With a shared currency, entrepreneurs like this Tanzanian vendor won't have to change money when selling their products in other countries. Photo: justCRONO (flickr).

Has the eurozone crisis made shared currencies passe? East African leaders don’t think so, and they’re looking to Europe for an example of what not to do.

Economic integration isn’t a new idea for the East African Community. Its five member states&mdashUganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi&mdashalready have free movement of goods and labor, thanks to a customs union and, since last year, a common market (a type of trade bloc). According to EAC Deputy Secretary General Dr. Enos Bukuku, a shared currency would build on this by controlling price instability and exchange rate volatility among the states, writes In2EastAfrica. He says this would encourage businesses to invest and spur development in the region.

An EAC monetary union could face many of the same problems Europe has already experienced. Critics point out that the five EAC states’ economies differ greatly in size and scope. Kenya’s GDP is $31,408,632,915, while Burundi, with a fifth of Kenya’s population, has a GDP of $1,610,544,922, according to the World Bank. This could mirror the dynamic between powerful European states like Germany and the EU’s smaller states like Greece, as Tanzanian IMF head John Wakeman-Linn told The Financial Times. But EAC Secretary-General Dr. Sezibera doesn’t think this will be an issue. “If you look at EAC trade statistics, all the partner states have gained. I do not think Kenya will swallow up the other countries; it will only enrich the economic base of the community,” he said in an interview with The East African.

To the citizens who will be affected by these changes, the European Union’s tribulations are probably either unknown or seemingly distant, but EAC leaders are paying attention and believe that they can avoid Europe’s mistakes. At a round of negotiations in Uganda earlier this month, Bukuku said "For the eurozone ... maybe there wasn't well coordinated fiscal policy management and enforcement. If there are benchmarks that are agreed upon, it would be expected that the community would also agree on sanctions and enforcement mechanisms," reports The Christian Science Monitor. He also cited the issue of fiscal discipline and said that many of Europe’s problems are a result of the eurozone countries not having “lived up to what was in the treaty.”

Economists like the World Bank’s Paul Collier warn that a currency union could hurt East African economies, according to allAfrica.com. Others feel it’s simply inappropriate in the current economic climate; The Financial Times cites shrinking regional growth and depreciating currencies as discouraging indicators. But Wakeman-Linn disagrees, telling the newspaper that even if a common currency isn’t feasible, putting the necessary components in place could help East Africa:

“All the things that they need to do to achieve a common currency – integrate financial markets, trade policy, labour markets, capital markets, statistics databases, develop easy mechanisms for exchanging each others’ currencies – all of these things would be extremely valuable and would help develop the regional economy, and so these are things they should do.”

By revealing the cracks in the world’s financial systems, the global financial crisis has provided developing nations with a handy "What not to do" guide. EAC leaders are strong in their belief that a shared currency is possible, even if there are challenges along the way. “The monetary union is a possibility, not a dream,” Dr. Sezibera told The Financial Times. They originally hoped to implement the currency union by next year, a deadline that has proven to be overly optimistic.

With the lessons they’re learned from the euro’s failures, they hope to avoid some of the bumps along the way.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

Women farmers in Africa produce over 60 percent of all food crops. CIMMYT (flickr)

Women comprise 43 percent of the world’s farmers. In Africa, it’s 80 percent. Women plant, harvest, process and sell their crops, but men continue to dominate agricultural science and research. This may be about to change.

African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) is trying to close the R&D gender gap. Their program fast-tracks female science careers in agriculture, empowering them to contribute more effectively to hunger and poverty alleviation in their own communities - a model that could be replicated internationally.

Although African women produce 60 to 80 percent of food crops, they receive significantly less (5% as of 2008) of the agricultural training and tools available to men, says the United Nations. A 2010-2011 research report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization shows that women could produce 20-30 percent more if they had equal access. This creates a subsequent increase in household income, health, and community food supply. The East Africa Report emphasizes that research is also pivotal in fostering innovation. Without a seat at the table, women cannot influence practices. Who better to innovate than the farmers themselves?

Developing countries are determined to foster stronger domestic science communities. Photo:NASA (flickr)

Developing countries are shooting for the moon.

No longer willing to follow in the technological footsteps of developed nations, Fast Company reports, developing countries are launching significant space programs to subsidize and promote in-country technological innovation.

