from U.S. Department of State

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:29:32 -0500

www.unece.org/oes/disc_papers/climat_change.html

—–

UNECE climate change activities^[1]

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Conventions
Vehicle regulations
Energy efficiency in production
Energy-efficient housing
Sustainable forestry
Sustainable biomass
Other related UNECE areas of work

Introduction

Climate change is a human-induced process of global warming, largely resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and fluorocarbons.[2] Countries are under increasing pressure to curb their emissions of these gases and to enhance carbon sinks in a drive to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, combating the threats of human-induced global warming requires more than mitigation; it is equally important to reduce society’s vulnerability to climate change through adaptation, as established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, launched in 2005. Adaptation addresses the impacts of climate change, including climate variability and weather extremes.[3]

The United Nations Secretary-General has put climate change at the top of the United Nations agenda, ensuring that the “United Nations system will continue … to bring to bear the collective strength of all its entities as an integral part of the international community’s response to climate change.”[4] The five regional commissions have assumed an active role in coordinating United Nations support for action on climate change at the regional level through the regional coordination mechanisms mandated by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1998/46 (annex III).[5] The five commissions are seen as conveners to support global, regional and national action on climate change, while coordinating their workplans and implementation efforts with other organizations that have significant mandates in their respective areas.[6]

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is a key driving force in combating climate change in the pan-European region and beyond. The UNECE region comprises 56 member States, spanning the whole European continent, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and also including Israel, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America. The region has a crucial role in contributing to the local and regional success of UNFCCC, as was noted by UNECE member States at the “Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” (Belgrade, 10–12 October 2007).[7] UNECE has spearheaded the region’s efforts to achieve the targets of United Nations Millennium Development Goal 7, especially to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and to reverse the losses of environmental resources.

Top

Conventions

Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

The 1979 UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and its protocols aim to cut emissions of air pollutants, inter alia, sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). Such pollutants can either directly influence global warming, by affecting the cooling or absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere, or indirectly influence it through, for example, ozone formation. Recent studies have shown important synergies in addressing air pollution control and climate change mitigation and have highlighted the economic and environmental co-benefits that are possible by tackling these issues in an integrated way.

The Convention has 51 Parties and eight protocols, which are all in force. The most recent of these, the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, is currently under revision. It targets the environmental effects of acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone through emission cuts for SO2, NOx, NMVOCs and ammonia. Such cuts are known to mitigate global warming.

A recent major conference and workshop entitled “Air Pollution and Climate Change: Developing a Framework for Integrated Co-benefit Strategies” was held in September 2008 in Stockholm under the auspices of the Convention and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and in consultation with the UNFCCC secretariat. It brought together policymakers and scientists from all United Nations regions to consider ways to develop and implement integrated programmes for decreasing emissions of both air pollutants and GHGs. The conclusions stressed the importance of using integrated strategies. Of special note was the possible “buying of time” in GHG mitigation through cuts in such air pollutants as black carbon and ozone, and air pollutants with a strong radiative forcing effect, which might be cut more readily than CO2 and achieve some GHG mitigation in the short term. The conference agreed there was a need to strengthen air pollution abatement efforts as well as climate change mitigation to achieve better health and environmental protection. It also noted the significant cost savings of using integrated approaches. The conclusions and recommendations of the workshop will be considered by the Convention’s Executive Body (Meeting of the Parties) in December 2008.

The Convention is using different models and methods to analyse environmental effects and to calculate the necessary emission abatement and related costs. In this way, cost-effective pollution control strategies can achieve the desired environmental targets with the least overall expenditure. Recent use of the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) integrated assessment model, developed by the Convention’s Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling, has explored synergies and trade-offs between emissions of air pollutants and GHGs, for current and projected energy use. The model includes both end-of-pipe controls and non-technical measures, such as behavioural changes in traffic or economic instruments.

The Convention’s scientific bodies are also incorporating climate change issues into their programmes of work. The European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP), which monitors and models air quality, is involved in reporting and estimating emissions. Reporting requirements of the Parties have been harmonized with those of UNFCCC. EMEP is also responsible for the integrated assessment modelling work described above. The international programmes of the Working Group on Effects monitor and model environmental and human health effects of air pollution. Increasingly, these need to take account of the links to observed or predicted changes in climatic conditions. They also provide long-term monitoring of data that can identify changes that might be associated with a changing climate.

Discussions in the Convention’s bodies have drawn attention to the strong links between air pollutant and GHG emissions and have highlighted specific issues where integration of strategies is needed. For example, the current emphasis on renewable energy is leading to increased use of wood as a fuel. However, unless appropriate boiler technology is used, this can also lead to increased air pollution.

Water

The intrinsic relation of the hydrological cycle – and thus water availability, quality, and services – to climate change makes adaptation critical for water management and the water sector in general. The UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) is an important legal framework for the development of adaptation strategies, in particular in the transboundary context.

At their fourth meeting in Bonn, Germany, in 2006, the Parties to the Water Convention took a decisive step to supporting the development of adaptation strategies by agreeing to elaborate a guidance document on water and adaptation to climate change. A draft has now been prepared by the Task Forces on Water and Climate and on Extreme Weather Events, both under the Convention’s Protocol on Water and Health. This marks the first attempt under any convention to flesh out a climate change adaptation strategy in the water sector with a particular emphasis on transboundary issues. Based on the concept of integrated water resources management, the Guidance will “provide advice on how to assess impacts of climate change on water quantity and quality, how to perform risk assessment, including health risk assessment, how to gauge vulnerability, and how to design and implement appropriate adaptation measures” [ibid. p. 8]. The Guidance is expected to be formally adopted in November 2009 at the next meeting of the Parties.

One important step in the Guidance’s preparation was a workshop on climate change adaptation in the water sector organized under the Water Convention and the Protocol on Water and Health (Amsterdam, 1–2 July 2008). The workshop, which allowed for an exchange of experience in the region, an assessment of information needs for adaptation strategies and a discussion of the benefits of and mechanisms for transboundary cooperation, touched upon the institutional, policy, legal, scientific and financial aspects of adaptation in the water sector and included cross-cutting issues such as education. The workshop highlighted current challenges such as still limited transboundary cooperation, the focus on short-term rather than long-term measures, and the need to consider climate change together with other global drivers of change, e.g. the energy and food crises and changes in production and consumption patterns.

The Protocol on Water and Health, the first legally binding instrument aimed to achieve the sustainable management of water resources and the reduction of water-related disease, is also highly relevant to climate change adaptation. It establishes joint or coordinated surveillance and early-warning systems, contingency plans and response capacities, as well as mutual assistance to respond to outbreaks or incidents of water-related disease, especially those arising from extreme weather events. The Protocol’s Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism is a funding tool for implementation of the Protocol at the national level; its provisions on safe drinking water and sanitation are also of relevance to climate change.

Top

Access to information, public participation and justice

The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) constitutes the only legally binding instrument so far to implement principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides for the participation of citizens in environmental issues by giving them appropriate access to the information concerning the environment held by public authorities, including access to judicial or administrative proceedings, redress and remedy. Access to scientifically based information and public participation in decision-making on environmental issues – as provided by the Convention – are widely recognized as an important foundation for climate change mitigation efforts. UNFCCC, for example, underlined the importance of these principles at its thirteenth session, encouraging Parties to facilitate access to data and information and to promote public participation in addressing climate change and its effects and in developing adequate responses.[8] Environmental information can help to raise awareness about climate change issues and to strengthen synergies between mitigation and adaptation needs. Public participation in this process ensures that social values and trade-offs are represented in political decisions on climate-related issues.

UNECE is a co-organizer of the international conference, “The Role of Information in an Age of Climate Change” (Aarhus, Denmark, 13–14 November 2008). The event, marking the Aarhus Convention’s tenth anniversary, brings together leading scientists, policymakers, government authorities, non-governmental organizations, and representatives of the private sector to promote public access to information and public participation in addressing climate change.

The Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR), adopted in May 2003, is the first legally binding international instrument on PRTRs. PRTRs assist governments in collecting information on the emission of GHGs and toxic or hazardous substances from industrial facilities and other sources. By making this information available to decision makers and the wider public, PRTRs contribute to enhancing companies’ environmental performance, regional mitigation efforts and the fight against global warming and climate change.

Top

Vehicle regulations

Transport is a significant and growing contributor to global climate change. According to some estimates, it is responsible for 13 per cent of all anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and for almost one quarter of the world’s total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.[9]

In May 2008 in Leipzig, Germany, UNECE took part in the OECD International Transport Forum Ministerial Session, “The Challenge of Climate Change”, the first global meeting of transport ministers that focused on energy and climate change challenges relevant to the transport sector. Climate change mitigation and adaptation activities in the transport sector focus on different means of CO2 abatement: (a) innovative engine technologies to increase fuel efficiency; (b) use of sustainable biofuels; (c) improved transport infrastructure, including inter-modal transport and logistics to avoid road congestion; (d) dissemination of consumer information on eco-driving; and (e) implementation of legal instruments. In their key messages, transport ministers urged UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) to “accelerate the work to develop common methodologies, test cycles and measurement methods for [light] vehicles” [ibid. p. 5], including CO2 emissions. For over 50 years, the World Forum has served as a platform for developing harmonized global regulations for vehicle construction, thus increasing their environmental performance and safety.

The World Forum agreed that a possible strategy for the automotive sector to contribute to the abatement of emissions was to pursue: (a) improved energy efficiency and the use of sustainable biofuels as a short-term objective (2015); (b) the development and introduction into the market of plug-in hybrid vehicles as a mid-term objective (2015–2025); and (c) the development and introduction into the market of electric vehicles as a long-term objective (2025–2040). This strategy would shift the automotive sector from the use of fossil energy to the use of hydrogen and electric energy. To be effective, this strategy needs to rely on the sustainable production of electricity and hydrogen, a crucial policy issue identified for future discussions on global warming and the reduction of CO2 emissions.

The World Forum previously adopted amendments to UNECE regulations to limit the maximum admissible level of vehicle emissions for various gaseous pollutants (e.g. carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOx) and particulate matter. These have resulted in a substantial abatement of the emissions limits for new private cars and commercial vehicles. Moreover, UNECE Regulations were amended to include electric and hybrid vehicles as well as vehicles with engines fuelled with liquefied petroleum gas or compressed natural gas. At the present time, the World Forum is considering a number of energy efficiency measures, such as the development of a common methodology and measurement method to evaluate environmentally friendly vehicles, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, the use of other alternative energy sources such as biofuels including biogas, the installation in vehicles of engine management systems (e.g. the stop-and-go function), intelligent transport systems, tyre-pressure monitoring systems and the development of tyres with low rolling resistance. Once a consensus is reached, many of these measures are likely to be added to the UNECE regulations, which will help increase vehicles’ energy efficiency.

