GENEVA, Oct (IPS)–Although it remains the fastest growing region, Asia is already experiencing an economic slowdown, with gross domestic product (GDP) expected to fall from 6.8 percent in 2011 to slightly below six percent in 2012. Several countries – including China, India and Turkey – have been adversely affected by weaker demand from developed countries.

Supachai Panitchpakdi

Given the headwinds from the international economy, some developing countries have since relaxed their monetary conditions and many of them have applied countercyclical measures that are helping to boost household incomes and to maintain a much needed shift from external to domestic demand, alongside the role of investment.

China, for example, has played a critical role in global rebalancing, being the chief engine of world growth since 2009 and having reduced its surplus markedly (from 10 percent of GDP in 2007 to two percent in 2012) as it shifted its economy towards domestic demand.

In China and other major economies in the region, however, internal rebalancing remains unfinished as private consumption should take on a greater role relative to investment. High wage growth will help to support this goal as well as helping to promote further external rebalancing.

High and volatile commodity prices also present a risk to the rebalancing process for the Asian region, because they can be a drag on growth. Rising oil prices, for example, act as an immediate dampener on aggregate spending in fuel-importing countries, contracting spending more or less immediately, whereas any spending expansion from fuel-exporting countries occurs only after a lag.

However the main risk continues to be concentrated in the developed economies, where the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has long been concerned that premature and excessive fiscal austerity is choking recovery and growth unnecessarily. The developing economies in Asia have played a major role stoking the engine of growth since the crisis, but this could be derailed if there continues to be a decline in consumer demand from their traditional markets in the advanced economies, and the effects of a reduction in this demand would of course have further spill-over effects if it provoked a downturn in Asian household and investment demand.

The second aspect of the rebalancing has occurred after the crisis. Global trade rebalancing has been largely due to the decrease in China’s exports and the increase in its domestic demand. Trade imbalances for many other East and South-East Asian (ASEAN) countries have not altered significantly. In 2011, the trade surplus of ASEAN as a whole had recovered to its 2007 level and it is currently similar in size to that of China, at about 100 billion dollars.

The rebalancing of the last three years has been due to a number of factors: the worsening terms of trade, especially for China, the decrease in international demand for products collaboratively (vertically) produced by East Asian countries, and the increase in domestic demand in China.

In practice, while China’s trade surplus is largely related to its trade with high-income markets, that of other East Asia countries is largely owing to trade with China. Indeed, the trade surplus of ASEAN countries with China has been increasing in the recent years.

The implications of this rebalancing are largely related to Chinese imports from the region. In this regard, the increase in Chinese domestic demand and the weak international demand for Chinese manufactures are resulting in a shift in the composition of Chinese imports. In practice, China imports relatively fewer goods to fuel its export sectors, and more consumption goods to meet the increasing domestic demand.

In this context, regional partners serving the Chinese export industry (those with vertical supply chain links with China) are likely to continue to be negatively affected as long as demand for Chinese exports remains weak. On the other hand, regional firms serving the Chinese domestic markets are likely to show continuous growth. However, a caveat is that China’s demand for final goods is still largely met by domestic producers, and thus the increase in domestic demand may not have large external spillovers.

A reduction in international demand for Chinese exports may also accelerate the transformation of the Chinese manufacturing industry towards higher value-added goods. This clearly depends on the extent to which Chinese firms are able to upgrade along the value chain and to capture market share in these segments.

If (or when) this occurs, it may have repercussions for the vertical integration of production processes in the region. In practice, Chinese firms could turn from vertically integrated partners into competitors of firms in more advanced countries. On the other hand, the process of manufacturing upgrading may benefit less advanced economies in the region, which are presently competitors of Chinese firms.

Ultimately, what is most important is that regional markets remain open, so that rising domestic demand in each country is met not only by domestic enterprises but also by those operating in other countries of the region. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Supachai Panitchpakdi is the secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

NEW DELHI, Sep (IPS/South Centre) Since January 2012, aviation has been included in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that requires aircraft operators to surrender one allowance per tonne of carbon-dioxide emitted on a flight to and from (and within) the EU. This covers passenger, cargo and non-commercial flights and applies no matter where an aircraft operator is based.

Anuradha R.V.

Each such airline would have to comply with a benchmark set by the EU on the basis of its average annual emissions in respect of flights to and from the EU. One of the most controversial aspects of the measure is that it calculates an airline’s emissions from the point of take off; this means that a flight from New Delhi to London, which flies within the EU only for a few hours, would have to account to the EU for its emissions from New Delhi itself. EU’s rationale in putting in place the system is to ensure that its own operators are not at a competitive disadvantage.

The economic impact of the EU-ETS for the global airline industry has been estimated to be 1.5 billion dollars annually, and 13.8 billion dollars through 2020, according to Thomson Reuters Point Carbon. The annual financial impact on major airlines from India has been estimated to be in the range of 30 to 40 million dollars.

The EU system offers airlines some allowances for free, and they are required to purchase the rest at EU auctions. If an airline exceeds the benchmark set for it, it can buy carbon credits from the market. Revenue from the auction of aviation allowances is expected to earn the EU close to 334 million dollars in 2012.

Airlines would simply pass on the enhanced costs of EU-ETS compliance to consumers, and it could indeed be argued that perhaps it is not such a bad thing for international air travellers to pay for their carbon footprint.

However, the EU’s action is essentially a statement that it would take measures on its own to police climate change, disregarding multilateral processes, which impact activity both within its own territory and outside of it.

There are potentially other forms that such unilateral action could take, for instance, through imposition of taxes or other charges on imports, or other non-tariff regulatory requirements, whose impact on goods and services from countries like India could be more severe.

