brazilian delegation saved the day by suggesting a compromise, which resulted in the EU and India agreeing on a 'roadmap', which commits countries to negotiate either a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.  Several developing countries spoke out strongly in favour of the EU proposals, including Brazil and Colombia, rejecting calls to downgrade the legal status of any agreement, said the Guardian report of the meeting.

South Africa's president Jacob Zuma said he is happy that issues that had taken so long to resolve have been resolved on their soil and Greenpeace's Chief Policy Advisor Ruth Davis said "this deal is a lot better than no deal." Follow this link to read a summary of politicians and environmentalists' reaction to the new climate treaty.

However, environmental groups said negotiators have failed to show the ambition needed to cut emissions by levels that would limit global temperature rises to no more than 2 ^oC, which is the level thought to be necessary to avoid dangerous climatic change.

In my view, it is good to see that the EU and some developing nations are taking steps to make sure every country is on board with regard to reducing carbon emissions. It is a shame that India and China put up such a fight to come to an agreement. I think everybody should take action, starting from local actions. For example, the County Council where I live in the UK has a Carbon Management Plan in place to make the Council buildings more energy efficient by reducing their carbon footprint. They say the reason for taking action, aside from the moral and environmental case, is the financial implications of not taking action. It is predicted that energy price will go up from the present already very high level. Failure to start taking action now will leave the Council exposed to a number of financial risks due to increased energy and fuel costs and possible fines for not dealing with the carbon emission issue.

Link to The Guardian article.

One intriguing way of getting health messages across to communities who are illiterate and whose spoken language may not even have words to describe the medical concept, is to entertain them. Travelling theatre groups  in Africa sing or act out AIDs prevention stories, board games educate children on climate or help mothers cope with domestic violence, and, not to be left out, there is now an online game that can support the fight against hunger (see UN food aid agency helps create online game to fight hunger)

Another way is storytelling with puppets and I am going to tell you about the work of one particular company No Strings.

Puppets of varying levels of sophistication are found in many cultures (see Wikipedia-puppetry), from shadow puppets on rods  “walking on water” to glove puppets and marionettes with strings. To most of us in Europe they are thought of as historical novelties, for children to laugh at, or linked to folk art such as in the Czech Republic: it’s forgotten that they once satirised society for adults. Puppeteers in the French revolution were imprisoned & I believe Czech puppet-theatre commented on life in the USSR where others dared not. 

With the exception of the 1970s and 1980s, puppet shows in the West are linked to holidays and entertaining young children.   What happened in the1970’s? The Muppet Show! For a decade via TV and film it reached worldwide audiences of adults as well as children. Oh how I loved that show. Mid 1980s it was displaced in the UK by the political TV satire, Spitting Images, using latex puppets.

With the advent of those plasticine characters Wallace and Gromit, you may think the Muppets had stepped back into homely children’s TV land. But not a bit of it.

No Strings, is a film production company set up by humanitarian experts and the co-creators of the original Muppet Show and Fraggle Rock.  Rosie Waller of NO Strings told the list serv community HIFA2015 that “It makes films around life-saving messages for vulnerable children and communities around the world, covering a wide range of disasters and emergencies”.

Their films are made available via some very well-known international NGOs such as Oxfam, World Vision, and Save the Children. They have a series of preparedness and safety films (South East Asia), three HIV-awareness films (sub-Saharan Africa), landline awareness (Afghanistan), and child protection, psychosocial and public health films for Haitian children.

The HIV films are designed to “encourage discussion and reflection, and influence attitudes towards key issues around HIV, namely risk reduction, gender equality, stigma and the importance of voluntary testing”. Translated so far into 5 African languages plus French, they are now being used in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, DRC, Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

The 3 public health films for children in Haiti will be shot in January 2012 in partnership with CRS (Catholic Relief Service) and will deal with public health issues linked to solid and faecal waste disposal, as well as trauma and child protection. Future projects could include making their films available in Philippine schools as part of the national curriculum.