As concerns fuel-quality standards, in 2007 the World Forum demonstrated the close link between the market fuel quality and the emissions of pollutants from motor vehicles.  It recognized that further reduction of emissions required that cleaner fuel be available to consumers.  The lack of harmonized fuel quality standards was seen to hamper the development of the new vehicle technologies. Supported by UNEP and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, the World Forum is committed to developing a necessary standard on market fuel quality, thus enabling vehicles to use fuels that minimize vehicle emission levels.

The Transport Health and Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP), a joint project of UNECE and the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, was initiated to help achieve more sustainable transport patterns and a better reflection of environmental and health concerns in transport policy. In particular, THE PEP also promotes sustainable urban transport, including alternative modes of transport, in the region.

Top

Energy efficiency in production

As energy is a major market in the UNECE region, which contains 40 per cent of the world’s natural gas reserves and 60 per cent of its coal reserves, a number of UNECE activities promote a sustainable energy development strategy, a key to the region’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. The combustion of fossil fuels, the mainstay of the region’s electricity generation, is also a major source of GHG emissions. The sustainable energy projects of UNECE aim to facilitate the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy future by optimizing operating efficiencies and conservation, including through energy restructuring and legal, regulatory or energy pricing reforms. UNECE projects also encourage the introduction of renewable energy sources and the use of natural gas until cleaner energy sources are developed and commercially available, as well as the greening of the coal-to-energy chain.

For the period 2006–2009, the UNECE Energy Efficiency 21 (EE21) programme is working to promote regional cooperation to enhance countries’ energy efficiency and to reduce their GHG emissions, thus helping them meet their international treaty obligations under UNFCCC and the UNECE conventions. Energy efficiency is achieved by focusing on more efficient production, conservation and use of all energy sources in order to minimize GHG emissions.

Within the overall EE21 programme, UNECE manages the Financing Energy Efficiency Investments for Climate Change Mitigation project, with a budget of approximately US$ 7.5 million, financed by the Global Environment Fund, Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial and the European Business Congress. This project is currently establishing a privately managed equity fund with private and public sector partners. The fund, which will benefit from both public and private sources, will target energy efficiency and renewable investment projects in 12 countries in Central Asia and Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

Another project within the EE21 programme is RENEUER, a regional activity supported by the United States Agency for International Development, the United States Department of Energy, France and other bilateral donors. RENEUER promotes sustainable development in the region by overcoming regional barriers and creating favourable conditions for the introduction of advanced technologies for the efficient use of local energy resources.

Outreach activities to other regional commissions in the context of energy efficiency for climate change mitigation are being organized under the Global Energy Efficiency 21 (GEE21) project. This project, to be launched in December 2008 in Poznan, Poland, will develop a systematic exchange of information on capacity-building, policy reform and investment project financing to promote cost-effective energy efficiency improvements that will reduce air pollution, including GHGs.

The work of two expert groups under the Committee on Sustainable Energy relates to climate change mitigation. The Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane (CMM) promote the recovery and use of methane gas from coal mines to minimize GHG emissions. In February 2008 in Szczyrk, Poland, a UNECE-supported workshop assessed prospects for CMM recovery and use, noting that “Global potential for CMM projects to contribute to climate change mitigation and take advantage of the carbon markets is very strong because a reduction of one ton of methane yields reductions of 18 to 23 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent”.[10] However, economic feasibility of such projects typically requires a clear regulatory and legal framework, reasonable access to markets and relatively stable prices.

The Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Cleaner Electricity Production from Coal and Other Fossil Fuels held its first meeting in November 2007. Its programme of work includes reviewing the prospects for cleaner electricity production from fossil fuels and measures or incentives to promote investment in cleaner electricity production. The Group also assesses the regulatory needs for promoting investment in cleaner electricity production from fossil fuels, appraises the comparative advantages of investments in new capacities and analyses issues related to carbon capture and storage technologies, especially in the context of emerging economies in the UNECE region.[11]

Top

Energy-efficient housing

Due to both its high GHG emissions and its large potential for energy-saving measures, the housing sector plays a critical role in climate change mitigation. IPCC estimates that the global potential to reduce emissions at roughly 29 per cent for the residential and commercial sectors.[12] The energy-saving potential in this sector is also considerable: UNEP estimates that in Europe, buildings account for roughly 40 to 45 per cent of energy consumption, emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Residential buildings account for the lion’s share of these emissions.[13]

Energy-efficient buildings can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation by reducing buildings’ energy consumption as well as by making them more resistant to severe weather events. Improving energy efficiency is especially important in the UNECE region, where projected increased housing construction and homeownership are likely to be accompanied by higher electricity consumption and thus growing emissions. UNECE has a programme geared to achieving maximal energy efficiency in the region’s housing, which will allow countries to share experience and good practice in reducing energy consumption in the residential sector, both vis-à-vis existing housing stock and new residential housing construction. This is expected to especially improve energy performance in parts of the region where progress is hampered by low innovation capacity and by a lack of knowledge about technical options to improve the thermal efficiency of existing buildings, and by outdated building codes that prevent countries from embracing the latest energy-efficient construction techniques. The programme will also include a wide-ranging regional assessment – featuring financing mechanisms, case studies, workshops and seminars for policymakers – and will benefit from close collaboration with above-mentioned EE21 project.

To date, UNECE has published country profiles on the housing sectors of Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation and Serbia and Montenegro. In 2009, two workshops (in Sofia and Vienna) will address the issue of energy efficiency in housing. A group of interested experts will assist the host countries in shaping the programme of the events and will provide the necessary expertise. In September 2008, the Committee on Housing and Land Management addressed energy efficiency in housing in the region, focusing on the legislative framework and incentives.[14]

Top

Sustainable forestry

Forests and wood are integrally linked to climate change and have an important role to play in mitigation and adaptation. Forests sequester carbon from the atmosphere when they grow, thereby offsetting a significant part of GHG emissions. According to the forthcoming UNECE Annual Report, the annual increase of carbon in EU-27 forests is equivalent to 8.6 per cent of GHG emissions in the European Union (EU). In Europe, forests sequester approximately 140 million tons of carbon a year. Wood products are a store of carbon, keeping it from release to the atmosphere. Forests store more than 80 per cent of terrestrial aboveground carbon and more than 70 per cent of soil organic carbon. They are also the source of wood energy that can substitute fossil energy, thereby reducing GHG emissions.[15] Wood can also be a substitute for non-renewable construction materials such as plastics, steel or concrete.

The UNECE Timber Committee has an active role in monitoring these trends and in promoting sustainable forest management. It collects basic data on forest resource assessment (e.g. carbon sequestration and storage in forests) and the production of and trade in forest products (e.g. harvested wood products, substitution of other materials). It contributes to policy monitoring by reporting on qualitative indicators of sustainable forest management and by publishing a chapter in the Forest Products Annual Market Review. It is currently developing a database on forest sector policies and institutions. In September 2008, UNECE hosted a workshop on “Harvested Wood Products in the Context of Climate Change Policies” to discuss different approaches to account for carbon stored in wood products and their economic, social and ecological impacts. It will also participate in the plenary session on Forest and Climate Change during European Forest Week (Rome, 21–24 October 2008). Finally, the UNECE Timber Committee provided an analytical contribution to the European Forest Sector Outlook Study in 2005 and has authored various papers on wood availability and the market for wood.

Top

Sustainable biomass

Since 1998, UNECE has been directing a major cross-sectoral project for enterprises in the biomass sector in the region. One of the central tasks of climate change mitigation is to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy. The project aims to strengthen sustainable biomass supply from selected countries in the UNECE region to energy producers in the EU, with a focus on agro- and wood residues, whose use is an important alternative to the use of (food) crops for fuel. The project also seeks to improve the logistics chain of biomass trade from producer to the end-user through improved inland transportation, port and trade logistics, and customs cooperation with respect to imports and exports of biomass. Two further aims of the project are facilitating the exchange of good practice with the private sector and exploring cross-sectoral approaches that take into account environment, energy, trade and transport issues.

Top

Other related UNECE areas of work

The “Environment for Europe” ministerial process

The “Environment for Europe” process provides a pan-European political framework for the discussion of key policy issues, development of programmes and launching of initiatives to improve the region’s environment and harmonize environmental policies. At the Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” (Belgrade, 10–12 October 2007), environment ministers explicitly recognized the urgent need to address climate change in the UNECE region. The Conference saw the launch of the Belgrade Initiative[16], a subregional effort in South-Eastern Europe to support subregional implementation of the UNFCCC through a Climate Change Framework Action Plan and a virtual climate change-related centre in Belgrade designed to help raise awareness and build capacity.

UNECE Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development

The UNECE Strategy of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), adopted in 2005 by ministers and other officials from education and environment ministries across the UNECE region, endeavours to integrate key themes of sustainable development into all education systems. It constitutes the regional pillar of implementation of the United Nations Decade of ESD. At the joint session on ESD held during the Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe”, environment and education ministers referred to the problems posed by climate change as a “leading example of where ESD could be applied to daily life, as climate change affects everyone and ESD offers an essential way to shape knowledge and attitudes, and hence could help us to address these problems” [17]

Modifying transport policies based on traffic-based information about carbon dioxide emissions

In order to evaluate the implementation of new national or regional measures to reduce their contributions to the global warming, Governments must analyse different possible strategies, especially those that address the total energy consumption of the transport sector. To make the right policy decisions and to optimize their strategies to attain CO2 reduction targets, an assessment and analysis tool is needed that integrates the most recent developments in transportation. This tool should be transparent so as to ensure that decisions overly swayed by special-interest groups. Such an information tool is currently under consideration. It is based on a uniform methodology for evaluating CO2 emissions in the land transport sector, and incorporates climate-relevant indicators as well as new transportation trends.

Environmental Performance Reviews

The UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews (EPRs), based on the OECD/DAC peer review process, aim to improve individual and collective environmental management. Since 1996, Central, South-East and Eastern European as well as Central Asian countries have been reviewed by UNECE, in addition to a few countries in transition that were reviewed in cooperation with OECD (Bulgaria, Belarus, Poland and the Russian Federation). A second round of EPRs have already been carried out for Belarus (2005), Bulgaria (2000), Estonia (2001), Republic of Moldova (2005), Ukraine (2006), Montenegro and Serbia and (2007) and Kazakhstan (2008), and are in process for Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

By disseminating relevant information, they contribute to enhancing public access to information about the environment and environmental issues and thus to more informed decision-making, relevant to the climate change debate. In future, they can provide a comprehensive analysis of instruments used in the context of regional climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, a means to share good practice and highlight gaps in this area, and a way to offer important policy recommendations.