EU-ETS in fact already includes a provision stating that the EU would consider measures for “carbon equalisation”, which could affect imports from countries that do not have comparable emission reduction norms, depending on the outcome of the ongoing multilateral negotiations. The main reasoning seems to be that if multilateral negotiations do not have the effect that EU desires, then EU will impose unilateral measures.

To state the obvious, any unilateralism would make a mockery of the multilateral processes. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), any unilateral action would run contrary to the principle that only Annex I (developed) countries have quantitative legally-binding emission reduction targets, while other countries have no binding quantitative targets of any kind.

This principle – also referred to as the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, is clearly violated by EU-ETS requirements, which effectively treat Annex I and non-Annex I countries in the same way.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC required Annex I countries to pursue reduction of aviation emissions by working through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). ICAO resolutions in 2007 and 2010 emphasised that countries should undertake market-based measures relating to aviation emissions only subject to multilateral or bilateral agreements. Such a mandate essentially means that measures such as EU-ETS can be enforced against an aircraft operator from a third country only if the EU has entered into an agreement with such a country. EU-ETS, however, ignores this principle.

As a response to EU-ETS, 23 members of the ICAO (including the U.S., Japan, Singapore, India, China and Brazil) met in February 2012 to condemn EU’s move. These countries have outlined a basket of measures which they would want to explore against the EU, which include:

- filing of an application under ICAO’s convention for resolution of the dispute;

- prohibiting their airlines/aircraft operators from participating in the EU-ETS;

- imposing additional levies/charges on EU carriers/ aircraft operators as a form of counter-measure;

- reviewing Bilateral Air Services Agreements, including Open Skies with individual EU member states;

- suspending current and future discussions and/or negotiations to enhance operating rights for EU airlines/ aircraft operators;

- exploring action under WTO agreements.

Following the above declaration, the governments of China and India have taken the position that their airlines would not comply with EU-ETS. Under the EU directive, non-complying aircraft operators face a penalty of 100 pounds per missing allowance, and also face a potential ban from operating in the EU. The extent to which the stalemate continues, and the extent to which EU will enforce its penalties or even suspend non-complying airlines from entering its airspace, remains to be seen.

As seen from the joint declaration of the countries opposing the EU’s move, the only effect of EU’s unilateral action could be a spate of unilateral measures from other countries.

Will good sense prevail to enable an amicable resolution? Otherwise, between the various unilateral measures – threatened and actual – the only casualty would be climate change. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Anuradha R.V. is a partner at Clarus Law Associates, New Delhi, and works on law and policy relating to international trade and climate change. For further analysis see Climate Policy Brief, September 2012 (http://www.southcentre.org).

GENEVA, Jun (IPS) India may be famous for the Taj Mahal, its religious ceremonies, Bollywood films and one of the highest economic growth rates in recent years. But more importantly, India has had a positive global impact through its supply of vast quantities of low-cost, good-quality generic medicines, which have saved or prolonged millions of lives.

Martin Khor. Credit: South Center website.

Many people go to India to buy life-saving generic medicines from pharmacies and bring these back in suitcases to give to close relatives who cannot afford the expensive branded original products.

A decade ago, the Indian pharmaceutical company Cipla produced generic HIV/AIDS drugs that could treat a patient for 300 dollars a year, far cheaper than the branded product’s cost of 10,000 dollars per patient a year. Today the Indian generic version is even cheaper, below 80 dollars.

This has enabled millions more AIDS patients to be treated, since India supplies 70 percent of the HIV/AIDS drugs obtained by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Global Fund and the William J. Clinton Foundation for developing countries.

A further 75-80 percent of medicines (not only for AIDS) distributed by the International Dispensary Association to developing countries come from India. No wonder India has been termed the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’.

In January 2012, the Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA), comprised of 700 drug-manufacturing member companies, celebrated its 50th anniversary, by toasting the industry’s high growth, wide range of medicines, and its contribution to safe, affordable drugs.

But there are also many factors that may hinder the continuation of the company’s role as chief supplier of medicines to developing countries.

A main factor of the industry’s success was the government’s decision, back in 1970, to exclude pharmaceutical drugs from product patents.

This paved the way for local companies to produce generic versions of expensive foreign drugs and within a few decades they had taken over 80 percent of the domestic market, while also supplying cheap medicines abroad.

The situation took a negative turn when the intellectual property agreement, known as TRIPS, was established in 1995 together with the World Trade Organisation, which disallowed countries from excluding medicines from patentability.

However, TRIPS allowed individual countries to determine the criteria for an invention that can be granted a patent. Furthermore, TRIPS gave governments the ability to grant a compulsory licence to local companies to produce the patented products, if their requests to patent owners for a voluntary licence did not succeed.

To implement its TRIPS obligations, India passed changes to its patent law in 2005 so that drugs could now be patented. However, the new law also contained flexibilities such as strict criteria for patentability (trivial changes to a patent-expired product would not qualify for a new patent); allowance for public opposition to a patent application before a decision is made; and compulsory licencing.

India has one of the best patent laws in the world that still gives some space to its producers to make generic drugs. But it is also true that the old policy space has been eroded because many new drugs have, since 2005, been patented by multinational companies that are selling them at exorbitant prices.

Indian companies can no longer make their own generic versions of these new medicines unless they successfully apply to the government for compulsory licences, a most cumbersome process; or unless they obtain a licence from the patent-owning multinational, which comes with stringent conditions, especially for export.

Another worry is that India is negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union. Such agreements usually contain provisions such as data exclusivity and extension of the patent term, which prevents or hinders generic production.

