Understanding resource-rich economic structures are essential to understanding economic diversification. Economist Max Corden explains how these economies are made up of three sectors: booming, lagging, and non-tradable. These sectors fluctuate with the subsequent resource-based markets. For example, a boom in the oil sector will result in growth in the booming sector, which increases “aggregate income” across all sectors. This boom can be represented in many different ways; for instance, an “exogenous technical improvement,” — which refers to any advancements and improvements in technology and production methods related to the production and usage of resources, such as oil, that define these resource-rich economies. These changes can improve the efficiency of the oil sector and can cause outward shifts in the production function, thereby resulting in a shift in the booming sector. All three sectors coexist and are used to define shifts and changes in the resource market.

However, a boom in the oil sector does not necessarily equate to economic prosperity. The misallocation of profits from the resource sector is a key point when discussing resource-rich economies in the MENA region. Misallocation can take many forms, such as corruption and inadvisable spending, which can hurt these economies in the long run. These forms of misallocation can show the complex, multifaceted underbelly of these resource-rich economies.

First, let’s talk about corruption. Corruption has a big effect on the sustainability and efficacy of an economy, as it can facilitate “time-consuming and inefficient administrative processes,” which can extend further into even attracting “larger amounts of bribes.” Corruption can be measured by looking at the work of Global Financial Integrity, a think-tank that focuses on global illicit economic and financial activity. They use the term “illicit financial flows,” which refers to analyzing the gaps between the source and use of institutional funding. If the use of funding is greater than the source, that proves missing funds and therefore can show corruption. This gap is apparent in MENA countries such as Iraq, where according to former RAND economist Paul Heaton, Saddam Hussein used “illicit contracts” for cheaper oil to reward political supporters. Additionally, the research conducted by Nadeem Ul Haque and Ratna Sahay during their time at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows how corruption via misallocation can also appear in countries that have “incentive myopia.” Decreasing budget deficits and increasing expenditures, policymakers will cut wages in the public sector, which will reduce public sector productivity and increase corruption through collusion between firms and tax collectors. 

Similarly, inadvisable spending highlights a significant trend for MENA region economics. Inadvisable spending mainly falls under the concept of rent-seeking, which refers to gaining wealth without added productivity. In essence, rent-seeking refers to trying to actively “seek” profits and monetary gains through the manipulation and exploitation of welfare and the social sector through means such as misallocation of wealth and resources. This can lead to many economic troubles, such as “budget deficit, trade deficit, unemployment, [and]public debt.” Iran, for example, has experienced a “permanent decrease in [their]economic growth” due to increasing rent-seeking practices over the last 50 years. In African countries, we see how resource-based rent-seeking can hinder economic growth because of “increased exposure to price shocks and volatility,” which are both harmful in the short-run and long-run by inhibiting processes of “creating jobs” and “financing social infrastructure.” 

Rent-seeking can be caused by a plethora of actions, such as the strength of institutions. Rangar Trovik puts it best as he cites how resource-rich entities can have different fiscal effects based on the institutions in place. For example, resource abundance can actually diminish growth in countries that engage in rent-seeking practices and have weak institutions.  Torvik defines this as the “resource curse,” showing how institutions can determine the effects that being resource-rich truly have. Additional research has supported this claim that “poor institutions can eliminate the positive effect of natural resources,” which shows the importance that the strength of institutions has on economic growth.

So, what is next? How can these resource-rich countries achieve economic growth and prosperity?

Economic diversification.

Siham Matallah of the University of Oran 2 in Algeria defines economic diversity as reducing resource dependency by diversifying the economy and its investments. In resource-abundant economies, relying solely on resources to define the economy can be very risky. These resource markets, such as oil, tend to be very volatile, making rent-seeking processes exponentially riskier. A way to combat these volatile markets and still experience economic growth is by diversifying the economy. Matallah cites economic diversification as a key pillar toward sustainable economic growth and can help reduce unemployment while facilitating the growth of  local institutions. 

Siham Matallah’s model finds that as corruption is controlled, economic diversity increases, leading to long-term economic prosperity across socioeconomic institutions and industries. The model is designed to reflect oil-rich countries; because of the volatility of the oil market, it is important to diversify and reinvest economic gains from the oil market into reproducing capital. 

Economic diversification has many implementations. However, one apparent in the MENA region is the use of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs). SWFs are investment funds used to invest in domestic and global welfare institutions, protect long-term economic growth, and diversify economies defined by volatile markets. These funds can facilitate development via economic diversification while also focusing on the social sector. SWFs have become increasingly apparent in the MENA region; for example, Qatar has the Qatar Investment Authority, Saudi Arabia has the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, Kuwait has the Kuwait Investment Authority, and the UAE has the Investment Corporation of Dubai. We can take the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for example — the UAE’s collection of Sovereign Wealth Funds has combined to a value of over “$800 billion”, while Saudi Arabia’s collection equates to almost “$300 billion”.

Additionally, within the Arab region specifically, SWF’s investments lie in firms and countries with “less corruption, better developed stock markets, [and]higher economic growth,” which embody a “safety and strategic value” that typical MENA investments seem to lack, thereby releasing some of that extensive reliance on the volatile resource market. As SWFs continue to grow and expand, we will continue to see the importance of economic diversification, especially in resource-rich countries in the MENA region.

Diversification can also come to fruition by developing external sectors of the economy outside of the resource sector, as we see in Oman. Oman’s diversification strategy consisted of “increasing the role of the private sector in the economy” while also “developing human resource capabilities.” Essentially, by developing the private sector and human capital, Oman can begin to diversify its economy into these different sectors to avoid the volatile shocks that define the oil and gas industries. This initiative is reflected in Oman Vision 2040: an initiative to strengthen economic development and health and well-being. Projects like this are also essential to help increase economic diversification in these resource-rich economies to provide and expand sustainable socioeconomic development practices. 

For the producers of vanilla, however, it’s more than something that belongs in an ice cream cone or in a coffee mug. Vanilla production and extraction compromise their livelihoods as they work day through night on the fields. Both processes are a threat to farmers’ survival.

A large number of developing countries’ economies depend on trade with developed nations of commodities such as vanilla beans, minerals, copper, and oil. However, this has created a heavy burden on both the producers of these goods and the country’s economy; resource extraction has become resource exploitation, subsequently creating economic instability across the globe.

Consequently, due to price inflation, lack of infrastructure and poor economic scores, trade-dependent export economies can suffer from instability, which could instigate human and labor rights issues. This then would lead to poor quality of life, faltering economies and political unrest. 