Strategic environment assessment

The UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) provides a framework for considering transboundary environmental impacts in national decision-making processes.

The Convention’s Protocol on Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA), not yet in force, will ensure that Parties integrate consideration of the environment into their plans and programmes at a very early planning stage. SEA can be used to introduce climate change considerations into development planning. This is in line with the conclusions reached at the high-level event “The Future in Our Hands”, convened by the Secretary-General in September 2007, as well as the recommendation of IPCC[18] that climate change mitigation and adaptation be integrated into an overarching sustainable development strategy. The IPCC also concluded that consideration of climate change impacts in development planning, as might be provided by SEA, is important for boosting adaptive capacity, e.g. by including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure design or by reducing vulnerability through existing disaster risk reduction strategies.[19]

Statistics related to climate change

The global official statistics community still only engages in an ad hoc way with the issues of climate change. UNECE is reviewing the possibility of setting up a joint task force (subject to the approval of the Bureau of the Conference of European Statisticians) to explore statistical activities related to the UNFCCC guidelines on the compilation of emission inventories. The task force will also take into account the recommendations that are expected to be developed at a forthcoming conference on statistics of climate change in the Republic of Korea. In June 2008, the meeting of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) recommended that statistics on emissions should become part of the regular production and dissemination process of official statistics at the national level. In this context, national statistical offices should gradually take on the responsibility for regularly compiling emission statistics and contributing to the review of the guidelines to assembling emission registers.

This is expected to contribute to a better understanding of how official statistics can contribute to the understanding, measurement and monitoring of the different aspects of climate change as well as to bring together all current activities in a coherent framework.

Innovation and financing

UNECE has organized workshops and seminars with a view to enhancing the understanding of the process of technology diffusion, identifying possible barriers to take-up, and providing training and technical assistance to the region’s Governments on their innovation policies. This includes a financing dimension, in particular regarding early-stage financing of innovative enterprises. During the International Conference Investing in Innovation, which took place in Geneva in April 2008, a session on how environmental challenges can be addressed through innovation brought together policy makers and specialized financial intermediaries to discuss emerging trends in the allocation of risk capital for eco-investing and the type of policies required to encourage the mobilization of private financing in this area.

Efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change are significantly boosted by the diffusion of existing technologies but also by the introduction of new ones. Given the scale and systemic nature of the necessary shift towards low carbon technologies, there is a clear link between the challenges posed by climate change mitigation and innovation policies.  In future, work on innovation and its related financing and intellectual property aspects could help to inform policies in relation to climate change.

If you watch President Obama, and have learned something from the “Way to Copenhagen” you cannot miss that Obama has had achievements with China on the currency issue and on the increase of the internal market – so that issue we thought formerly  to be the main gripe in Toronto – is now off the table. Think G-2?

Today’s papers – all of them – show Obama and Medvedev chew hamburgers in a middle class lunch-joint in Arlington – no less then “Ray’s Hell Burger!” That reminded me of something that happened to me at the beginning of the Gorbachev days in Moscow.

I had there friends from the National Academy that I knew for years. They were always nice to me when I came to Moscow and now I wanted to invite them also to a nice Moscow restaurant as I used to do in earlier times – you know – then it was one of the big hotels where it was intended just for foreigners. But no, this time they suggested to go to McDonalds – the novelty at the time in Moscow. I swear – this is a true story.

OK -now to the issue of the day – please forget the Ham part of this food – it is neither Kosher nor Halal in ant case – but think heavily about the international meaning of “Burgers” – in German, French – you name it.

So, if the US manages to get to some pre-Toronto understanding with Russia also, perhaps on how to make burgers then clearly – the patient to be dissected in the Toronto operating room will be the EU. Let us say once more – if the EU does not decide to unite – the individual member States alone – anyone of them – will just not make the grade to be considered a third partner in a G-3 constellation.

Russia seeks assurances from Britain over BP.

By Kim Sengupta, Diplomatic Correspondent

Wednesday, 23 June 2010
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/…

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will seek a guarantee from David Cameron, the Prime Minister, this week that the BP oil disaster will not damage the Russian economy.

The Russian ambassador to the UK, Yuri Fedotov, yesterday revealed that officials in Moscow are in talks with the embattled oil giant, which extracts 25 per cent of its oil from Russia, on whether it has plans to cut back in the face of massive losses over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The planned talks at the G8 summit in Canada come as the BP board considers large-scale restructuring to prepare for a multi-billion dollar payout for clean up operations and compensation. BP is expected to consider selling $10bn (£6.7bn) worth of assets including North Sea operations, as well as a 1.4 per cent stake in Rosneft, the largest oil company in Russia, worth around $1bn.

It is unlikely that BP will sell its joint venture with the private TNK consortium, which contributes 10 per cent of its profits, not least because the company wants to diversify out of the US over concerns it faces long term unpopularity there. BP boss Tony Hayward, who has faced withering criticism in the US, was conspicuously absent from a gathering of global oil industry leaders in St Petersburg last weekend.

The Russian government and business community were under the impression he was busy handling the Gulf crisis only to discover that he was watching a yacht race around the Isle of Wight.

Mr Fedotov, said: “We want to see how it will work and how this situation will affect the overall strategy of BP and how it may affect these joint ventures in Russia. We want to have some guarantees it will continue to work.”

Asked about Mr Hayward’s visits to Russia, the ambassador said “We hope to see him again when he does not have other distractions.”

Other issues to be covered in the meeting include wanted fugitives, easing visa restrictions and improving trade ties. The UK has sought the extradition of a former KGB official, Andrei Lugovoi, over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a fellow ex-agent, in London four years ago.

Moscow says Britain has refused to return more than 40 wanted people.

Mr Fedotov said Mr Cameron and Mr Medvedev would have a “meaningful meeting” with serious discussions about developing ties, and stressed it was not just a “courtesy call”.

“We believe that [the meeting] could be a natural opportunity to open a new page in our bilateral relations,” he said.

I am starting herewith to report about the Richard Attias new New York Forum about which we have already four articles, or mentions, in the last three weeks. the Forum opened today and is very promising indeed, as we expected – so – please do not take this first article from the Forum itself as a negative to this excellent enterprise. Please, one has to start somewhere, and in the nature of journalism as understood by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire Chairman and CEO of the News Corporation, the owners of the Fox Chanel among other properties, is that you go for the sensationalism and start with writing about the worse first. So Mr. Murdoch, please see that I am a good learner and I will start by writing about you first.

Dear reader, please note that we do not throw out the baby with the dirty water – we merely throw out here he dirty water first.

Also please note that 500 Executives registered for the two days meeting – 60% from the US and 40% from abroad. Also present 120 people from the media – from many countries.

—————————-

The 2010 New York Forum had two excellent introductory presentations by Mr. Richard Attias – one to the Media and the other to the Meeting’s Opening Plenary.

His two presentations were reinforced in the event for the Press by Mr. Richard I. Lesser, Chairman, North and South America, The Boston Consulting Group, and by the organizer of the Program, Mr. Lance Knobel who also led the following workshop (albeit – it was not the word they used).

INNOVATION LABORATORY ON REBUILDING TRUST!

OUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WAS  – REBUILDING TRUST IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – really, can you think of a more up-to-date subject theses days? Low and behold – we came up with many solutions, and the one our table dealt with made specially sense to me. But here I will leave you in suspense for a future posting.

How can you succeed engaging large numbers of people to rebuild trust in financial institutions by using a design thinking-based innovation methodology? The Design and innovation firm IDEO (obviously of Palo Alto)  led this interactive workshop to explore the issue of movement building and fundamental change in our financial institutions. Participants were introduced to the innovation practice of design thinking and then took part in activities focused on finding inspiration from real people rather than demographics or statistics.

Participants learned through a guided experiences on translating observations and insights into relevant ideas and design solutions to be able to use this methodology in their own challenges, beyond the specific case that the session covered.

This was facilitated by Doug Solomon, CTO, IDEO,  and Introduced by Lance Knobel, Director of the Program, The New York Forum.

—————————-

After the Introductory remarks by Richard Attias, we finally reach the subject of this posting:

Opening plenary titled -  “REINVENTION: THE CORPORATE IMPERATIVE.”

It said in the program: “Corporate and business leaders have always had to be agile and restless, rethinking their business models for survival as markets and technologies change. But the pace and pressures for change seem greater than ever. How do great leaders navigate through the uncertain terrain of today’s world? What are the key challenges that they face?”

The Moderator was Maria Bartiromo who is Anchor of the Business Program on CNBC.

From her original team she has lost Mort Zuckerman, Chairman and CEO, Boston Properties, and Publisher, New York Daily News, who for reasons unknown to me at this time was a no-show and he was replaced by: Mr. Philippe Camus, Chairman, Alcatel-Lucent, a global telecommunications corporation, headquartered in Paris.

We consider the above change very unfortunate, as it left Mr. Murdoch without any counter-balance on the program, and I am sorry to say that Maria Bartiromo did not stand up to his pressure. This program turned out rather about a discussion about business gripes and the raison d’etre of the event – REINVENTION – was forgotten in the process. But please do not despair. It was the excesses of Mr. Murdoch that eventually turned the event into a success, and it turns out that we had something to do with this.

The Other three members of the panel were:

Cathleen Black, President, Hearst Magazines
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News Corporation
Jerry Speyer, Chairman and CEO, Tishman Speyer

and as I am writing this late at night, please forgive me for focusing only on Mr. Murdoch.

————————-

So, my notes tell me that Rupert Murdoch addressed at least the following points:

1. Brazil, India are doing well, Europe is doing badly except Germany, in the Us we will have to grow in the next year at 1.5 trillion debt – this must change!

2. We must have less government and less taxation. Otherwise business will take off to Hong Kong and with them the jobs.
We will see a lot of change to the bad. At mid-term elections things could change. Today we have 20 million out of job. You can change this by having mass formation of small businesses.

3. We need innovation. We educate people and they leave. it is ridiculous to send people away.

4. In the country education is a disgrace. We turn out people illiterate in Spanish and English. You see the single mothers.
The teachers union did unbelievable things.