Finally, six Indian companies were recently bought up by large foreign firms. If this trend continues, the Indian drug market may be dominated by multinationals again. It is uncertain whether they will continue to supply the developing world with cheap generic medicines when this may be in conflict with their own branded products.

International health organisations such as UNAIDS, UNITAID and Doctors Without Borders have raised their serious concerns that these recent trends may threaten India’s role as the chief supplier of affordable medicines to Africa and other developing countries.

Millions will die if India cannot produce the new HIV/AIDS medicines in the future –it is a matter of life and death, said Michel Sidibe, executive director of UNAIDS, during a visit to India last year.

Thus, a strategy is needed that involves the government and the drug companies, which ensures that the local drug industry continues to thrive; that it produces not only existing medicines but also new medicines even if they are patented; and that they are supplied at cheap prices not only in India but to the developing world.

That was the sobering message that emerged during IDMA’s 50th anniversary conference in January, even in the midst of congratulations on the achievements of the past. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Martin Khor is the executive director of the South Centre in Geneva.

Shyam Saran. Credit: Divulgação

By Shyam Saran*

NEW DELHI, Mar (IPS) The Delhi Declaration and Action Plan adopted at the 4th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on March 29, 2012, would have quickly laid to rest any residual anxiety in Western capitals that a serious rival focus of power and influence was beginning to take shape in the Indian capital.

One look at the wholly pedestrian Action Plan and any illusion of substantive intent would be quickly dispelled. Following a Declaration which promises much, the Action Plan reads like a “trivial pursuit”. It should have been billed as a tentative calendar of prospective meetings and events rather than be given the status of an Action Plan.

The Declaration bears the clear imprint of China and, to some extent, Russia on some key economic and political issues. The most notable example of this is the thinly veiled but unusually harsh criticism of the U.S.-sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is seen as mainly directed against China.

The Declaration says: “We do not support unilateral initiatives that go against the fundamental principles of transparency, inclusiveness and multilateralism. We believe that such initiatives not only distract members from striving for a collective outcome but also fail to address the development deficit inherited from the previous rounds.”

Unless India has been told it will have no place in the Partnership why close our options?

The Declaration obliquely criticises the U.S. for causing excessive dollar liquidity. China is concerned because this reduces the value of its massive dollar assets and triggers hot money inflows. Brazil, too, has suffered as a result. But India would prefer that stimulus measures in the U.S. continue so that export demand for its goods and services is not threatened. Despite the risks, India appears eager to receive “hot” money flows at a time when investment levels are depressed.

Political positions articulated in the Declaration are on the expected lines but the language is reflective of the stronger stance taken by Russia and China both on intervention in Syria and the imposition of sanctions on Iran. In Western capitals these formulations will be seen as endorsement of the Chinese and Russian positions, despite the fact that India, Brazil and South Africa have a more nuanced posture.

On U.N. reform, the Declaration adopts the well-known Chinese position of offering to support the aspirations of Brazil, India and South Africa “to play a greater role in the U.N.”, without endorsing their candidature for permanent membership of the Security Council. Russia, which had formally supported India’s candidature, has now aligned itself with China.

Two agreements were concluded among the Exim Banks of the five countries during the Summit. The “Master Agreement in Extending Credit Facility” in local currencies is to implement an essentially generalised currency swap arrangement among the participating countries. This would provide an alternative to the use of the U.S. dollar in trade settlement. However, a serious challenge from BRICS currencies to the dollar would only emerge if and when they become truly convertible and are backed by the kind of dense and varied financial and banking infrastructure that exists in the U.S. and other Western economies.

The second agreement is the “BRICS Multilateral Letter of Credit Confirmation Facility Agreement”, which, too, is a trade facilitation measure. Once implemented it is likely to reduce transaction costs of intra-BRICS trade. The BRICS Business Forum, which met on the eve of the Summit, recommended a target of 500 billion dollars of intra-BRICS trade by 2015 compared to 230 billion dollars currently. The issue of liberalising business visas was flagged but with no commitments.

There was strong anticipation that the Summit would announce the setting up of a BRICS development bank on the lines of the World Bank but focused on financing projects in BRICS and other developing countries. However, caution seems to have won the day. The BRICS Finance Ministers have been tasked with examining the feasibility and viability of the proposal. An initiative that would have been seen as a major contribution by emerging economies in promoting growth and recovery in their own and other developing countries; strengthened their hands in pushing for the reform of international financial institutions; and marked the grouping as a serious and influential player on the global stage, was instead consigned to a committee.

BRICS is here to stay as a familiar feature on the international landscape. It has the economic and political heft to play an influential role provided it is able to act together on key issues. In that sense, the Delhi Summit remained mostly a flag-waving exercise. Unlike the G-7 earlier, the group lacks a common ideological and cultural underpinning. The security perspectives of its members are not aligned. In terms of economic objectives, they have both convergent and divergent interests. In the foreseeable future the most realistic prospect for BRICS may be their working as a coalition on issues of common interest such as reform of the international financial institutions, resisting protectionism and promoting development in developing countries.

There is no doubt that being part of this group gives each of its members that little extra room for manoeuvre vis-à-vis the established advanced countries. India and China working together in BRICS may mitigate the elements of confrontation between them. It is clear, however, that China is emerging as the preeminent partner in the group.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

*Shyam Saran is a former Foreign Secretary with the government of India.
He is currently chairman of the Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries (RIS) think-tank and senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) in New Delhi.

Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser / U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

ROME, Dec 6 (IPS) – South-South cooperation can play a key role in boosting the economies of developing countries, but it is not going to replace North-South cooperation, says Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, president of the 66th session of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Qatari diplomat was interviewed by IPS as the fourth annual Global South-South Development Expo (GSSD Expo) opened Monday in Rome.

