EU ministers shirk third-world climate finance.
by LEIGH PHILLIPS, EUobserver, Brussels, March 3, 2009.

Poorer countries have been left hanging by EU environment ministers, who at a meeting in Brussels failed to produce any clear funding commitments to help the developing world tackle climate change.

Ministers from the 27 member states were in the European capital on Monday (2 March) to discuss proposals published in January by the European Commission on what stance to take at the upcoming UN conference in Copenhagen in December.

The developing world will be hit much harder by climate change than the wealthy north.

It is too early to reveal what offers will be put on the table, the ministers argued, particularly as the US has yet to make public its negotiating stance.

“We were not quite able to reach consensus on the financing mechanism. This is an issue where the [European] Council will need more discussion time,” said EU environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, also in attendance at the ministers’ meeting.

Recognising that northern industrialised nations are responsible for 75 percent of global warming, these countries have committed to making the bulk of CO2 reductions.

The expected grand bargain in Denmark would be that if the EU and US stump up significant chunks of cash for cutting emissions and climate adaptation, developing countries will commit to considerable CO2 reductions in return.

Specifically, the EU is hoping for a commitment from the global south - with the exception of the least developed countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa - of CO2 reductions of between 15 and 30 percent on 1990 levels.

However, despite the speed with which the EU and US found €2.6 trillion to bail out financial institutions over the course of 2008, coming up with funds for third-world climate measures is now proving much more elusive.

At their Monday meeting, the environment ministers kicked the topic up to the level of EU heads of state, due to meet in Brussels on 19 and 20 March, meaning any decision must be taken unanimously. Prior to that, on 10 March, EU finance ministers are also to discuss the issue.

Environment ministers did however endorse the sum that the commission had suggested in its January proposals would need to be spent by all countries around the world to combat climate change - roughly €175 billion annually by 2020, with half of that having to be invested in the developing world.

–=–=–=–

Paris vs. Warsaw

The two issues of how much of that half would come from the EU and, crucially, how much from each EU member state are at the heart of debate between the ministers.

According to the commission’s proposals, EU financing for the developing world would come either through an annual financial commitment on the basis of an agreed formula, or by a percentage of monies coming from revenues produced by the creation of a carbon market across all wealthy countries similar to Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

If the EU opts for the fixed commitments, the formula to share out the burden would involve a calculation based on a member state’s GDP, its emissions in comparison to GDP, and the size of its population.

Paris wants added to this formula a consideration of the amount of emissions per capita.

France likes this idea because it has the lowest emissions per capita in the EU. Poland, meanwhile, is not such a great fan because of its dependence on coal, an extremely dirty source of energy.

Green groups and development agencies said they were getting impatient with the EU on the question of climate finance.

“While billions of taxpayers’ money is being used to prop up failed banks and carmakers, not one eurocent is being pledged to help the developing world tackle a problem that Europeans helped create,” said Joris den Blanken, a campaigner with Greenpeace, which is calling for annual contributions by the EU of around €35 billion for climate adaptation measures in the developing world.

“The EU needs to put money on the table now. Treating poor people’s lives as a bargaining tool in climate negotiations is both immoral and misguided as a negotiating strategy,” said Katia Maia, with Oxfam in Brazil.

—————

30 percent not enough:

At the same time, many of those reductions committed to by the EU will not really be performed domestically, as a large chunk of the 20 or 30 percent will come from so-called carbon offsets - essentially where wealthy countries pay poorer ones to make their carbon cuts for them.

From:              Shashi Tharoor

Shashi Tharoor, an acclaimed novelist and commentator, is a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Are India and China doomed to Great Power rivalry? Is the “moral” foreign policy of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru obsolete? Will Bollywood replace Hollywood as a source of “soft” power? Is India now a de facto ally of the United States and Japan? Will democracy help or hinder its long-term growth?

The world’s largest democracy is also, to outsiders, the most perplexing. For years, India puttered along, its economy weighed down by the regulations that made up the “license raj” bequeathed by Gandhi and Nehru, producing only a feeble “Hindu” rate of growth. But, over the past 15 years, India has transformed itself into a billion-strong rival to China and a showplace for liberalization whose strength has come to play an irreplaceable role in fueling the world economy.

And yet India’s impressive achievements are more fragile than they may first appear. Indian businesses and Bollywood films have become world beaters, but many obstacles to sustained success remain – from a government that depends on Communist support to the tenacious hold of the caste system, chronic power shortages, and rigid labor laws.

Shashi Tharoor, a former Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and the author of acclaimed novels such as Riot, The Great Indian Novel, and Show Business, is one of today’s most knowledgeable and provocative observers of India’s global rise and of the myriad perplexities and effervescence of its everyday life. How will India’s increasingly international companies confront stiffening resistance in the West? Why can’t a country that excels at cricket field a decent Olympic team?

In Awakening India, written exclusively every month for Project Syndicate, Tharoor captures and deciphers the multifaceted complexity of the ambitious country that India has become: one where there is much more hope – but also more frustration – than ever before.

Will your readers awaken to India’s new dawn?

–
Holly Ellis Assistant to Dr. Shashi Tharoor Afras Ventures 230 Park
Avenue Suite 2525 New York, NY 10169-0005 646-292-8456 Office
212-661-2153 Fax  Tharoor.Assistant at gmail.com

Postpone UN climate summit, suggests former Irish president.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson has said that a crucial UN climate change summit due to take place in Poland in December should be postponed until after Barack Obama is inaugurated as US president.

Speaking at a meeting in Brussels on Thursday, Robinson, now vice president of the Club of Madrid, an organisation of former world leaders, said, “It would make more sense to postpone the summit until 20 January. It can’t possibly be led by a lack of understanding for the kind of change that Obama wants.

“This summit, which sounds great and sexy, is happening at the wrong time.”

Also speaking at the event, held to publicise the ‘Road to Copenhagen’ initiative – which refers to the UN climate meeting due to take place in 2009 in the Danish city – was commission vice president Margot Wallström.

She said, “The election of Barack Obama has sent a forceful positive signal to the EU. We see it in terms of negotiating a post-Kyoto agreement.

“We find it hugely important that Obama – with his strong statements on climate change – will be president.

“If we can have a signal from America that they are willing to sit down and talk, it will affect China and India.”

The ‘Road to Copenhagen’ project, which Robinson and Wallström are spearheading along with former Norwegian prime minister and UN special envoy on climate change, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was created to give the general public, industry, politicians and NGOs a say in the UN climate negotiations.

The Poznán summit in Poland this December is due to lay down the formal agenda for the whole process, but the decisive summit will be held in Copenhagen next year.

Robinson, Wallström and Brundtland were joined at the press conference by the Icelandic singer Björk, who has started her own climate campaign to find eco-friendly options for Iceland’s rich natural resources.

—————–

Unless postponed until the change in US Administration, Poznan will end up in a ditch and better to postpone it then let it derail the following Copenhagen meeting.

The Road to Copenhagen is a very bright idea if there is a productive Poznan meeting - otherwise Copenhagen will turn naturally into Poznan II and not into a Kyoto II as the UN professionals hope, or a Copenhagen I as an agreement between the US, China, India, Brazil would entail. Poznan is thus a make or brake event on the road to Copenhagen, and a US represented by Paula Dobriansky will just push the rest of those present into the ditch.

Barak Obama cannot speak up before January 20, and obviously cannot have his negotiator vetted by US Congress before he takes over as US President. He said clearly that he works under the rules of the US Constitution that says there is only one President at a given time. Pushing for keeping the Poznan date under these conditions is rather like saying that it is imperative for those opposing the notion that the world must be kept addicted to petroleum and other fossil carbons in their self-interest must have the day.

Barak Obama could appoint his Climate Change negotiator on January 20, 2009, right there at his inaugural speech, and Congress could approve his selection, the speediest, within a month - so, a Poznan meeting in March 2009 is the earliest it makes sense to hold this meeting if you are positively inclined to do something about climate change. We keep saying so for over a year, this even before we had an inkling of who might be next US President. We kept pouring cold water on the UN euphoria with their debate time-line. We are afraid that UN talk is very expensive - it allows people to fly around freely but is not intended to come up with results. Statements by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on how much he wants to see results from the climate change negotiations, and rosy pronunciations from the Executive of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, cannot change the reality that in the end - it is the US President that holds the keys for a positive outcome of the Climate Change negotiations. It is in the promise of the US and the response from the Brazil, China, India, that an effective plan will be born.

See please also:

The Columbia University World Leaders Forum, September 26, 2008, Became The Podium For Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark To Make Known A Roadmap To The December 2009 Climate Change Meeting in Copenhagen. The Prime Minister Is Keenly Interested That The Copenhagen Event Becomes The Turnaround Point From Our Present Descent Towards Global Environmental Disaster, and He Negotiated This Week A Roadmap With The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and The Two Candidates For The US Presidency. We Wished Him All The Luck He Needs; Nevertheless We Expressed Some Skepticism.