For a country like Madagascar that is an agricultural-based economy and where 80% of the world’s vanilla comes from, economic and political stability depends on the demand of booming countries. In other words, when countries like the United States, France, Germany, etc. feel like they prefer real vanilla, prices will go up; however, when they prefer artificial flavoring, prices and demand decrease. 

Hence, this presents the explanation for the rising or plummeting prices of vanilla by over 20% in just a few weeks. While there is an explanation for the price volatility, it does not make the lives of farmers any easier. 

Vanilla farmers like Beni Odon report that life quality is improved when the prices of goods, such as vanilla, are high. In contrast, conditions are poor when the price of vanilla is low. The fact that Madagascar’s economy is so dependent on other countries’ desires creates uncertainty for the political, civil and economic state of a country. In  Madagascar, farmers would have to sleep with their crops, even going so far as to bear some type of defense weapon in order to protect the source of their profit. 

Given the dire circumstances, what is the primary motivation behind such actions? Demand is so high that farmers are afraid to lose out on any possibility of making money and supporting themselves.This translates to farmers quite literally fighting for their livelihoods and jobs. In addition to this, problems like violence, vigilante justice and even poor harvest (because of premature harvest due to fear of scarcity or violence) become prevalent. 

As exemplified by Madagascar, the problem goes beyond price fluctuations, lack of infrastructure and the finite availability of resources. The overarching issue is that the economies of these countries depend on other nations. As demand increases in these affluent import countries, developing countries seek to match it with increased supply. This comes at the expense of producers and workers who experience human and labor rights violations, oppression from governments and the constant fear of an otherwise crippling economy. 

The rapid increase from $80.00 per kilogram in 2014 to $600.00 per kilogram in 2017 and around $425 in 2022 is a quantitative indicator of the farmers’ quality of life. When Madagascar seems to be booming, one can presume that vanilla is a popular crop. When a decrease in the economy is seen, vanilla has lost its appeal. 

This economic fluctuation is correlated with governments having a poor relationship with the agriculture industry. Consequently, this relationship negatively impacts its people. 

This, however, isn’t unique to Madagascar. Chile, now one of Latin America’s most economically flourishing countries, once experienced civil unrest (in the 90s and again in 2019) due to the economic instability rooted in the subsidence of copper — its most important trade good.

The issue of resource exploitation extends far beyond just Madagascar and Chile. It appears in nearly every continent of the world. From avocados in Mexico to tobacco in Moldova, to timber in Cambodia and crude oil in Syria, the examples are vast. 

Developing nations are often barred from achieving economic prosperity due to their limited and inequitable trade practices with powerful countries that take much and give too little in return. In turn, these nations are lured by global superpowers, like the United States, into trade that is only attractive for short-term growth.

However, solving this problem is not impossible. The solution lies in switching from a largely resource-centered and trade-based economy to a more diversified economy. 

While the civil unrest in Chile might be due to the subsidence of copper, Chile’s case exemplifies how moving away from mass extraction can immensely improve the limited prosperity of developing countries. The explanation lies behind the fact that resource extraction is fickle, which then creates unrest. 

However, Chile, now operating with an open economy, is able to limit the detrimental impacts of relying on one trade resource and one wealthy trading partner. Such flexibility has propelled Chile’s GDP per capita to 40%, which makes Chile’s GDP  the highest in Latin America. 

Central to Chile’s success has been its bold and strategic investment in different industries — such as renewable energy and technology — helping promote entrepreneurship and small business ventures to further support the average citizen. The Chilean path to success can be imitated by nations across the world. Countries can slowly reduce their dependence on trade of popular resources, and instead diversify industries, trading partners and goods.

While developing nations have to ensure that they are making smart decisions, the role that companies and consumers play in developed nations is also crucial. This is not to suggest that it is necessary to boycott commodity imports from countries like Madagascar or Chile — this action will only hurt these producers and nations. Rather, multinational corporations and consumers have a responsibility to combat human and civil rights violations by demanding increased transparency of the production process behind the goods they sell. 

For example, in Eritrea, a country in East Africa, over 80% of the population lacks access to drinking water. Other countries with similarly staggering numbers include Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia. Essentially, the world is suffering from a global water crisis. 

People around the world are not able to access both the quantity and quality of water necessary to carry out basic human needs, such as cleaning, bathing, drinking and growing food. This crisis has been recognized by the United Nations and was made a Sustainable Development Goal in 2015. The SDGs serve as a “shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” As SDG 6, the UN hopes to provide clean water and sanitation to all by 2030. Off track to hit this goal, the UN introduced the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework last year to speed up action.

According to USAID, women and children in developing countries walk an average of 3.5 miles a day to fetch potable water. This accessibility challenge exacerbates water vulnerability for millions of people, especially considering that most of the water gathered in developing countries comes from a polluted source, contaminated with raw sewage, surface run-off, industrial effluents, and feces. The surface water contains disease-causing pathogens, such as cholera, typhoid fever and diarrhoea, as well as dangerous toxins like arsenic and lead. Children are particularly vulnerable, considering that 5,000 children die daily from waterborne illness and issues of sanitation. Many of these children already suffer from malnutrition and other diseases. 

The situation is expected to worsen as the global population rises and the water supply falls. According to the World Health Organization, by 2025, half of the world’s population is expected to be in regions labeled “water-stressed.” This is detrimental, due to the impact of water scarcity and water stress on basic sanitation and public health. As demonstrated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe and clean water is critical because “handwashing with soap is one of the most effective ways to limit the spread” according to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Additionally, water stress impacts different vulnerable groups to varying extents. This crisis will undoubtedly heighten issues of gender inequality, as many risks fall disproportionately on women. Due to cultural expectations, women and girls are responsible for fetching water in  80% of households with off water premises. As a result, women and girls walk an average of four miles with a 44 pound jerry can to their nearest water source. For parts of the world that suffer from water scarcity, particularly in urban areas, common water sources include surface water along riverbeds, hand-pump boreholes that extract water from the ground, and kiosks at the water source where water is bought from informal vendors. This necessary, yet brutal, walk to retrieve water occurs daily, despite health or weather conditions. 

This daily task is time consuming, limiting the ability of women and girls to do other work or tend to their families. The journey also poses a physical challenge; girls as young as 10-years-old and pregnant women often complete this arduous task. Around the world, women walk a combined 200 million hours daily. 