This year’s GSSD Expo, a U.N. system-wide forum developed by the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, is hosted by the FAO from Dec. 5 to 9, and is meant to showcase concrete innovative solutions that demonstrate how hunger has been successfully tackled through South-South cooperation.

“South-South and triangular cooperation, backed by adequate funding, are key tools for tackling the development challenges of our time,” Al-Nasser said. “All such partnerships are particularly pertinent given the current and recent challenges facing our global economy and sustainable development. Among such challenges, guaranteeing food security for all is paramount.”

He said the Expo offers an opportunity to examine holistic approaches to the search for innovative and sustainable solutions to food insecurity: “It will enable us to exchange lessons learned and showcase successful Southern strategies and technologies for, among other things: improving agricultural productivity; increasing social protection and building the resilience of the most vulnerable; managing fragile ecosystems; improving nutrition; and combating diseases.”

Q: In its latest report last week, the ‘World Economic Situation and Prospects 2012′, the U.N. warned that the EU-U.S. economic crisis is threatening to spill over into developing countries. How can the developing world protect itself against this threat?

A: The economic crisis is affecting the entire world. In the past, economic and social crises mainly had a regional or sub-regional range. Now the issue is global, it is not about the U.S. or the European markets. What is happening in the U.S. and in Europe is having effects on Latin America, Asia and Africa, and will certainly have an impact on development in these countries.

It is time for the United Nations to look at all this collectively and deal with that. This not only concerns the G20 (bloc of major industrial and emerging powers); this is the responsibility of the General Assembly. I am today focusing on this issue: last week two ambassadors were appointed as facilitators to work on a specific, very important event dealing with the financial crisis which is currently hurting people everywhere, all over the planet.

I’m hoping the General Assembly will see concrete results of this commitment by the first half of next year.

Q: What role can South-South cooperation play in boosting the economies of developing countries? Do you think that triangular and multilateral cooperation – as in IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa), MERCOSUR (South America’s Southern Common Market) and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) – need to be strengthened further among these member states?

A: Yes of course. South-South cooperation today can play a major role in bringing all the South countries together, and sharing their experiences. At the same time it is also very important that developing countries do this with the support of the developed world.

Many Southern countries have lifted millions of people out of conditions of extreme poverty and hunger. These countries have at their disposal much knowledge and technical know-how. These can be put to further good use through enhanced South-South exchanges of information, experience and technology, with a view to raising agricultural productivity and to improving food distribution to the benefit of more people.

Through South-South solidarity, we can also learn from countries that are reforming customary norms and practices, in order to ensure that women are no longer denied equal access to land and other productive assets that contribute to food security. In doing so, women will be empowered and can gain their rightful place in society.

It is my hope that these exchanges, programmes and partnerships will be replicated and adapted widely.

Q: As the trend towards South-South cooperation continues, will this replace North-South cooperation in the future? Or is there need both for South-South and North-South cooperation?

A: They complement each other. The South cannot work without the North and the North cannot work without the South. Complement is the key word here.

As president of the United Nations General Assembly, I am committed to promoting South-South and triangular cooperation, as an important part of building a united global partnership. Only such a partnership, based on open dialogue and mutual understanding, can enable efficient collective action in a globalised, inter-dependent world.

Q: What contribution has Qatar made towards South-South cooperation following the Second South Summit which was held in Doha in 2005? Is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), of which Qatar is a member, a prime example of South-South Cooperation? And how successful has it been?

A: It’s been very successful, yes. Qatar has been very active in regional and multilateral initiatives to promote South-South cooperation. I’ve been Permanent Representative of Qatar to the United Nations and personally contributed to a number of South-South cooperation initiatives.

My country believes in Southern cooperation and I think it one of the most active actors in South-South cooperation, especially in terms of encouraging developing countries to work together and share their experiences.

Qatar hosted the Second South Summit of the Group of 77 in 2005, where the South Fund for Development and Humanitarian Assistance was launched.

(END/2011)

LONDON, Nov 22 (IPS) – For a start, stop calling it "aid", Brian Atwood, chair of the Development Assistance Committee at the OECD, tells IPS.

The aid effectiveness summit in Busan next week may move the dialogue further through the language of "development cooperation" instead, Atwood says. There could be a lot in a name here; it may signify the strengthening of a different way of partnering development.

Signs are that the Busan summit will take agreements on development cooperation forward substantially, Atwood says in an email interview. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is leading the fourth high-level forum on aid effectiveness taking place in Busan, South Korea, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, says that at a time of particular economic difficulties, agreements reached at Busan would be vital.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What is the best-case scenario that can realistically emerge at Busan?

A: We will improve global cooperation and local coordination, reaffirm commitments made in Paris and Accra and rededicate the development community to achieving the MDGs. We will state that north-south and south-south cooperation are complementary and will commit to working together, including in triangular efforts.

Q: What might be the worst-case scenario, and what would be its implications?

A: That Busan becomes a finger pointing exercise rather than an effort to overcome political obstacles to progress. Thus far, there is no indication of that.

Q: What does the Paris sherpas meet tell us?

A: This represents a real negotiation over differences of interest and perspective, but it has been infected by a spirit of accommodation.

Q: Is language a problem: and so is the word ‘aid’ itself a problem, in that it suggests a giving that implies patronage and loss to the ‘donor’?

A: We hope that Busan will eliminate words like "aid" and "donor" and "recipient." However, the forum is called "aid effectiveness." The word is used in the outcome text as a synonym for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) at a time when developing partners are increasingly concerned that ODA levels might go down. So "aid" remains for now, but is hopefully to be replaced by "development cooperation."

