SEGH Articles

Geology for Global Development: GfGD

12 December 2015
Fighting Global Poverty: Geology and the Sustainable Development Goals

I was fortunate to be invited by Joel Gill, the founder and Director of Geology for Global Development (http://www.gfgd.org/) to speak at their 3rd annual conference at the Geological Society in London entitled ‘Fighting Global Poverty: Geology and the Sustainable Development Goals’ on the 30th October 2015.

GfGD is focussed on employing geoscience skills to alleviate poverty, in particular mobilising and equipping students and early-career scientists with the skills and knowledge required to make a positive, effective and greater contribution to international development. The aims and key principles of GfGD will strike a resonance with the majority of SEGH members around the world working on geochemistry and health projects and in many cases international development projects.  We take the opportunity to ask Joel a few questions to understand the guiding principles of GfGD.

Interview with Joel Gill by Dr Michael Watts, SEGH webmaster

What are the key aims of GfGD?

GfGD works to mobilise and equip the geoscience community to prevent and relieve poverty.

Geoscientists have the potential to make a significant contribution to tackling some of the major challenges of today, including ending extreme poverty and ensuring sustainable development. Geoscience research, monitoring, innovation and engineering can drive widespread improvements to wellbeing and quality of life, in areas such as health, food and water security, infrastructure development, natural resource management and disaster risk reduction.

Effectively applying our understanding of geoscience to development projects, however, requires more than just a competent understanding of technical science. This is one essential foundation, but we also need a thorough understanding of location-specific social, cultural, economic, ethical and environmental factors

The two main strands of our work therefore are (i) to support the public in general, and particularly amongst geologists, to better understand how geology can support sustainable development and how to do this effectively, and (ii) using this knowledge to assist in the prevention and relief of poverty.

 

Figure 1: Our latest poster gives an overview of how geology can support development, and the activities that we run to mobilise and equip the community to engage in such work.

How did you come up with the idea of GfGD?

In 2009 and 2010 I was fortunate enough to be given two opportunities to travel to the Kagera Region of Tanzania. I was part of a small team evaluating a troubled small-scale water programme and advising on remediation/future projects.

On a personal level, these opportunities gave me an intensive and very practical introduction to many aspects of community-scale development, and the role of geology in such work. During these visits I observed projects where a lack of geological understanding had resulted in project failure. Small amounts of basic geoscience understanding would have put the project on a much more sustainable footing.

While a lack of geological understanding was serious, more common were projects that did include geologists, water engineers or other technical experts, but these individuals had a poor understanding of community development. There was little involvement of the local communities, little consultation about where to locate the wells and minimal efforts to help develop a community group to manage the project. 

In both situations, communities were left with water projects that were not fit-for-purpose, failing shortly after completion or only working for part of the year. Children and women had to continue walking several kilometres to collect water. Communities were forced to drink dirty and potentially very dangerous, water.

On my return to the UK I initiated GfGD to help tackle both of these challenges that I had observed on the ground – the need to increase the understanding and integration of geology into development projects, and the need to equip geologists with the skills and development theory required to ensure what they do is effective and sustainable.

Figure 2: Water collection in Kagera Region, Tanzania, at an unprotected water source.

Figure 3: Children using their school time to collect water in Kagera Region, Tanzania.


Who is involved in GfGD?

Most of our work so far has been with students and recent graduates in the United Kingdom. We have established 13 University Groups (or chapters) in the UK, and one in the Republic of Ireland, run by undergraduate and postgraduate students. Groups organise seminars, training and discussion events, all exploring the role of geology in international development. Many of these events attract engineers, geographers and other disciplines, encouraging cross-disciplinary communications. Our national and international events draw a wider range of geoscientists, from different nationalities, sectors and professional levels.

We’ve been working in partnership with other organisations since our beginning. We’ve had great support from the Geological Society of London, hosts of our past three annual conferences. We’re also grateful to the British Geological Survey, European Geosciences Union, and the YES Network, for involving us in a range of conferences and opportunities.

 

What key resources and activities do you employ to encourage young scientists to use geoscience in international development?

We believe that young geoscientists need access to both the information to support their integration of development within geoscience (and vice versa), but also practical opportunities to do this.  In order to support both we use a wide range of resource types:

  • Website: Our website has a growing collection of presentations and other contributions to our annual conferences (e.g., www.gfgd.org/conferences). Making these available allows those who can’t attend in person to benefit from the event.
  • Blog/Social Media: Our online presence includes a blog and active social media on Twitter and Facebook. These have been great tools to share relevant articles, conference sessions and other opportunities.  
  • Education Hub: Soon to be launched is an online-hub of lesson plans and discussion questions that can be used by our university groups to explore topics such as: what is international development; how do we engage with policy; and how do we communicate across cultures?
  • Conferences and Workshops: We run an annual conference in London, but also try to organise smaller events on specific topics to allow for more discussion and student contributions.

