| |
Debate
In defence of the good government paradigm
Letters
Multiple tension in Palestine
Latin America turns left
02/2006 |
|
Letters to the editor
Shortsighted instrumentalisation
Underrated forests
D+C/E+Z 11/2005, p. 425
Although I am an official at the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and have taken part in climate negotiations, my comments here are purely private. The article by Brito and Bosquet upset and disappointed me. It upset me, because it was written from the perspective of those who simply want to maximise forestry projects. Apparently, the authors also want individual projects to be supported in countries that are burning down primeval forests or allowing shrimp companies to destroy mangroves.
I felt disappointed, because the authors apparently want to instrumentalise climate protection arguments for the shortsighted single interest of forestry. Instead of reducing fossil fuels – an international priority –, the idea is to store CO2 in forests, which, however, are always endangered and unstable. Such projects are, as the saying goes, just a drop in the ocean in the light of the widespread destruction of forests and other land usage that damages the climate. If we want to use “CO2 sinks”, national CO2 balance sheets will have to clearly show how forests are being managed and land is being used. We should not pretend that a few reforestation projects will make any real contribution to climate protection.
Dr. Wolfram Klein, Bonn
Missed points
The dangers of NAMA
D+C/E+Z 11/2005, p. 420
Ha-Joon Chang misses some important points. He has not come to grips with the Douglas Irwin papers that re-examine the historical claims about the benefits of protectionism. Nor does he come to terms with the fact that India’s textile, steel, shipbuilding, shipping industries came up during the British rule without any subsidies and tariffs. Nor does he mention that India’s IT industry grew up to a gigantic stature of international standing without any protection or special subsidies. Protected industries in India, on the other hand, became known for low productivity rather than for their competitiveness on the world market. For decades after independence, they felt no need to invest or innovate as they were not challenged in their domestic markets.
Jagdish Bhagwati,
Columbia University, New York
Unsuccessful railway privatisation
Supplement Financing
Development,
December 2005, p. VI
The privatisation of the railways in Cameroon cannot be considered a success. I know the country and, unfortunately, the railway line connecting Ngaoundere, Yaoundé and Douala from numerous trips both before and after privatisation by Camrail. On my recent trip, my colleagues in Cameroon advised me, in view of my busy schedule, to stay away from the railway, which they said had become a very unreliable means of transport.
In the press in Cameroon, there was an intense debate going on in October 2005 about Camrail’s prices. One of the articles spoke of “minimum service, maximum abuse”. Your article’s conclusion that poor people in Cameroon now have a reliable way to travel is an insult to those affected.
Martin Zint, Journalist, Mühltal
Response from Germany’s development bank KfW Entwicklungsbank:
Regrettably, Mr. Zint’s experience with Camrail was bad. However, his judgement seems quite subjective from the point of view of KfW Entwicklungsbank. Studies undertaken on behalf of KfW Entwicklungsbank have shown that privatisation has been beneficial to poor travelers and to rural jobs. Sadly, railways often do not enjoy an all that positive reputation – as is also true in the case of Deutsche Bahn, a company that beyond any doubt is serving a useful transport function.
Dr. Frank Weiler,
KfW Entwicklungsbank, Frankfurt
|