From Tanzania to Brazil, governments of developing countries are investing billions into building domestic science institutions, as well as funding science and technology scholarships. The aim is to form cohesive space programs of their own without relying on the previous accomplishments of Western nations. On they way, they'll foster a stronger homegrown science community while strengthening education and promoting industry.

But most importantly, says José Goldemberg, a professor at the University of Saõ Paulo, this fledgling investment is an effort to “adapt and develop technologies appropriate to our local circumstances." Some developing countries are pioneering their own paths, exploring technologies relevant to their countries' unique needs.

The programs focus on everything from energy and bio-engineering to environmental science and water resource management. Some, such as the Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology (which has institutions located in various locations across Sub-Saharan Africa), will begin to offer master's and Ph.D. degrees.

In April 2010, one of the more ambitious developing-world projects was established. Mexico’s Agencia Espacial Mexicana, working with 45 partner countries from around the world, launched the development of a space program with an agreement by all parties to share financial, scientific, and technological resources in their space exploration efforts.

Though the goal of space exploration may seem far-fetched for countries that often struggle with domestic and economic stability, the growth of national ideas and talent are essential to any nation's progress. Even if space exploration is not in the cards for these countries for many years to come, technology developed in the process could prove to be vital. NASA’s space research led not only to man's first steps on the moon, but provided the technology behind everyday-use inventions like ear thermometers and smoke detectors, long distance telecommunications and cordless devices.

Small steps in the development of domestic science and technology programs could lead to a giant leap for the future of a country. From advanced education and job creation to new technologies that simplify complex problems, these programs promise much for millions across the globe.

The use of sawdust stoves is making lives easier for small-scale farmers throughout the timber regions of Tanzania and Zambia, says an article in The Times of Zambia. These special stoves are a cheap, easy to use, sustainable alternative to using charcoal and are in many ways more effective.

According to the article, the sawdust stoves work well in this region because they run without electricity. Given that less than 20 percent of the population has access to electricity, it is necessary to have a non-electric source of energy like charcoal or sawdust.

Where sawdust stoves take a strong advantage over charcoal, however, is in its health and environmental impacts. A recent report on the health and environmental effects of cooking stoves describes how the charcoal trade is accelerating deforestation in the region, and the health problems caused by charcoal stoves, which includes, respiratory issues, eye irritation and carbon monoxide poisoning.

In contrast, the sawdust being used for these stoves is timber waste, so it provides a free and uniquely sustainable form of energy that would remain unused otherwise. According to the video below, the stove pays for itself in saved charcoal costs within two to four months. The stoves themselves are cheap and easy to make, which makes them accessible to those with very low incomes. In the video, cafe owner Roze Mgina explains the benefits of her sawdust stove:

I cook everything, rice, beans, donuts, using just one stove. If you put a bit of firewood in the vent, it gets hotter and cooks things quicker. When I use charcoal it gives me a headache if I stay a long time in the kitchen. With this one I don’t get headaches anymore because it doesn’t produce any smoke.

The Kisangani Smith Group, based out of Tanzania, won an Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy in 2008 for training blacksmiths to make and sell these sawdust stoves. The group has sold more than 3,500 stoves in Tanzania and elsewhere, and continues to provide jobs and training to aspiring blacksmiths.

Glasses are one key to improving the economic productivity of poor people in developing countries. Photo: deepchi1 (flickr)

Poor vision may not seem like an economic problem at first glance. But according to the World Health Organization, workers with poor and uncorrected vision cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity each year.

Many of these workers struggle to put food on the table, much less purchase an expensive pair of glasses, so their vision problems go untreated. This situation may change thanks to an innovative new series of affordable glasses designs that the New York Times recently highlighted. Their genius lies in two factors: their low cost and how easy it is to adjust them. Production is cheaper when a single model can be made to fit almost anyone, which also cuts out the need for expensive doctors to write vision prescriptions.

How can glasses be one-size-fits-all? One type highlighted by The Times has lenses whose refraction can be adjusted by injecting a clear liquid into them, while another has overlapping lenses that can be adjusted by the user. These models are already improving the lives of wearers in countries like Rwanda, Afghanistan, Ghana, and Tanzania and cost $19 and $4, respectively.