Q: The idea that aid is not a loss but is for the greater good, including one’s national own, is becoming a bit more current. Are there signs that governments are buying the argument?

A: Never has the need for development been discussed at such high levels of government, including the G-20 and G-8. The attention being paid to Busan, versus Paris and Accra, is phenomenal. Attending will be the U.N. secretary-general, the U.S. secretary of state, 110 ministers, 30 foreign ministers and a half a dozen heads of state.

Q: Could such an idea be interpreted to take us back to the practice of heavily tied aid that some countries at least have been stepping away from?

A: Around 80 percent of tied aid has been eliminated and I see no effort to turn the clock back on previous commitments. The last 20 percent is the most difficult because it involves popular programmes like food aid, scholarships, civil society organisations from donor countries and technical cooperation. However, I believe we will continue to make progress.

Q: Is there a distinction to be made between ‘evolved’ self-interest and narrow self-interest? Can politicians be persuaded to see that difference?

A: We have a self-interest in bringing people out of poverty. That is a long-term endeavour and in that sense it is not ‘narrow,’ rather it requires an enlightened view. I believe that despite the economic pressures, we have acquired that view and I believe that Busan will demonstrate that.

Q: In the current economic squeeze, cutting aid might be more populist than sensible, and keeping up aid can potentially be unpopular. Are voters in Western Europe and North America showing any indication of resisting development aid?

A: Some politicians are resisting and advocating budget cuts, but I believe they are in the minority. There is little to be gained in cutting these programmes which represent a small part of budgets, but much to be lost.

Q: If aid must be channelled in harmony with national priorities set by governments, where does civil society stand? Can we go back to old classic patterns of non-government organisations (NGOs) carrying out pockets of aided development?

A: Civil society is a vital part of development and the development of a viable civil society is best carried out by NGOs with similar missions.

Q: In what way does the aid story change when it flows from south to south? Are those more instances of heavily tied aid? Is it more legitimate when the flow is south to south?

A: We don’t know enough about the details of south-south cooperation. There is an important affinity among these nations and that is an important attribute.

Q: It may take a book and more to really answer this, but broadly, in what ways has the Paris Declaration worked, and where and how has it not?

A: Yes, a book. Please take a look at our evaluation and survey. It is the evidence that demonstrates that ownership, alignment and mutual accountability produce results.

(END/2011)

BRASILIA, Oct (IPS) The power of the media has grown enormously across the world. The question of access to the new forms of  information and communications is especially urgent in Brazil, which is growing increasingly prominent among the emerging nations because of its economic status and especially the entrance of great numbers of its population into the middle class and the ranks of consumers.

In an irreversible process, Brazilians, who now enjoy better living conditions and higher incomes, now want more  education, more information, and greater participation in decision-making. At the centre of a process of political emancipation in recent years, Brazilian citizens are more demanding in terms of the information they receive from the media. With the advent of the Internet they have a wider range of information and more forms than they ever imagined to express their opinions and organise themselves socially.

This alone would already signal the need for a profound debate about the organisation of the communications sector, which is still regulated by antiquated and obsolete laws that have not kept pace with the technological evolution or the political and social emancipation of Brazilian citizens.

It is not only in Brazil but also in much of the world, especially the so-called developing countries, that the technological revolution has generated contradictions that have directly effected the communications media. In addition to the issue of democratic access to all information and to the shared and autonomous production of various forms of communication, the technological convergence has sharpened contradictions between important economic sectors, including telecommunications and broadcasting.

The need to overcome these contradictions is driving the discussion on the reorganising of the sector in various parts of the world, raising the possibility of a broadening of the debate and democratic participation of a wide range of sectors of society. Indeed this is already underway.

In a landscape in which Brazil is contributing to the configuration of a new global order, one more inclusive and balanced, and with the rise of new modes of dialogue and South-South cooperation -among developing countries- communications is emerging as the essential tool in the fight against inequality and for the promotion of access to information and socioeconomic opportunities.

The possibilities for South-South cooperation in the area of communications are vast. This cooperation must give priority not to one-way “development assistance” but instead to the building of horizontal associations characterised by solidarity, non-conditionality, and the sharing of responsibility. Above all, it must begin from the fundamental premise that it is up to the developing countries to shape their communications media and their messages according to their realities, needs, and aspirations.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Helena Chagas is Brazil’s Minister of Social Communication.

Tony Tujan, director of IBON International. / CIVICUS

MONTREAL, Canada, Oct 4 (IPS) – Busan represents the possibility of an aid revolution – a time in history where an encompassing, inclusive aid framework may be possible. This is according to Tony Tujan, director of IBON International, a capacity development non- governmental organisation.

In late November international aid players will descend on Busan, South Korea to review past aid effectiveness commitments before writing the next chapter in the fight for better aid.

At the forum, delegates will assess the world’s progress against previous aid agreements, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action – before issuing yet another.

The 2005 Paris Declaration laid out targets to improve the quality of aid and its development impact, establishing monitoring systems to assess progress and accountability. Three years later, in an effort to accelerate progress on the declaration, the Accra Agenda was drafted in the Ghanaian capital. The document proposed increased national ownership of development process, more inclusive partnerships and measurable impacts.

These were a start but Busan’s outcome document must go further to ensure sustainable, equitable and inclusive aid, according to Tujan who also co-chairs the civil society platforms BetterAid and Reality of Aid.

While the International Monetary Fund (IMF) uses the global recession as a rationale for continued conditionality, rising powers such as China, India and Brazil involved in South-South development cooperation may be unwilling to permit the continuation of a Northern-dominated aid architecture, he cautions.