The Health Show on BBC World is to run a 26 part series on global health, exploring medical and scientific advances and new innovative solutions used to improve health care around the world...…and I for one hope they feature the innovative work of No Strings.

I know I’ve done my part. Not only have I written this blog but this month’s issue of our free e-newsletter Global Health Knowledge Base was inspired by No Strings and focuses on innovative ways of getting public health messages across to underserved children & communities.

If you want to read further about the intriguing use of puppets and games to deliver “messages” then why dear reader don’t you join the newsletter today! Just follow the link “Subscribe to Newsletter” and not only will you get the latest research, news and blogs but also one week’s free access to our public health database Global Health. You might even be invited to contribute a blog!

As climate change has been more apparent in recent years, the media has been giving more attention to the outcome and achievements of the COP meetings, especially since COP15 in Copenhagen. According to the critique, nothing concrete has come out of the COP15 and COP16 meetings, i.e. no binding agreements of any sort; although some agree that the “Copenhagen Accord” and the "Green Climate Fund" are steps forward.  

The "Green Climate Fund" was the major achievement of the previous conference in Cancun (COP16) and the committee in charge of the GCF will be reporting in the COP17 meeting. The GCF is meant to be the central tool to finance climate change action, both adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, by supporting projects, programmes and policies. 

The COP talks also include discussions regarding the Kyoto Protocol to agree a second commitment period of the protocol, after the first one expires at the end of 2012. It is hoped that any deal reached in Durban will secure the future of the Kyoto Protocol, but so far it seems like only the European Union (EU) has offered to extend its Kyoto pledges after its expiration in 2012. The EU has a condition though, according to an article in the Mail and Guardian online on the COP17 talks, i.e. it will only extend its Kyoto commitments if major emitters, including the United States and emerging giants, such as China, back plans for a new binding pact that would be completed by 2015 and take effect by 2020, when the current voluntary pledges runs out.

The Guardian also reported that many African and Latin American countries said they feared richer countries were wasting time trying to re-negotiate the Kyoto protocol. However, Europe and the South African chair of the talks are thought to have persuaded the 42-strong Alliance of Small Island States coalition and the 48 least developed countries to back the EU. The Mail & Guardian added that “after a week of mixed signals, China declared on Sunday that it could envisage post-2020 binding commitments, provided a range of conditions were met, including the survival of Kyoto.” The US, however, is waiting for spelling of the contents before signing any legal framework.

The Environmental Impact subset of CABI contains over 200 reports on climate change.

Link to Guardian article.

Link to COP17 web page.

The international alliance of civil society organisations, including AKTE (Switzerland), EED/Tourism Watch (Germany), ECOT (Thailand), Fair Trade Tourism in South Africa (FTTSA) and Naturefriends International, says that it is irresponsible to exclude aviation on the grounds that tourism is an "engine of development" and argues that globally binding negotiations on aviation emissions will, if managed properly, enhance rather than undermine poverty reduction.

The Position Paper, 'Last Call to Durban', expresses concern regarding the position taken by tourism lobby groups in the international climate negotiations. This NGO alliance criticises the often-cited claim brought forward by the travel and tourism industry that climate-related regulation of the aviation sector would make developing countries lose a considerable portion of their tourism income - a loss which would have negative impacts on poverty alleviation. According to this argument, binding emission reduction targets for the aviation sector would threaten the achievement of economic development goals.

For Christian Baumgartner, General Secretary of Naturefriends International, the claims that tourism automatically contributes to poverty alleviation in developing countries and that binding emission reduction targets for the sector would compromise poverty alleviation are unsupportable. "Only a fair and more sustainable tourism development can mitigate the negative impact of tourism on the climate and can actually contribute to poverty alleviation," Mr. Baumgartner says.

The organisations supporting the Call to Durban demand a serious and differentiated debate on tourism's contribution to poverty alleviation. "The travel and tourism industry have successfully protected their business interests in the name of poverty alleviation. However, it is urgent and imperative to address the complex social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism in destinations, especially the situation of employees and local communities," says Christine Plüss (Swiss Working Group on Tourism and Development - akte). Evidence from various case studies has shown that a large part of the income from tourism does not remain in developing countries, but leaks back to international investors. More often than not, the remaining income fails to benefit the poor. Rather, says the NGO paper, local elites will profit from it.

