Tag Archives: from

NASA confirms US’s 2,500-square-mile methane cloud Updated for 2026





When NASA researchers first saw data indicating a massive cloud of methane floating over the American Southwest, they found it so incredible that they dismissed it as an instrument error.

But as they continued analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography instrument from 2002 to 2012, the ‘atmospheric hot spot’ kept appearing.

The team at NASA was finally able to take a closer look, and have now concluded that there is in fact a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane – roughly the size of Delaware – floating over the Four Corners region, where the borders of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah all intersect.

This discovery follows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new estimates of methane’s ‘global warming potential’ (GWP): 34 over 100 years, and 86 over 20 years. That number reflects how much more powerful methane is than CO2.

The methane cloud’s origin? Fossil fuel production

A report published by the NASA researchers in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concludes that “the source is likely from established gas, coal, and coalbed methane mining and processing.”

Indeed, the hot spot happens to be above New Mexico’s San Juan Basin, the most productive coalbed methane basin in North America.

Methane has been the focus of an increasing amount of attention, especially in regards to methane leaks from fracking for oil and natural gas.

Pockets of natural gas, which is 95-98% methane, are often found along with oil and simply burned off in a very visible process called ‘flaring’.

But scientists are starting to realize that far more methane is being released by the fracking boom than previously thought. And it appears that much of it is venting directly to the atmosphere, rather than being flared.

Fracking and horizontal drilling in the frame

Earlier this year, Cornell environmental engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea released the results of a study of 41,000 oil and gas wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania between 2000 and 2012.

He found that newer wells using fracking and horizontal drilling methods were far more likely to be responsible for fugitive emissions of methane.

According to the NASA researchers, the region of the American Southwest over which the 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is floating emitted 590,000 metric tons of methane every year between 2002 and 2012.

That’s almost 3.5 times the widely used estimates in the European Union’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research – and none of it was from fracking.

That should prompt a hard look at the entire fossil fuel sector, not just fracking, according to University of Michigan Professor Eric Kort, the lead researcher on the study:

“While fracking has become a focal point in conversations about methane emissions, it certainly appears from this and other studies that in the US, fossil fuel extraction activities across the board likely emit higher than inventory estimates.”

 


 

Mike G writes for DeSmogBlog, where this article was originally published.

 

 




384300

NASA confirms US’s 2,500-square-mile methane cloud Updated for 2026





When NASA researchers first saw data indicating a massive cloud of methane floating over the American Southwest, they found it so incredible that they dismissed it as an instrument error.

But as they continued analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography instrument from 2002 to 2012, the ‘atmospheric hot spot’ kept appearing.

The team at NASA was finally able to take a closer look, and have now concluded that there is in fact a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane – roughly the size of Delaware – floating over the Four Corners region, where the borders of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah all intersect.

This discovery follows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new estimates of methane’s ‘global warming potential’ (GWP): 34 over 100 years, and 86 over 20 years. That number reflects how much more powerful methane is than CO2.

The methane cloud’s origin? Fossil fuel production

A report published by the NASA researchers in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concludes that “the source is likely from established gas, coal, and coalbed methane mining and processing.”

Indeed, the hot spot happens to be above New Mexico’s San Juan Basin, the most productive coalbed methane basin in North America.

Methane has been the focus of an increasing amount of attention, especially in regards to methane leaks from fracking for oil and natural gas.

Pockets of natural gas, which is 95-98% methane, are often found along with oil and simply burned off in a very visible process called ‘flaring’.

But scientists are starting to realize that far more methane is being released by the fracking boom than previously thought. And it appears that much of it is venting directly to the atmosphere, rather than being flared.

Fracking and horizontal drilling in the frame

Earlier this year, Cornell environmental engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea released the results of a study of 41,000 oil and gas wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania between 2000 and 2012.

He found that newer wells using fracking and horizontal drilling methods were far more likely to be responsible for fugitive emissions of methane.

According to the NASA researchers, the region of the American Southwest over which the 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is floating emitted 590,000 metric tons of methane every year between 2002 and 2012.

That’s almost 3.5 times the widely used estimates in the European Union’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research – and none of it was from fracking.

That should prompt a hard look at the entire fossil fuel sector, not just fracking, according to University of Michigan Professor Eric Kort, the lead researcher on the study:

“While fracking has become a focal point in conversations about methane emissions, it certainly appears from this and other studies that in the US, fossil fuel extraction activities across the board likely emit higher than inventory estimates.”

 


 

Mike G writes for DeSmogBlog, where this article was originally published.

 

 




384300

Excluding Greens from TV debates would make a mockery of democracy Updated for 2026



Next year’s TV debates could be a slap in the face to millions seeking a progressive political voice. And politics will only be the worse off for it in an era of alienation and disenfranchisement.


There’s a stitch-up being planned. One that could affect the outcome of next year’s General Election in the UK.

The main broadcasters are planning to exclude the Green Party from the televised election debates in 2015 – while including Nigel Farage’s UKIP, and the increasingly threadbare Lib Dems.

The decision was announced earlier this week, and it has rightly led to outrage from across the political spectrum. When you look at the figures, the plan to exclude the Greens becomes simply unbelievable.

Greens enjoy serious democratic representation

There are two ways in which broadcasters might reasonably judge whether a party should be take part in the election debates. First, by the level of representation the party enjoys.

The Greens have the same number of MPs as UKIP – one. The party has also held it for far longer than UKIP’s Douglas Carswell, a Tory defector: Caroline Lucas won her seat in 2010 and has proved a formidable force in Parliament, and popular among the public.

We, including the Scottish Greens, also have two MSPs in the Scottish Parliament (that’s two more than UKIP), and three MEPs (many fewer than UKIP’s 24, but triple the Lib Dems’ single member). The Greens also came third in the last London mayoral election.

In local authorities the Greens have 170 principal authority councillors across England and Wales, including two London Assembly members, and 14 councillors in Scotland. That’s not as many as UKIP with its 357 councillors, but still an impressive number that demonstrates broad-based, nationwide support.