With the rise of South-South cooperation, now is the time to pen a more equitable future for aid, said Tujan.

Ahead of the high-level meeting, Tujan spoke to IPS about the state of aid effectiveness and the possibility of a new aid order at Busan.

Q: What are the three main issues within aid effectiveness at the moment?

A: One is that the aid effectiveness targets need to be strengthened, meaning that governments recommit to devising clear policies and programmes. An evaluation has shown that developing countries have better performance in aid effectiveness than the donors. It is the donors, who do not have incentives to implement their own commitments and targets, that have been very slow and weak in their performance.

The second issue is the question of human rights-based results. Donors and governments have accepted development effectiveness but not the human rights content. They have re-defined development effectiveness as a generic term in relation to development goals but these are not interpreted in the context of people achieving their rights, they are interpreted in terms of financial performance and institutional development.

We need a strong results agenda but this should be human rights- based. It is not so much how the programmes are implemented, what is more important is that the implementation of aid programmes clearly result in the poor and marginalised, and people in general, in claiming their human rights.

The third is the question of aid architecture. We need to come up with a new document and a new institution that is more equitable, which will accept shared leadership and not impose leadership by developed countries or even the G20 (group of major industrialised and emerging nations).

Q: What will you be hoping for in Busan?

Aid effectiveness as (defined by) the Paris and Accra commitments is not sufficient and will not deliver results. Busan is at an important point in history where … an encompassing framework for development cooperation is possible. (Aid) should be about the traditional donors but it should also include the so-called “new donors” … developing countries who, one way or the other, are engaged in South-South development cooperation. It should include the totality of civil society and other private actors. Within the last two years, many governments are actually talking to civil society platforms about their development programmes, policies, aid programmes and so on because of the aid effectiveness process. In some countries – Indonesia, Philippines, Senegal – civil society is not simply consulted (but) they have been made members of the bodies that oversee aid.

Q: How likely is it that we will come out of Busan with this new architecture?

A: In the full form? 50-50…Whether it will meet the overall definition of an equitable, inclusive aid architecture – that remains to be seen.

Q: What are the political challenges?

A: Politically, you can fit it down to one country, China – and the G77 (the largest single coalition of developing countries). Will these countries accept a Busan compact that is premised on South-South cooperation where China commits to the aid effectiveness of its support to other countries?

If we have a Busan outcome document that is such, it will radically change the future of the OECD (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) because now we will have a new animal that is not the OECD where aid can be mediated in a more equitable fashion.

China and the G77 are conscious that the leadership of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is very much premised on the political and economic interests of those countries. They will not subsume their efforts under that leadership.

In this case, it is an objective shared even by the DAC. The DAC wants China in, it wants everyone in and apparently they (the DAC) are aware of the consequences of that happening or where it will lead.

Q: How has the global economic downturn impacted aid effectiveness?

A: The IMF says that in the context of a recession, it should be given the full powers to impose conditionalities and fiscal restraints – conditionalities to handle sovereign debt, conditionalities to deal with fiscal policies and financial systems.

Civil society organisations have demanded that we should end policy conditionality – not fiduciary conditionality – that is intrusive and often goes against human rights and sovereignty.

You do not need conditionalities if you have the right processes (and) democratically negotiated compacts are made. If you have such democratic processes where citizens are not only consulted but involved in the process of creating the modalities for assistance then these do not become imposed conditionalities. Even then there could be mechanisms to reduce, let us say, the power of the conditions and yet be able to achieve policy reform.

IMF policies are premised on neoliberalist prescriptions and that is why we believe that conditionalities should be ended. We did not get that in Accra, chances are we will not get that at Busan because the IMF is moving heaven and earth to kill that demand.

(END/2011)

BUENOS AIRES, Sep 28 (IPS) – To save the planet from climate change and the loss of biodiversity, we must leave capitalism behind and seek out a less consumerist, more socially just system, insists French environmental journalist Hervé Kempf.

This message underlies all of Kempf’s work, which includes a column in the French daily Le Monde and a number of books, including “How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth”. His latest book, “L’oligarchie ça suffit, vive la démocratie” (Enough With Oligarchy, Long Live Democracy), has just been published in France.

An active participant in the debate on “degrowth”, which challenges the use of GDP growth as the primary indicator of the success of a country or society, Kempf questions the viability of societies guided by consumerism and the search for profit.

The world’s political leaders “continue defending the capitalist system, which I call the oligarchic system,” but they “have to change, and so does the system,” said Kempf in an interview with Tierramérica during a recent visit to Argentina.

Q: Is it possible to reverse the increase in emissions of greenhouse gases that are responsible for climate change?

A: Yes. But at the moment we don’t seem to be headed in that direction. Europe has changed its trajectory and managed to reduce them slightly, and the United States has set a ceiling, but globally, emissions are increasing in the countries of the South.

We must continue pressuring the North, but the big countries of the South, particularly China, which plays a leadership role, should modify their conduct. They want to achieve maximum growth but they are aware of the ecological crisis and that awareness will penetrate increasingly deeper in the countries of the South.

Q: Are you optimistic about the climate change conference beginning at the end of November in South Africa?

A: No, unfortunately. The preparations demonstrate that the situation is rather full of obstacles.

Q: Is the political leadership up to the task?

A: No. Many leaders continue defending the capitalist system, which I call the oligarchic system, and defending interests that run counter to the demands imposed by the ecological crisis. The political leaders have to change, and so does the system.

Q: But there are countries, like Venezuela, that speak out against capitalism, but don’t demonstrate a great deal of environmental awareness.