Women are subject to safety hazards when they collect water. According to a study led by Northwestern University, at least 13% of women reported physical injuries while collecting water, due to falls, traffic accidents, animal attacks and violence. While hauling water, women were twice as likely to get hurt than men. They are also at risk of sexual and physical assault during their trips. 

In Science Daily, journalist Vanessa Offiong reported on the story of Hasiya, a 16-year-old girl from Nasarawa, Nigeria, who left one evening on her 40-minute route to retrieve water. On her return, she noticed a group of boys shouting at her, and because speeding up was nearly impossible given the weight of her filled bucket, The boys circled and kicked Hasiya to the ground, with no one around to help.

Offiong shares another woman’s story of rape while fetching water from the Uke River. The shame surrounding the rape forced to leave the community because she was married. She says the community has stopped reporting rapes to the police, and women walk in groups during the morning. In other cases of assault in areas with sources of groundwater and informal vendors, it has been reported that men operating the pumps have demanded more than payment, abusing their powers to force women into sex to access water.

As UNICEF notes, women and children are paying with lost time and lost opportunities, such as an education. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that, “a one hour reduction in the time spent to walk to the water source increases girls’ school enrollment rates by about 10 percentage points in Yemen, and by about 12 percentage points in Pakistan.” Schooling is critical for development and future economic and social mobility; for each additional year in primary school can increase girls’ future wages by 20%. Girls’ schooling can also help the global economy, for it is predicted that if India increased its enrollment for girls in primary school by one percent, gross domestic product would rise by around $5 billion.

Women are also disproportionately affected by sanitation issues. Over two billion people lack access to improved sanitation, such as proper toilets and handwashing, due to a deficiency of clean water. Globally, two out of five people lack handwashing facilities. Many are forced to practice open defecation, use unimproved facilities or forced to share sanitation facilities. Womens’ increased hygienic needs due to menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth are not met. One out of 10 girls in Africa drops out of school by 8th grade due to menstruation challenges, resulting from a lack of bathrooms and proper sanitation. A study conducted in Bangladesh, where only around 35% of the population has access to safe, uncontaminated drinking water, showed a separate toilet could increase girl enrolment in school by 15%. This is a global issue; a survey done by the government of India found that only 53% of government schools had a separate and functioning toilet for girls. 

A lack of water to properly sanitize also spreads disease, which disproportionately affects women, who have higher exposure to waterborne illnesses through domestic work, such as collecting water, washing clothes and cooking. Women who are pregnant are at increased risk, for over 44 million pregnant women have sanitation-related hookworm, which causes maternal anemia and leads to preterm births. This contributes to the yearly death toll of around one million women yearly due to unclean childbirth. 

As the global water crisis disproportionately affects women, they are still responsible for the collection and resource management of water within the household, in addition to the removal of wastewater. However, on a larger scale, men typically make decisions over water management and lead communities. Male leadership prevents women from making more educated decisions, as they are frontline water managers who have a unique understanding of current systems, approaches and the effect on the community. 

Clean water has the power to transform communities, reduce rates of disease, help equalize genders and create a more efficient economy. The development of proper infrastructure to collect clean water can be used to benefit communities, allowing for more jobs and less time lost fetching surface water.  

Working toward its goal to provide clean water and sanitation, the UN aims to protect ground water resources such as rivers, eliminate water pollution and increase international cooperation around the issue. Non-profit organizations have focused on building community wells, whether shallow wells that are hand dug or deep wells that are drilled. These wells provide clean groundwater that is closer to home. A World Research Institute study proposed that it would only take 1% of global GDP to give global access to water and reach a state of sustainable water management, which would lead to net benefit, as one dollar invested yields a 6.8 dollar return. 

UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozir emphasized the importance of this goal and the imperative all countries and organizations have to act quickly. 

“It is a moral failure that we live in a world with such high levels of technical innovation and success, but we continue to allow billions of people to exist without clean drinking water or the basic tools to wash their hands,” Bokzir said. 

Without equitable access to clean water, entire regions risk further development. And for the women and girls who are most vulnerable, clean water is imperative to securing basic rights.

However, with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disrupting international travel and tourism, these remote countries have suffered greatly from the repercussions of a lack of tourism dollars being injected into their economies. 

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the usual percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP,  from tourism for developing countries is 5%; however, for SIDS, the average share stands at over 20%. This over-reliance on the tourism industry has proven to be a highly fragile aspect of the SIDS economy, as tourism numbers decreased drastically during the pandemic, and so did the revenue. 

The Maldives is an illustrative example of this phenomenon. According to the World Bank, the tourism industry accounts for about 25% of the small Indian Ocean country’s GDP. Combining this factor with the steep decline in tourism due to the pandemic — from around 1.7 million visitors in 2019 to approximately 560,000 in 2020, or about a 66% decline — the country’s GDP contracted an estimated 28% by the end of 2020. 

“As an economy heavily dependent on international tourism, the restrictions on global travel and other protective measures against the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant impact on the Maldives,” President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih told CNBC in a March 2021 interview. 

The Maldives had to close its borders to foreign tourists from March to July of last year. Not only did this trigger the firing of thousands of workers, as tourism revenue quickly declined , but it also directly affected the cash flow of foreign currency that helped the Maldivian Government pay for imports.

According to the Michigan State University, around 60% of the Maldives’ foreign exchange receipts are acquired through foreign tourism spending. These funds are used to buy imports such as petroleum, building materials and around 90% of the country’s food supplies.

According to a recent United Nations Development Program report on the Maldives’ state during the pandemic cited that these imports were drastically affected by the decline in tourism and foreign money being exchanged and used in the country. The same report highlights how the country went from importing around $45 million worth of petroleum in January 2020 to only about less than $10 million by May of the same year. 

This drastic fall in imports, economic activity, employment and overall quality of life in the Maldives highlights how fragile the tourism industry can be if a country is overly reliant on it. As the industry depends on several foreign factors that SIDS, like the Maldives, have virtually no control over, they have found this pandemic to be a “wake up” call to start looking into economic and industry diversification efforts. 

In the Maldives, this led the government to develop diversification plans for investing more in education and youth programs, as well as investment in foreign markets and better worker preparation for Maldivian citizens to incorporate them into the workforce outside of tourism. 

Luckily for the Maldives, its government has managed to keep a steady path towards recovery. The Maldivian authorities managed to cut down on their government spending and swap their monetary arrangements with foreign government banks like the Reserve Bank of India for a value of $400 million. Although tourist numbers are still below average – with around 200,000 foreign visitors arriving at the small nation between January and February 2021, which only accounts for 42% of last year’s numbers during the same period – the country expects to have about 1,000,000 tourist arrivals in 2021, which would lead to an approximate 17% rise in GDP by the end of the year. 