Visible popular support

The other reasonable way to judge whether a party should participate in election debates is to go by the level of support that seems likely in future elections, based both on recent election outcomes, and opinion polls. So how do the Greens shape up there?

In the European elections UKIP led the field with 27.5% of the vote. But the Greens came in fourth place with 7.9%, a whole percentage point ahead of the Lib Dems with their 6.9%. That 7.9%, incidentally, reflected the votes of 1,255,573 people across the UK.

As for the opinion polls for the 2015 General Election, many show the Greens level pegging with the Lib Dems, at around 5-7%. This follows monumental growth in membership over the past five years, including a 56% boost in 2014 alone to over 21,000 members, and 1,000 new members in the last week.

In short, all the numbers show that the Greens represent a broad, substantial, nationwide constituency of progressive voters that are turning out to support us in elections in growing numbers.

And in 2015, many more will have the change to vote Green, with the Party contesting three quarters of UK constituencies – up 50% from 2010.

A deliberate close-down of choice?

But of course, the numbers don’t say it all. What is really at issue is the exclusion of choice – an attack on the principle of democracy. If Farage appears without the Greens, what we will have are TV debates between four ‘austerity parties’ all battling over the same political ground. The phrase ‘sham election’ comes to mind.

Not only that, but it will be composed of four parties who all support fracking, back ‘free trade’ deals like TTIP that threaten health and environmental protections, who advocate either grossly insufficient measures to tackle the enormous reality of global warming, or (in the case of UKIP) deny it altogether.

Who else is to advocate Green policies like:

  • the return of our railways to public ownership?
  • the abolition of the UK’s £100bn Trident nuclear weapons system?
  • a Living Wage for all, alongside plans for a national minimum wage of £10 per hour by 2020?
  • the scrapping of plans for a Hinkley C nuclear power station that looks like costing taxpayers and electricity customers over £30 billion?

Only the Greens are challenging the neoliberal ‘free market’ consensus of the ‘grey’ parties. And without a strong Green voice being heard in the debates, we will only have an establishment stitch-up. It’s vital that the thousands, if not millions, of Green voters – or potential supporters – are represented. If not, can we really say we live in a democracy?

In short, without the Greens, there is no one to present an unequivocally pro-environment, pro-people viewpoint. Next year’s TV debates could therefore represent a slap in the face to millions seeking a progressive political voice. And politics will only be the worse off for it in an era of alienation and disenfranchisement.

This isn’t about moaning. We are not trying to deny UKIP or the Lib Dems their right to be heard. Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who enjoy significant levels of support, should also be included. Democracy isn’t just about who you vote for – it’s about representation. That has to include Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If not, what kind of a union are we?

The new political reality must be recognised

Siobhan MacMahon, Co-Chair of the Young Greens, put it right when she said: “The obvious truth from the proposed TV debates is that broadcasters are struggling to adapt to the new political reality that we face in the UK, with five or more parties all staking legitimate claims to featuring in the debate.

“The Greens have been unfairly excluded from that process, despite receiving over a million votes in the European Elections and beating the Lib Dems into fourth place.”

That’s why the Young Greens – as well as calling for fair debates – are also leading the way calling for a series of youth debates among young party leaders from across the spectrum. With the Greens becoming the third party of young people, polling around 15% and doubling in size in 2014 alone, we are in a good place to pioneer such calls for experimentation in democracy.

The debates could be online – via newspapers, YouTube and other media – as well as on radio or TV. Nothing is written in stone. What is right is that they should happen. Young people deserve a voice too as those who will clear up the mess of the current lot in power.

Either way, the fact that over 168,000 have signed a petition calling for broader party representation on the TV debates shows just how strongly people feel. And they’re going to be very angry if they are ignored.

And it’s not just the poltically engaged that believe this. A YouGov poll showed that (excluding ‘don’t knows’) 60% of voters agree that the Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, should be included in the debates.

It’s time the media and political leaders to wake up to the multi-party country we have become.

 


 

Josiah Mortimer sits on the national committee of the Young Greens.

The petition: Include the Green Party in the TV Leaders’ Debates ahead of the 2015 General Election!

 

 




385516

FLUMP – Plant populations, insect diversity, Extended Synthesis of Evolution and evolutionary ecology of specialization Updated for 2026

616px-Insect_collage

It’s Friday and that means that it’s time for our Friday link dump, where we highlight some recent papers (and other stuff) that we found interesting but didn’t have the time to write an entire post about. If you think there’s something we missed, or have something to say, please share in the comments section!

Some cool articles from the latest issue of Ecology:

– Benno Simmons

An article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B uses historical data on different insect families to examine the contribution of different adaptations to their taxonomic richness.  The team, led by David Nicholson from the University of York in the U.K., found that metamorphosis, and to a lesser extent the presence of wings, had the greatest effect on the diversification of insects. – Nate Johnson

Following Nate’s indication, take a look at the Proceedings of the Royal Society B special issue: “Evolutionary ecology of specialization: insights from phylogenetic analysis”.

Last week, Nature published an interesting comment paper on the Extend Synthesis of Evolution (we have a post on this subject here), “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” The paper is authored by both, scientists pro and against the new extend synthesis.

– Vinicius Bastazini. 

October 10, 2014

Unlawful, ineffective, toxic: the badger cull must end – vaccination is the answer Updated for 2026





After a full day’s hearing in the Court of Appeal yesterday, we are back there today making our case to three senior judges that the Government’s failure to re-appoint its expert panel to oversee the 2014 badger cull makes the exercise unlawful.

Without such a Panel, we argue, there can be no proper independent assessment of the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of the culling operation – something that would be needed before any lawful decision could be taken to continue with further culls around the country.

Lord Justice Davis has indicated to us that judgment will be handed down without unnecessary delay, and we keenly await the outcome. And as we do so, let’s take stock of where we are, how we got there, and what the future holds.

A catastrophic policy failure

The late Edward Kennedy once said “Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy and deceit is poison in its veins.” These words resonate with me when it comes to discussing the disastrous badger cull policy which has done so much to undermine the reputation of our political system over the past few years.