5. He is skeptic of Climate Change – it is caused by the activities of the sun – we cannot do it by ourselves.

6. A billion people in China moving away from farms and building a coal plant each day. We can talk of G2 as much as we want but we cannot do it alone. Oil and gas will be here for a long time and we will have clean gas.

7.  Alaska – two pipelines through Canada. We did not buy Alaska to save the moose.

————————-

I accept that a meeting like this should provide all points of view – but there is a limit to what a civilized stomach can take, and the comment about the moose did it for me – so I asked at the Q&A session directly from Mr. Rupert Murdoch something like:

Considering that you mentioned that the US did not buy Alaska for the moose, but as this meeting here is intended at the end to provide a missive to the G-20 in Toronto for the end of this week, what would be your advice to the G-20?

I got some more diatribe but no direct answer to my question. This caused me to ask a very short follow-up: “What do you understand by ‘clean gas’?” I got some more diatribe.

———————–

When the meeting broke, several people came over to congratulate me – this included a green investment gentleman from Senegal and an interviewer that taped me for the New York Observer. Then at coffee time and dinner some 50-60 people congratulated me and said they felt exactly like me. I ran out of cards in the process.

There were only two people with whom I spoke that were not happy with my question. There was the US representative of a French newspaper who thought that I should have addressed my question to the moderator and not to Mr. Murdoch, as he thought it took away the possibility from the others to address my question. (this is not really correct because Mr. Speyer did actually enter the question. The other was a Deputy Ambassador to the UN.

fromMRM <moothedathramanathan@gmail.com>

“Conserving energy is cheaper and smarter than building power plants” (Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld).

The watt. The volt. The ohm. All electrical terms are named after famous engineers and physicists from the 18th and 19th century. Now, an acclaimed 20th century scientist is lending his name to a new unit of energy savings – the ‘Rosenfeld.’

The proposed term – a ‘Rosenfeld’ – would represent the electricity savings of 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year — the annual output of an existing 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant – and avoid generating three million metric tons of CO2 emissions. The new energy-savings measurement term was authored by 54 scientists from 26 research institutions and announced in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

For your leisure time reading – a clean energy monthly E-zine from India          E_mag_June_2010.pdf

MRM says:  We shall be pleased if you could send us your views/comments/suggestions to make our publication more informative and useful.

——————–

“The Rosenfeld” Named After California’s Godfather of Energy Efficiency.

With a decades-long career in energy analysis and standards, Rosenfeld is often credited with being personally responsible for billions of dollars in energy savings.

How to cut energy use, carbon? Do it – One “Rosenfeld” at a time.

Arthur Rosenfeld, who recently retired at the age of 83 after two five-year terms on the California Energy Commission, led the way in helping the state set its first-ever energy standards for household appliances and buildings. His mission as an energy-efficiency evangelist was launched in 1973 during the OPEC oil embargo … rather than rail on the oil producers, he reasoned, wouldn’t it be better if the US could find ways to stop wasting so much energy?

His impact on California’s per capita electricity consumption, which has remained flat since the mid-’70s, has long been dubbed the “Rosenfeld effect.” And he himself coined “Rosenfeld’s Law,” which asserts that the amount of energy required to produce one dollar of economic output has decreased by about 1 per cent per year since 1845.

Eighty Year Old Saved Us $800 Billion - 

Ode to Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Doctor Efficiency - 

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. was originally appointed to the California Energy Commission by Governor Gray Davis in April 2000. The Commissioner was reappointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger January 26, 2005. The five members of the Energy Commission are appointed by the Governor to staggered five-year terms and requires Senate confirmation. By law, four of the five members of the Energy Commission have professional training in specific areas – engineering or physical science, environmental protection, economics, law, and one commissioner from the public-at-large. Commissioner Rosenfeld filled the physical science position until his retirement in January 2010.

Commissioner Rosenfeld was presiding member of the Research, Development and Demonstration Committee and the Dynamic Pricing Committee (Ad Hoc Committee); and was the second member of the Energy Efficiency Committee.

Art Rosenfeld received his Ph.D. in Physics in 1954 at the University of Chicago under Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi, and then joined the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley. There he joined, and eventually oversaw, the Nobel prize-winning particle physics group of Luis Alvarez at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) until 1974. At that time, he changed his research focus to the efficient use of energy, formed the Center for Building Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and led it until 1994.
 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-storie…

 http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/r…

 http://www.greenbang.com/how-to-cut-ener…

 http://earth2tech.com/2010/03/15/how-do-…

Russia Wants Global Fund After Gulf Oil Spill

We found it out at a meeting on ethics at the UN. While among the G-20 there are 7 European States, the presence of the EU is intended to bring in the remaining 20 States – so the EU can speak directly for those 20 States. This might be a case of political overkill, and if the EU representative were to speak out differently then the German, French, British delegates, this would be a further setback for the effort to create a world leadership group. Whatever, we see there in the room therefore 40 countries and it includes among the group all truly relevant actors, and more – extending the group from the five – G-2 + IBSA -  to those our website includes in the second row Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, as well as  the Europeans, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and Australia. (We thought that a neat 15 would have been even better – a G-3, IBSA, our seven, Australia, and Saudi Arabia would have been just right.)

Sure, above list excludes 150 UN member States – nobody from AOSIS, ALBA, the usual front spokesmen in the name of G-77, and most others who in economic terms are mostly in the receiving line, but when it comes to discussions at the UN they rather harm any attempt at coming up with an effective resolution. Sure, we think that the fate of the SIDS must be dealt with, and the effects of climate change center stage, but this will be better done in Toronto by the large economies who truthfully are also the largest losers in a world that is out of control – just look at the face of US in these days of the Gulf Deepwater oil-geyser.

Please see our previous posting: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/03/27/climate-change-negotiations-will-move-beyond-the-un-we-believe-it-will-be-a-network-of-bilaterals-but-un-connected-earth-institute-of-columbia-university-in-its-excellent-state-of-the-planet-2010/

——-

Having said what we just said, we find it to be a move forward if attempt is to be made to reach new global financial, economic, environmental, energy and political policy-balances outside the UN system. The G-20 composition is a wide and varied enough platform to be able to reach out for multilateral solutions without stepping into the UN quagmires. In these conditions, this UN Secretary-General is really nothing more then a well traveled ornament. We complained earlier that the unattained EU is an impediment, and we would have rather hoped for a G-3 situation and a more effective, even smaller, set-up.

June 1, 2010 from The  UNelections Monitor.

Issue 142 – June 1 – Candidates for UNSG in 2011?

 http://www.unelections.org/?q=node/1915

EU’s top officials will travel to Russia this week for a high-level summit
focusing on trade issues, protectionism and the perspective of a visa-free
regime for Russian citizens, provided the rule of law and human rights are
respected.

 http://euobserver.com/9/30162/?rk=1

 http://www.aolnews.com/story/iran-to-shi…

Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear deal.
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, AP, May 17, 2010

TEHRAN, Iran -Iran agreed Monday to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the international standoff over the country’s disputed nuclear program and deflate a U.S.-led push for tougher sanctions.
The deal was reached in talks with Brazil and Turkey, elevating a new group of mediators for the first time in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities. The agreement was nearly identical to a U.N.-drafted plan that Washington and its allies have been pressing Tehran for the past six months to accept in order to deprive Iran — at least temporarily — of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.
The United States had no immediate comment, but Germany greeted the news with caution.
The key question is whether the agreement fulfills the demands that the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made of Tehran, German government spokesman Christoph Steegmans said.
Steegmans noted that the point remains whether Iran suspends enrichment of nuclear material at home, raising a possible sticking point since the agreement reaffirmed Tehran’s right to enrichment activities for peaceful purposes.
The heart of the deal is a swap in which Iran would send abroad most of its low-enriched uranium and in return received fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a Tehran medical research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
But for months, Iran has haggled over the terms, making counterproposals that were repeatedly rejected by the U.S. and its allies. With the deal announced Monday, Tehran seems to have agreed to almost all of the original terms. However, making the deal with Turkey and Brazil may have been more palatable, allowing Iran to argue that it did not bend to American pressure.
“It was agreed during the trilateral meeting of Iranian, Turkish and Brazilian leaders that Turkey will be the venue for swapping” Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium for fuel rods, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on state TV.
Washington has cited the Iranians’ intransigence against the original deal as proof of the need for new U.N. sanctions.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said the new deal meant Iran was willing to “open a constructive road.”
“There is no ground left for more sanctions or pressure,” he told reporters in Iran, according to Turkey’s private NTV television.
Monday’s deal was announced after talks between Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
The main difference from the U.N.-drafted version is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods within a year, Turkey will be required to “immediately and unconditionally” return the uranium to Iran.
Iran feared that under the initial U.N. deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently.
The process would begin one month after a final agreement is signed between Iran and its main negotiating partners, including the United States and the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran dropped an earlier demand for the fuel exchange to happen in stages and is now willing to ship abroad its nuclear material in a single batch. It also dropped an insistence that the exchange happen inside Iran as well as a request to receive the fuel rods right away.
The U.N. draft has a gap of about a year to allow time for the rods to be manufactured in France.
While kept under international supervision in Turkey, the uranium would still be considered Iranian property until Iran receives the fuel rods, said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, called Monday’s deal historic.
The United Nations has already imposed three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The process is key to concerns over its program, because it can produce either low-enriched uranium needed to fuel a nuclear reactor or the highly enriched uranium needed to build a warhead. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful and says it has a right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel.
The fuel swap deal on the table since October was touted as a way to reduce tensions and ensure Iran cannot build a bomb in the short term. The material returned to Iran in the form of fuel rods cannot be processed beyond its lower, safer levels. Iran needs the fuel rods to power an aging medical research reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
Under the agreement announced Monday, Iran will ship most of its enriched uranium — about 2,600 pounds, or 1,200 kilograms — to Turkey to be kept under U.N. and Iranian supervision. In return, it will get fuel rods containing uranium enriched to higher levels needed for the research reactor, Mehmanparast said.
Iran first reached out to Turkey and Brazil in its efforts to avoid tougher U.N. sanctions for its refusal to stop enriching uranium altogether. Both countries are non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Monday’s deal was signed by the foreign ministers of the three countries.
Iran says its enrichment program is only for peaceful uses, such as producing fuel for nuclear power plants.
Mehmanparast said a letter will be sent to the IAEA within a week to pave the way for a final agreement.
“Should they be ready, an agreement will be signed between us and the group,” he said, referring to the U.S., France, Russia and the IAEA.
A month later, the uranium — currently enriched to a level of 3.5 percent — would be sent to Turkey, where it would be stored under IAEA and Iranian supervision, Mehmanparast said. The fuel rods would contain material processed to just under 20 percent.
Enrichment of 90 percent is needed to produce material for nuclear warheads.
—
Associated Press writer Suzan Fraser contributed to this report from Ankara, Turkey.
—
Online:
The agreement —
 http://www.mfa.gov.tr/17-mayis-2010-tari…