Nonetheless, this ideal scenario that the Maldives has managed to achieve is not the de facto outcome for every SIDS county. Other small island nations around the world have not been as fortunate to have a big enough monetary reserve and quick tourism recovery, such as the Maldives. 

This is the case of Fiji. This Pacific island country depends heavily on the tourism industry, accounting for 40% of its GDP and being directly responsible for employing 150,000 people, or 17% of the population of 880 thousand people. 

According to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, the country’s GDP shrunk by about 21.7% by the end of 2020, highlighting the worst contraction in the nation’s history. This is mostly because the number of tourists who visited the country in 2020 was 75% lower than in 2019. Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said that this also led to 115,000 Fijians, or one-third of the Fijian workforce to be laid off from jobs or have hour cuts due to the failing tourism industry. 

“You can’t suddenly work from home when you earn your paycheck as a scuba instructor, or as a handicraft maker who usually sells to tourists,” said Bainimarama in a press conference in July 2020. “With borders shut around the world, Fijian tourism has come to a halt. Many jobs have still not returned; some may never.”

However, he has a different approach regarding future recovery for his country’s economy. Based on a survey and report by the IFC, diversification might still be in the picture, with efforts to improve education and workforce training programs in sight. However, plans like these are yet to be made official. Ultimately, Bainimarama still sees the tourism industry as Fiji’s main, and arguably, only choice for total recovery. 

“When it comes to COVID, SIDS need resources, not regulations better suited to larger level markets,”  Bainimarama said. “Let’s find opportunity in this crisis, by recognizing how the international community can better support employers and employees who rely on the stewards of small island economies, like tourism, and target support accordingly.”

His primary approach is to increase resources for the country’s development and its tourism industry, rather than veer towards more globalized forms of growth such as the Maldives plans to do with foreign investments. With this current strategy, the Reserve Bank of Fiji estimates that the Fijian economy might return to  pre-pandemic levels until 2023 with a GDP increase of around 14% in 2021, as long as tourism starts to increase steadily to 2019 levels. 

The IFC survey report also highlights that regardless of some financial intervention from the Fijian government, around 74% of businesses surveyed expected to close within five months. This emphasizes how the government’s strategy, although reliable in the long term, has not provided much relief to the Fijian people. Moreover, the report also shows that if no diversification efforts are promptly implemented, the Fijian economy will remain vulnerable to other external factors such as climate change or other financial crashes.

Overall, these two countries pose two fairly different approaches towards economic recovery. While the Maldives has taken a more immediate diversification approach, Fiji — although potentially aiming to diversify, bets more on revitalizing- its tourism sector to regain economic normality. 

In this comparative analysis, it is important to highlight that although Fiji has 360,000 more people than the Maldives, both countries have comparable GDPs of around $5.5 billion each. This gives the Maldives the comparative advantage in GDP per capita, having around $10,600 per person, while Fiji has $6,200. 

This GDP to population ratio is one of the factors that has allowed the Maldives to have a smoother path to recovery, aided by the fact that they have taken more active monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy. 

However, the long-term recovery effects are yet to be seen entering the second quarter and the summer. This will be one of the main challenges for all the SIDS worldwide as they scramble to return to their pre-pandemic tourism levels.

Although a major part of the success of each country’s recovery will ultimately depend on the state of Covid restrictions within it as well as within its main tourism providing countries, the influence of fiscal and monetary policy as well as leadership in creating a sustainable strategy for recovery cannot be ignored. 

Tourism is a very fragile industry, and through these two examples, it is clear that there can be different approaches to addressing its fragility. With very different kinds of SIDS around the world, from the very rich like Singapore to the small and humble like Tuvalu, each country will have to develop their own personalized approach to recovery. 

Nonetheless, the fact that diversification is one of the main goals for SIDS still remains, as they look to make their economy more resilient to possible threats such as global warming and tourism crashes like the one that the pandemic originated. 

But what has often been overlooked in the crisis is the acknowledgment of how different groups of Yemeni citizens are experiencing the conflict differently. In particular, the extreme circumstances of the country’s seven-year-long instability have led many to ignore how Yemeni women often bear the brunt of the issues caused by the crisis, on top of the gender-based challenges they face due to the discriminatory legal system and the crisis’s effect on the level of gender-based violence.

Data about the Yemen crisis’s death toll varies depending on if one focuses on those affected directly by the conflict or if it is extended to deaths caused indirectly. According to the Yemen Data Project, the country has incurred over 18,000 attacks, of which around half were deaths and half were injuries, as a direct result of the conflict from 2016 to now. This, however, does not include casualties caused by other pressing humanitarian issues the crisis in Yemen has created. The United Nations estimates that over 131,000 have died as a result of the indirect effects of the war in Yemen, including factors such as hunger and lack of access to adequate health services. 

According to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), a humanitarian non-governmental organization focused on the fight against poverty, an average of six women are killed every day in Yemen due to the conflict. Women and children are also frequently displaced, comprising 75% of displaced individuals. The majority of displacement in Yemen is internal, with Yemenis moving from place to place within the country to avoid fighting, famine, and disease. Some of the displaced are met with humanitarian aid when they arrive at new locations, such as in Marib where the UNHCR, UN, and International Organization for Migration have attempted to provide food and shelter to those fleeing the city of Al Suwayda. 

Women are often disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises in times of civil unrest or war. In the case of Yemen, this inequality is exacerbated as women’s access to work is heavily limited by socio-cultural norms.

For 14 years, Yemen was ranked last in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index, and only in 2021 did it manage to be ranked second to last — ahead of newly-added Afghanistan. According to the 2021 index, Yemen is one of the countries with the largest economic gender gap, at 28.2% of the gap closed so far, and income gap, with women’s income being around 7% that of men. It also has one of the lowest percentages of women in the labor force, at 6.3%, and the lowest number of women in managerial positions, at 4.1%. On top of this, Yemen was ranked 154/156 in female economic participation and opportunity, 152/156 in educational attainment, 95/156 in health and survival, and 154/156 in political empowerment.

This is likely the result of an extremely patriarchal culture in Yemen, rooted in persistent and extreme gender roles. Yemeni women and girls experience forced niqab (a veil that covers the whole face excluding the eyes), divorce shame, child marriage, domestic violence, and honor killings — all of which are aggravated by the extended and ongoing crisis in the country. 