Of all the controversial policies this coalition Government has implemented, the badger cull stands out for one reason, it is based largely on a web of deceit which has been spun by the Prime Minister, Owen Paterson and his replacement as DEFRA Secretary of State Liz Truss.

The badger cull was never about science or indeed effective disease control, it was a desperate attempt by David Cameron to shore up support for the Tory Party in rural communities ahead of the 2010 election, by ensuring strong support for pro badger cull Tory candidates from the National Farmers Union and Countryside Alliance.

The policy could only be delivered by a politician who was closely aligned to both these organisations and comfortable to spin a web of deceit and misinformation to MPs, media and wider public.

Caroline Spelman was not this type of politician, but Owen Paterson was perfect for the job. From his first day in office, he made it clear to his senior officials that the cull policy was to be implemented no matter what the costs or opposition from conservation and wildlife groups.

He put his civil servants to work developing a pro cull propaganda machine to paint a highly inaccurate picture of the scale and cost of the bovine TB crisis and the need to eradicate badgers to get it under control.

Blame the badgers!

To start with DEFRA did all it could to blame badgers as being the prime cause of TB in cattle. In fact the vast majority of TB infections are between cattle, which are often housed in large numbers in sheds and moved around the country (over 13 million a year) with poor biosecurity, control movements and TB testing regimes.

In reality the poor badger has been the victim of industrial pollution on a huge scale from the most intensive livestock industry in Europe.

It’s the cattle which have infected the badgers with TB. And despite claims from Owen Paterson that the transmission rate from badgers to cattle is 50% (figure based on a mathematical model), the true level of TB transmission is likely to be in the region of 5%.

We were then told by DEFRA that bovine TB is the biggest crisis facing the UK farming industry and unless we kill badgers it will end up costing the tax payer over £1 billion in the next decade.

In reality the level of compensation paid to farmers for cattle prematurely slaughtered due to TB runs to around £40 million a year, over £20 million of which was recovered by the treasury as a result of the sale of TB meat into the food chain in 2013, without labelling or traceability.

Over the last year these costs have started to decline as the number of cattle slaughtered for TB has dropped by almost 10%, as a result of tighter biosecurity, control movements and TB testing systems forced on the UK Government by the European Commission.

Spread false fears

Owen Paterson also made it a key goal to demonise badgers by spreading false fears over the level of TB within the badger population, by regularly talking in the media of super excreters exploding with disease and infecting cattle at a rapid rate.

In reality of over 11,000 badgers killed in the Randomised Badger Cull by the last Labour Government, only 1.65% fell into this category.

A further 15% had low level TB, which would not impact on the health of the badger during its short lifetime, or make it a major risk of disease spread to other badgers or cattle.

This is the key reason why DEFRA has not tested any of the badgers killed during the pilot culls for TB: they know the results would show a very low level of disease, which would not justify their plans to eradicate large numbers of this protected species from many parts of the country.

In Wales where thousands of badgers have now been vaccinated against TB during the past three years, not a single one has needed to be removed and euthanised because they were visibly sick with TB lesions, despite being in a TB hotspot area.

Attempting to undermine Wales’s successful policies

Then we come to the cost justification for badger culling over badger vaccination. In the run up to the badger culls in 2013, Owen Paterson did all he could to undermine the Welsh government badger vaccination programme on both cost and effectiveness and grounds.

He claimed that free shooting of badgers at night would be the most effective and humane way of removing large number of badgers at a much lower cost than trapping and vaccination.

However, we have now learned from Freedom of Information Requests that in the initial 6 weeks of the pilot culls in 2013, only 24% of the estimated badger population in Gloucestershire and Somerset were killed by free shooting.

The vast majority of badgers killed in both pilot culls were by government employed trap teams, with higher costs than the Welsh government vaccination programme. Which brings us to the key issue of the overall costs of the pilot culls and a national rollout programme for badger culling.

An England-wide badger cull could cost taxpayers £800 million

On 6 January 2014, Care for Wild released a report based on Freedom of Information Requests, Parliamentary Questions and leaked documents, which estimated an overall cost for the pilot culls of £7.3 million or over £4,000 per dead badger.

In the days that followed, these estimates were backed up by the BBC and the police, who confirmed their costs for the badger cull pilots, exceeded £2.5 million alone.

Any justification that was left for the disastrous badger cull was blown apart by these huge costs.

It is now widely accepted that a 4 year badger cull in Gloucester and Somerset would cost in the region of £20 million, but would only deliver around £2.5 million benefit to the tax payer in terms of reducing the spread of bovine TB.

If – as Owen Paterson boasted to the Sunday Times in 2013 – badger culling was rolled out to 40 new areas of England over the next 4 years, the overall cost could exceed £800 million.

David Cameron’s gamble to appoint Owen Paterson as Environment Secretary to deliver the badger cull blew up in his face. He had no choice but to sack him in his recent Cabinet reshuffle as he had become political poison in the party.

In replacing Paterson, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to appoint a new DEFRA Secretary of State who listens to public concerns on protecting wildlife, puts science not politics back at the heart of DEFRA policy making and finds a new way forward in tackling bovine TB, which protects both the future of our wildlife and farming industry.

However, he chose to appoint the inexperienced Liz Truss who has continued on the path of pushing ahead with the disastrous badger cull policy, in the face of huge opposition without any independent monitoring.

An increasingly toxic issue

A recent Mori Poll confirmed that opposition to badger culling was the 5th most common cause for complaint to MPs during the past 12 months, ahead of issues such as education, childcare and taxes.

Over the past 12 months tens of thousands of people have marched against the badger culls in 25 towns and cities across the country, in what has become the largest rolling wildlife protection campaign in Europe.

Over 300,000 people signed a petition against the policy, two debates have taken place in Parliament and the lack of independent monitoring for the cull has been subject to a Judicial Review challenge by the Badger Trust, which went before the Court of Appeal on the 9 October.