———————————–

Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel):

• Iran Creates Illusion of Progress in Nuclear Negotiations – Glenn Kessler
  By striking a deal to ship some of its low-enriched uranium abroad, Iran has created the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise. (Washington Post)
  See also A Sham Deal with Iran – Bronwen Maddox
  Brazil and Turkey claim to have pulled off a triumph in persuading Iran to freeze the heart of its nuclear program. But this is almost certainly a sham deal – and one that, dangerously, will undermine the drive to bring new sanctions against Tehran. (Times-UK)
• Changing the Paradigm of U.S. Assistance to Egypt: Alternatives to the “Endowment” Idea – J. Scott Carpenter
  Recently leaked documents detail an exchange between Washington and Cairo regarding the future of U.S. economic assistance to Egypt, indicating that the Obama administration has welcomed Cairo’s idea of ending traditional assistance in favor of creating a new endowment, “The Egyptian-American Friendship Foundation.” This idea has a long, checkered history and, if implemented, will be bad for both American taxpayers and the Egyptian people. The administration should work with Egypt to craft alternatives that advance common objectives, including democratic reform. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

————————————

Observations:

Iran Maneuvers to Delay Sanctions – Ronen Bergman (Ynet News)

• The agreement between Tehran and Ankara is a nice achievement for the Iranians that will somewhat delay the international sanctions against them and provide an alibi for the Russians and Chinese to maintain excellent economic ties with Tehran.
• Every time Iran feels that it’s approaching the point of no return in respect to Security Council or EU decisions on sanctions, it comes up with a “new initiative” and announces that it will in fact accept the international community’s conditions. Yet when it actually needs to sign an agreement, it presents new conditions.
• The Iranians agreed and reneged on this kind of arrangement eight times. Indeed, this is just part of the ongoing ritual of Iranian maneuvers aimed at buying time in order to get as close as possible to the bomb.

Iran’s Nuclear Coup – Editorial (Wall Street Journal)

• Iran said it would send 1,200 kg. of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month, and no more than a year later get back 120 kg. enriched from somewhere else abroad. This makes even less sense than the flawed October deal. In the intervening seven months, Iran has kicked its enrichment activities into higher gear. Its estimated total stock has gone to 2,300 kg. from 1,500 kg. last autumn, and its stated enrichment goal has gone to 20% from 3.5%.
• If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous UN resolutions. Removing 1,200 kg. will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.
• Only last week, diplomats at the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has increased the number of centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium. According to Western intelligence estimates, Iran continues to acquire key nuclear components, such as trigger mechanisms for bombs. Tehran says it wants to build additional uranium enrichment plants. The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved “toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles.” Monday’s deal will have no impact on these illicit activities.

India PM in Brazil for BRIC and IBSA Summits.

Ajay Kaul/PTI / Brasilia April 15, 2010 We picked this up in the Business Standard of India.

He was received warmly by Brazilian Defence Minister Nelson Jobin as the military band played national anthems of the host country and India, one by one.

The Prime Minister reached here from Washington on the second leg of his eight-nation tour.

The two summits will discuss global economic crisis besides ways to enhance cooperation among the member countries of the two groupings.

At the 2nd BRIC Summit, Iran’s nuclear issue and the controversy surrounding it will also be discussed under the grouping’s format by Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Brazilian President Lula da Silva. This will be the first time that Iran will be part of focused agenda of the grouping.

BRIC is a significant grouping comprising two of the world’s leading energy producers — Russia and China and top energy consumers — India and China, which officials say forms the basis for natural synergy.

In the BRIC format, Foreign Ministers of the four countries have been meeting regularly on the sidelines of international conferences, including the UN General Assembly.

The BRIC countries, representing 40 per cent of the global population, are among the largest and fastest growing economies with rich human and material resources. They represent the future of the global economic landscape.

With a similarity of views on several issues like climate change and reform of global institutions, including the UN, the four countries have been fine-tuning their collective approaches to these issues.

In the IBSA format too, India, Brazil and South Africa, the three fastest growing economies of three continents, have been evolving common and coordinated approaches to the challenges like global economic crisis and climate change besides pushing efforts to enhance cooperation among themselves.

After the IBSA Summit on Friday, India, Brazil and South Africa are expected to sign two trilateral MoUs. These are in the areas of solar energy and science and technology.

An MoU in the field of sport is also likely to be inked.

“These groupings reflect the growing role of emerging economies in shaping the global economic order,” the Prime Minister had said in a statement before leaving on his two-nation tour.

He said the IBSA process has come of age as it today encompasses a wide range of activities which supplement the excellent bilateral relations that India enjoys with each of these countries.

“Our coordination on important international issues has expanded, and our trilateral cooperation is beginning to bear fruit in many sectors,” the Prime Minister had said.

“We have a high stake in the revival of the global economy, an open trading system, energy security, combating climate change and addressing non-traditional threats to international security,” he said.

Singh will hold bilateral meetings with the Chinese President and Russian President during his stay here.

Ahead of his meeting with Hu, Singh said in Washington that India and China were working very hard to find a “practical” and “pragmatic” solution to the boundary question and it would “take time” to get resolved.

“Well we have the border problem and that problem has to be resolved. We are working very hard to find to have a practical, pragmatic solution to that problem,” he said at a press conference when asked about relations between India and China.

Noting that both countries “recognise that it would take time”, he said both the nations have agreed that pending the resolution of the border issues, peace and tranquility should be maintained along the Line of Actual Control and by and large that situation prevails on the ground.

On the overall Sino-India relations, he said the economic content of the relationship has increased significantly, with China today being India’s largest trading partner.

There are large Chinese investments in our country and there are large Indian investments in China. “On the economic front the relationship is moving in the right direction,” he said.

On multilateral issues, he said, there was a recognition in China that there was a similarity of approach between the two countries and they can gain by working together.

In this context, he referred to the Copenhagen conference on climate change last December during which India and China worked closely to block developed nations from imposing their agenda.

—————————–
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010

Emerging Powers Eager to Get Down to Business.

Fabiana Frayssinet

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 15 (IPS) – Behind every initiative to form an association of nations, there are “strong economic and commercial interests,” said Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. Members of the business communities of Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa wasted no time in stating loudly and clearly what they were there for, ahead of the speeches their presidents will deliver at summit meetings this week.

Energy, information technology, infrastructure, food and agribusiness are the sectors that some 400 commercial delegates identified as priorities in terms of business opportunities. These points of interest were defined at a meeting Wednesday of business leaders from the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) groups, in which economic statistics mattered more than country initials.

According to documents distributed at the IBSA-BRIC Business Forum in Brasilia, nearly 50 percent of global economic growth between 2000 and 2008 took place in the BRIC nations, and by 2014 this share is expected to reach 61 percent. Nearly half the world’s population lives in the BRIC countries, which occupy more than one-quarter of the planet’s land area and produce 15 percent of global GDP.

Together, our countries have tremendous strength, said India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry, Anand Sharma, in the upbeat tone shared by all participants.

BRIC and IBSA ensured global recovery from the 2008 recession earlier than expected, he said.

China, India and South Africa are net consumers of energy, while Brazil and Russia are exporters, said Zhang Wei, Vice Chairman of the China Council for Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT).

“We could complement each other” to guarantee, for example, demand and supply “of energy for our countries,” he said.

The Chinese delegate also mentioned other strategic sectors, like grain production to safeguard food security, an equally crucial matter for these emerging countries with large populations.

Zhang proposed a system for exchanging agricultural information between the countries in the groups, to prevent problems like soaring food prices.

According to a report by the Brazilian government’s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), in the next 50 years the BRIC group of countries could overtake the G6 (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) as the main engines of the global economy.

However, the IPEA report stresses that achieving this will require overcoming structural economic differences between members of the group.

A large share of Brazil’s economy is taken up by consumption in the domestic market, while Russia’s development is based on exports of energy commodities.

India took advantage of a boom in services exports to grow at a high rate and increase its competitiveness in other sectors, while China’s development has been led by exports of manufactured goods and high rates of investment, and its domestic consumer market is undergoing rapid growth, the report says.

These different models of development lead to different patterns of insertion into the world market, according to IPEA. But Sharma said they could do so in an integrated fashion.

The Indian minister said strong points of each country were Brazil’s biofuel development, China’s technology, South Africa’s energy sector, India’s nuclear energy and Russia’s competitiveness in minerals and oil.

“Synergy” was the word chosen by the head of the Department for International Cooperation of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sergey Vasiliev. “Together, we can only win,” he said.

This was the first time a meeting of business leaders from both groups of countries has been held.

BRIC, an acronym coined in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill, brings together four emerging countries with large territories and populations, whose economies have grown at impressive rates in recent years.

The India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), formally established by the Brasilia Declaration in 2003, is a coordinating mechanism to promote dialogue between countries and regions of the global South, and joint cooperation on economic and other issues of international importance.

These groups of countries, according to South Africa’s Minister for Trade and Industry Rob Davies, have brought about a “tectonic change” in the world economic order.

In 2009, China overtook the United States as Brazil’s main trading partner, with 12.9 percent of Brazil’s total foreign trade.

Brazilian exports to China were worth just over 20 billion dollars in 2009, a 23 percent increase on 2008.

And this year, China became the third largest foreign investor in Brazil’s productive sector, in key areas such as oil, metal ores and telecommunications and with future prospects in infrastructure.

These tremendous shifts, according to Foreign Minister Amorim, are tokens of changes in the global balance of economic power that will also be reflected in the world of politics.

——————————————-

A sort of overview of what the South looks like after reviewing what was just said in Rio gives us the -

IPS Special: South-South Cooperation
South-South cooperation – collaboration between developing countries – is a growing and dynamic phenomenon, an important process that is vital in confronting shared challenges. The IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) Summits were held this week in Brazil, both aimed at securing a greater say for top emerging economies in world affairs. Six forums were held in parallel, bringing together women, researchers, journalists, parliamentarians, local governments and small businesses – indicating that this is “a project that belongs to our societies,” said Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bottom-up development and horizontal South-South cooperation have a significance that goes beyond the individual countries because they are constructing new paradigms. But, the mainstream media has failed to keep up with this process and with the economic and geopolitical changes taking place in the world today that are bringing about a shift in power relations, according to reporters invited to the IBSA Editors Forum, organised by Inter Press Service (IPS) and supported by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry and the World Bank. The final declaration of the IBSA Summit addresses a range of issues, from United Nations reform to climate change, empowerment of women and the launch of two satellites, for earth observation and weather studies – to be jointly built by IBSA countries.