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 27th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

At a Summit of India, Brazil, South Africa, they ask the rich countries to consider their input on how to manage the current global financial crisis without jeopardizing the development of emerging economies.

“WE are the victims of a crisis generated by the rich countris,” daid Brazilian President Lula at this meeting that is intended to develop a strategy to deal with effects of the crisis.

India’s humble rickshaw goes solar.
by Elizabeth Roche Mon Oct 13, 2008.  NEW DELHI (AFP) - It’s been touted as a solution to urban India’s traffic woes, chronic pollution and fossil fuel dependence, as well as an escape from backbreaking human toil. A state-of-the-art, solar powered version of the humble cycle-rickshaw promises to deliver on all this and more.

The “soleckshaw,” unveiled this month in New Delhi, is a motorised cycle rickshaw that can be pedalled normally or run on a 36-volt solar battery.

Developed by the state-run Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), prototypes are receiving a baptism of fire by being road-tested in Old Delhi’s Chandni Chowk area.

One of the city’s oldest and busiest markets, dating back to the Moghul era, Chandni Chowk comprises a byzantine maze of narrow, winding streets, choked with buses, cars, scooters, cyclists and brave pedestrians.

“The most important achievement will be improving the lot of rickshaw drivers,” said Pradip Kumar Sarmah, head of the non-profit Centre for Rural Development.

“It will dignify the job and reduce the labour of pedalling. From rickshaw pullers, they will become rickshaw drivers,” Sarmah said.

India has an estimated eight million cycle-rickshaws.

The makeover includes FM radios and powerpoints for charging mobile phones during rides.

Gone are the flimsy metal and wooden frames that give the regular Delhi rickshaws a tacky, sometimes dubious look.

The “soleckshaw,” which has a top speed of 15 kilometres (9.3 miles) per hour, has a sturdier frame and sprung, foam seats for up to three people.

The fully-charged solar battery will power the rickshaw for 50 to 70 kilometres (30 to 42 miles). Used batteries can be deposited at a centralised solar-powered charging station and replaced for a nominal fee.

If the tests go well, the “soleckshaw” will be a key transport link between sporting venues at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi.

“Rickshaws were always environment friendly. Now this gives a totally new image that would be more acceptable to the middle-classes,” said Anumita Roychoudhary of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment.

“Rickshaws have to be seen as a part of the solution for modern traffic woes and pollution. They have never been the problem. The problem is the proliferation of automobiles using fossil fuels,” she said.

Initial public reaction to the “soleckshaw” has been generally favourable, and the rickshaw pullers have few doubts about its benefits.

“Pedalling the rickshaw was very difficult for me,” said Bappa Chatterjee, 25, who migrated to the capital from West Bengal and is one of the 500,000 pullers in Delhi.

“I used to suffer chest pains and shortage of breath going up inclines. This is so much easier.

“Earlier, when people hailed us it was like, ‘Hey you rickshaw puller!’ Police used to harass us, slapping fines even abusing us for what they called wrong parking. Now people look at me with respect,” Chatterjee said.

Mohammed Matin Ansari, another migrant from eastern Bihar state, said the new model offered parity with car, bus and scooter drivers.

“Now we are as good as them,” he said.

Indian authorities have big dreams for the “soleckshaw.”

India’s Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal who hailed the invention for its “zero carbon foot print” said it should be used beyond the confines of Delhi.

“Soleckshaws would be ideal for small families visiting the Taj Mahal,” he told AFP.

At present battery-operated buses ferry people to the iconic monument in Agra — but their limited numbers cannot cope with the heavy tourist rush.

CSIR director Sinha said he hoped an advanced version of the “soleckshaw” with a car-like body would become a viable alternative to the “small car” favoured by Indian middle class families.

“Greenhouse gas emissions are showing an increasing trend year on year and 60 percent of this comes from the global transport sector.

“In the age of global warming, the soleckshaw, with improvements, can be successfully developed as competition for all the petrol and diesel run small cars,” Sinha said.

VIII conferência internacional da Datagro
Sobre açúcar e álcool

VIII international Datagro
Conference on sugar and alcohol

Neste ano, mais uma vez a DATAGRO realiza a sua VIII conferência internacional da DATAGRO sobre açúcar e álcool nos dias 27 e 28 de outubro de 2008, no Hotel Grand Hyatt São Paulo, à Av. Nações Unidas 13301.

Realizada em ambiente agradável, a conferência já se tornou tradicional centro de referência dos principais temas e preocupações do setor para os integrantes de sua cadeia produtiva, proporcionando também ótima oportunidade de networking. O evento contará ainda com ótima infra-estrutura de serviços e tradução simultânea português-inglês-português.
Na edição passada a Conferência Internacional da DATAGRO sobre açúcar e álcool reuniu mais de 530 participantes de 30 países, tendo sido um dos maiores e melhores encontros das maiores autoridades mundiais do setor sucro-alcooleiro. Distinguiu-se promovendo debates e levantando questões de suma importância para o desenvolvimento e crescimento do setor.

Para fazer sua inscrição on-line acesse o site www.conferencia.datagro.com.br ou envie um fax para (0XX11) 4195-6659. Outras informações pelo telefone (0XX11) 4133-3944, com Sr. Alyson.

Again this year, DATAGRO is organizing its VIII international DATAGRO conference on sugar and alcohol on October 27th and 28th, 2008 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel grounds, São Paulo-Brazil?. Held in a pleasant environment, the conference became a traditional center of reference on sugar and alcohol for the production chain members. Also, it provides a good opportunity for networking with the global leaders of these industries. The conference will offer outstanding infrastructure of services and will be available simultaneous translation Portuguese/English/Portuguese.

In the last edition, the international DATAGRO conference on sugar and alcohol attracted more than 530 participants from 30 different countries and was one of the biggest major encounters of the top global authorities in the areas of sugar and alcohol, distinguishing itself by promoting debates and pointing high important questions about the sector growth and development.

Please visit the conference website www.conferencia.datagro.com.br where you will find the conference program, hotel information, and online registration. For more information call us at (5511) 4133-3944 or send a fax to (5511)4195-6659.

Palestrantes Confirmados:
Confirmed Speakers:

Keynote Speaker: Dr. Peter Baron - Diretor Executivo da International Sugar Organization (ISO) - U.K.
Alexis Duval - Tereos - França
Dr. Bruce Babcock - Director, CARD – Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University –  USA
Charlote Opal - Coordinator, Roundtable on Sustained Biofuels - Switzerland
Cláudio Piquet Pessoa - Diretor, Glencore Importadora e Exportadora S/A, Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Douglas Newman - International Trade Commission – Washington, DC.
Edson Menezes da Silva - Superintendente de Abastecimento, ANP - Agencia Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis, Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Eduardo Pereira Carvalho - ETH Bioenergia - Brasil
Guilherme Nastari – DATAGRO - Brasil
Ingo Kalder - Sugar Division, Cargill Agricola S/A - Brasil
Jonathan Kingsman - Kingsman & Co - Lausanne, Switzerland
Joseph Schmidhuber - Senior Economist - Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – Italy
Manoel Ortolan - Presidente CANAOESTE - Brasil
Manoel Vicente Bertone - Secretário de Produção e Agroenergia, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) - Brasil
Michael Betenson - Diretor Comercial da CRYSTALSEV – Ribeirão Preto, Brasil
Dr. Pedro Valls - Professor  Doutor, Fundação Getulio Vargas - Brasil
Dr. Plinio Mario Nastari – Presidente DATAGRO - Brasil
Sérgio Trindade - SE2T - EUA
Stephen Kanitz - Articulista Revista Veja

Presidentes dos Sindicatos das Indústrias do açúcar e do álcool

André Luiz Baptista Lins Rocha – Goiás
Anísio Tormena - Paraná
Antonio Jose de Sousa - Maranhão
Eduardo Ribeiro Coutinho - Paraíba
José Pessoa de Queiroz Bisneto - Mato Grosso do Sul
Luis Custódio Cotta Martins - Minas Gerais
Marcos Jank - São Paulo
Pedro Robério de Melo Nogueira - Alagoas
Piero Vicenzo Parini - Mato Grosso
Renato Pontes Cunha - Pernambuco

Impasse: Are We Nearing the End of the Corporate Globalization Era?
By Deborah James, AlterNet. Posted August 21, 2008.

The failure to expand the WTO shows that the ideology of “free trade” has lost its luster.

When the history of the seismic shifts occurring today in the global economy is written, the failure in July 2008 of corporate interests and some governments to expand the World Trade Organization (WTO) through the Doha Round will stand as a watershed moment.

It was in this lakeside town where negotiators threw in the towel on their seven fruitless years of trying to expand a particular, corporate-driven set of policies, to which the majority of governments have said “no”, time and time again (in Seattle in 1999, Mexico in 2003, and Geneva in 2006). WTO Director General Pascal Lamy attempted a last-minute push to conclude a Doha deal by calling for an exclusive, invitation-only mini-Ministerial of around 30 of the WTO’s 153 members in Geneva last month, despite wide divergences in political positions within the areas of negotiation, and despite the fact the Bush administration has no authority to sign any potential deal.