The Labour Party can see where public opinion is going on this issue and have made a clear commitment to stop the pilot badger culls and any national rollout should it form a government in May 2015.

The Liberal Democrats have also made it clear they no longer want to be associated with a national badger culling policy, unless it can be proven to effective on scientific, humaneness and safety grounds.

At the Conservative Party conference, a mood of rebellion

Killing badgers has become so sensitive within the Tory Party that David Cameron advised Liz Truss to avoid mentioning the badger cull policy at all in her first speech to the Tory Conference in Birmingham.

But delegates entering the conference hall still had to run the gauntlet of anti- badger cull protesters at the start of the conference.

On the fringe Tory MP’s such as Anne Main were calling on David Cameron to accept that badger culling has no scientific, economic or animal welfare justification and will make no significant contribution to lowering bovine TB.

Looking to the next election, many Tory MPs admit to being increasingly concerned by how badly badger culling goes down with their constituents.

Its time David Cameron realised that British people are uniquely caring and compassionate towards wildlife and will not allow a protected species such as badgers be destroyed due to backroom deals with landowning and farming interests.

He should now dust off his plans for the Big Society which still has merit and make badger vaccination a key Big Society Project.

Thousands of people are willing to volunteer to be trained as lay vaccinators and work with farmers and landowners to vaccinate badgers across the country to reduce the spread of the disease in both badgers and cattle.

This will not only prove a more popular policy with voters, but it will the right thing to do for farmers, tax payers and the future of our precious wildlife.

 


 

Dominic Dyer is CEO of the Badger Trust & Policy Advisor Care for the Wild.

 

 




383895

Loan sharking and microfinance: What’s the difference? Updated for 2026





The introduction of hard-nosed private sector investment and the age-old pressures of social norms mean microfinance institutions are at risk of losing their social conscience – and both clients and staff are paying the price. But microfinance could still be saved from moral bankruptcy.

With the close of the 17th annual microcredit summit in Mexico last month, a CEO working group has introduced microfinance certifications to protect the client; a move that couldn’t come at a more critical time for the microfinance sector. Research is increasing revealing that the reality for clients is far from ideal.

Let’s take a look at South Asia. Does microfinance work here? Well, if you are asking whether it covers its costs and/or is profitable, then the answer is increasingly moving towards “yes”.

But if the question is whether microfinance achieves its declared social mission, then a growing body of evidence from fieldwork with clients living in poverty – in contrast to PR churned out by microfinance head offices, and parroted in the Western press – suggests the answer is “probably not”.

Abuse, threats, harassment

This conclusion is supported by our recent quantitative analyses and qualitative studies detailing the human realities behind the glowing repayment statistics.

Reports gathered from women in villages across Bangladesh and India show that loan officers from microfinance institutions (MFIs) commonly exert pressure to repay through harassment, violent threats, coercion by neighbours, public humiliation, verbal abuse and insults as well as seizure of assets.

Some villagers even reported individuals migrating to escape their debts.

Others aren’t lucky enough to have this escape route – many of the beneficiaries of microfinance are by definition poor women who are reliant on husbands and their community. Defaulting is simply not an option.

One woman we interviewed in 2013 reported being forced to take out a loan by her abusive husband so he could spend it on drinking and betting. She showed the loan officer the bruises on her arms and legs and begged him to refuse her husband another loan. Instead, the loan officer suggested her husband physically reprimand her.

If she leaves her husband she fears exclusion by her community, arrest and even starvation. If she stays, she faces more abuse and ever more pressure to pay back ‘her’ debt.

Loan officers ashamed of the methods they compelled to use

It’s not just the recipients of microfinance who suffer from the relentless privileging of repayment over all other measures of success.

The systems, structures and cultures of today’s MFIs – limited staff training, zero-delay and zero-default policies as well as demanding branch managers focused purely on financial performance – build chains of pressure, not only on clients but also on staff.

Many of the loan officers interviewed reported being ashamed of, or even depressed by, the ways in which they treat clients, explaining their behaviour in terms of fearing their branch managers.

One female loan officer reported staying in the house of a late-paying client all night when she was pregnant in a bid to force the woman to hand over the money, afraid as she was of returning to the office empty-handed. During the night her waters broke and the client had to help her to hospital.

Why is the moral compass failing?

There is little doubt that the founders of these organisations were genuinely seeking to help poor and low-income people improve their economic and social prospects.

Over time, however, organisational goals (growing bigger, having higher rates of repayment and higher levels of profitability, winning international awards) and closer links with mainstream finance have displaced the original mission.

In addition, the expansion of the microfinance industry since 2000 has been heavily dependent on the involvement of commercial banks, opening the industry to the corrupting influence of mainstream finance.

Access to finance is crucial for the microfinance market to develop, while for mainstream banks a new, relatively untapped market experiencing 15 years of uninterrupted expansion is appealing.

A recent CGAP study found that wholesale investors in microfinance funded $25 billion in 2011 and that overall microfinance funding continues to grow in absolute terms, despite consecutive crises and scandals.

And it’s a growth area, with some of the biggest potential markets showing small microfinance penetration rates in 2009 – 3% in India and just 2% in Brazil and Nigeria. In theory, the microfinance industry could expand until it reaches an estimated one billion un-banked poor households. If there was ever a time to fight the battle to save microfinance’s soul, it’s now.

Missing the mainstream pitfalls

One extreme response, as demonstrated when the Indian suicides came to light, would be to try to close formal microfinance down. But this would be unwise for two reasons.

Firstly, research shows that well-designed microfinance (that meets client needs and pursues sustainability) can be useful for poor and low-income people. Secondly, moneylenders might recolonise the gap, rendering already vulnerable people more so.

A second option is more effective regulation of microfinance. This is desirable, but in most countries it is, at present, difficult to achieve. Central banks, when asked to improve regulation of MFIs, usually focus on administratively intensive reporting by MFIs (which raises their costs) or arbitrary interest rate caps, which may reduce MFI capacity to meet client needs.