Q&A: IBSA Summit Aims to Strengthen South-South Cooperation Thalif Deen interviews Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri of India UNITED NATIONS, Apr 8 – When the political leaders of three of the world’s major democracies in the global South – India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) – gather at a high-powered summit meeting in Brasilia next week, one of the key items on the agenda would be how best to strength economic cooperation among developing nations. MORE >>

Q&A: “We Can’t Continue to Pay Lip Service to Gender Equality” Thalif Deen interviews UNFPA Executive Director THORAYA OBAID UNITED NATIONS, Feb 28 – During consultations of the 45-member U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) here, one of the lingering issues that is surfacing is the success – or failure – in the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action on gender empowerment. MORE >>

DEVELOPMENT: South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs IPS Correspondents UNITED NATIONS, Feb 5 – Member states meeting here Thursday called for the immediate implementation of development commitments made during the Nairobi high-level U.N. conference on cooperation between developing countries. MORE >>

Read more IPS in-depth reporting on South-South Cooperation here.

We think it will – others’ opinions follow:

Iceland Volcano: Not Yet A Global Cooling Eruption

Date: 16-Apr-10
Country: NORWAY
Author: Alister Doyle,
A vast cloud from an intensifying volcanic eruption in Iceland is too small so far to slow global warming as happened in 1991 with the explosion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, experts say.

Icelandic Volcano Eruption Intensifies

Date: 16-Apr-10
Country: ICELAND
Author: Omar Valdimarsson
A volcanic eruption in Iceland, which has thrown up a 6-km (3.7 mile) high plume of ash and disrupted air traffic across northern Europe, has grown more intense, an expert said on Thursday.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

The New York Times – Eruption Wasn’t That Powerful, but Effects May Linger.

By HENRY FOUNTAIN

Published: April 15, 2010

Bill Burton, associate director of the United States Geological Survey’s volcano hazards program, said the current eruption under the Eyjafjallajokull glacier bore similarities to the last eruption there, in 1821. “We seem to be reprising that episode again,” he said.

That eruption continued, on and off, until 1823. While no one can predict how long this one may last, Dr. Burton said, in volcanology, “The past is the key to the present.”

He added, “So if the other eruption lasted for two years, this one might as well.”

While an on-again, off-again eruption might not have much effect on air travel over the long term, it could affect the weather in northern Europe, said Richard Wunderman, a volcanologist with the Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism Program. The volcanic plume contains a lot of sulfur, he said, “that can become an aerosol up there that hangs around a long time reflecting sunlight.”

“It’s not enough that it’s probably going to be cooling the whole climate,” he added. On a regional basis, it could also create what is called volcano weather, with smoglike conditions. That is what happened during the eruption of another volcano in Iceland in 1783, which spewed sulfur dioxide and other compounds and created a persistent haze. (Benjamin Franklin, who experienced the haze in Paris during negotiations on the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, was among the first to draw the link between eruptions and climate.)

Unlike huge volcanic blasts including the one at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, the eruption in southern Iceland began slowly about a month ago, with a series of fissures on the eastern side of the volcano and what volcanologists call fire fountaining, the spewing of hot magma through vents. Dr. Burton said that it was only when the magma found a new route through the volcano earlier this week — shifting to the summit, directly under the glacial ice — that the ash-rich eruption began.

That eruption late Wednesday created a plume of ash that spread out across northern Europe at high altitudes, forcing aviation authorities to ground flights and close airports because of the risk of damage to aircraft, particularly the engines, from abrasive silicate particles.

Dr. Burton said that when the eruption shifted to the summit, there were indications that the silica content of the ash increased. “Theoretically, the more silica-rich the ash, the more risky or greater threat there is,” he said. But any volcanic plume is dangerous. “The plane is effectively sandblasted,” he said. “Even the windows can become frosted.”

Dr. Burton said the eruption ranked low on a measure of power called the volcanic explosivity index, nowhere near Pinatubo, which rated a 6 on the 1 to 8 scale.

—————-

The Financial Times playful editorial writes that the Eyjafjallajokull volcano seemingly decided to give Icelanders something else to talk about then the responsibility their three banks had for the start of the financial crisis – the fact that built in problems from the UK and the Netherlands landed on the Iceland management of the banks. Now, their little volcano is sending its ash flying to those two neighboring countries as if it were a revenge. But what may be even a bigger volcano explosion might be if the activity expands to the near by Katla volcano as this happened 200 years ago – so things might get worse before any better.

Freedom for Sale: Why the World Is Trading Democracy for Security

INDIGENOUS CONFERENCE IN NORDIC COUNTRIES OPENS WITH UN EXPERT TAKING PART

A conference of indigenous representatives and State officials from all the European Nordic countries opened in Finland today with a United Nations expert focusing on issues ranging from the status of Sami self-determination to education and language.

The Sami of Northern Europe are the indigenous people in the northern regions of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Demographic patterns make it difficult to give exact numbers but there are at least 30,000 in Norway, about 20,000 in Sweden, and just over 7,000 in Finland. Some 2,000 Sami live in the Russian Kola Peninsula.

“I believe the visit [to the conference] will provide a unique and valuable opportunity for consultation and dialogue regarding issues throughout the Sámpi region,” said UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous people, James Anaya, ahead of the gathering.

An independent, unpaid expert, he is mandated by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to monitor the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

The three-day conference in Rovaniemi, Finland, will give Mr. Anaya the opportunity to hold open discussions on issues ranging from the status of Sami self-determination and the right to land, water and natural resources in the Sámpi region to the situation of children and youth, with a particular focus on education and language. He will also assess the various contributions by Nordic governments on indigenous issues to the UN human rights bodies.

He will hold both joint and separate meetings with indigenous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental representatives and the Sami parliaments, after which he will issue a report on the human rights situation of the Sami people.

The following is per a meeting last night at the The School of Continuing and Professional Studies, Center for Global Affairs headed by Divisional Dean Vera Jelinek, New York University NYU SCPS-CGA, and it is just a partial reporting.

See” cgascenarios.wordpress.com  http://nyuglobalcitizen.wordpress.com/20…

The event was advertised as “Russia and China: A CGA Scenarios Update.” We deal here just with the China part of the panel.

These Scenarios, are a typical Think-Tank exercise – and are headed by Professor Michael Oppenheimer, clinical associate professor, Center for Global Affairs, and supported by a $250,000 grant to CGA from the Carnegie Corporation  for the purpose of Scenarios Initiative to Improve the Quality of U.S. Policymaking., this was part of the program.

The grant from the Carnegie Corporation foundation to fund its Center for Global Affairs Scenarios Initiative specifies support for mediated workshop series testing alternative U.S policies on China, Russia, Turkey, and the Ukraine, countries that are expected to be critical to U.S interests over the next 10 years—as rivals, collaborators, and/or potential vectors of conflict.

“Receiving the Carnegie Corporation grant is an honor and affirmation of the outstanding applications-focused work of the NYU Center for Global Affairs, and its academic and public outreach efforts to explore solutions to pressing global issues,” says Robert Lapiner, dean of the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies.

“The Scenarios Initiative is designed to produce forward-looking, cross-disciplinary critical thinking on issues and countries important to U.S. national security. This series of mediated workshops and the monographs that will be produced from them will contribute to reducing strategic surprise by testing alternative scenarios.”

“We are excited to have a project so aligned with one of the Corporation’s goals: to help policymakers see how global trends affect U.S. foreign policy,” said Patricia Moore Nicholas, project manager, International Peace and Security at Carnegie Corporation. “Housing the project at the Center for Global Affairs presents an opportunity to bring U.S. policymakers, practitioners and academics together with foreign participants—and possibly students—to talk about security challenges.”

Professor Michael Oppenheimer, the leader of this program, has for nearly 40 years provided research, consulting, and policy advice for the U.S. foreign policy and intelligence communities, using similar scenarios-building exercises.

“Through the use of scenarios and alternative analyses, policy makers are better able to gain an understanding of a problem, its logic, future evolution, and alternate policy responses,” says Oppenheimer, a faculty member within the NYU-SCPS Master of Science in Global Affairs program.

The Scenario Initiative workshops and reports are built around a pressing issue or pivotal country—chosen by Oppenheimer and associates at the Center for Global Affairs—that combines great importance to U.S. interests with high variability and uncertainty. The 10 to 15 invited participants of the workshops discuss three or four possible scenarios that could arise within the area of focus. The group then builds out each of the scenarios by exploring relevant political, economic, cultural, and global forces at play; critical, “game changing” events; how the U.S. and other major state and non-state actors might behave; and what policy choices the U.S. must confront in each scenario.

The Center piloted the project with two previous full-day scenario workshops attended by scholars, policymakers, journalists, and other professionals. The first such project goes back to 2007, imagined the future of Iraq after a substantial drawdown of U.S. forces in 2010. Following, in 2008, the second such project examined the future of Iran and its relationship with other Middle East actors. (These reports are available on the web at www.scps.nyu.edu). The enthusiastic support of participants such as Steven Cook and Steven Simon of the Council of Foreign Relations, Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs, David Sanger of The New York Times, and Phillip Gordon of the Brookings Institution, led to a formal report of the Iran results to the Council on Foreign Relations in October 2008.

Building on this experience the Carnegie Corporation grant decided to enlarge the impact and scope of CGA’s efforts over the next two years—expanding the range and number of participating experts and policymakers; launching a new publication series based on the workshops; and creating opportunities to brief policymakers and opinion leaders, through presentations, writings, and face-to-face meetings.

The Center for Global Affairs and the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies — one of several comprehensive academic divisions within the New York University School of Continuing and Professional Studies (NYU-SCPS), offers graduate and continuing education programs in global affairs and hosts a series of vibrant public events on related topics. Established in 1934, NYU-SCPS is among the 15 colleges and schools that comprise New York University, one of the largest private research universities in the United States.

Professor Michael Oppenheimer can be reached at 212 992-8392 or  mo41 at nyu.edu.