Figure 4: GfGD Annual Conference 2015, discussing the role of geology in the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development.

  • Placements: In the past we have arranges short work experience placements for students within development organisations, and geology organisations working on development projects. These give students a preliminary understanding of how the development sector operates and how geoscience can support the development community.
  • Practical Programmes: Partnering with other organisations, we have got students involved in mini-research projects, producing and delivering teaching materials overseas, and fundraising. 


Does GfGD engage directly in international development?

Lots of our time and effort goes into training young geoscientists in the UK to directly support international development throughout their careers. As an organisation we do also support development agencies here in the UK and engage directly in some overseas projects in a variety of ways.

  • From 2013 we have been working on a project to produce country-specific natural hazard factsheets for use by development NGOs.
  • In 2014 we joined with partners in the UK, India and beyond to plan and deliver a hazards education programme in multiple schools in Ladakh, India. GfGD designed and delivered interactive classes on landslides, helping students to increase their understanding of what causes a disaster.

 

Figures 5 and 6: Hazards Education in the Himalayas. A team of British and Indian nationals were involved in a programme teaching children about landslides and other aspects of geoscience.

  • In 2014 we also launched a fundraising initiative to help strengthen resilience to volcanic hazards in Guatemala. Our aim is to help build the technical capacity of the volcanic observatories within the hazard monitoring agency.
  • Since 2011 we have advised on geological and development content of poverty-fighting and capacity-building projects.

In all of our overseas work we seek to partner with other organisations in the host country, such as universities, geological surveys, hazard monitoring agencies and NGOs.

 

The Millennium Development Goals have now been succeeded by the Sustainable Development Goals – do you consider there to be any considerable differences between the MDGs and SDGs in which Geoscience can contribute?

Within the 17 SDGs there is better recognition of the interactions between social and environmental challenges, and the need for a comprehensive, global response. The SDGs have three core aims: reducing poverty, ending inequality and ensuring environmental sustainability. There is an important emphasis on all nations taking action, not just developing nations. The shift from international development to sustainable development recognises that we share one planet and must all examine our use of natural resources, as well as issues such as urbanisation, gender equality, health, and food and water security. Given the importance placed on environmental sustainability, geoscience research, monitoring and practice has a role to play in almost all of the goals. I’d strongly encourage specific groupings within geoscience, such as geochemistry, to look at how their work can support the different goals.

Figure 7: Summary chart of the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development (read more: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics).

Another positive contrast with the MDGs is that the SDGs also run parallel with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 and hopefully a climate agreement to be published later this month. This cohesive approach will allow geoscientists working on aspects of natural hazards and climate change to better support efforts to tackle extreme poverty and inequality.

 

How do you see GfGD developing its role in the coming years?

Our long-term vision is that GfGD would grow to become a world-leading organisation for issues relating to geoscience and development. We are working to reshape the geoscience community to be a well-informed, positive contributor to global efforts to tackle extreme poverty and sustainable development, for the benefit of all society.

This big vision requires a lot of small steps, starting with the completion of our application to register as a formal charity with the UK Charity Commission. My fellow trustees and I are currently working on the development of a long-term strategy that will set out where we want to be in 10-15 years and how we intend to get there. Part of this strategy will be considering how we can help reshape geoscience education, research, private sector practice and engagement with civil society to better support the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. Alongside other things, we’ll be considering the expansion of our groups beyond UK academia to other countries and those in industry, increased engagement with overseas projects, and more training and summer school opportunities for students.

Over the course of 2016-7 we’ll be publishing more information on our strategy review, on our website (www.gfgd.org).

Find out more about GfGD’s work online through their website (www.gfgd.org), Facebook (www.facebook.com/gfgd.org) and Twitter (@Geo_Dev).



Joel Gill is the Founder and Director of Geology for Global Development. He is currently completing a NERC/ESRC funded PhD on characterising interacting natural hazards at King’s College London (KCL), and teaches on geohazards and disasters at both KCL and the London School of Economics. Joel advises on overseas development projects, conferences and geoeducation initiatives. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society and a member of their External Relations Committee, with a focus on international development.

Keep up to date

SEGH Events

Submit Content

Members can keep in touch with their colleagues through short news and events articles of interest to the SEGH community.