Where central banks could be of greater use, then, is by pushing MFIs to be transparent. They could ensure they use simple loan terms written in local languages, read out at group meetings; they could highlight the message of ‘buyer beware’.

The third option is to challenge the founders and directors of leading MFIs. We can include here among others:

  • Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury, founder and president of ASA;
  • Sir Fazle Abed of BRAC and his son Shameran Abed;
  • Zakir Hossain, founder executive director of BURO Bangladesh;
  • Professor Abu Nasser Muhammad Abduz Zaher, the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh.

They should be encouraged not to treat social performance as public relations and to reform the monitoring systems their organisations apply to branches and to staff.

Making social performance the key measure of success

Systems for monitoring social performance have improved greatly over the last decade – but MFIs need leaders to genuinely demonstrate that social performance is as important as financial performance.

They should be visiting branches and clients unannounced, holding open meetings with clients and ex-clients and discussing the problems that credit officers face without their managers being present.

And so the leaders of microfinance in South Asia have a choice. Will they follow the lead of mainstream finance and drift into a world where profit alone is a measure of success?

Or will they make a serious effort to chart a different path, where social performance is a genuine pursuit and not merely a public relations exercise?

 


 

David Hulme is Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, at the University of Manchester.

Mathilde Maitrot is Research Associate at the University of Bath.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384959

Loan sharking and microfinance: What’s the difference? Updated for 2026





The introduction of hard-nosed private sector investment and the age-old pressures of social norms mean microfinance institutions are at risk of losing their social conscience – and both clients and staff are paying the price. But microfinance could still be saved from moral bankruptcy.

With the close of the 17th annual microcredit summit in Mexico last month, a CEO working group has introduced microfinance certifications to protect the client; a move that couldn’t come at a more critical time for the microfinance sector. Research is increasing revealing that the reality for clients is far from ideal.

Let’s take a look at South Asia. Does microfinance work here? Well, if you are asking whether it covers its costs and/or is profitable, then the answer is increasingly moving towards “yes”.

But if the question is whether microfinance achieves its declared social mission, then a growing body of evidence from fieldwork with clients living in poverty – in contrast to PR churned out by microfinance head offices, and parroted in the Western press – suggests the answer is “probably not”.

Abuse, threats, harassment

This conclusion is supported by our recent quantitative analyses and qualitative studies detailing the human realities behind the glowing repayment statistics.

Reports gathered from women in villages across Bangladesh and India show that loan officers from microfinance institutions (MFIs) commonly exert pressure to repay through harassment, violent threats, coercion by neighbours, public humiliation, verbal abuse and insults as well as seizure of assets.

Some villagers even reported individuals migrating to escape their debts.

Others aren’t lucky enough to have this escape route – many of the beneficiaries of microfinance are by definition poor women who are reliant on husbands and their community. Defaulting is simply not an option.

One woman we interviewed in 2013 reported being forced to take out a loan by her abusive husband so he could spend it on drinking and betting. She showed the loan officer the bruises on her arms and legs and begged him to refuse her husband another loan. Instead, the loan officer suggested her husband physically reprimand her.

If she leaves her husband she fears exclusion by her community, arrest and even starvation. If she stays, she faces more abuse and ever more pressure to pay back ‘her’ debt.

Loan officers ashamed of the methods they compelled to use

It’s not just the recipients of microfinance who suffer from the relentless privileging of repayment over all other measures of success.

The systems, structures and cultures of today’s MFIs – limited staff training, zero-delay and zero-default policies as well as demanding branch managers focused purely on financial performance – build chains of pressure, not only on clients but also on staff.

Many of the loan officers interviewed reported being ashamed of, or even depressed by, the ways in which they treat clients, explaining their behaviour in terms of fearing their branch managers.

One female loan officer reported staying in the house of a late-paying client all night when she was pregnant in a bid to force the woman to hand over the money, afraid as she was of returning to the office empty-handed. During the night her waters broke and the client had to help her to hospital.

Why is the moral compass failing?

There is little doubt that the founders of these organisations were genuinely seeking to help poor and low-income people improve their economic and social prospects.

Over time, however, organisational goals (growing bigger, having higher rates of repayment and higher levels of profitability, winning international awards) and closer links with mainstream finance have displaced the original mission.

In addition, the expansion of the microfinance industry since 2000 has been heavily dependent on the involvement of commercial banks, opening the industry to the corrupting influence of mainstream finance.

Access to finance is crucial for the microfinance market to develop, while for mainstream banks a new, relatively untapped market experiencing 15 years of uninterrupted expansion is appealing.

A recent CGAP study found that wholesale investors in microfinance funded $25 billion in 2011 and that overall microfinance funding continues to grow in absolute terms, despite consecutive crises and scandals.

And it’s a growth area, with some of the biggest potential markets showing small microfinance penetration rates in 2009 – 3% in India and just 2% in Brazil and Nigeria. In theory, the microfinance industry could expand until it reaches an estimated one billion un-banked poor households. If there was ever a time to fight the battle to save microfinance’s soul, it’s now.

Missing the mainstream pitfalls

One extreme response, as demonstrated when the Indian suicides came to light, would be to try to close formal microfinance down. But this would be unwise for two reasons.

Firstly, research shows that well-designed microfinance (that meets client needs and pursues sustainability) can be useful for poor and low-income people. Secondly, moneylenders might recolonise the gap, rendering already vulnerable people more so.

A second option is more effective regulation of microfinance. This is desirable, but in most countries it is, at present, difficult to achieve. Central banks, when asked to improve regulation of MFIs, usually focus on administratively intensive reporting by MFIs (which raises their costs) or arbitrary interest rate caps, which may reduce MFI capacity to meet client needs.

Where central banks could be of greater use, then, is by pushing MFIs to be transparent. They could ensure they use simple loan terms written in local languages, read out at group meetings; they could highlight the message of ‘buyer beware’.

The third option is to challenge the founders and directors of leading MFIs. We can include here among others:

  • Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury, founder and president of ASA;
  • Sir Fazle Abed of BRAC and his son Shameran Abed;
  • Zakir Hossain, founder executive director of BURO Bangladesh;
  • Professor Abu Nasser Muhammad Abduz Zaher, the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh.