Despite their potential, low-cost eyeglasses still face problems. As The New York Times explains, the glasses could cost only $1-2 per pair if produced in great enough volumes, but supply chains don't yet exist to distribute such quantities of glasses to those who need them.

The field of low-cost eyeglass production and distribution is in its infancy, but keep your eyes open for great things to come.

Photo: youngrobv (flickr)

A bike can change a life.

The benefits of a bike can range from awakening your inner child to being an eco-friendly commuter. In a developing country, however, the simple bike becomes a locally sustainable method of alleviating poverty and building healthy communities.

The bicycle means greater access to educational and economic opportunities. (Cool fact: A bike can go three or four times faster than the pedestrian and uses five times less energy.) But in communities where people make only a few hundred dollars a year, a bicycle that costs an average of $100 is financially out of reach.

To help bridge the gap, various organizations have sprung up as bicycle distributors for developing communities mostly in Africa.

World Bicycle Relief, an organization fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis in Zambia, describes the power of bicycles in its mission statement:

Simple, sustainable transportation is an essential element in disaster assistance and poverty relief. Bicycles fulfill basic needs by providing access to healthcare, education and economic development. Bicycles empower individuals, their families, and their communities. Our mission is to provide access to independence and livelihood through The Power of Bicycles.

Organizations like this depend on donated bikes, which they then ship to community-based organizations that employ and train locals as bike mechanics. In Namibia, the Bicycling Empowerment Network has bicycle workshops (called Bicycle Empowerment Centres) stocked with tools and bicycle parts that act as the hub for bike distribution and repairs.

Even grassroots groups in the U.S. have joined the cause. Bikes to Rwanda, a project supported by Stumptown Coffee in Portland, Ore., ships cargo bicycles to farmers in a Rwandan coffee cooperative.

With today’s gas prices, cycling is a more attractive alternative for residents of places from Amsterdam to Zambia. But bikes aren't limited to transport anymore. They can be modified to sharpen knives, double as an ambulance, and even filter and store water — all innovative adaptations geared towards positive social change.

What happens when you sit down with 4 mid-career Harvard business grads (who just so happen to be from Argentina, China, Tanzania and Thailand) and two Harvard economists (one ‘pro-trade’ and the other ‘ambivalent’) and ask if their fellow citizens are for or against globalization? From the NewsHour:

NewsHour's Paul Solman: So first question: How would their fellow citizens vote if asked to give globalization a simple thumbs-up, thumbs-down?

Thailand Parliament Member Kriengsak Chareonwongsak : Fifteen percent on the pro, maybe 5 percent on the against, and the rest is a silent majority.

Paul Solman: Argentina?

World Bank Former Communications Officer Yanina Budkin: Sixty-five percent no, 35 percent yes.

Paul Solman: Tanzania?

Former Prime Minister of Tanzania Frederick Sumanye: Eighty-five percent no, 15 percent yes.

Paul Solman: China?

People's Bank of China Mingyou Bao: The majority of the Chinese people will say yes to this question. Globalization is a win-win for China and the rest of the world.

Paul Solman: For the last word, we turned to the professors. At the end of the day, what did free-trader Robert Lawrence hear? A common theme.

Harvard's Robert Lawrence: It was the need to somehow manage the process in some way. Nobody believes that it should just be unleashed and left without a very strong role for government in some way.

Paul Solman: What did the more skeptical Danny Roderick hear?

Harvard's Danny Roderick: Markets will not work on their own. You need all the institutions that regulate markets, that stabilize markets, that compensate to losers and provide the safety nets, without which markets can neither be legitimate or, for that matter, efficient, if you don't have the appropriate regulatory frameworks.

Paul Solman: You're from Turkey. What would the vote be in Turkey, pro-, anti-globalization?

Danny Roderick: Globalization's a dirty word, without any doubt, so I think we would get 60 percent of the people say that it's a bad thing.

Paul Solman: And you're from South Africa originally.

Robert Lawrence: And I think probably 70 percent against.

Paul Solman: And what do you think in America, if you just asked that question?

Danny Roderick: We know the answer. We take those polls all the time, and it's, again, between 55 percent and 60 percent.

Paul Solman: Against?

Danny Roderick: Against.

Paul Solman: Against globalization, the dirty word on so many people's tongues these days.

Watch the NewsHour's video of the discussion.