A: My work is geared more to the countries of the North, which have the responsibility to change the economic model. For the last 15 to 20 years, Latin America has had to become independent from the United States, and adopt more democratic ways and social policies that benefit the poor. Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina are part of this trend. But it is true: they also need to acknowledge the environmental crisis.

Q: Do you think that Rio+20, the United Nations conference to be held in June 2012, will be able to revive the spirit of hope of the 1992 Earth Summit?

A: For the moment it doesn’t look very promising. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has just issued a communiqué on Rio+20 that appears very much aimed at saying, “Development, development, and then we’ll deal with the environment.” It seems like a bad sign to me.

Q: But that’s a statement for the region.

A: Yes, but what I see in Europe and the United States is even worse. There is a total lack of political and media interest in Rio+20. Everyone’s attention is focused on the financial crisis.

Q: What do you think about the concept of the “green economy”?

A: It’s very vague. It appears to be the continuation of capitalism geared more to the environment. But without changing the power of corporations, without reducing energy consumption or confronting social inequality. It’s a new form of capitalism. Moreover, why this new concept, instead of continuing to work on sustainable development, which has the advantage of emphasising social concerns?

Q: Do you think it is a step back?

A: It is a sign that what is viewed as a priority is the economy, when in fact, the economy is not a priority when it comes to the environment. What is most important is to ensure harmony among people and with the environment. The economy isn’t everything.

Q: You did research on the impact of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl (1986). Do you think that what happened on March 11 at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima could help discourage the use of nuclear energy?

A: Fukushima demonstrated that nuclear energy is extremely dangerous, even in a country that is a technology giant like Japan.

Q: In your book you express skepticism about the contribution of wind power…

A: I did it with the North in mind. It seems they are using wind power as an alibi to avoid conserving energy. In the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan, they should reduce energy consumption first and then deal with how to produce it.

Q: What do you recommend for living on a sustainable planet?

A: Establishing the question of social justice as a priority. In a world that is extraordinarily rich from a material perspective, this is key.

Q: And in terms of consumption?

A: Stop watching television.

Q: Can these ideas be promoted in countries where there is still a part of the population with unmet basic needs?

A: Absolutely. I speak as a European, but I believe that in the countries of the South, the challenge could be to reduce inequality.

Q: What do you say to the skeptics who claim that what you propose means going back to the Stone Age?

A: I say that if we continue with this economy that destroys social ties, justice and the environment, then we really will go back to the Stone Age, because social and environmental destruction will expose us to a great deal of violence.

Q: You say in your book that we don’t need to invent anything new, that alternatives already exist.

A: In all areas, local communities create models that fall outside of capitalism. Farming cooperatives, organic agriculture, alternative currencies, renewable energies. There are thousands of experiences that could be linked together in a network.

Q: So you don’t envision a violent transformation.

A: By definition, political ecology envisions a non-violent world. Environmentalists don’t want violence, they want other playing rules. You cannot use means that are contrary to the goal you are pursuing.

* Marcela Valente is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

(END/2011)

Brazil could be a "trusted partner" in South Sudan's negotiations with Sudan, says James Padiet Angok. / Fabíola Ortiz/IPS

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sep 20 (IPS) – The world’s newest nation, South Sudan, is seeking support from Brazil – the first country in the world to recognise the new nation – in learning the art of diplomacy and defusing tensions and persistent conflicts.

South Sudan plans to open an embassy in Brasilia in 2012, the first in South America.

Brazil could be a “trusted partner” to help the new country negotiate with Sudan to the north and learn “how to conduct diplomacy,” said James Padiet Angok, in charge of relations with South America in South Sudan’s recently created Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

“Until now people don’t know that Brazil was the first country that established diplomatic relations with South Sudan, on the first day of our independence,” Angok said when he sat down with IPS for an interview during the Second Course for African Diplomats offered Sep. 12-23 by Brazil’s Foreign Ministry in Rio de Janeiro.

Representatives from Angola, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe are taking part in the course.

Q: How is the construction of the new country’s foreign policy going?

A: Since the time of our independence on the 9th of July, we have started to sit down to try to design our foreign policy and also to determine in which countries we can open our embassies.

We are doing it in three phases: first, the countries where we will start this year, where the mission of South Sudan already had offices, about 21 countries. We started with the most representative such as the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Unfortunately we didn’t have any in South America, we only had offices in Europe, North America and Africa. Now we are just sending our ambassadors and diplomats to those offices that are already established.

The second phase is to add more embassies (up to a total of) 36; Brazil will be one of them, starting next year, 2012.

Then we will add more embassies in Europe, Asia and Africa. In Europe: in Switzerland, Holland and France; in Asia: in India, China, Malaysia, Japan and probably Indonesia.

Q: You are taking part in the Second Course for African Diplomats organised by Brazil’s Foreign Ministry in Rio de Janeiro. Why were you interested? What do you think Brazil can offer the countries of Africa?

A: Three of us came to this course, one to give a lecture. We want to show Brazil our background, how we came to be an independent country. We are here…to learn from Brazil how they conduct their diplomacy, in which areas we can really cooperate with them. This course is very important for us.

One of the important things we can learn from Brazil is diplomacy in party politics; Brazil has succeeded in that. We want also to learn from Brazil the practical part of diplomacy, especially war and peace, in order to resolve problems using diplomacy rather than violence.

Q: Do you believe Brazil can help with your country’s diplomacy and foreign policy?

A: We are trying to establish our diplomatic institute, we want to learn from Brazil how they translate their values in the training programme and then train their diplomats to lead Brazilian diplomacy in a professional way.