They should be encouraged not to treat social performance as public relations and to reform the monitoring systems their organisations apply to branches and to staff.

Making social performance the key measure of success

Systems for monitoring social performance have improved greatly over the last decade – but MFIs need leaders to genuinely demonstrate that social performance is as important as financial performance.

They should be visiting branches and clients unannounced, holding open meetings with clients and ex-clients and discussing the problems that credit officers face without their managers being present.

And so the leaders of microfinance in South Asia have a choice. Will they follow the lead of mainstream finance and drift into a world where profit alone is a measure of success?

Or will they make a serious effort to chart a different path, where social performance is a genuine pursuit and not merely a public relations exercise?

 


 

David Hulme is Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, at the University of Manchester.

Mathilde Maitrot is Research Associate at the University of Bath.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384959

Loan sharking and microfinance: What’s the difference? Updated for 2026





The introduction of hard-nosed private sector investment and the age-old pressures of social norms mean microfinance institutions are at risk of losing their social conscience – and both clients and staff are paying the price. But microfinance could still be saved from moral bankruptcy.

With the close of the 17th annual microcredit summit in Mexico last month, a CEO working group has introduced microfinance certifications to protect the client; a move that couldn’t come at a more critical time for the microfinance sector. Research is increasing revealing that the reality for clients is far from ideal.

Let’s take a look at South Asia. Does microfinance work here? Well, if you are asking whether it covers its costs and/or is profitable, then the answer is increasingly moving towards “yes”.

But if the question is whether microfinance achieves its declared social mission, then a growing body of evidence from fieldwork with clients living in poverty – in contrast to PR churned out by microfinance head offices, and parroted in the Western press – suggests the answer is “probably not”.

Abuse, threats, harassment

This conclusion is supported by our recent quantitative analyses and qualitative studies detailing the human realities behind the glowing repayment statistics.

Reports gathered from women in villages across Bangladesh and India show that loan officers from microfinance institutions (MFIs) commonly exert pressure to repay through harassment, violent threats, coercion by neighbours, public humiliation, verbal abuse and insults as well as seizure of assets.

Some villagers even reported individuals migrating to escape their debts.

Others aren’t lucky enough to have this escape route – many of the beneficiaries of microfinance are by definition poor women who are reliant on husbands and their community. Defaulting is simply not an option.

One woman we interviewed in 2013 reported being forced to take out a loan by her abusive husband so he could spend it on drinking and betting. She showed the loan officer the bruises on her arms and legs and begged him to refuse her husband another loan. Instead, the loan officer suggested her husband physically reprimand her.

If she leaves her husband she fears exclusion by her community, arrest and even starvation. If she stays, she faces more abuse and ever more pressure to pay back ‘her’ debt.

Loan officers ashamed of the methods they compelled to use

It’s not just the recipients of microfinance who suffer from the relentless privileging of repayment over all other measures of success.

The systems, structures and cultures of today’s MFIs – limited staff training, zero-delay and zero-default policies as well as demanding branch managers focused purely on financial performance – build chains of pressure, not only on clients but also on staff.

Many of the loan officers interviewed reported being ashamed of, or even depressed by, the ways in which they treat clients, explaining their behaviour in terms of fearing their branch managers.

One female loan officer reported staying in the house of a late-paying client all night when she was pregnant in a bid to force the woman to hand over the money, afraid as she was of returning to the office empty-handed. During the night her waters broke and the client had to help her to hospital.

Why is the moral compass failing?

There is little doubt that the founders of these organisations were genuinely seeking to help poor and low-income people improve their economic and social prospects.

Over time, however, organisational goals (growing bigger, having higher rates of repayment and higher levels of profitability, winning international awards) and closer links with mainstream finance have displaced the original mission.

In addition, the expansion of the microfinance industry since 2000 has been heavily dependent on the involvement of commercial banks, opening the industry to the corrupting influence of mainstream finance.

Access to finance is crucial for the microfinance market to develop, while for mainstream banks a new, relatively untapped market experiencing 15 years of uninterrupted expansion is appealing.

A recent CGAP study found that wholesale investors in microfinance funded $25 billion in 2011 and that overall microfinance funding continues to grow in absolute terms, despite consecutive crises and scandals.

And it’s a growth area, with some of the biggest potential markets showing small microfinance penetration rates in 2009 – 3% in India and just 2% in Brazil and Nigeria. In theory, the microfinance industry could expand until it reaches an estimated one billion un-banked poor households. If there was ever a time to fight the battle to save microfinance’s soul, it’s now.

Missing the mainstream pitfalls

One extreme response, as demonstrated when the Indian suicides came to light, would be to try to close formal microfinance down. But this would be unwise for two reasons.

Firstly, research shows that well-designed microfinance (that meets client needs and pursues sustainability) can be useful for poor and low-income people. Secondly, moneylenders might recolonise the gap, rendering already vulnerable people more so.

A second option is more effective regulation of microfinance. This is desirable, but in most countries it is, at present, difficult to achieve. Central banks, when asked to improve regulation of MFIs, usually focus on administratively intensive reporting by MFIs (which raises their costs) or arbitrary interest rate caps, which may reduce MFI capacity to meet client needs.

Where central banks could be of greater use, then, is by pushing MFIs to be transparent. They could ensure they use simple loan terms written in local languages, read out at group meetings; they could highlight the message of ‘buyer beware’.

The third option is to challenge the founders and directors of leading MFIs. We can include here among others:

  • Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury, founder and president of ASA;
  • Sir Fazle Abed of BRAC and his son Shameran Abed;
  • Zakir Hossain, founder executive director of BURO Bangladesh;
  • Professor Abu Nasser Muhammad Abduz Zaher, the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh.

They should be encouraged not to treat social performance as public relations and to reform the monitoring systems their organisations apply to branches and to staff.