According to Amnesty International, the crisis has forced Yemeni women to take on greater roles and responsibilities than traditionally expected of them and, as a result, the levels of violence they experience have increased. Women and girls not only face extreme danger due to the crisis and fighting in the region between the Houthis and Yemeni Forces (supported by UAE and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Houthi forces), but also security and economic risks due to a discriminatory legal system. Left with a damaged system of services and infrastructure that is unable to properly support them or allow them to seek legal remedy, and further faced with things like arbitrary detentions and the disappearance of male family members, women in Yemen are stepping up and suffering as a result. 

In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, known as the Women, Peace and Security resolution. The resolution was enacted in an effort to address the fact that women and girls suffer disproportionately from negative effects during and after times of war. This unfair burden is due to the proliferation of social networks and the magnification of inequality, both of which expose women and girls to things like sexual violence and exploitation in greater capacities than in peacetime. In the nearly two decades since its adoption, the resolution has aimed to help affected women by making them participants in peacemaking efforts and politics. 

The resolution has been somewhat successful in some regions, playing a large part in helping women participate in peace processes in their countries. This has meant enabling women to act as signatories on peace agreements, participate in peace talks and negotiation, assist with humanitarian responses and post-conflict reconstruction, or partake in other peace-driven actions.

Nonetheless, women in Yemen are consistently underrepresented in peace talks, even in the face of concerted effort from the UN and other humanitarian organizations to address this gap. So, despite women taking on the roles vacated by their loved ones who may have been lost in the crisis or forcibly taken and held, they are not able to advocate for their own safety. 

This, however, is not the full extent of challenges that Yemeni women face. According to the World Food Program (WFP), in times of crisis, women and girls are put at greater risk for humanitarian issues, on top of the gender-based issues they already experience. One of the most common problems is that girls are often pulled out of school or forced to marry early in order for families to survive, as many are unable to afford food alongside paying for school or an additional child. The WFP also reports that, for women, one of the main dangers is malnutrition. This can be caused by the burden of pregnancy — more than one million pregnant and lactating Yemeni women required malnutrition treatment or prevention intervention in 2019 — or the burden of childcare. These women have to become self-sacrificing to a dangerous extent, often giving up their own food to feed their children.

Right now in Yemen, around 50,000 people are facing famine-like conditions, and 11 million more are experiencing food insecurity. Young children are particularly vulnerable to hunger, with around half of Yemeni children under five expected to experience acute malnutrition, according to the WFP. 

As the Yemen crisis fades from news headlines, due to the nature of it being such an extended conflict, it’s important to stay up-to-date on the current situation. This is particularly true when considering how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the war-torn country and its most vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 is not the first public health crisis to affect Yemen, as cholera, diphtheria, measles, and dengue fever were all reported in the country prior, with cholera affecting a suspected two million Yemenis since 2016. However, Yemen was, and is not, prepared to handle the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, medical facilities and personnel have not been left alone during the conflict. More than half of the 5,000 or so health centers have closed and many health professionals have been forced to flee. On top of this, health aid has been obstructed by the Houthi and other authorities.

Considering the heavy use of starvation as a weapon of war in Yemen, primarily by the Houthis, the impact of hunger and starvation on an individual’s health and the disproportionate way women experience hunger has escalated the pandemic. In April 2020, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Yemen warned that, based on epidemiological projections, nearly 16 million people in Yemen could be infected by COVID-19 under the current conditions. 

The actual number of cases in Yemen is difficult to know as data on COVID-19 in the country is difficult to collect. The government has only reported deaths in the hundreds, but considering the disastrous nature of the healthcare system and the fact that war makes health crises worse, the number is likely much higher. Still, There is evidence that the country is currently experiencing a second wave of the disease. On top of the expected rise in cholera cases with the rainy season in May, this could be devastating for the population, and it will further complicate and inflame the suffering and discrimination that women in Yemen already face.

There is hope, however, as at the end of March 2021, Yemen received its first batch of COVID-19 vaccines, which included 360,000 doses, 13,000 safety boxes and 1.3 million syringes, through COVAX. This was the first step in the plan to vaccinate the country, with an estimated 1.9 million doses expected to be delivered to the country throughout the rest of the year. Those leading the vaccine effort will be forced to navigate the crumbling healthcare system and figure out how to equitably distribute vaccinations. 

Women are suffering in Yemen as a result of the humanitarian crisis, and the COVID-19 health crisis has only made things worse. It is important to understand and acknowledge the nuanced convergence of humanitarian, security and public health crises in Yemen. Otherwise, it is easy to get lost in the severity and horror often broadcasted and covered through global media. 

But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

The dam’s primary purpose is to generate electricity for the 70% of Ethiopia’s rural population who lack it. The dam is also meant to enrich the country through the sale of excess electricity. The giant infrastructure undertaking also serves as a rallying point for Ethiopians who see it as a way for their country to move out of poverty. 

On the other hand, Egypt and Sudan, as downstream countries, are worried that the GERD will permanently decrease the amount of water that reaches them. Egypt, which is dependent on the Nile for agriculture, hydropower and 94% of the country’s total water supply, is particularly threatened and has opposed the GERD since its conception in 2011. Ethiopia claims that the dam will help its people without harming Sudan or Egypt, while Egypt says that the GERD will short the country on the resources it needs. 

With both sides making such bold statements about the benefits and consequences  of the dam, it is difficult to determine which statements are true and what environmental impact the GERD will end up having.

This situation with the GERD is reminiscent of the controversy surrounding the Aswan High Dam, another dam on the Nile that was completed in 1970 and is located in Egypt. Similar to Ethiopia’s desire to use the electricity and profits generated by the GERD to advance as a country, the Aswan High Dam was a point of pride amongst the Egyptian people and a key factor in Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal and taking back control of it and their country from European nations (the revenue from the canal was needed to fund the dam).

Before the construction of the Aswan High Dam, there were numerous concerns that it would end up doing more harm than good to the surrounding environment. Critics worried that the dam would lead to sedimentation in the reservoir, erosion of the coast and the land at the base of the dam, an increase in the spread of diseases and decreased soil fertility in the area.