—–

The first workshop under the grant – on the future of China – took place on October 16, 2009. The resulting report, China 2020, was published in February 2010.

You can download the report: China 2020  at http://www.scps.nyu.edu/export/sites/scp… The list of participants can be found at: http://cgascenarios.wordpress.com/china/

This activity was followed in February 2010 with the workshop on Russia with a star-studded panel as you can see at: http://cgascenarios.wordpress.com/russia…

Upcoming workshops will examine alternate future scenarios for  Turkey, and Ukraine.

The fact that CGA had completed the workshops on China and Russia, fully digested in print the one on China, but not yet the one on Russia, made last night for an awkward attempt at comparing the two – we think prematurely. That is why we report here just on the China scenarios. They are important in themselves and if there was a learning experience for the Chinese from what went on in the past in Russia, or a learning experience for Russia from what is going on in the present in China, is indeed irrelevant in our eyes to scenarios of how China might develop in this decade. A scenario is not built on projections for the future because it must include the unexpected. From my own experience at scenarios at The Hudson Institute when it was still in Croton-on-the Hudson, and The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC, Mr Hermann Kahn always insisted on having “none-of-the-above as one of his scenarios.

——————–

Now to the Tuesday, April 6, 2010  6.30 – 7.45 pm event that was divided half time to the five people on stage and half time to Q&A, it was very lively and what was not initially said from the stage came out later in the questions. Interesting how the total time was more dedicated to China then to Russia. I believe it proves that it was premature to try to join the two countries and it would have been better to have two separate events on the two countries with an eventual joit event later.

Michael Oppenheimer,  head of these exercises, was obviously the person to introduce the topics and the moderator.
The Panelists on the China side were:

James Mulvenon, vice-president, DGI’s Intelligence Division; co-founder and director, DGI’s Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis; panelist, China 2020.(DGI stands for – Defense Group, Inc.)

Bernadette Shaw, Regional Director, British Telecommunications Plc; Masters Degree candidate, Center for Global Affairs; lead research associate, China 2020

and the Panelists on the Russian side were:

Douglas Blum, Professor of Political Science, Providence College, adjunct professor of International Studies, the Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Institute of International Studies at Brown University, panelist, Russia 2020

Eduard Berlin, principal, Corridor Partners, LLP; Masters Degree candidate, Center for Global Affairs; lead research associate, Russia 2020

As we see, in each case there was one former panelist and the lead research associate to his panel – but from this moment I will deal just with the China case.

——————–

The China panel came up with three scenarios and I will not bring them up in the order they were presented:

I will bring in first the panel’s SCENARIO TWO: STRONG STATE.

This is the scenario that between 2010 to 2020 CHINA STATE CAPACITY STRENGTHENS DUE TO PROBLEM SOLVING AND IMPROVED DECISION MAKING.

This is the lucky scenario for the US and China as per Mr. James Mulvenon  – {DGI is a Washington DC veteran-owned, small business specializing in defense, homeland security, combating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), intelligence analysis, and information technology. Their personnel are expert in scientific and engineering disciplines, with extensive practical experience in military and intelligence endeavors. DGI provides program management, scientific and technical expertise, modeling and simulation analyses, assessments and forecasts of threats and associated technology and administrative support services, information technology development and integration services, system architecture design and analyses, and experimentation, training and exercise planning.}

A fragmented China is less of a swagger to the US then the danger if the US will try to exploit this for tactical operations.

It is a strong China that can move away from an export economy to a consumer society. China also sees the G-2 model and the advantages of being capitalist and totalitarian. A strong China rejects the US World Order but does not mind the US continuing in its own democracy. A more democratic Beijing will not be as calm as a totalitarian regime  when it comes to Taiwan. A more democratic regime will play up to the masses which believe that the Han have done wonders to backward Tibet an North-West.

So, this scenario sees a lucky China, no major upheavals, authoritarian with elements of democracy, has economic commitments to the people and manages growth by re-balancing away from investments in infrastructure and export. There is modernization, the CCP (Communist Party) continues strong and electronic ID cards are introduced to help squash both – corruption and serious descent.

Among the drivers there are the economic trends, Civil Society with NGOs, though regulated can nevertheless fill in gaps where knowledge and expertise is of value to the CCP and can enhance overall state capacity.

Energy conservation and environmental protection become central to all aspects of China’s economic activities and key motivators in economic activity.

In International Economy China has rewritten the story of globalization with economic powershift from the multinationals to Chinese state enterprises.

On the way we this scenario sees a rapprochement with China’s energy rich western neighbors, and China supporting Obama reelection in the US while having its own transition of power in 2012. China uses its trillions of dollars to increase holdings in raw materials and energy resources and in developing technologies – it becomes the global leader in clean energy. China decreases its dependence on oil and on exports and becomes a better partner in managing the global economy generating growth and alleviation of poverty throughout the global system.

The China panel’s Scenario One “FRAGMENTATION: STATE CAPACITY WEAKENS IN FACE OF RISING POPULAR DEMANDS.”

This is based on challenges to the CCP and to geographical integrity. There are also references to accidental upheavals – be these a leak at a nuclear plant, a mining disaster, clear corruption being the cause or just a large earthquake.

Challengers may include provincial leaders that outperform the center, entrepreneurs and independent trade groups, pro-independence leadership in the provinces. The Demographics become drivers so does Climate with increased flooding along the southern coasts and droughts in the North. If the 2008 stimulus plan turns sour – new loans are not repaid and separatist terrorists strike at the same time. What if power transitions in China, Taiwan and the US lead to a trade war? Chinese SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) nose-dive. North Korea stirs and the refugee problem causes the need for new restrictions.

The consequences to the US are mixed from China’s troubles. This China maybe less of a threat to the US but much more of a problem.

The China panel’s Scenario Three “PARTIAL DEMOCRACY: RISING DEMAND FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE FORCES PARTY TO ACCEPT WIDER PARTICIPATION.”

The residual effects of the global economic downturn, endemic corruption, natural disasters, demographic, environmental, and socioeconomic issues – all as per the single-minded commitment to growth – shake up social harmony and political stability.

The party starts to accommodate and when something like a serious accident happens – people rebel. There is upward mobility of “outsiders” to the party which further erodes the party. There are 354,000 registered NGOs and many more unregistered. If unhappiness is stirred – they stir also Public dissatisfaction increases with each revelation of corruption among regional and central Party officials.

Bernadette Shaw, having worked in China pointed at the 200 million migrant workers that will give the party the right to rule in exchange for prosperity – but then if things do not go well, and after the evolution of civil society and questions about rights, in sight of corruption, that will be a different issue.

This scenario’s conclusions for US-China relation are a mixed bag. On the positive side is the growth of civil society that will encourage common approaches on international human rights issues such as Burma and Darfur and on issues of development assistance. However, greater Transparency in China, and partial liberalization will lead to soft power in Asia and among developing countries in general feeding contest with the US. Even while US-China interdependence might be growing – there will be a more contested  relationship. The conclusion reached was that a successful Doha outcome or mandatory and globally monitored limits on CO2, or an effective G2 management of globalization would all be less likely. So, the sum total observation of these scenarios seems to be that if it were possible to freeze the situation of US-China relations to what it is now – that would be the best for the US. We never thought this way before.

————————-

(IDN-InDepthNews/07.04.2010)

China Cannot Be a Global Locomotive but It Must Adjust.

By Yilmaz Akyuz*
IDN-InDepth NewsViewpoint

GENEVA (IDN) - External adjustment in the U.S. and slow growth in Europe will no doubt be problematic for China because of the important contribution that exports to these markets have made to its rapid growth.

It is true that the average domestic value added content of Chinese exports is not much more than half of their total value and the rest are accounted for by foreign value-added, mainly imported inputs from Japan and the developing and emerging economies (DEEs) linked to Sino-centric East Asian production network.

Still, in the years before the crisis, exports accounted for about one-third of Chinese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth thanks to their phenomenal expansion of some 25 per cent per annum ? that is, more than three times the world trade volume and domestic consumption and twice as rapid as domestic investment. The contribution of exports to growth goes up to 50 per cent if spillovers to domestic consumption and investment are taken into account.

China cannot keep its exports growing at similar rates and continue to increase rapidly its penetration in markets abroad at a time when growth in the U.S. and Europe is below potential, unemployment remains high and sticky, and reduction in global imbalances is seen as the key to global stability.

An aggressive export push could face stern resistance with attendant consequences for the stability of the international trading system. If, on the other hand, it cuts the rate of expansion of its exports to a more acceptable level, then, without a fundamental change in the pace and pattern of domestic demand, its growth may barely reach 7 per cent.

Growth may drop a lot more if the credit-driven investment bubble bursts, exposing bad loans and giving rise to difficulties in overstretched banks and, eventually, a financial crisis.

If the aim is to maintain pre-crisis growth rates of 10 per cent or more, the solution is naturally to raise domestic consumption much faster than has been the case so far; accelerating domestic investment to close the demand gap, as done during 2008-09, would simply aggravate the problem.

PRIVATE CONSUMPTION

Since the early years of the decade private consumption has been growing by 2.5 percentage points less than GDP and 5 percentage points less than investment. As a result, the share of consumption in GDP fell from 55 per cent in the late 1990s to some 36 per cent. This downward trend in the share of consumption in GDP would need to be reversed, with consumption growing faster than both income and investment.

Contrary to widely held belief, under-consumption in China is not the result of exceptionally large household savings. Chinese household savings as a proportion of GDP are not much greater than those in other DEEs at similar levels of development.

Rather, under-consumption is due to a low share of household income and a high share of corporate income in GDP. A very large proportion of household earnings in China consist of wages since government transfers and investment income are very small.

The share of wages in GDP has been constantly falling since the late 1990s ? from 53 per cent to 40 per cent ? and this is perfectly mirrored by the declining share of private consumption. With the continued rise of profits, corporate retentions and investment, including by state-owned enterprises, have come to exceed 20 per cent of GDP ? far higher than the rates seen during the earlier industrialization of Japan and the newly-industrialized Asian economies.

Thus, the disparity between consumption and investment and the consequent dependence on foreign markets is a reflection of the imbalance between wages and profits, and between household and corporate incomes. This needs to be rectified if rapid and sustained growth is to be attained based on domestic consumption.

This calls for higher wages and elimination of the gap between wage and productivity growth, significantly increased budgetary transfers, notably to rural households, and increased public spending on health, education and housing in order to reduce household precautionary savings.