Making social performance the key measure of success

Systems for monitoring social performance have improved greatly over the last decade – but MFIs need leaders to genuinely demonstrate that social performance is as important as financial performance.

They should be visiting branches and clients unannounced, holding open meetings with clients and ex-clients and discussing the problems that credit officers face without their managers being present.

And so the leaders of microfinance in South Asia have a choice. Will they follow the lead of mainstream finance and drift into a world where profit alone is a measure of success?

Or will they make a serious effort to chart a different path, where social performance is a genuine pursuit and not merely a public relations exercise?

 


 

David Hulme is Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, at the University of Manchester.

Mathilde Maitrot is Research Associate at the University of Bath.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384959

Loan sharking and microfinance: What’s the difference? Updated for 2026





The introduction of hard-nosed private sector investment and the age-old pressures of social norms mean microfinance institutions are at risk of losing their social conscience – and both clients and staff are paying the price. But microfinance could still be saved from moral bankruptcy.

With the close of the 17th annual microcredit summit in Mexico last month, a CEO working group has introduced microfinance certifications to protect the client; a move that couldn’t come at a more critical time for the microfinance sector. Research is increasing revealing that the reality for clients is far from ideal.

Let’s take a look at South Asia. Does microfinance work here? Well, if you are asking whether it covers its costs and/or is profitable, then the answer is increasingly moving towards “yes”.

But if the question is whether microfinance achieves its declared social mission, then a growing body of evidence from fieldwork with clients living in poverty – in contrast to PR churned out by microfinance head offices, and parroted in the Western press – suggests the answer is “probably not”.

Abuse, threats, harassment

This conclusion is supported by our recent quantitative analyses and qualitative studies detailing the human realities behind the glowing repayment statistics.

Reports gathered from women in villages across Bangladesh and India show that loan officers from microfinance institutions (MFIs) commonly exert pressure to repay through harassment, violent threats, coercion by neighbours, public humiliation, verbal abuse and insults as well as seizure of assets.

Some villagers even reported individuals migrating to escape their debts.

Others aren’t lucky enough to have this escape route – many of the beneficiaries of microfinance are by definition poor women who are reliant on husbands and their community. Defaulting is simply not an option.

One woman we interviewed in 2013 reported being forced to take out a loan by her abusive husband so he could spend it on drinking and betting. She showed the loan officer the bruises on her arms and legs and begged him to refuse her husband another loan. Instead, the loan officer suggested her husband physically reprimand her.

If she leaves her husband she fears exclusion by her community, arrest and even starvation. If she stays, she faces more abuse and ever more pressure to pay back ‘her’ debt.

Loan officers ashamed of the methods they compelled to use

It’s not just the recipients of microfinance who suffer from the relentless privileging of repayment over all other measures of success.

The systems, structures and cultures of today’s MFIs – limited staff training, zero-delay and zero-default policies as well as demanding branch managers focused purely on financial performance – build chains of pressure, not only on clients but also on staff.

Many of the loan officers interviewed reported being ashamed of, or even depressed by, the ways in which they treat clients, explaining their behaviour in terms of fearing their branch managers.

One female loan officer reported staying in the house of a late-paying client all night when she was pregnant in a bid to force the woman to hand over the money, afraid as she was of returning to the office empty-handed. During the night her waters broke and the client had to help her to hospital.

Why is the moral compass failing?

There is little doubt that the founders of these organisations were genuinely seeking to help poor and low-income people improve their economic and social prospects.

Over time, however, organisational goals (growing bigger, having higher rates of repayment and higher levels of profitability, winning international awards) and closer links with mainstream finance have displaced the original mission.

In addition, the expansion of the microfinance industry since 2000 has been heavily dependent on the involvement of commercial banks, opening the industry to the corrupting influence of mainstream finance.

Access to finance is crucial for the microfinance market to develop, while for mainstream banks a new, relatively untapped market experiencing 15 years of uninterrupted expansion is appealing.

A recent CGAP study found that wholesale investors in microfinance funded $25 billion in 2011 and that overall microfinance funding continues to grow in absolute terms, despite consecutive crises and scandals.

And it’s a growth area, with some of the biggest potential markets showing small microfinance penetration rates in 2009 – 3% in India and just 2% in Brazil and Nigeria. In theory, the microfinance industry could expand until it reaches an estimated one billion un-banked poor households. If there was ever a time to fight the battle to save microfinance’s soul, it’s now.

Missing the mainstream pitfalls

One extreme response, as demonstrated when the Indian suicides came to light, would be to try to close formal microfinance down. But this would be unwise for two reasons.

Firstly, research shows that well-designed microfinance (that meets client needs and pursues sustainability) can be useful for poor and low-income people. Secondly, moneylenders might recolonise the gap, rendering already vulnerable people more so.

A second option is more effective regulation of microfinance. This is desirable, but in most countries it is, at present, difficult to achieve. Central banks, when asked to improve regulation of MFIs, usually focus on administratively intensive reporting by MFIs (which raises their costs) or arbitrary interest rate caps, which may reduce MFI capacity to meet client needs.

Where central banks could be of greater use, then, is by pushing MFIs to be transparent. They could ensure they use simple loan terms written in local languages, read out at group meetings; they could highlight the message of ‘buyer beware’.

The third option is to challenge the founders and directors of leading MFIs. We can include here among others:

  • Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury, founder and president of ASA;
  • Sir Fazle Abed of BRAC and his son Shameran Abed;
  • Zakir Hossain, founder executive director of BURO Bangladesh;
  • Professor Abu Nasser Muhammad Abduz Zaher, the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh.

They should be encouraged not to treat social performance as public relations and to reform the monitoring systems their organisations apply to branches and to staff.

Making social performance the key measure of success

Systems for monitoring social performance have improved greatly over the last decade – but MFIs need leaders to genuinely demonstrate that social performance is as important as financial performance.

They should be visiting branches and clients unannounced, holding open meetings with clients and ex-clients and discussing the problems that credit officers face without their managers being present.

And so the leaders of microfinance in South Asia have a choice. Will they follow the lead of mainstream finance and drift into a world where profit alone is a measure of success?