"The poor in the so-called developing countries are the ones who suffer most from climate change - which they have not caused. And they hardly participate in or benefit from international tourism, even though this has often been claimed," says Caesar D'Mello (Ecumenical Coalition On Tourism - ECOT). "The tourism industry must change, it must become fairer. In South Africa, we have a range of policies and policy instruments and public-private partnerships that can help to inspire more equitable tourism development on a global scale," Jennifer Seif (Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa - FTTSA).

"The debate on the role of tourism must go beyond repeating the same phrases over and over again, exclusively emphasizing the positive economic effects of tourism growth and failing to address the various negative impacts especially on the poor. It is high time to discuss the impacts of rapid tourism growth on the climate, biodiversity, natural resources and human development in a critical manner. Economic growth is not an end in itself. What we need is a human rights based approach," demands Heinz Fuchs (German Church Development Service - EED).

The paper cites studies saying that the tourism sector accounts for an estimated 5% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions but its overall contribution to climate change, if measured as radiative forcing of all greenhouse gases, is in the order of 5.2-12.5%. Aviation accounts for 40% of tourism's CO2 emissions, car transport for 32% and accommodation for 21%. It says that the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) receives only 1.2% of global tourism arrivals, and that little of the revenue from tourism reaches the poor, with much staying in the hands of foreign companies.

The paper suggests that starting point for resolving the climate & poverty challenge for the tourism sector could be the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing's recommendation to ensure 'no net incidence' for developing countries resulting from any measures to generate climate finance from international transport. Within this concept of 'no net incidence' it suggests that it would be possible to provide an annual rebate for developing countries to neutralize any economic burden deriving from a decline in tourism arrivals. Another suggestion is that traffic to and/or from Small Island Development States and LDCs could be exempted from emissions regulation.

Reading the Last call to Durban paper, it appears to me to perhaps over-emphasize the negative impacts of tourism at the expense of those studies which show that properly managed, revenue can reach local communities and the informal sector in developing countries. For example, it mentions the work of the Overseas Development Institute in the UK, saying that the research "repeatedly illustrates that poor people require support in the form of capacity building and market linkages, to keep pace with tourism growth and to benefit meaningfully from it." But it fails to cite those ODI studies which find that while much revenue does stay with often foreign tour companies, discretionary spending by tourists does also reach the poor, who also benefit from employment which often pays little by Western standards but more than alternatives on offer. A study by Mitchell et al. from Tanzania, for example, finds that "international package tourists climbing Mount Kilimanjaro and visiting the Northern Safari Circuit deliver significant benefits to the poor, and international comparisons suggest that poor Tanzanians are capturing a relatively large share of tourist spending". Mitchell and Faal (2008) also show how discretionary tourist spending in Gambia reaches the poor, although the holiday package part of spending does not.

Another issue not discussed in the Position Paper is how any rebate to developing countries to compensate for potential tourism declines could be directed in such a way as to compensate those individuals and communities currently deriving their incomes from tourism, rather than just governments. However, the idea of a global levy on emissions, perhaps exempting poorer countries, would surely be fairer than unilateral taxes and emissions caps currently in place or proposed, such as the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme and the UK's Air Passenger Duty, from which revenues go into general government or EU coffers. Hepburn and Muller (2010) proposed a levy on aviation emissions, constructed as a function of ticket prices and emissions generated by a journey, from which revenues would go towards climate change adaptation. A possible way forward?

CABI's Leisure Tourism Database regularly carries articles on the issues raised here, as well as covering all the literature on tourism, climate change and poverty. It currently indexes nearly 800 bibliographic records on tourism and climate change.

Further reading

Last call to Durban. "Beyond Numbers: A call for social, economic and climate justice in tourism" (PDF file)

The Gambia tourism value chain and prospects for pro-poor tourism. ODI Working Paper 289, Mitchell and Faal.