A MAJOR IMPORTER

However, a shift by China from export-led growth to consumption-led growth would not be of much help to other DEEs. This is because China is a major importer, but not a major market. Its imports from other DEEs are mostly in intermediate goods, including parts and components, used for exports of finished goods, mainly to the U.S. and Europe, rather than for domestic consumption.

The import content of Chinese exports is around 50 per cent. In recent years, over 60 per cent of imports were used directly or indirectly for exports and less than 40 per cent for domestic investment and consumption.

Compared to consumption, investment draws in relatively large quantities of imports of intermediate inputs from other DEEs, as seen during the 2008-09 investment boom generated by the policy response to the crisis. By contrast, import intensity of Chinese consumption is very small, less than 8 percent.

Consequently, a $100 shift in the composition of aggregate demand from exports to domestic consumption would reduce Chinese imports by some $40.

Since over 60 per cent of all intermediate imports of China come from other DEEs, a shift from exports to the U.S. and the EU to domestic consumption would lead to a significant drop in the exports of DEEs to China.

This indirect exposure to a slowdown in Chinese exports to the U.S. and the EU is particularly high among East Asian suppliers of parts and components: for every $100 worth of processing exports of China to the U.S. and the EU, about $35-$40 accrue to East Asian DEEs.

These economies have also direct exposure since the U.S. and the EU together account for more than a quarter of total exports of some of these countries. Japan is also among the countries most exposed to a shift of China from exports to the U.S. and the EU to consumption-led growth since it provides over 15 per cent of China’s total intermediate imports.

IMPORT CONTENT

The import content of private consumption in the U.S. is three times that of China. Thus, the reduction in U.S. imports that could result from a $100 cut in domestic consumption would be 3 times the increase in Chinese imports that would be generated by an additional $100 worth of consumption. Furthermore, unlike China, the import content of exports in the U.S. is lower than that of private consumption so that a shift from consumption to exports would reduce its total imports.

These imply that a shift from export-led growth to consumption-led growth in China and a shift in the opposite direction in the U.S. would reduce aggregate imports of these two countries from the rest of the world.

In other words, a U.S.-China rebalancing would remove the demand stimulus that the U.S. has been providing to DEEs directly or through China without replacing it with adequate stimulus from consumption-led growth in the latter country.

For DEEs looking for export-led growth, China is not a good substitute for the U.S.. Its consumer market is considerably smaller not only because of lower aggregate GDP and higher personal savings rate, but also because of a lower share of household income in GDP.

Even if household income and consumer spending is raised considerably, exports to China would still be limited by its very low propensity to consume foreign goods, directly or as inputs into the production of domestic consumer goods and services.

For China to become a major market for other DEEs, it should not only increase household income and consumption, but also consume more foreign goods. But even then the benefits may not all go to DEEs since China is clearly among the top markets to be tapped by the U.S. in the context of its National Export Initiative.

——————————-
* Yilmaz Akyuz, Ph.D. is Special Economic Advisor to South Centre, Geneva, and former Director, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva. This Viewpoint is extracted from a South Centre research paper ‘Global Economic Prospects: The Recession May Be Over – But Where Next?’

Yanukovich kills Ukraine’s bid to join NATO

Russia-leaning president Viktor Yanukovich has scrapped Ukraine’s plans to join the Western military alliance, dissolving the commissions on European and NATO integration established after the Orange Revolution.

Ukraine’s once deeply controversial bid to join NATO appears to have died a little-noticed bureaucratic death this week, as incoming President Viktor Yanukovich moved to abolish a commission that had been overseeing the country’s preparations for eventual entry into the Western military alliance.

Monday’s presidential decree scrapping the commission came as Mr. Yanukovich was meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev amid his second official visit to Moscow since being elected in February. Another commission, whose brief was to promote Euro-Atlantic integration, was cut along with a few dozen other advisory state bodies associated with the Western-leaning former president Viktor Yushchenko.

Experts say there’s little surprise in the action, since Yanukovich was elected, at least partly, on a platform of repairing relations with Moscow, which had been so infuriated by Mr. Yushchenko’s pro-NATO tilt that Russia refused to send an ambassador to Kiev for almost two years.

“It is definitely not the policy of Yanukovich to join NATO,” says Oleksandr Sushko, research director of the independent Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation in Kiev.

“Yanukovich’s policy is not to move in any direction, but for Ukraine to be a kind of ‘bridge’ between East and West. The danger is that we are moving into a gray zone, where the security status of Ukraine will become ambiguous.”

Moving West since 1991

Since Ukraine achieved independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, most of its leaders have upheld a strategy of gradually integrating the France-sized country of 48 million into the European community of nations. But following the 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought Yushchenko to power pledging to put the country on a fast-track to NATO membership, the issue became a major wedge between Moscow and Kiev.

Though opinion polls over the years have shown Ukrainian majorities favor the idea of eventually joining the European Union, NATO membership has never commanded popular support.

“Our latest poll on this was in October 2009, when 17 percent of Ukrainians supported joining NATO and 53 percent were opposed,” says Vladimir Paniotto, director of the independent Kiev International Institute of Sociology. “We’ve polled on this regularly over the years, and majorities have always been against joining NATO.”

Following Russia’s 2008 summer war with Georgia, another NATO aspirant, enthusiasm for admitting any more post-Soviet states into the alliance notably cooled, particularly in western Europe.

Finances push Ukraine East

As financial crisis struck last year, hammering Ukraine’s economy, Ukrainian voters became even less interested in geopolitical issues and more concerned about fixing relations with Russia, Ukraine’s top trading partner.

“I don’t believe that Yanukovich is thinking in any grand terms, such as positioning Ukraine as a neutral or non-aligned international player,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal. “I think his key goal is to save the Ukrainian economy from collapse, and for this he needs help from all sides, including Moscow. Meanwhile, you don’t hear any European countries pressing to have the question of Ukrainian NATO membership put back on the table. Yanukovich is simply behaving in a pragmatic way,” he says.

However, the agenda for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visit to Ukraine next week does include a meeting of a new parliamentary group on Russian-Ukrainian security cooperation, and some Russian experts say Ukraine may be moving toward a formal declaration of neutrality.

“Ukraine is turning away from NATO and correcting its foreign policy,” says Kiril Frolov, an expert with the official Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States Studies in Moscow. “It is moving toward neutral status, and the next step will be a law to establish that.”

Mr. Sushko, a longtime advocate of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, says he worries that a drift toward Russia could end up undermining Ukraine’s democracy.

“Yanukovich and the people around him are not noted for their strong commitment to democratic values, and it’s a big question what might happen if Ukraine’s economy continues to deteriorate,” he says. “This is certainly a chance for Russia to erode the democratic choices that Ukraine has made.”

Olympics Should Be About the Athletes.
Say Something  2/28/2010 – By Kevin Blackistone

Kevin Blackistone is a national columnist for FanHouse – an aol blog.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — In spring, the Olympic Village that was a temporary home to athletes will begin undergoing a conversion into an affordable housing community for at least 16,000 people, replete with child care centers, a school and green space.

The Olympic Oval in suburban Richmond that hosted speed skating will start to be renovated into a city recreation center, with two ice rinks, eight basketball courts, an indoor running track and an infield for more sports.

And in the tiny ski resort of Whistler, where the 2010 Olympic skiing and sliding events were held, Whistler Mayor Ken Melamed will look to follow through on his promise to erect a permanent memorial to Nodar Kumaritashvili, forever known as the Georgian luger who was killed on the eve of the opening of the Vancouver Winter Games.

Tragedy, unfortunately, will be as much a part of the legacy of the 2010 Winter Games as anything else. There can’t be any denying it, and there shouldn’t be.

What happened here to Kumaritashvili should be the starkest reminder to those who run our world’s biennial global games — Jacques Rogge and the International Olympic Committee — that it is the athlete who is the gathering’s most-precious resource and not the capital their exploits can mine.

All one had to do Sunday, as these Games closed, was witness the celebration clogging downtown Vancouver streets to realize there was no amount of money that could have produced as much happiness among Canadians as the gold-medal victory of their men’s hockey team over the United States.

The Olympic movement should not go forth to London in 2012 and Sochi in 2014 as it did in Vancouver, squashing the expression of those who’ve sacrificed so much to climb a stage so high and bright. It is time for the Games’ organizers to embrace those for whom they organize, like Vancouver did all of us who visited the past two weeks, rather than shun and shush them.

The Olympics are like any sports; most of us watch the Games to see what the athletes are going to do rather than to see what imprint on the competitions the officials are going to leave.

But the organizers of these Olympics that closed Sunday night refused to heed the warnings of the lugers, bobsledders and skeleton racers who upon finally getting a chance to train on the slide reported it was far more dangerous than it needed to be.

“It’s not the IOC pushing the boundaries,” Rogge said at a news conference before Sunday’s closing ceremony. “The boundaries are pushed mostly by the ambition of the athletes themselves, and we have at times to protect them from their own risk-taking.

VANCOUVER, BC – FEBRUARY 28: The Olympic flame burns in the cauldron during the Closing Ceremony of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics at BC Place on February 28, 2010 in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Closing Ceremony Photos

VANCOUVER, BC – FEBRUARY 28: Flag bearers display the competing nations flags during the Closing Ceremony of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics at BC Place on February 28, 2010 in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

“We have a moral responsibility in making sure that the Games are as safe as possible. We will never be able to eliminate all risks, and athletes who are engaged in competition are taking these risks also, but they must be sure we have taken the measures to diminish the risks.”

By the time they took such steps at the slide, however, it was too late.

Rogge and his officers seemed more interested in lassoing the natural exuberance of the Games’ athletes rather than the irrational exuberance of architects who made the slide deadly instead of simply daring. For example, when Canada’s gold medal-winning women’s hockey team, which also beat its U.S. counterpart, celebrated on the ice with champagne, beer and cigars — just like men might do — Rogge’s office frowned and threatened to investigate what it perceived as tawdry behavior.

The Olympics need to get back to championing athletes rather than combating them, unless, of course, they are drug cheats. (One men’s and one women’s hockey player in Vancouver tested positive, but weren’t banned, for illegal substances found in common cold remedies. That was it on the drug front. The athletes looked to be living up to their fair-play responsibility.)

The IOC could steal one page from how to celebrate its athletes in the future from the Vancouver Organizing Committee, which, along with the family of a man now deceased named Terry Fox, created an award in Fox’s name. It was to highlight athletes who embodied Fox’s spirit. He lost a leg to cancer as a young man and set out to run across Canada in 1980 to raise funds for cancer research.

It is time for the Olympics to be returned to the athletes.