The Aswan High Dam has been in use for over 50 years now, and according to several experts including Cecilia Tortajada, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Water Resources Development and senior research fellow at the Institute of Water Policy, and Asit Biswas, member of the World Commission on Water and co-founder of the International Water Resources Association and the World Water Council, the benefits have thus far proven to outweigh its negative effects. The dam’s primary mission is to stabilize the flood-drought cycle of the Nile in Egypt, and from this point of view it has been an unequivocal success. Since the dam was completed, the Nile’s annual flood has not harmed human lives or agricultural land, and enough water has been stored to see Egypt through all subsequent drought years. Another positive side effect of the Aswan High Dam is that the regulation of the Nile’s flow has allowed for year-round irrigation, leading to two or three harvests per year instead of just one. Additionally, the electricity it generated was the main source of power for Egypt until recently, and a key propellant behind the country’s rapid industrialization.

The impact of the Aswan High Dam has not been entirely rosy though; it has led to an increase in the salinity of both the water and the nearby soil used for agriculture, a severe reduction in the silt that has traditionally fertilized the soil, the collapse of some river banks, and infestations of various aquatic weeds. However, the widely accepted consensus is that these side effects can be managed and are far eclipsed by the positives of the dam.

There is no way to be sure what effects the GERD will have, but estimates have been made based on the fallout from the High Aswan Dam and simulations of various scenarios, including failure of the dam and drought and flood seasons. According to Abdelkader Ahmed, a professor of environmental engineering at at Aswan University, the initial filling of the reservoir will flood existing plants in the area (which is heavily occupied by tropical shrubs), killing them off en masse and leading to a large release of carbon dioxide emissions (between one and eight million tons) as they decompose. It will also affect the spawning and migration of several fish species that may become disoriented by the changing temperatures and currents. However, since the GERD is located by Ethiopia’s border, it will likely not cause major changes to the country’s water supply or agricultural land.

Sudan is in a unique in-between position because the GERD stands to benefit the country but also puts it in harm’s way. The GERD will stabilize the flow of the Nile in Sudan and allow for agricultural production year-round (similar to the effect the High Aswan Dam had on Egypt). However, Sudan is also the country most at risk if the dam should fail. Models created by faculty at American University of Sharjah and United Arab Emirates University found that because the GERD is located in an area of Ethiopia prone to earthquakes and surrounded by steep mountains with high rates of erosion and landslides, geological activity is the most likely reason why it would fail. Regardless of the reason, if the GERD collapses, Sudan will face catastrophic damage including the flooding of almost 10,000 mi² of agricultural land and roads and the transformation of Khartoum, the country’s capital, into a lake.

The forecasted impact for Egypt is not as favorable as the other two countries. A study conducted by researchers at Zagazig University in Egypt and the Technical University of Kosice in Slovakia found that the GERD will reduce the level of both groundwater and surface water in Egypt, which would be detrimental to the agricultural output since most crops grown in the country require large amounts of water. However, if farmers switch to growing crops that use less water, the lower groundwater levels combined with less watering of the plants will increase the salinity of the soil to a level that will damage soil productivity, putting Egyptian farmers in a no-win situation. The dam also inhibits the flow of nutrient-rich sediment that has traditionally replenished downstream agricultural land, further handicapping production capabilities. This could become a serious problem if agricultural output decreases as Egypt’s population growth continues to outpace the ability of the country’s resources to to support it.

The decreased groundwater and surface water levels are concerning on their own since Egypt is already facing increasing levels of water scarcity and has one of the lowest per capita shares of water in the world. According to the United Nations, Egypt is under the water poverty threshold, and will face an “absolute water crisis” by 2025. The country is also concerned about whether Ethiopia will permit the necessary amount of water to be released from the GERD’s reservoir during drought years. Though many talks have taken place between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan over the GERD, no agreements have been made about protocol during droughts. For Egypt, whose water supplies are already being stretched very thin, how Ethiopia chooses to react to the next drought could be an inflection point for the country.

It is clear that though the GERD will bring many benefits for Ethiopia and Sudan, Egypt will not share in the good fortune. Regardless, the dam has already been built and the reservoir is filled partway. At this junction it is crucial for the leaders of all three countries to come together to determine how to maximize the GERD’s utility for Ethiopia and Sudan within the constraints of maintaining Egypt’s access to necessary resources. 

This 14-year long plan was announced in 2016 by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependency on the oil industry. This plan includes several infrastructure, education and renewable energy projects, but by far the most ambitious project within this 2030 vision is the city of Neom. 

The city of Neom is the prince’s crown jewel and he expects that it will put the country on the international stage and not only manage to be the face of sustainable development, city building and living, but also a major hub for travel, tourism and transportation. 

The city is planned to be developed in the Tabuk province, which is located in the northwest part of the country. The area borders the Red Sea to the south, Jordan to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the west, across from which is Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. 

Construction has already begun after Neom’s announcement at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on October 24, 2017. Neom Bay, which includes some resorts and luxury apartments, has already begun construction. Additionally, Neom Bay Airport was inaugurated in 2019 and will serve as a temporary hub until the main airport is finished. 

The project has been estimated to cost around $500 billion dollars and set to open the first stage by 2025 with the main attraction being The Line, a city shaped in a straight line that will run 170km from the coast towards the inland desert and would take up $200 billion from the budget. The city is planned to be a fully sustainable project that would rely 100% on renewable energies to run. The project would also, according to the Saudi government, create 380,000 jobs and increase its GDP by $48 billion. 

“Why should we sacrifice nature for the sake of development?” Prince Mohammed said in the televised announcement of The Line in January. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”

According to the Saudi government, The Line would consist of three different levels. On the ground floor there would be an uninterrupted pedestrian walkway with parks. The second level would have the services, stores and other commercial spaces. And the third level would be what is being called The Spine. 

In the same announcement made by bin Salman, he mentioned that the city is being built with a future population of one million people in mind. He further stated that all of these people would be just five minutes away from any good or service they would need for their day to day lives. 

The Neom project and more recently The Line have been heavily promoted online and are widely seeking additional foreign investment to help develop the city. Several YouTube advertisements and videos as well as viral explanatory videos have been key to the growing awareness of the project abroad. 

This ambitious project, however, has also raised some questions and concerns surrounding the true intentions behind its construction, as well as the ethical aspects that surround the city building as well as the country as a whole. 

One major controversy surrounding Neom is the current and future displacement of the Al-Huwaitat tribe. With around 20,000 people facing eviction and many Al-Huwaitat advocates being killed in the past years, the project has faced international backlash from several NGOs across the world. On April 13, 2020, Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti, one of the main advocates from the tribe, was killed by Saudi security forces in what they allege was self defence as Al-Huwaiti had fired first. Al-Huwaiti was a major critic of the Neom project, and many suspect that this could have been the reason for his death. 