Making success work for the poor - Package tourism in Northern Tanzania. Mitchell et al. 2009

International air travel and greenhouse gas emissions: a proposal for an adaptation levy. Hepburn, C.; Müller, B.; World Economy, 2010, 33, 6, pp 830-849, 31 ref.

I am sure nobody will be surprised to read that the climate sceptics tried again to over-shadow the UN climate talks a few days before the conference was due to open. Again they hacked email correspondences from the University of East Anglia, UK, climate study group and claim that scientists there have manipulated data on climate change. The New York Times reported that climate scientists said that the release was likely to have been timed to "torpedo" any potential progress at the UN Climate Change Conference. Just to remind the readers, I would like to add that: following the 2009 incident, it was concluded that the emails did not indicate that scientists had manipulated data, but instead they were criticised for failing to share data or respond adequately to freedom of information requests.

One result which will most probably disappoint the climate sceptics is that reported in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change, confirming that the Earth is warming, based on a report from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project released last month (October 2011). Nature Climate Change called the report “the most comprehensive review of the data yet released, funded in part by climate sceptics.” 

The aim of the Berkeley project is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record, says the project's director, physicist Richard Muller.

The choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors are just two of the issues that have been criticized with regard to climatic studies. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study set out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature records in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. The project is using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than 5 times the 7280 stations used in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that served as the basis for many climate studies.

According to the Berkeley project, by far the most important indicator of global warming has been the land and sea surface temperature record.

The latest UN climate negotiations aims to discuss mitigation and adaptation measures to curb global warming and avoid climate change, and the meetings in Durban are expected to result in decisions that would put in operation a technology mechanism to promote clean energy and adaptation-related technologies, an adaptation framework to support developing countries, and the Green Climate Fund. A second focus will be the question of how the international community will collaborate in tackling climate change in the future.

Discussions are expected to focus on a timeline for developing a future framework under the Convention and also on an upcoming review of the adequacy of, and progress towards, limiting average global temperature rise to 2°C. This review is scheduled to take place between 2013 and 2015. Although a major breakthrough is not expected in Durban, many view the meeting as an important opportunity to deliver both operational decisions and some longer-term signals on the future direction of the process.

A joint COP and COP/MOP high-level segment involving government ministers and other senior officials will also take place from 6-9 December.

Going back to the climate scepticism issue, interestingly, a recent University of Oxford - Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) study of climate change coverage (Painter, 2011) suggests that newspapers in the UK and the US have given far more column space to the voices of climate sceptics than the press in Brazil, France, India and China. More than 80% of the times that sceptical voices were included, they were in pieces in the UK and US press, according to the research. Maybe this is because the press in Brazil, France, India and China trust scientific evidence more than scepticism, or maybe these countries or Brazil and India, at least, have been experiencing actual signs of climatic change, e.g an increase in extreme weather, such as floods.

My search of the CABI internet resource 'Environment Impact' (EI) gave over 40,000 records on 'climate change', including journal articles, ebooks, reports, reviews and news articles, which can be viewed by subscribers of the EI subset of the database.

References and Further Reading       

Purvis, N.; Stevenson, A. (2011) Climate negotiations and international finance.  Resources for the Future, Washington, USA, Resources (Washington), 2011, 177, pp 16-18.

Painter, J. (2011) Poles Apart: the international reporting of climate scepticism. University of Oxford, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Cattiaux, J.;  Vautard, R.;  Cassou, C.;  Yiou, P.;  Masson-Delmotte, V.;  Codron, F. (2010)  Winter 2010 in Europe: a cold extreme in a warming climate.  American Geophysical Union, Washington, USA,  Geophysical Research Letters, 2010, 37, 20, pp L20704.

Nerlich, B. (2010)  'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. White Horse Press, Isle of Harris, UK, Environmental Values, 2010, 19, 4, pp 419-442, many ref.

Link to Berkeley study paper.

Link to COP17 page.