And since it wasn’t enough of an abrogation of democratic process to exclude four-fifths of the WTO’s membership from the so-called “Green Room” negotiations, when talks failed to converge amongst those 30 countries, Lamy continued negotiations with a mere seven members, including almost all of the developed world, yet excluding all of Africa — in a round that proponents still shamelessly refer to as a “Development Round.” Many developing countries such as Bolivia and Kenya and even the host, Switzerland, raised significant process concerns about their exclusion from the meeting, but their concerns were dismissed by Lamy.

Were Africans allowed to participate in the secret discussions, they would have demanded resolution on issues such as the reform of U.S. cotton subsidies to 20,000 domestic producers, which encourage overproduction and erode the income of 10 million African cotton farmers in countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad, driving many of them out of business and reducing revenues key to health care and education budgets for the poor. Some observers have highlighted Africans’ strong stand on development issues when they were allowed at the table. Many have even argued that rich countries’ desire to avoid key African issues such as cotton is actually what led to the collapse, but this part of the story seems just too ugly to have been repeated in the U.S. press.

Recent coverage in the United States of the talks’ failure has focused on the negotiating positions of various countries, particularly blaming India and China. But when one delves into the underlying issues, it becomes clear that much more was at stake in the negotiations than “trade,” and that the collapse was due to forces far greater than individual countries’ positions — including issues surrounding the food, climate, and financial crises — as well as the lack of progress on development due to the failure of neoliberal policies to actually promote growth or reduce poverty. Given the changes in international political dynamics as well as the global agenda, the collapse in the current negotiations will have far-reaching impacts beyond just the WTO.

Food Sovereignty or Food Crisis:

Take agriculture, for example, the issue cited by most accounts to have provoked the collapse. India, supported by the vast majority of developing countries, fought for the right to be allowed within the WTO to protect its farmers, food security, and rural development from the volatility of the commodity markets. Surges of subsidized imported products have so devastated local agricultural producers, who represent three-fifths of the workforce in a population of 1.1 billion people, that it is said that over 100,000 farmers have committed suicide in recent years. However, U.S. negotiators wouldn’t allow for the protections, and demanded increased access to poor countries’ markets for its agribusiness exports, while refusing to reduce the cap on domestic subsidies below twice their current rate.

It is not a coincidence that the talks fell apart over issues related to agriculture, in a year where countries from Haiti to Pakistan and Mexico to Cameroon have seen riots break out over food prices. While commodity prices are fortunately on a slight decline, the food crisis is eroding allegiance to the free trade dogma in agriculture. Many developing countries that used to be able to take care of their own food needs are now heavily dependent on imports. Two-thirds of developing countries are now net food importers. Decades of IMF and World Bank-mandated structural adjustment policies, coupled with “free trade agreements” as well as WTO policies, have forced developing countries to reduce tariffs — which, combined with high levels of permitted subsidies in rich countries — has eviscerated the productive capacity of many developing countries. WTO policies have also contributed to the erosion of the family farm in the United States and other rich countries. Further WTO expansion would exacerbate, not solve the food crisis, no matter the claims of Lamy.

Another key factor at play in the negotiations in Geneva was the continued mobilization against the expansion of these failed policies by civil society worldwide. For example, farmers in India have been organizing massive protests over the last many years against the WTO. Their anger sharpened as they witnessed the harsh pressure their government was subjected to during the talks, including at least three personal calls from President Bush to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the negotiations.

Farmers from Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Brazil, and other countries lobbied their representatives in Geneva while keeping civil society at home up to date about the state of play in the negotiations. They pressured their governments to resist the anti-development demands, and helped ensure the victory of the collapse.

Kicking Away the Ladder of Development:

A similar dynamic emerged in the other major pillar of the negotiations in Geneva, regarding tariffs on industrial goods. Tariffs are essentially taxes that corporations pay to governments for the privilege of selling their goods, and making a profit, in another country. Strategic use of tariffs has been a core strategy of any industrialization policy; governments increase tariffs to protect infant industries from foreign competition to promote domestic jobs and development, then lower tariffs when those industries are competitive, to save consumers money. As Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang illuminates, the U.S. had the world’s highest tariffs at the turn of the century, during our industrialization. Now, rich countries are essentially saying, “Do as I say, not as I did,” arguing that developing countries should reduce their tariffs, because rich countries now have lower tariffs and are richer. This amounts to the proverbial Kicking Away the Ladder of development (PDF).

In the WTO this plays out in the area of negotiations called “Non Agricultural Market Access,” or NAMA in WTO-speak. Both developed and developing countries have agreed to reduce tariffs, within the Doha mandate of Less Than Full Reciprocity. This means that developing countries are supposed to gain more “market access” to developed countries (and hence reduce their own tariffs by a lesser percentage) than vice versa. However, in the actual negotiations, rich countries demanded that developing countries slash their bound tariffs by an average of about 60 percent, while only offering to cut their own tariffs by half as much (about 28 percent.)

According to the International Trade Union Confederation, these tariff cuts would result in tens of thousands of lost jobs in newly-industrializing developing countries, in the midst of a crisis of poverty and lack of development progress in many countries. In addition, the Third World Network has pointed out that the cuts will also foreclose the possibilities for industrial development for many of the poorest countries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates that tariff losses (which provide for a significant portion of health and education budgets in many developing countries) would amount to nearly four times the small projected “gains” for developing countries from the Doha Round.

Fortunately, trade unionists from South Africa, India, the Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries have become increasingly vocal about their concerns, and traveled to Geneva to lobby their governments, raise their voices in the media, and ensure that workers at home were putting pressure on their capitals to defend their interests. While the issue of industrial tariff cuts was not reported as being the deal-breaker this time, it is clear that it will remain a primary objective of the rich countries in the negotiations.

WTO Expansion would Exacerbate, not Solve, Climate, Financial Crises:

Agriculture and jobs-and-development are not the only arenas in which it is becoming increasingly evident that the WTO is a contributor to, rather than a solution to, present global crises. The global climate crisis will also require new, innovative solutions. Unfortunately many of those ideas will clash with WTO prohibitions on regulatory policies that could, in some way, unintentionally restrict trade. We already know that shipping products tens of thousands of miles across the world so that corporations can take advantage of cheap labor in some countries, weak environmental standards in others, and developed consumer markets in yet a third, contributes significantly to global warming. Do we really want our ability to preserve life on our planet to be constrained by the WTO?

No issue has dominated headlines this year more than the global financial crisis, now widely agreed to have been facilitated by a lack of adequate regulation in the financial markets. Yet in the WTO negotiations on services, further deregulation and liberalization of the financial markets are sought by rich countries, representing the interest of their financial industries. It is without logic that the WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy, has called for a conclusion to the WTO expansion agenda as a solution to the global financial crisis, when its actual policies would, by any sensible estimation, contribute to further instability.

While negotiations on services were not much in the headlines, they were a key part of the WTO agenda in July. While the chair of the services negotiations attempted to pressure countries to expand the current level of services liberalization to the “maximum extent possible,” a group of countries — Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua — successfully rejected the maneuver. But going further, they also circulated a proposal to remove health care, education, water, telecommunications, and energy from the WTO, on the basis that these essential public services are human rights which governments have an obligation to provide, and should not be treated as tradable commodities. These efforts were immediately supported by over 100 civil society organizations around the world within 36 hours
Doha at an Impasse: Where do we go from here?

Many fear that the collapse of the multilateral talks will lead to increased pressure for bilateral and regional deals using the same (and often even more extreme) policies as the WTO. As well, each time the Doha Round has “collapsed” it has also been called forth from the dead, and negotiations resumed. And of course, irrespective of the collapse of the attempted expansion, the WTO will continue to regulate global trade in favor of corporate profit and against the interests of workers, farmers, consumers, and the environment.

However, this time is different. Confidence in the particular policies of corporate globalization has eroded significantly since the founding of the WTO, due principally to the abysmal failure of these policies to promote growth, equity, and sustainable development in countries of both the north and the south in the last three decades (and the failure of the WTO to do the same since 1995). As well, studies projecting “gains” from a Doha Round, having been greatly exaggerated by WTO proponents, shrank over time and remained paltry — about one penny per day per person in the developing world. (The best recent summary of the gains and losses is examined here (PDF).)

At the same time, some governments are increasingly experimenting with alternative policies, such as regional integration, resource nationalization, South-South trade, and increasing budgets for health and education, which are delivering growth and prosperity far more effectively. Just to give an example, the increased growth above the Latin American average growth of just Argentina and Venezuela over the last four years has brought combined gains of $140 billion to those two countries. This real economic growth dwarfs the projected gains of $16 billion for all developing countries combined (according to the most recent World Bank projections for a likely Doha conclusion; both figures in constant 2001 dollars.)

Just as importantly, global politics have re-aligned since Doha was launched. Developing countries are far less likely to accept policies handed down by the governments of rich nations, many of them having gained freedom from the economic dictates of the IMF in recent years. And while Brazil, India, and China may be the most oft-cited emerging market powerhouses, developing countries from Latin America to Africa to Asia are increasingly demanding a stronger voice in international fora.