“They have begun the process of removing people, beginning with surveying homes with the intent of removing people and deporting them from their land,” said Al-Huwaiti on a video recorded on the day of his death referring to the Saudi forces reaching his hometown. “They arrested anyone who said they’re against deportation, they don’t want to leave, they want to remain [in]their homes, that they don’t want money.”

Despite highlighting on the promotional website that the city will be built on “virgin land,” the testimonies from local tribes say otherwise. This is one of the major controversies that the Neom project faces, but with the recent announcement of The Line it seems like the Saudi government will continue the city’s development. 

This project is also very important for Saudi Arabia, not only due to its potential revenue in tourism and investment, but it will also allow for Saudi Arabia to assume strategic control of trade and transit within the region and beyond. 

The area where Neom will be developed is adjacent to the Strait of Tiran, where the Saudi administered islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie just off Egypt’s beach resort city Sharm El Sheikh on the Sinai peninsula. Alongside the plan to build the city, there is a plan to build a bridge connecting both countries by land. 

This bridge would completely change the way the region works as transporting goods through land from Egypt to Saudi Arabia would become possible, completely bypassing the current need to go through Israel. The bridge would also give Saudi Arabia control over the Strait as well, which could potentially increase the country’s influence over Asian exports to Israel. 

This would also help Saudi Arabia become one of the main hubs for travel and transportation, although the development would face fierce competition from neighbouring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two countries which have established themselves as powerhouses in the aviation industry with their major airlines Qatar Airways and Emirates respectively. 

The government wants to incentivise investors by establishing Neom as a free trade zone with its own tax and legal system, the latter supposedly being structured around more open and progressive ideals. This contrasts the strict Sharia law that prevails within the rest of the country which has been criticized for numerous human rights violations. This is something similar to what the UAE has already done with Dubai since 2006, where the Emirati government established an international court system to better appeal to the international investors. 

The project as a whole is Prince bin Salman’s attempt at creating a place that can serve as a major source of revenue and international influence for the Saudi government, and which can put the country on the international stage to not only help diversify the economy, but to also extend the reach of the Saudi influence within the global community. 

The positive, progressive and innovative prospects that the city is set to have, however, must be looked at through a critical lens, as the Crown Prince has proved that he may disregard locals or other people that stand in the way of his projects, even when they are within their right to protest the development. 

It remains to be seen if the Saudi government is up to the task of constructing this massive and ambitious project, and if they will be able to deliver on all of their sustainability promises while bettering their efforts to secure an ethical development. 

Mexico’s current administration. led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his party MORENA, has not only been completely negligent of Mexico’s environment and sustainability potential, but it has also implemented several new regulations that threaten the environment and Mexico’s clean energy sector. 

Most recently, on March 3, an initiative to reform the Electric Industry Law was passed by the Mexican Congress. This reform practically monopolizes electricity production under the state owned Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), making it harder for foreign investment to reach the renewable energy sector. 

“[The new reform] threatens the compromises established under international treaties, both commercial agreements as well as protection of investments and the environment, for example the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Mexico’s Council for Business Coordination in a press release addressing the reform. 

By making it harder for private companies to invest in the energy sector, the country’s electricity production will fall into the control of the CFE which only produces around 15% of its electricity with renewable sources. 

This is not the first time Lopez Obrador’s government has threatened clean and renewable energies, as last year he blocked the development of clean energy infrastructure projects citing “issues regarding the pandemic.” In May 2020, the National Centre for Energy Control and Secretary of Energy [NAME], under the guidance of Lopez Obrador’s party, introduced a series of legislative acts that limited the amount of energy that private companies could produce and the number of permits they could acquire. 

This legislation also allowed the administration to stop all of the necessary tests for the new sustainable energy power plants to start production. Lopez Obrador cited “energy security concerns due to the pandemic” as justification for this legislation, even though studies could not find any link between renewables and their effects on national energy insecurity. 

These new regulations became so alarming for Mexico’s environmental commitment, that the UN and several other governments and international institutions shared their concerns with the Mexican government. 

The UN’s environmental organization, the UNEP, reported on its yearly renewable energy investment report that Mexico had a 1.800 billion dollar deficit from its initial investment commitment of 6.1 billion. 

“This shows that there is a lack of political will more than any problem related to Covid-19. Mexico should be equipped with renewable energy sources.” said Dr. Ulf Moslener, head of research for the UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance, in a comment for the EFE.

All of this regulation and legislation are just some of the many logistical obstacles that Lopez Obrador has presented to the development of clean energy sources in the country. The main and most direct attack, however, comes in the shape of his beloved passion projects. These involve the construction and further development of massive infrastructure projects, which include a train that will cut through the Mayan jungle as well as an oil refinery.

The “Tren Maya” is a planned 1,460 km railway project to be built in the Mayan Riviera as well as Obrador’s dream tourism booster. This project however, brought a lot of environmental concerns from experts, activist groups and local indigenous populations. The building of the tracks would cut through an estimated 12,000 individual trees. This not only endangers 178 different types of flora, but also threatens the lives of several species. Among them the Jaguar, from which 1,800 of the 4,000 remaining in the country are found within that region and would have their natural habitat disturbed by the constant movement of people and goods throughout the jungle. 

To top it all off, Obrador had previously stated that the train would run, for the most part, on electricity, however, last year it was confirmed that it would run primarily on diesel fuel that would be imported from abroad. All of this would ultimately contribute to the pollution of the Mayan jungle. 

This never-ending dependency on oil perpetuated by Lopez Obrador’s government is exacerbated by another one of the president’s passion projects, the Dos Bocas oil refinery‒ a 9 billion dollar mega project that would be able to process 340,000 oil barrels a day. 

Starting an oil refinery in the 2020s is just one more nail in the coffin that is Lopez Obrador’s lack of commitment to the environment. This project not only demonstrates that polluting energy sources are prioritized over clean and renewable ones, but it also reveals  his administration’s hypocrisy within their environmental discourse. 

During Lopez Obrador’s campaign in 2018, he rushed to criticize a then-active airport project for being built on top of a “lake,” as it threatened the environment. However, once in office, all of these environmentalist facades have been thrown out the window with Lopez Obrador putting forward even more damaging projects and legislation. 