Or will they make a serious effort to chart a different path, where social performance is a genuine pursuit and not merely a public relations exercise?

 


 

David Hulme is Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, at the University of Manchester.

Mathilde Maitrot is Research Associate at the University of Bath.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384959

Loan sharking and microfinance: What’s the difference? Updated for 2026





The introduction of hard-nosed private sector investment and the age-old pressures of social norms mean microfinance institutions are at risk of losing their social conscience – and both clients and staff are paying the price. But microfinance could still be saved from moral bankruptcy.

With the close of the 17th annual microcredit summit in Mexico last month, a CEO working group has introduced microfinance certifications to protect the client; a move that couldn’t come at a more critical time for the microfinance sector. Research is increasing revealing that the reality for clients is far from ideal.

Let’s take a look at South Asia. Does microfinance work here? Well, if you are asking whether it covers its costs and/or is profitable, then the answer is increasingly moving towards “yes”.

But if the question is whether microfinance achieves its declared social mission, then a growing body of evidence from fieldwork with clients living in poverty – in contrast to PR churned out by microfinance head offices, and parroted in the Western press – suggests the answer is “probably not”.

Abuse, threats, harassment

This conclusion is supported by our recent quantitative analyses and qualitative studies detailing the human realities behind the glowing repayment statistics.

Reports gathered from women in villages across Bangladesh and India show that loan officers from microfinance institutions (MFIs) commonly exert pressure to repay through harassment, violent threats, coercion by neighbours, public humiliation, verbal abuse and insults as well as seizure of assets.

Some villagers even reported individuals migrating to escape their debts.

Others aren’t lucky enough to have this escape route – many of the beneficiaries of microfinance are by definition poor women who are reliant on husbands and their community. Defaulting is simply not an option.

One woman we interviewed in 2013 reported being forced to take out a loan by her abusive husband so he could spend it on drinking and betting. She showed the loan officer the bruises on her arms and legs and begged him to refuse her husband another loan. Instead, the loan officer suggested her husband physically reprimand her.

If she leaves her husband she fears exclusion by her community, arrest and even starvation. If she stays, she faces more abuse and ever more pressure to pay back ‘her’ debt.

Loan officers ashamed of the methods they compelled to use

It’s not just the recipients of microfinance who suffer from the relentless privileging of repayment over all other measures of success.

The systems, structures and cultures of today’s MFIs – limited staff training, zero-delay and zero-default policies as well as demanding branch managers focused purely on financial performance – build chains of pressure, not only on clients but also on staff.

Many of the loan officers interviewed reported being ashamed of, or even depressed by, the ways in which they treat clients, explaining their behaviour in terms of fearing their branch managers.

One female loan officer reported staying in the house of a late-paying client all night when she was pregnant in a bid to force the woman to hand over the money, afraid as she was of returning to the office empty-handed. During the night her waters broke and the client had to help her to hospital.

Why is the moral compass failing?

There is little doubt that the founders of these organisations were genuinely seeking to help poor and low-income people improve their economic and social prospects.

Over time, however, organisational goals (growing bigger, having higher rates of repayment and higher levels of profitability, winning international awards) and closer links with mainstream finance have displaced the original mission.

In addition, the expansion of the microfinance industry since 2000 has been heavily dependent on the involvement of commercial banks, opening the industry to the corrupting influence of mainstream finance.

Access to finance is crucial for the microfinance market to develop, while for mainstream banks a new, relatively untapped market experiencing 15 years of uninterrupted expansion is appealing.

A recent CGAP study found that wholesale investors in microfinance funded $25 billion in 2011 and that overall microfinance funding continues to grow in absolute terms, despite consecutive crises and scandals.

And it’s a growth area, with some of the biggest potential markets showing small microfinance penetration rates in 2009 – 3% in India and just 2% in Brazil and Nigeria. In theory, the microfinance industry could expand until it reaches an estimated one billion un-banked poor households. If there was ever a time to fight the battle to save microfinance’s soul, it’s now.

Missing the mainstream pitfalls

One extreme response, as demonstrated when the Indian suicides came to light, would be to try to close formal microfinance down. But this would be unwise for two reasons.

Firstly, research shows that well-designed microfinance (that meets client needs and pursues sustainability) can be useful for poor and low-income people. Secondly, moneylenders might recolonise the gap, rendering already vulnerable people more so.

A second option is more effective regulation of microfinance. This is desirable, but in most countries it is, at present, difficult to achieve. Central banks, when asked to improve regulation of MFIs, usually focus on administratively intensive reporting by MFIs (which raises their costs) or arbitrary interest rate caps, which may reduce MFI capacity to meet client needs.

Where central banks could be of greater use, then, is by pushing MFIs to be transparent. They could ensure they use simple loan terms written in local languages, read out at group meetings; they could highlight the message of ‘buyer beware’.

The third option is to challenge the founders and directors of leading MFIs. We can include here among others:

  • Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury, founder and president of ASA;
  • Sir Fazle Abed of BRAC and his son Shameran Abed;
  • Zakir Hossain, founder executive director of BURO Bangladesh;
  • Professor Abu Nasser Muhammad Abduz Zaher, the chairman of Islami Bank Bangladesh.

They should be encouraged not to treat social performance as public relations and to reform the monitoring systems their organisations apply to branches and to staff.

Making social performance the key measure of success

Systems for monitoring social performance have improved greatly over the last decade – but MFIs need leaders to genuinely demonstrate that social performance is as important as financial performance.

They should be visiting branches and clients unannounced, holding open meetings with clients and ex-clients and discussing the problems that credit officers face without their managers being present.

And so the leaders of microfinance in South Asia have a choice. Will they follow the lead of mainstream finance and drift into a world where profit alone is a measure of success?

Or will they make a serious effort to chart a different path, where social performance is a genuine pursuit and not merely a public relations exercise?

 


 

David Hulme is Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, at the University of Manchester.

Mathilde Maitrot is Research Associate at the University of Bath.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384959