And in the United States, Herculean efforts are being made to ensure that our next Congress and president actually implement the fair trade policies demanded by citizens who have suffered from lost jobs, stagnant real wages, and corporations gone wild for far too long, including through the new TRADE Act.

Civil society organizations have for years developed a number of ideas for a different paradigm for expanding global prosperity and sustainable development, through policies that would establish global financial stability, contribute to solving rather than exacerbating the climate crisis, and that promote countries’ ability to feed their populations, among other goals. In defeating WTO expansion one more time, the political space has been created in which these alternative policies and paradigms could flourish. That space could also shrivel up, if civil society does not keep working to ensure that the negotiations do not resume.

What is needed now is the continued organizing to keep that political space open, coupled with the political will convert the innovative policymaking already in motion into a new economic paradigm globally that can discipline harmful corporate practices while actually increasing growth, reducing poverty, and expanding sustainable development globally. Only then may the victims of that fourth, most neglected crisis — the one in which over a billion of our fellow human citizens today suffer from extreme, often lethal poverty — ever find hope for a better future.

Deborah James is the Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and a Board member of Global Exchange.

VIII conferência internacional da Datagro Sobre açúcar e álcool

VIII international Datagro Conference on sugar and alcohol

Neste ano, mais uma vez a DATAGRO realiza a sua VIII conferência internacional da DATAGRO sobre açúcar e álcool nos dias 27 e 28 de outubro de 2008, no Hotel Grand Hyatt São Paulo, à Av. Nações Unidas 13301. Realizada em ambiente agradável, a conferência já se tornou tradicional centro de referência dos principais temas e preocupações do setor para os integrantes de sua cadeia produtiva, proporcionando também ótima oportunidade de networking. O evento contará ainda com ótima infra-estrutura de serviços e tradução simultânea português-inglês-português.

Na edição passada a Conferência Internacional da DATAGRO sobre açúcar e álcool reuniu mais de 530 participantes de 30 países, tendo sido um dos maiores e melhores encontros das maiores autoridades mundiais do setor sucro-alcooleiro. Distinguiu-se promovendo debates e levantando questões de suma importância para o desenvolvimento e crescimento do setor.

Para fazer sua inscrição on-line acesse o site www.conferencia.datagro.com.br ou envie um fax para (0XX11) 4195-6659. Outras informações pelo telefone (0XX11) 4133-3944, com Sr. Alyson.

Again this year, DATAGRO is organizing its VIII international DATAGRO conference on sugar and alcohol on October 27th and 28th, 2008 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel grounds, São Paulo-Brazil.

Held in a pleasant environment, the conference became a traditional center of reference on sugar and alcohol for the production chain members. Also, it provides a good opportunity for networking with the global leaders of these industries. The conference will offer outstanding infrastructure of services and will be available simultaneous translation Portuguese/English/Portuguese.

In the last edition, the international DATAGRO conference on sugar and alcohol attracted more than 530 participants from 30 different countries and was one of the biggest major encounters of the top global authorities in the areas of sugar and alcohol, distinguishing itself by promoting debates and pointing high important questions about the sector growth and development.

Please visit the conference website www.conferencia.datagro.com.br where you will find the conference program, hotel information, and online registration. For more information call us at (5511) 4133-3944 or send a fax to (5511)4195-6659.

Palestrantes Confirmados:
Confirmed Speakers:

Keynote Speaker: Dr. Peter Baron - Diretor Executivo da International Sugar Organization (ISO) - U.K.
Manoel Ortolan - Presidente CANAOESTE - Brasil
Plinio Mario Nastari – Presidente DATAGRO - Brazil
Rui Lacerda Ferraz - Presidente da CRYSTALSEV - Brasil
Manoel Vicente Bertone - Secretário de Produção e Agroenergia, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) - Brazil
Dr. Pedro Valls - Professor  Doutor, Fundação Getulio Vargas - Brazil
Guilherme Nastari – DATAGRO - Brazil
Eduardo Pereira Carvalho - ETH Bioenergia - Brazil
Dr. Bruce Babcock - Director, CARD – Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University –  USA
Ingo Kalder - Sugar Division, Cargill Agricola S/A - Brazil
Joseph Schmidhuber - Senior Economist - Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – Italy
Sérgio Trindade - SE2T - EUA
John Mathews - MacQuarie? University - Australia
Charlote Opal - Coordinator, Roundtable on Sustained Biofuels - Switzerland

Presidentes dos Sindicatos das Indústrias do açúcar e do álcool

Anísio Tormena - Paraná
Eduardo Ribeiro Coutinho - Paraíba
José Pessoa de Queiroz Bisneto - Mato Grosso do Sul
Luis Custódio Cotta Martins - Minas Gerais
Marcos Jank - São Paulo
Renato Pontes Cunha - Pernambuco
André Luiz Baptista Lins Rocha – Goiás

India’s Temples Go Green.
Monday, July 7, 2008 By MADHUR SINGH, Time Magazine.

 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0…

The Tirumala temple, in the south Indian city of Tirupathi, is one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines. Over 5,000 pilgrims a day visit this city of seven hills, filling Tirumala’s coffers with donations and making it India’s richest temple. But since 2002, Tirumala has also been generating revenue from a less likely source: carbon credits. For decades, the temple’s community kitchen has fed nearly 15,000 people, cooking 30,000 meals a day. Five years ago, Tirumala adopted solar cooking technology, allowing it to dramatically cut down on the amount of diesel fuel it uses. The temple now sells the emission reduction credits it earns to a Swiss green-technology investor, Good Energies Inc.

Like Tirumala, dozens of holy places across India are moving quietly towards green energy. Muni Seva Ashram, in Gujarat, which combines spiritual practice with social activism, is working to make its premises entirely green by using solar, wind and biogas energy. A residential school for 400 students is already running exclusively on green energy. Starting this year, the ashram will also sell three million carbon credits. A similar movement is afoot at the revered Sai Baba Temple in Shirdi, Maharashtra. “Our aim is to avoid pollution in every way,” says Raghunath Aher, the temple’s chief engineer. “A holy place should be pure and completely in harmony with nature.”
It’s not surprising that religious groups are in the vanguard of India’s green movement: India is the birthplace of four of the world’s largest religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, all of which revere nature and preach conservation. But the country’s environmental practice hasn’t always matched that preaching, leaving its air and water woefully polluted. According to the World Bank, emissions increased 57% in the decade following the India’s economic liberalization.

Now, however, religious groups, keen to marry spirituality with sustainability, are leading the push to reverse that trend. Deepak Gadhia, founder of Gadhia Solar Energy Systems, which provided solar cooking technology to Tirumala temple, says more and more religious organizations have approached him in recent years. “With most businesses, the first question is of economics,” he says, “But spiritual organizations look at larger issues. They want energy that is spiritually positive.”
Art of Living, for instance, a 25-year-old spiritual organization that claims nearly 30 million followers in India, focuses on returning to “the way of life espoused in the ancient Hindu scriptures,” according to spokesperson Mamta Kailkhura. The group is working with the government of Uttaranchal state to clean up the Ganges River and devise a waste disposal system for the holy city of Rishikesh. In the villages near Art of Living’s ashram in Bangalore, a program to teach farmers organic methods and ancient water harvesting techniques is afoot. The ashram itself uses biogas for part of its lighting requirements, and recycles all of its water. Of course, it all makes sound economic sense: with the government subsidizing up to 50% of the costs of installing green technology, temples like Tirumala can make steady returns selling the resulting carbon credits.

And India’s faith-based organizations are also helping spread the gospel of green.

The UK-based Alliance of Religions and Conservation, which works with the UN to involve religious groups in environmental outreach, is working on a conservation campaign in the holy city of Vrindavan, as well as pushing India’s 28,000 Sikh temples to convert their kitchens to green technology. The combined potential of such efforts is limitless. India’s religious groups have sizable incomes, own vast amounts of land, and have enormous influence on public opinion through their educational institutions. Indeed, with 99% of Indians professing to one faith or another, the country’s green movement might not have a prayer without them.

G-8 climate scorecard shows US in last. The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
By PATRICK McGROARTY, BERLIN (AP) — The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
The G-8 Climate Scorecards 2008, released Thursday ahead of next week’s gathering of the Group of Eight on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, also found that none of the eight countries are making improvements large enough to prevent temperature increases that scientists think would cause catastrophic climate changes. The gathering includes the heads of states of the U.S., Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.
Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, told reporters in the German capital that G-8 leaders should commit to reducing emissions in their countries 40 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. “If we don’t achieve that, the world’s climate will change in ways that we can’t even imagine today,” Guenther said.

The scorecard ranked Britain as the developed nation that has done the most to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reach targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. France and Germany are close behind. Germany was praised for its investment in renewable energy.
“But all three countries are at best half as far along the road as they should be,” a statement announcing the study said.
The scorecard was compiled by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting company, and commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz SE.