The core of this hypocrisy lies on the fact that, in the end, his campaign promises were never about the environment ‒ they were simply a ploy to gain popular support. He assured the public of his commitment to environmental protection throughout his campaign with promises such as  “of course we have to save the lake,” referring to an airport built on an already dried up lake bed where construction had already begun. Yet, while once in office, he justified being against eolic energy because wind turbines are “ruining the landscape.”

A country’s economic development can be achieved without severely compromising the environment, as long as appropriate mitigation strategies are implemented. However, in the case of Lopez Obrador’s passion projects, mitigation has not been a part of his primary focus; putting his own reputation, caprice and interests above all else. 

Obrador always prides himself as being against neoliberalism and the previous administration’s corruption and thirst for money, but as it stands today, it seems like he is no different. 

All of his projects are fueled not by a desire to make an impactful change, but to leave his own mark on Mexican history. The evidence of him favoring oil over renewables and his own environmentally damaging projects over those from the previous administration, highlights that this is not a battle between his administration and unsustainability, it is just a way for him to fulfill his whims in whatever way possible. 

This is not a new era for Mexico’s environmentalism, it is just another tantrum-prone and greed driven demagogue trying to leave his mark on the Mexican history books.  

However, from the beginning, it has always been known that storing and distributing vaccines would be a tall task. Everything from road conditions to human error can squander life-saving doses. Recently, just a single unplugged cord, knocked loose by a cleaning contractor, rendered 2,000 vaccines in a Boston hospital useless. These are the frustrating — yet inevitable — realities of needing to develop vaccines quickly and effectively, but not having time to consider convenience. 

Those lost doses are often a result of factors outside of human control. However, hundreds of thousands more lives are being put at risk by the most pervasive and permanent virus of all: greed. 

But there are currently global coalitions working to ensure that vaccine rollout is equitable. COVAX is a cooperative set up by the World Health Organization, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the European Commission in order to ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines. The coalition’s broad goals are motivated by the vision that no matter a country’s prosperity or wealth, they will have the right to protect their people and have equal access to vaccinations as they are developed. 

The COVAX facility maintains a diverse portfolio of vaccines and essentially gives lower income countries collective bargaining power to ensure that manufacturers deliver appropriately and in a timely manner. It is made up of both ‘self-funding’ countries and countries in need, and is primarily funded by member states of the WHO and funding from external sources. A separate COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) acts as a vaccine fund, made up of a mixture of foreign aid and philanthropy from the private sector. Under the Trump Administration, the United States announced its withdrawal from the WHO, citing corruption and political favoring toward China. However, the Biden administration, in its first days in office, announced the United States’ recommitment to the organization, and as a result, the COVAX alliance.

Former President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, told The World radio that “this is an interdependent and interconnected world. [COVAX countries] have to see vaccines as a global good to be able to save humanity — and humanity is worldwide… they cannot treat it as apartheid [and]they cannot say because you’re poor, you will not be vaccinated, only the rich will be.” COVAX is supposed to be a multilateral effort demonstrating the public health impact of the world coming together, with wealthy nations extending a much-needed hand to the world’s poorer economies.

For example, Canada, a G7 nation with the tenth-largest economy in the world, invested $440 million in COVAX. While most wealthy countries are buying their vaccines directly, Canada instead intends to use half of their contributions to buy vaccines through COVAX for their own people. Trudeau is facing harsh criticism for Canada’s disjointed and ambiguous coronavirus protocols; after all, Canadian leadership initially called the virus a low risk to their nation, and delayed a comprehensive response for far too long. More recently, Canada has been widely criticized for their ineffective plan for how to distribute their doses to the masses. Perhaps Trudeau views COVAX as a way to bail him out of an unfavorable political dilemma — one that was entirely the fault of his administration — instead of as a way for Canada to contribute to global recovery. 

While it is the only G7 nation to benefit from COVAX thus far, other countries further along in their coronavirus response like New Zealand — who found success in combating COVID-19 as a result of proper planning from the government — are following suit. Canada already owns the highest number of doses per capita, even before COVAX doses start rolling out in February. In contrast, only one out of the 29 poorest nations have started vaccinations. But this first step forward is nowhere near where the world needs to be quite yet. For the west African nation of Guinea, the country had only a whopping 55 shots delivered to them. 

Outside of COVAX, it was clear from the outset that money could buy human security during the pandemic. Israel, for example, was extremely aggressive in prioritizing the safety of their people and securing vaccines early. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government paid double for earlier access to Pfizer’s jabs. The reverse side of that coin is a case like South Africa’s. South Africa has acted similarly to Canada in that its leadership failed to take quick and decisive action to invest in a recovery plan. The Serum Institute of India (SII), where the Astra-Zeneca vaccines are made, sells its doses in a tiered system based on wealth. South Africa qualifies as a middle-high income country, yet has nowhere near the economic capacity of Canada. Therefore, they have to pay $5.25 per dose. To put that in perspective, European countries pay around $2.17 to $3 for each of their doses. The SII justified this by stating that some countries were entitled to a discount due to their contributions to research and development.

Canada and South Africa are two countries with poor leadership and poor initial action against the virus; the former and far wealthier was able to exploit a system designed to redistribute resources regardless of wealth by having enough wealth to do so, while the latter and far poorer continues to lag behind and pay a premium they cannot afford. 

It’s clear that there is cognitive dissonance between the stated goals of COVAX, the pharmaceutical companies, and participating nations. In order for any form of equitable distribution to happen, countries who can afford it must reap more than they can sow, yet there is no willingness to do so on a country-by-country basis. The WHO warned of the dangers of “vaccine nationalism,” greed and price-gouging, and the effects of these concerns are already materializing. 

COVAX has played into the wealth-based inequality which it originally postured itself against. While thousands continue to die worldwide because their countries can’t afford for them to survive, Moderna charges upwards of $32 per dose, making a healthy margin on saving lives; the vaccination effort has created billionaires and will bring in tens of billions in profit for leading companies while our global economy at large is threatened and strained.

How do we let money take precedence over life itself? Does the DNA of a virus alter because of the presence of money? Do resources disappear when money disappears? Does scientific research become unlearned because of a lack of funds? These complex problems reflect a complex issue with complex answers. The fine line between economic interest and economic necessity is blurred.

The world has to develop antibodies for greed. Combatting COVID-19 is a global effort, because unless vaccinations are administered in every country and to all people, the virus will continue to adapt, mutate and infect. This public health crisis has demonstrated that current approaches with self-interested goals will not work. And while coalitions like COVAX are a good first step in eliminating that greed, individual leadership within each country must step up to act now.