From providing clean water to public services that improve population health, infrastructure can be a transformational tool in supporting growth and social development.
“Infrastructure for Good”, however, is not just a matter of constructing physical structures, but creating a foundation for progress and inclusivity.
While some countries are embracing infrastructure as a vehicle for good, many others are missing out on the potential social dividends that good design can unlock, or even exacerbating inequalities due to poor design. To better understand the opportunities countries have to drive development through infrastructure, Economist Impact recently partnered with Deloitte and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability to create the Infrastructure for Good barometer. The resulting analysis benchmarks 30 countries’ capacity to deliver efficient and quality infrastructure that effectively addresses critical economic, social and environmental needs.
Generally, we found that governance and planning – the basic foundations of good infrastructure – are regularly prioritised worldwide. Yet, most countries fall behind when it comes to implementing and financing projects in a sustainable way, with significant implications on the resulting social, economic and environmental impact.
In particular, we found countries are lacking the early-stage participatory planning and inclusion needed to drive better social and community impact outcomes. Indeed, more than half (60%) of the countries we studied only engaged in consultation with local communities on an ad-hoc basis. There is, therefore, a significant opportunity for countries to deliver better social outcomes by prioritising community engagement, providing protection for workers and communities, and enhancing general access to public services.
It is no surprise that as the barometer’s best-performing country, Canada is leading the way in this regard, delivering inclusively designed infrastructure that benefits local communities. The Tu Deh-Kah geothermal project in British Columbia, for example, was developed in collaboration with the local community (rather than through top-down decision-making), with the name reflecting the project’s 100% ownership by the indigenous Cree and Dene people. The project has implemented several outreach mechanisms to ensure the effective involvement of local communities, including providing training opportunities, publishing a newsletter that communicates project status and employment news, and conducting frequent surveys and community meetings.
When it comes to delivering environmental sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, the barometer reveals more of a mixed picture. While we found it is common for projects to consider their environmental impact from the outset, effectively translating these assessments into tangible policies and outcomes remains a widespread challenge. National adaptation plans and climate vulnerability assessments are commonplace, but few countries have adequate biodiversity protection requirements. A third do not have measures in place for reporting environmental data during construction, and only half conduct environmental impact audits. To address this, we concluded that countries can prioritise project-level tactics to enhance monitoring and resilience, alongside implementing systemic policies that safeguard ecosystems and mitigate climate change.
It is, of course, already well-recognised that by investing in infrastructure, countries can ultimately unlock their economic potential. When done right, infrastructure planning drives long-term job opportunities, increases productivity, and stimulates economic growth, and most countries – particularly developed nations – are already enjoying strong economic dividends from such investments. In contrast, weaker infrastructure connectivity and a lack of competitiveness is still holding developing markets back from driving economic transformation to catch up. Despite this, we found almost all countries could benefit from strengthening efforts to involve industry, expanding workers’ skills and ensuring economic dividends benefit all of society equally, to further maximise economic outcomes.
We know that infrastructure has huge potential to transform communities and countries mustn’t waste the opportunity to deliver a lasting impact to the people they serve. To do this successfully, we found countries must, above all, approach infrastructure as an interconnected ecosystem, rather than projects in isolation. For example, efforts to transition to clean energy in countries such as Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Thailand have yielded both environmental benefits and economic returns, with such efforts driving significant job creation. When completed, Canada’s Tu Deh-Kah project is also expected to generate around 10,000 days of work for unskilled workers, and power up to 14,000 homes with renewable energy, reducing the local population’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Following a holistic approach will not only be key for driving better results. In the face of growing global funding gaps for projects addressing climate change and social inequalities, it will also enable countries to maximise available resources to deliver better social and environmental outcomes. Ultimately, embracing this approach will pave the way for a brighter future, where infrastructure truly becomes a catalyst for positive change.
Comments
Post a Comment