Joachim Faber, an Allianz board member who helped compile the scorecards, said a global emissions trading market is important to fighting climate change, and that the EU should lead its development.
“The EU-specific trading system we have at the moment must serve as model system for one that we can found outside the EU, for the world economy,” he said.

The study criticized low energy efficiency in the U.S., but said there was hope in legislation under consideration by Congress and initiatives led by non-governmental groups.

The study also analyzed — but did not rank — five of the world’s fastest growing economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. “These countries cannot be measured with the same ruler as industrialized countries,” the statement said.

Bush Makes Final Push for Global Climate Deal.
By Michael Abramowitz and Blaine Harden, WashPost, July 3, 2008.

“In his final months in office, President Bush is mounting a last-ditch effort to forge a new global deal to limit greenhouse-gas emissions but finds himself once again at odds with much of the rest of the world on how to address climate change. Bush aides said a deal might be struck when the president sits down next week in Japan with the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized nations and developing countries such as China and India. Japan is pushing for leaders at the Group of Eight summit to agree to a goal of cutting global carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050, a proposal that the White House appears to be considering seriously. The Bush administration is also conducting negotiations with countries on including more-specific targets for each to meet by 2020 or 2025. Germany is pushing for more-significant cuts in emissions than the United States and some other countries are willing to consider, while China and India want the United States and other industrialized countries to do most of the heavy lifting for the next 10 to 15 years. Previewing his G-8 agenda yesterday in the Rose Garden, Bush emphasized the necessity of including the developing countries in any agreement struck by his administration… Environmentalists contend that Bush’s moves on global warming are too little, too late. They say even an agreement on a long-term goal would be meaningless because it would likely not bind the United States to making actual reductions. In many ways, they said, G-8 nations have begun to shift their focus to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have indicated a willingness to consider steeper reductions than Bush — the kind of cuts the White House regards as unrealistic… Anything that the leaders agree to next week would have to be worked into a treaty that the United Nations hopes to conclude by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.” 

 From:    dissemination at wider.unu.edu

The Helsinky-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).

 http://www.wider.unu.edu

FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS

Southern Engines of Global Growth: Africa and CIBS (China, India, Brazil and South Africa)
4-6 September 2008, Johannesburg, South Africa
Submission deadline: 30 June 2008.

The Financial Times of London: A weaker dollar could even see investors push the oil price higher. Last month, Opec president Chakib Khelil used this argument to predict $200 oil – and it looked less far-fetched this week when the Goldman Sachs analyst who correctly predicted $100 oil made a similar, if self-serving, prediction.

Look what I came up when we searched for “Oil $200″ on Financial Times online:

 http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=Oi…

The stuff is exciting to us - this because we need a higher price of oil in order to bring recalcitrant folks to their senses.

The need is to proceed decreasing the dependence on oil. To do this we will have to sell the remaining Hummers to the world’s museums. We saw this week the start by General Motors scratching their production of SUVs.

Also, we saw the UN making grand promises for a hunger free world, but going home after being rebuffed by the Latin Americans who won the day. Biofuels are not the source of hunger but the opposition to them is another oil industry invention.

The higher the price of oil - the better - but clearly we can envision much better ways of achieving this then by burying the dollar so that the oil magnates get their feed. Had we gone to the sun rather then Iraq, we would by now have turned the dollar around. Washington will try now to tar white-man Barak Obama in order to keep some of the Washington establishment in place. Those folks better be retired to the salt mines and straight thinking fresh and green folks replace every single one of them. Do not bring in MIT professors, they did not relearn yet the difference between thermodynamics and human dynamics. Bring in old time, home grown conservationists as the real honesty-goodness conservatives. We looked at some of the stuff being pushed around the webs and we are appalled at what the US election campaign will be like.

Bring in folks that believe a dollar in hand is valued more then a dollar in speculative spin. Bring in 140 IQ folks that know to operate technologies that could effectively be run by 100 IQ folks. Do not sell us pie-in-the-sky, but allow the world to grow rice and wheat and corn. Make the world proud again when holding in hand a green US dollar.

Obama, we hope someone gives you to look at this posting.

G8 SUMMIT 2008 - Environment Heads to Talk CO2 cuts in Kobe.

By KO HIRANO, Kyodo News, May 20, 2008.

The Group of Eight environment ministers will open on Saturday a three-day meeting in Kobe on ways to meet Japan’s proposal to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The ministers will also discuss steps to protect biodiversity and to ensure the efficient use of resources with the “3Rs” approach of reducing waste by promoting reuse and recycling, the officials said.

The Kobe event, chaired by Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita, will be a preparatory meeting for the July G8 summit in Hokkaido, at which policy coordination to curb climate change will top the agenda.

Emerging economies, including Brazil, China and India, plan to take part in the Kobe session.

The ministers are expected to discuss the setting of a long-term carbon reduction target, with Japan and Europe backing the idea.

Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP, invites you to participate in the following side-event:

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO -
THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENT CHALLENGE IN AFRICA TODAY.

Thursday 29th May, 13.15 - 14.45
Press Room, Maritim Hotel, Bonn
9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

Background:
The DR Congo is one of the worlds poorest, least developed and least stable countries whilst at the same time contains a wealth of natural resources including large areas of arable land, water , forest products and minerals. The forests of the DR Congo cover some one million square kilometers and as such can be also considered to be one of the largest and most important carbon sinks on the continent and the world. Armed conflict has raged across DR Congo on a large scale since 1994 resulting in more than five million deaths. Low level conflict and chronic instability continues to plague eastern Congo. Large scale displacement due to conflict is also evident with approximately 500,000 Internally Displaced Persons found in eastern DR Congo alone. The DRC economy is almost entirely driven by largely uncontrolled natural resource extraction and utilization. This has taken a significant toll on many aspects of the environment, with deforestation, species depletion and mining associated pollution being the three most significant issues. UNEP has recently launched a special programme to address these issues.

Agenda:

This side event will provide an introduction to the UNEP Programme in the Congo, including the following:

UNEP will report on our programme to assist the Congolese govt, including the post-conflict assessment, assistance with the environmental framework law, and facilitation of a stakeholder dialogue in the Virungas region.
The DR Congo government will outline its current and future actions.
The GRASP partnership will outline their latest activities in the country, including new funding for gorilla and chimpanzee conservation activities in Eastern DRC.
CMS will announce latest developments on the Gorilla Agreement, which comes into force on June 1.
CITES will report on latest figures the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme has collected from Eastern DRC
UNESCO will report on their activities regarding World Heritage Sites in Danger
Professor Ian Swingland will discuss how DRC can benefit from using the market effectively to conserve its biodiversity