Science in the News

Latest on-line papers from the SEGH journal: Environmental Geochemistry and Health

  • Assessment of the toxicity of silicon nanooxide in relation to various components of the agroecosystem under the conditions of the model experiment 2018-08-18

    Abstract

    Investigation of SiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) effect on Eisenia fetida showed no toxic effect of the metal at a concentration of 250, 500 and 1000 mg per kg of soil, but conversely, a biomass increase from 23.5 to 29.5% (at the protein level decrease from 60 to 80%). The reaction of the earthworm organism fermentative system was expressed in the decrease in the level of superoxide dismutase (SOD) on the 14th day and in the increase in its activity to 27% on the 28th day. The catalase level (CAT) showed low activity at average element concentrations and increase by 39.4% at a dose of 1000 mg/kg. Depression of malonic dialdehyde (MDA) was established at average concentrations of 11.2% and level increase up to 9.1% at a dose of 1000 mg/kg with the prolongation of the effect up to 87.5% after 28-day exposure. The change in the microbiocenosis of the earthworm intestine was manifested by a decrease in the number of ammonifiers (by 42.01–78.9%), as well as in the number of amylolytic microorganisms (by 31.7–65.8%). When the dose of SiO2 NPs increased from 100 to 1000 mg/kg, the number of Azotobacter increased (by 8.2–22.2%), while the number of cellulose-destroying microorganisms decreased to 71.4% at a maximum dose of 1000 mg/kg. The effect of SiO2 NPs on Triticum aestivum L. was noted in the form of a slight suppression of seed germination (no more than 25%), an increase in the length of roots and aerial organs which generally resulted in an increase in plant biomass. Assessing the soil microorganisms’ complex during introduction of metal into the germination medium of Triticum aestivum L., there was noted a decrease in the ammonifiers number (by 4.7–67.6%) with a maximum value at a dose of 1000 mg/kg. The number of microorganisms using mineral nitrogen decreased by 29.5–69.5% with a simultaneous increase in the number at a dose of 50 mg/kg (+ 20%). Depending on NP dose, there was an inhibition of the microscopic fungi development by 18.1–72.7% and an increase in the number of cellulose-destroying microorganisms. For all variants of the experiment, the activity of soil enzymes of the hydrolase and oxidoreductase classes was decreased.

  • Seasonal characteristics of chemical compositions and sources identification of PM 2.5 in Zhuhai, China 2018-08-16

    Abstract

    Fine particulate matter is associated with adverse health effects, but exactly which characteristics of PM2.5 are responsible for this is still widely debated. We evaluated seasonal dynamics of the composition and chemical characteristics of PM2.5 in Zhuhai, China. PM2.5 characteristics at five selected sites within Zhuhai city were analyzed. Sampling began on January 10, 2015, and was conducted for 1 year. The ambient mass concentration, carbon content (organic and elemental carbon, OC and EC), level of inorganic ions, and major chemical composition of PM2.5 were also determined. Average concentrations of PM2.5 were lower than the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 24-h average of 65 μg/m3. The daily PM2.5 concentration in Zhuhai city exhibited clear seasonal dynamics, with higher daily PM2.5 concentrations in autumn and winter than in spring and summer. Carbon species (OC and EC) and water-soluble ions were the primary components of the PM2.5 fraction of particles. Apart from OC and EC, chemical species in PM2.5 were mainly composed of NH4+ and SO42−. There was a marked difference between the summer and winter periods: the concentrations of OC and EC in winter were roughly 3.4 and 4.0 times than those in summer, while NH4+, SO42−, NO3, and Na+ were 3.2, 4.5, 28.0, and 5.7 times higher in winter than those in summer, respectively. The results of chemical analysis were consistent with three sources dominating PM2.5: coal combustion, biomass burning, and vehicle exhaust; road dust and construction; and from reaction of HCl and HNO3 with NH3 to form NH4Cl and NH4NO3. However, additional work is needed to improve the mass balance and to obtain the source profiles necessary to use these data for source apportionment.

  • Estimates of potential childhood lead exposure from contaminated soil using the USEPA IEUBK model in Melbourne, Australia 2018-08-14

    Abstract

    Soils in inner city areas internationally and in Australia have been contaminated with lead (Pb) primarily from past emissions of Pb in petrol, deteriorating exterior Pb-based paints and from industry. Children can be exposed to Pb in soil dust through ingestion and inhalation leading to elevated blood lead levels (BLLs). Currently, the contribution of soil Pb to the spatial distribution of children’s BLLs is unknown in the Melbourne metropolitan area. In this study, children’s potential BLLs were estimated from surface soil (0–2 cm) samples collected at 250 locations across the Melbourne metropolitan area using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. A dataset of 250 surface soil Pb concentrations indicate that soil Pb concentrations are highly variable but are generally elevated in the central and western portions of the Melbourne metropolitan area. The mean, median and geometric soil Pb concentrations were 193, 110 and 108 mg/kg, respectively. Approximately 20 and 4% of the soil samples exceeded the Australian HIL-A residential and HIL-C recreational soil Pb guidelines of 300 and 600 mg/kg, respectively. The IEUBK model predicted a geometric mean BLL of 2.5 ± 2.1 µg/dL (range: 1.3–22.5 µg/dL) in a hypothetical 24-month-old child with BLLs exceeding 5 and 10 µg/dL at 11.6 and 0.8% of the sampling locations, respectively. This study suggests children’s exposure to Pb contaminated surface soil could potentially be associated with low-level BLLs in some locations in the Melbourne metropolitan area.