We are establishing a new institute, and we discovered that Brazil was one of the best when it comes to the practice of diplomacy, because Brazil manages the interests of the political parties (under the umbrella of) national diplomacy, it doesn’t take sides with any political party, and that is exactly what we want. So if there is any change of government or regime it doesn’t affect the diplomacy, which continues.

Q: Why learn from a developing country rather than looking for support from rich nations?

A: We see Brazil as a developing country and the development gap between us and Brazil is not so wide. At least Brazil is humble towards us, we can learn from Brazil more than from the advanced countries who are sometimes very proud. We find Brazil very welcoming, especially to African countries.

Until now people don’t know that Brazil was the first country that established diplomatic relations with South Sudan, on the first day of our independence. This is very significant.

Q: You don’t see Brazil’s interest, and that of its companies, in Africa as an invasion or a kind of neo-imperialism?

A: Brazil is totally different, it is a welcoming country and it doesn’t meddle in the affairs of other countries, it doesn’t dictate to other countries and doesn’t impose democracy by force.

These are some of the things that have attracted us to Brazil, the hospitality and the non-interference in the affairs of other countries. Brazil can only advise, they tell how they have done things, but they will not force you to do things, and this is the spirit we want really for us.

Q: Five decades of war before South Sudan became independent cost the lives of two million people. And the country is still facing internal tensions and conflicts.

A: Nation building is a challenge. Sudan has been struggling to build a nation in this violent struggle it couldn’t resolve by diplomatic means. The result was separation, but the separation didn’t solve things, the internal problems remain both in the North and the South.

(We think we can find solutions by learning) the way of diplomacy from Brazil. We don’t need to rush into violence when there are differences. Yes we have a lot of tribal (conflicts over land distribution and) oil reserves. A lot of factors can easily draw us into violence, but the best way is how we can learn to resolve by dialogue and negotiation. So the challenges are still great for us; unity of our people is still very difficult.

We have 61 ethnic groups with 61 languages. We believe that in the new generation coming in the future we are going to overcome (the difficulties this poses). Ten years from now, the new generation which was not really involved in the war and violence will resolve differences in a more diplomatic manner. The generation we have now is traumatised because of the long wars.

Q: Independence was officially declared, but the borders between the North and the South have not been demarcated. How will this problem be worked out? Do you advocate “soft borders”, because of the movements of nomadic tribes?

A: This border issue is one of the crucial post-independence issues pending between us and the North. The border with Sudan – about 2,000 km – is the longest border we have. It is a bit tricky because of the aspect of oil along the border, and also the tribal afflictions. When a country divides, if you don’t determine the borders, you won’t know which oil belongs (to which side). The soft border is tricky and it needs negotiation…to divide this oil in a fair manner.

If we just leave it like that without negotiation it can create conflicts. This is what we can learn from Brazil, how to negotiate this, and where Brazil could be of great help to us. We know Brazil doesn’t take sides easily.

We have this issue of the tribes which is connected to the days of the struggle. We have tribes on the border who have been struggling with the people of South Sudan against the regime in Khartoum (the capital of Sudan). But when we divided, by definition they belong to the North – but they feel uneasy and more identified with us in the South.

According to statistics from 2010, the population is 8.5 million in South Sudan, and in (the disputed territory of) Abyei we have like 600,000. The Abyei people originally are Dinka from the South, but by the CPA’s (2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement) definition of the borders they belong to the North.

Now they were given the referendum to decide, but the referendum didn’t take place because it was difficult to determine who really should vote and that’s why we see violence in Abyei.

Regarding the (state of) Blue Nile, they have what they call popular consultation. Within the CPA they are supposed to have a popular consultation done in the parliament, an elected parliament, to determine whether the CPA has given them good peace dividends or not, and if it has not, they can recommend what more can be done.

This didn’t take place so far (because of) the complications with the census. They didn’t accept the census, the people of Blue Nile and (the state of) Southern Kordofan rejected the census because they think it’s not their numbers.

So the census has to be redone and this delayed the popular consultations. Now it is apparent this issue becomes a bit critical because they think they belong to us in the South more than to the North. So now where do they belong to is the dilemma which they have.

This will need a lot of diplomacy, those are people who have had guns for more than 20 years. How do you tell them just to go home and lay down their arms. It is becoming difficult and results in violence, bombing and fighting.

Q: Is there a risk of a new civil war?

A: Yes, the risk is real, but we in the South must control this risk because if we decide to respond today there will be war. But we decided that it is not time for us in the South to get involved in a war, there is no time for us to venture into the affairs of Sudan. We think that these issues should be resolved by diplomacy, not by war.

Q: What is the situation with regard to bringing basic services to the population?

A: We have a big challenge in terms of food security. We don’t produce enough, so we import from Uganda, Kenya and Sudan itself, but these days Sudan has closed its border, so it is very difficult…there is no trade between us and Sudan now.

Most of the oil is in the South but the pipeline goes from the South to the refineries in the North. We decided that we should not close off the oil flow, trade is closed but the pipeline is still working because if we closed it we would have a problem in our budget, 99 percent of which comes from oil. So if the oil (flow is shut down), our budget drops to zero. We are thinking we can negotiate and have trade agreements so they can reopen and we get our food.

The oil goes from us in the South to the North to be refined, but we don’t get fuel from the North, so we get it from Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya. And in Juba (the capital of South Sudan) we are having a crisis regarding fuel.

So far we are still depending on our neighbours. We think the North is an important neighbour for us and we need to negotiate. We think Brazil can help to negotiate and could be a trusted partner who could mediate in a neutral manner. This is the best way to do it.

(END/2011)