For further details, contact:  melanie.virtue at unep.org
 marie.khan at cbd.int or
David Ainsworth at 0170 558 5819 (until 30 May)  david.ainsworth at cbd.int
Information for journalists
To access the live webcast, please visit the home page of the CBD website,
www.cbd.int, and follow the links indicated.
For information on the ninth meeting of the conference of the Parties go
to:   http://www.cbd.int/cop9/
~~~~~~~~~
Melanie Virtue, Great Ape Survival Project (GRASP) Coordinator
GRASP Secretariat, UNEP, PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ph: +254 20 762-4163 Fax: +254 20 762-3926 or 762-4300, Web:  www.unep.org
To call from outside Africa, dial Italy +39 0831 24 3000, wait for tone, then dial 124 4163

————————-

 US Consumers Rank Last in World Survey of Green Habits.
By Queenie Wong for McClatchy Newspapers - based on National Geographic Magazine. Wednesday May 7, 2008.

Washington - Americans rank last in a new National Geographic-sponsored survey released Wednesday that compares environmental consumption habits in 14 countries.

Americans were least likely to choose the greener option in three out of four categories - housing, transportation and consumer goods - according to the assessment.

In the fourth category, food, Americans ranked ahead of Japanese consumers, who eat more meat and seafood.

The rankings, called “Greendex,” are the first to compare the lifestyles and behaviors of consumers in multiple countries, according to the National Geographic Society.

It plans to conduct the 100-plus question survey annually and considers trends more important than yearly scores, said Terry Garcia, executive vice president of National Geographic’s mission programs.

“This is not just a one-time snapshot,” Garcia said. “Some of the most important information may yet be revealed.”

India and Brazil tied for the highest score - 60 points out of a hundred. U.S. consumers scored 44.9.

In between, China scored 56.1, Mexico 54.2, Hungary 53.2, Russia 52.4, Great Britain 50.2, Germany 50.2, Australia 50.2, Spain 50, Japan 49.1, France 48.7 and Canada 48.5.

Results are based on 1,000 online respondents per country interviewed in January and February by GlobeScan, an international polling firm based in Toronto.

To see how you score, take an abbreviated version of the survey. It’s at nationalgeographic.com

A separate GlobeScan survey showed consumers in Brazil, Mexico and China to be most concerned about global warming. In general, people in developing countries were more worried about harming the environment than those in developed ones were. They also live in smaller houses, are more likely to consume locally produced food and more likely to get to work by foot, bike or public transportation.

The consumer choice rankings were adjusted for factors in which individuals have no control, such as climate and the availability of mass transit.

    From:        media at kdun.org
   Subject:     Green World Congress calls for elected UN body.
Date:     May 6, 2008 3:14:10 AM EDT

Committee for a Democratic United Nations.

PRESS RELEASE

Tuesday 6 May 2008

Green World Congress calls for elected UN body - Parliamentary Assembly proposed to overcome “international democratic deficit.”

Sao Paulo/Berlin. The outcome statement of the second Global Greens Congress adopted on
4th May in Sao Paulo has called for “the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly” as
one step to overcome the “international democratic deficit.” “In the face of global
challenges such as climate change it is pretty clear that we need much more effective
international decision-making. This requires that the world’s citizens are better included
in international institutions. Hence the proposal for a body composed of elected
representatives,” said Senator Isabelle Durant, Secretary-General of the Belgian party
Ecolo, in Brasil. The congress assembled representatives of green parties and movements
from over 80 countries.

The leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May, commented in Sao Paulo that
“governments mainly care about advancing their national interests. By contrast, a UN
Parliamentary Assembly could help to promote the global common interest.” “The resolution
adopted by the congress underlines that the green movement is convinced that a dialogue is
needed on the notion of a bi-cameral system at the UN,” May added.

The Committee for a Democratic U.N., an NGO specialized on the topic based in Berlin,
Germany, strongly welcomed the resolution. The Committee noted that the Global Greens are
the third major international party network to endorse the proposal of a UN Parliamentary
Assembly, following the Liberal International and the Socialist International.

The support of the Global Greens adds momentum to an international campaign for the
establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly which was launched in April 2007. The
campaign is backed by more than 450 members of parliament and over 100 non-governmental
organizations from around the world. The Committee for a Democratic U.N. acts as its
international secretariat.

CONTACTS:

Senator Isabelle Durant, Secretary-General, Ecolo,
Phone +32 81 22 78 71, Email  isabelle.durant at ecolo.be

Didier Couernelle, Ecolo delegate at the congress,
Phone +32 2 410 59 56, Email  didier.coeurnelle at gmail.com

Elizabeth May, Party leader, Canadian Greens,
Phone +1 613.240.8921, Email  debra at greenparty.ca

Andreas Bummel, Executive Chairman, Committee for a Democratic U.N.,
Phone +27 827 610 979, Email  bummel at kdun.org

MORE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET:

2nd Global Greens Congress: http://www.globalgreens.org.br/
Committee for a Democratic UN: http://www.kdun.org/
Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly: http://www.unpacampaign.org/

nbsp;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

Economists Debate Link Between War, Credit Crisis
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03

Economist Joseph Stiglitz says the connection between Iraq and the economic downturn is real. (Photo: Manish Swarup/AP)

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the connection between the Iraq conflict and the U.S. economic downturn is simple: “The president has taken us into a failed war,” the California Democrat said recently. “He’s taken us deeply into debt, and that debt is taking us into recession.”

This assessment was put to powerful political effect in the latest congressional hearings on the war, when Democrats and Republicans alike told Army Gen. David H. Petraeus that the oil-rich Iraqi government should relieve the United States of the conflict’s financial burdens. And Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) echoed the theme yesterday at a manufacturing forum in Pittsburgh.

“If we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq,” the Democratic presidential contender declared, “we can spend $15 billion a year in our own country to put Americans back to work and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our economy.”

But this logic may have more political salience than economic validity, according to many economists, who say that the assertions linking the five-year-old conflict in Iraq to the domestic economic slide have been oversimplified.

“You should support the war or oppose the war, which I do and have done from the start, on the merits of the war itself,” said Martin N. Baily, a former chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. But, he added, “the current problems the United States is facing have very little to do with the war in Iraq.”

Even so, the theme resonated in Congress last week. “We’re kind of bankrupting this country,” Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. “We’re eating our seed corn. We’re in a recession, and God only knows how long we’re going to be in it.”

The link between Iraq and the downturn reflects a growing public perception that individual economic anxieties must stem somehow from the unpopular war — a unified theory of political misery, said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster.

“It’s a sour economy, it’s a sour mood and it’s a sour situation in Iraq,” he said. “The public has for the last two years been told about the cost of Iraq in terms of human life. But then there was a direct and important switch, when we went into what I call the surge period, where the budget costs became front and center. While the administration was touting military successes, what the American public saw directly were the costs.”

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who wrote the new book “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” contends that the connection is real. Even with a growing energy demand from China, the United States and elsewhere, oil traders anticipated before the war that the price of oil would remain about $25 a barrel. Instead, it has soared to more than $100 a barrel. Iraqi oil production has not risen with demand, in part because investment in the Middle East has been stunted by war-related unrest.

Those price increases are self-perpetuating, Stiglitz argues. Oil-rich Persian Gulf states are so awash in money that they are not sure what to do with it all. By holding back oil production, they make more off what they do produce and keep their greatest asset — oil — in the ground as they search for ways to spend their cash.

That cash, through state-owned sovereign wealth funds, has flowed into stocks, bonds and other investments, creating incentives for lenders to offer low-interest loans, many of which have now gone sour.

But that is only one factor, by Stiglitz’s accounting. The federal government has sunk deeply into debt, first with tax cuts, then with accelerating war expenditures that have easily topped half a trillion dollars. That limited the government’s ability to keep the economy on track through tax cuts or domestic investments, so the Federal Reserve Board used low interest rates and the free flow of money to keep the economy growing. Cheap credit sparked rash loans, a housing bubble and the current crisis.

“The war played a very important role,” Stiglitz said.

To economists on the left and the right, his analysis strains credulity. Traditional economics hold that large budget deficits “crowd out” private lending, raising interest rates and making lending scarce, not profligate.

“The credit crisis we got into is because of the housing boom, the relaxation of lending standards and certainly a lack of adequate supervision,” Baily said. “I don’t see a connection with government borrowing.”

And most economists still think that oil prices are soaring because of rising demand, not constrained supply.

“I guess you can argue there’s been a contagion of foolishness” sparked by a spendthrift federal government, “but that seems like a stretch,” said Kevin A. Hassett, an American Enterprise Institute economist and an adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Republicans have tried their best to beat back the argument before it takes hold, even citing one of their ideological nemeses, Princeton University economist and liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has raised doubts about any link between the war and the credit crunch.

“While both parties agree that middle-class families and small businesses are struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, this latest argument from Democratic leaders smacks of political opportunism at its very worst,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week.

The analysis is politically powerful because people believe it. A CNN poll last month found that 71 percent of Americans say government spending in Iraq is a factor in the economic downturn.

“When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war,” Obama told an audience last month at the University of Charleston in West Virginia. “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The analysis will drive the debate on the $108 billion in additional war spending that President Bush is now requesting. Congress is set to begin debate on war funding before the end of the month.

“I think there is a connection between the state of our economy and Iraq, and what we’re spending over there,” said Rep. Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a leading Democratic budget hawk. “We’re limited as to what we can do to stimulate the economy. We’re limited as to what we can do on health care or any other program. We need to spend more money on infrastructure, on roads and bridges that would have a stimulative effect on the economy, and we’re not doing those things because of all the money we’re spending in Iraq.”

UN Can Regulate Emissions Trading Without Conflict of Interest  - By Rattaphol Onsanit and Mathew Carr.

April 1 (Bloomberg) — The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can successfully fulfill its role as an emissions-trading regulator, while potential rival watchdogs have conflicts of interest, a UN official said.

“It’s very difficult to think of any organization that would not be in the conflict-of-interest position,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the so-called UNFCCC, said today in an interview in Bangkok, where about 160 countries are meeting to discuss climate protection.

“If you want to put it with some institutions, say the World Bank, UN Development Programme, or the Global Environment Facility, they are involved in implementing projects and raising money,” de Boer said.

The UNFCCC regulates projects in developing countries aimed at reducing the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. The UN credit-trading program is the world’s second- biggest carbon market, after the EU system. A group of officials from the world’s 13 biggest nations said in February that the UNFCCC’s lawmaking and regulatory roles should be separated to introduce professional market governance.

The world should create an “independent, regulatory body for the carbon market,” according to draft recommendations from a committee of the Group of Eight Plus Five. The G8 comprises Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. The five developing countries are Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

Rising Demand:

The UNFCCC secretariat isn’t involved in the projects, so “doesn’t have conflict of interest,” de Boer said. “I don’t think a bank or a brokerage house is in a better position to access whether a project would lead to real, measurable, verifiable emission reduction.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Rattaphol Onsanit in Bangkok at  ronsanit at bloomberg.net; Mathew Carr in London at  m.carr at bloomberg.net

Last Updated: April 1, 2008 07:07 EDT

Columbia Business School, March 28, 2008, Hosted LABA (Latin American Business Association) Conference 2008.

The Topic - “LATIN AMERICA: Growth Perspectives in a Shifting Political Landscape.”

www.SustainabiliTank.info posted the announcement as we received it from YPIC - the UN affiliated “Young Professionals for International Cooperation.”

The meeting had 5 Sessions - serious business advice - Growth Oriented - and networking.
I will restrict the reporting to a star studded Fifth-Session actually titled: “THE SHIFTING LATIN AMERICAN POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.” This was indeed the special thing about this year’s meeting.

Interestingly, the two stars of the panel were both “Have-Beens” of sorts - Ex-Presidents of their countries. But - and watch this - they actually were those that put things in motion that are part of the present developments in their respective countries - though the emergence of the China factor came after them. From their “freedom to analyse” now - their presentations were enlightening indeed.

The Former Presidents were - President Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and President Alexandro Toledo of Peru.

Further, President Gaviria is also Former Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The Chairman was also an important “EX-” and now Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs, School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University. Jose Antonio Ocampo, who was put in place of the previously announced Mr. Andres Oppenheimer, 1978 Graduate of The Columbia School of Journalism, now Latin American editor and syndicated foreign affairs columnist, The Miami Herald - The Newspaper for the Americas in the city that calls itself the capital of Latin America.

Professor Jose Antonio Ocampo, a Colombian national, teaches now courses in the Ph.D. program in Sustainable Development and has an active role in the Columbia’s Committee on Global Thought. He came to Columbia from the UN where he was UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) under UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - appointed September 1, 2003 to suceed Mr. Nitin Dessai of India. He was replaced by the new UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, as the rumors are at the UN, because he had to promise that slot to China. So - Ocampo went from Colombia to UN and from there to Columbia (the “U” changed to “u” but we are glad he still will be involved in Sustainable Development - as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development was part of his domain at the UN - who knows - he might be able to do more good in his new job then in the previous job).

Professor Ocampo, prior to his coming to the UN, served in various positions in the government of Colombia as Minister of nearly every economic topic, and head of agrarian banks. He was also Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 1998 - 2003, before coming to the UN, and that position gave him the overview of all of Latin America. His recent publications include “Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics, Liberalization and Development,” with Joseph E. Stiglitz, Shari Spiegel, Ricardo French-Davis and Deepak Nayyar, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Professor Ocampo was also a Professor in the Advanced Programme on Rethinking Development Economics at Cambridge University, a Professor of Economics at Universidad de los Andes of Bogota, a Professor of Economic History at the National University of Colombia, as well as a Visiting Fellow at Yale and Oxford.

Introducing the Session, Ocampo said that Gaviria was his boss. Ocampo said that both men had successful periods even though there were controversies in Toledo’s days at helm. There is now a shifting Political Landscape and people talk of two different lefts in Latin America. Ocampo would like to hear from the two Presidents what they think of these changes, and what they think the US elections would imply for Latin America?

President CESAR GAVIRIA TRUJILLO is currently National Director of the Colombian Liberal Party, and is a member of the Advisory Commission of External Relations of Colombia, where, it is said, he recently contributed mediation in the diplomatic incidents between the Colombian Government and the States of Ecuador and Venezuela.

He studied at Universidad de los Andes in the 1960’s and established there AIESEC (the local chapter of the International Association of the Students of Economics), and then in 1968 he was elected President of AIESEC in Colombia. This began his public service career. { Personally I found this interesting, because sometime in the begining of the 80’s I came to Medellin, Antioquia, as a speaker at a Global AIESEC meeting, and most probably had then the chance to meet him.} At 23 he was elected councilman of his hometown in Pereira, in the Coffee famous Risaralda State. 4 years later he became Mayor. In 1974 he was elected into the House of Representatives, before rising to the top in 1983. Three years later he became co-chair of the Colombian Liberal Party.

He was first elected to Congress in 1974; 1986 - 1990 he served in Virgilio Barco’s government, first as Minister of Finance and later as Minister of the Interior, then when Liberal Candidate Senator Gallant was assassinated, he became the Presidential Candidate, and President, August 7, 1990 - August 7, 1994. The period of Presidents Barco and Gaviria was marked by a process of trying peace with the M-19 and other rebells.

As President he did economic reforms to bring Colombia into the International economy; his time saw growth, the convocation of a Constituent Assembly to fortify Colombian Democracy, Human Rights laws, he made the Central Bank independent, and privatized many public service and infrastructure institutions.

He was followed in offfice by Ernesto Samper Pizano also from the Liberal Party who had a difficult campaign against Andrés Pastrana Arango, the candidate of the Colombian Conservative Party. Opinion polls were sharply divided. The elections for President took place on 29 May 1994. Ernesto Samper was elected president by a very narrow margin. Strangely eventually Ernesto Samper became also 16th Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement (October 20, 1995 – August 7, 1998). Andres Pastrana and the Conservatives won the Presidency in 1998.

But, there is another parallel story here. Samper was accused shortly after his presidential victory by his opponent and future successor, Andrés Pastrana Arango, of having received campaign donations from the Cali drug cartel in an excess of $6 million US dollars. Samper initially denied the allegations and deemed his political adversary as a sore loser, but soon afterwards a series of tape recordings were released to the public, the so called narco-cassettes. The Prosecutor General at the time, Alfonso Valdivieso, personally led the investigation. Valdivieso was cousin of the late Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento, a charismatic presidential candidate assassinated by the Medellín Cartel in 1989 for his political views, particularly for favoring the extradition of drug dealers to the United States. Soon, the investigations led by Valdivieso unveiled a more than evident connection between the Cali drug cartel and top figures of Colombia’s society including politicians, journalists, athletes, army and police officers, and artists, among others.

A corollary to the Samper story: As a consequence of the political turmoil, the U.S. government withdrew any political assistance to Samper’s government. For consecutive years, Samper’s administration was lambasted by the US for its supposed failure to make every effort to effectively fight the war against cocaine and the Cali Cartel. Additionally, the US revoked Samper’s visa and thereby effectively banned him from entering the country. Then in July 2006, the present Colombia President, Álvaro Uribe, offered Samper Colombia’s ambassadorship to France. This led to the resignation of Former President and Colombian ambassador to the U.S., Andrés Pastrana, who criticized the decision. Opposition was also expressed by the media, political groups and other parts of Colombian society. In the end, Samper did not accept the offer.

Andres Pastrana was President August 7, 1998 – August 7, 2002, and 17th Secretary General of Non-Aligned Movement only between August 7, 1998 – September 3, 1998 when he was succeeded by Nelson Mandela. In 2002 he was succeeded as President by Álvaro Uribe Vélez who started out as a Liberal Party member, and is now in his second term (till August 7, 2010) as President, seemingly as an Independent.

The International Herald Tribune of May 29, 2006 wrote: “Colombian president wins 2nd term.”
By Juan Forero, BOGOTÁ, Colombia: “President Álvaro Uribe, considered by the Bush administration to be an unswerving caretaker for Washington’s drug war in Latin America, was re-elected Sunday in a landslide to a second four-year term. Colombians gave Uribe 62 percent of the vote, with nearly all of the votes counted. Voters were apparently satisfied that he had made headway during his first term in wresting control of this country from Marxist rebels and drug traffickers. He overwhelmed the second-place finisher, Carlos Gaviria, a left-of-center former Constitutional Court justice who received 22 percent of the vote, and Horacio Serpa, the Liberal Party’s standard-bearer, who garnered less than 12 percent. “

We wrote this lengthy introduction in order to be able to say that seemingly - the Branco-Gaviria times in Colombian recent history were probably the best days the country has seen for a long time - though, it is now the tough hand of President Uribe that is most appreciated by Washington.

Dr. ALEXANDRO TOLEDO was democratically elected President of Peru from July 2001-July 2006. He was elected by narrowly defeating former President Alan García. It was Toledo’s second presidential race in just 13 months. A year earlier he ran against incumbent Alberto K. Fujimori. Toledo dropped out of the runoff election amid widespread allegations that the election was rigged in Fujimori’s favor. Months after being reelected, Fujimori fled to his native Japan and resigned via fax after the broadcast of Fujimori’s chief spy, Vladimiro Montesinos, evidently bribing an opposition congressman to switch parties.

Toledo was born in a small and remote village in the Peruvian Andes, 12,000 feet above sea level. He is one of sixteen brothers and sisters from a family of extreme poverty. His father was a bricklayer and his mother sold fish at markets. At the age of six, he worked as a street shoe shiner and simultaneously sold newspapers and lotteries to supplement the family income.

At age 16, with the guidance of members of the Peace Corps, Toledo enrolled at the University of San Francisco on a one-year scholarship. He continued his education, obtaining a partial soccer scholarship and making up the difference by pumping gas.

In addition to two masters degrees, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford, where he met his wife, Elaine Karp, a Belgian-born American anthropologist. Dr. Toledo was able to go from extreme poverty to the most prestigious academic centers of the world, later becoming one of the most prominent democratic leaders of Latin America. He is the first Peruvian president of indigenous descent to be democratically elected in five hundred years.

Dr. Toledo attributes his academic and political accomplishments as being the result of a statistical error. His most precious dream and work now is that other men and women of the large socially excluded Peruvian and Latin American population can also become presidents of their respective countries by having access to quality health care and education.

On the stump, like the most experienced politicians, Toledo knows how to work a crowd, whether addressing peasants or potential foreign investors. Seamlessly transitioning from a buttoned-down, eloquent economist to a rebel outfitted in jeans, a t-shirt, and a bandana, Toledo is well versed in international trade and promises to give voice to the labor movement.

Mostly, though, Toledo has preached a centrist platform, pledging to award small-business loans to farmers, balance the budget, lure foreign investment, and create jobs. Toledo’s moderate campaign and carefully selected issues have found broad appeal.

President Toledo first appeared on the international political scene in 1996 when he formed and led a broad democratic coalition in the streets of Peru to bring down the autocratic regime of Alberto Fujimori. This coalition had the support of the international democratic community.

During the five years of Dr. Toledo’s presidency, the Peruvian economy grew at an average rate of 6 percent, registering as one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Inflation averaged 1.5 percent and fiscal deficit went as low as 0.2 percent. While markets in China and Thailand were opened, free trade agreement negotiations with the United States, Chile, Mexico and Singapore were about to conclude. These markets were generating new investments and jobs for the most poverty-stricken Peruvians.

The fight against poverty through health and educational investment was the central aim of Dr. Toledo’s presidency. As a result of sustained economic growth and deliberate social policies directed to the most poor, extreme poverty was reduced by 25 percent in five years. Employment grew at an average rate of 6 percent from 2004-2006.


Before becoming President, Dr. Toledo worked for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, and the United Nations in New York.

During his academic years, Professor Toledo was a visiting scholar and a research associate at Harvard University and Waseda University in Tokyo. He is currently an economics professor (on leave) at the University of ESAN in Peru.

1986-1991: Director, Economic Development Institute (IDE/ESAN), Lima, Peru.

1989: Leader of the PNUD/OIT mission for the evaluation of: “Impact of Macroeconomic Policies on Growth, Employment and Salaries” in six Central American countries, UNDP/ New York.

1981- 1983: Chairman of the Economic Advisory Committee to the President of the Central Reserve Bank and the Labor Minister in Peru under President Fernando Belaunde.

1981-1983: General Director, Institute of Economic and Labor Studies, Ministry of Labor and Social Development. Lima, Peru.

Current Activities:

-Payne Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies (FSI - Stanford University) and Visiting Scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) for the 2007-2008 academic year.

-Distinguished Fellow in residency at the Center for Advanced Studies and Behavioral Science (CASBS) at Stanford for the 2006-2008 academic years.

-Founder and President of the Global Center for Development and Democracy (GCDD), which studies the interrelationship between poverty, inequality, and the future of democratic governance.

To read more about this amazing man who is an unusual giant hidden in a diminutive figure - see please: http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/alejandro…
Gaviria was the first to make an introductory speech. He said he was happy to be here with Toledo, because of Toledo’s attempt to bring back democracy to Peru. This is needed now in Colombia. Toledo, was first of the great number of the mestizo/Indio people to be able to head an administration that will be recognized in time as successful.

Latin American governments are - some say are from the right others from the left - but this is an oversimplification - this is true also in the US. The solutions are not only in the programs they say but in the markets.

(1) We had failed the race for growth - we had a lost decade then we saw optimism in the 90’s with 7-8% growth/year - then down to 2%. We still have many problems - do not think we are OK. A main problem is structural - the rate of saving. We had the Argentina crisis - started there - we did not solve it. The Financial Globalization - it is critical in LA.

Financial, Trade Globalization - it is useful as trade but the vulnerability in LA is from the Financial Globalization.We are all citizens of the World. The way NGOs work and bring up issues like child labor, discrimination against women - this changes us. A Colombian decision in Ecuador has disturbed the whole region.

(2) We need to understand that the political problems in LA are not just economic - they are social problems. The Quality of the Institutions - i.e. education - that is what is important - in order to enable to deal with the problems from globalization.

The US Ambassador in 1971 ( we assume he was talking about the Ambassador to Bogota) thought markets will solve the problems of LA - but political problems are more important. In India people organized themselves to supply the services that the government did not supply.

Toledo followed by saying that he had not the privilege to belong to Gaviria’s party, but he had the chance to study his leadership in Colombia and at the OAS. Now he said: “You have described the history, I will start with this as a base to build for the future.” He said upon himself that he feels he was intelligent before he got into politics, and will now take the five years of experience in his job (that is his five years as President), to look for the future.

LA has an opportunity to make a “qualitative jump” in the World Economy in the next 10-15 years. This is cautious optimism. He saw a growth of 6% LA average for 6 consecutive years . Peru had 9.1%/year. We are changing in relation to the internal composition of growth. WE SELL MANGOES TO CHINA. That is much better then the mineral commodities we used to export. These exports are much better because they are less dependent on the fluctuations of the market. We now have China & India of 2.3 billion people. The EU 500 million, our region 500 million. WE HAVE DIVERSIFIED FROM THE DEPENDENCE ON THE US.

Addressing the students - In the last 60 years we got a stock of human capital dispersed in the diaspora -if you do not lose your heart to Merrill-Lynch or JP Morgan. All we need is intelligent policy to recuperate. In the next 10 -15 years the region could become a player in the economy.

Today the G8 talk BRICs (Brazil Russia, India, China). I disagree: May be LARIC (Latin America, Russia, India, China). It is our responsibility to take in our hands the construction of the investments.

1. if we are capable we do not have to see 110 million people trying to survive on $1/day. This is not the environment that assists investment for growth and we do not reduce poverty.

2. Poverty and inequality of institutions - democratic government is in danger.

3. Cheap empty populism is the danger - it can emerge.

Toledo said that he has too much respect for the left to believe that Hugo Chaves is on the left. These types (the populists) were not able to obtain Sustainable Growth and distribute the gains to build up the countries.

Lack of access to clean water, medication, education … are the indicators. 122 million people included in the production cycle will buy more bread, socks and more yahoo - make a market. This besides the inclusion.

INVESTING IN REDUCING INEQUALITY IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS AND PROFITABLE FOR THE MARKET. You in the business school are tempted by Wall Street. A modest suggestion - don’t lose the opportunity, the region is waiting for you. Colombia, Peru are waiting for you. It is a regional opportunity - if you don’t do it - nobody else will do it.

Toledo, before politics he was teaching econometrics. Don’t stay in the US - he repeated. I know you will forgo 20-30% of salary if you made a difference in your country.

Free Trade Agreements are of enormous importance. I sent a letter of Congratulation. I decided to work for the Colombia, Panama FTAs. This all makes sense if you integrate this with the medium and small companies - not only the big ones.

The busines of inclusion is god for democracy and business. Toledo goes now to Kiev to talk about democracy.

LATIN AMERICA HAS THE SIZE OF THE US MARKET.

Answering to a question from Ocampo about the US in LA?

Toledo said that there is check & balances in Venezuela. True - there was significant set-back in the country.

On Bolivia - yes it had a good economic policy for years, but it collapsed because of lack of representation of indigenous people. Morales was very important in Bolivia.

When the Argentinian crisis came - the devaluation - the US was disengaged. The Argentinians never got a visit from the US treasury, IMF. They got an Anti-Americanism that was not there before.

The American government supported the coup in Venezuela.

The crisis in Brazil came from the Asia Crisis. The US did not show interest.

There were great mistakes on the US side. Mistakes in US foreign policy.

On the US elections?

We Need A New Relationship Based On Respect Of LA Governments And Public Opinion.

This is not a question of left - but of mistakes.

I think NAFTA was good. But Mexico is going bankrupt even with NAFTA. It should grow 6%. It is like Portugal, Greece, Spain.

Brazil had last year the first good year 5%. Colombia had 7%, Peru 8%.

Globalization & Trade do not check with distribution of income. One must look into that. We need to do a lot more about these people.

Ocampo summing up:

(1) Hugo Chaves? He is not a problem - he is a consequence. Try to confront poverty by giving official aid.

(2) Professionally, going back to Colombia is a great opportunity.

(3) The need for strong democratic institutions and a just judiciary institution, Freedom of the Press, a strong curriculum - and these strong democratic institutions will solve the accountability problem. Lack of democracy thus lack of accountability.

Clean Water is strongly associated with poverty and democracy.

WE NEED MORE LEADERS THEN PREDICTIONS. Leaders that have the capacity to do investments.

The difference between leaders and politicians? Politicians make a decision for next election and profitability is not in the next 3-4 years. In LA one must make decisions so that accountancy is not dependent from selling mineral commodities.

We need an economy of knowledge that depends on other products.

THE EMERGENCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS LEADERS IN THE LAST 25 YEARS IN LA.

TOLEDO WAS THE FIRST DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED INDIGENOUS PRESIDENT IN 500 YEARS.

Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo.

Colombian President César Gaviria

Columbia University Professor José Antonio Ocampo, Former USG at UNDESA