By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 13 2022 (IPS)
Calls for more government regulation and intervention are common during crises. But once the crises subside, pressures to reform quickly evaporate and the government is told to withdraw. New financial fads and opportunities are then touted, instead of long needed reforms.
Global financial crisis
The 2007-2009 global financial crisis (GFC) began in the US housing market. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), credit default swaps (CDSs) and other related contracts, many quite ‘novel’, spread the risk worldwide, far beyond US mortgage markets.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Transnational financial ‘neural-like’ networks ensured vulnerability quickly spread to other economies and sectors, despite government efforts to limit contagion. As these were only partially successful, deleveraging – reducing the debt level by hastily selling assets – became inevitable, with all its dire consequences.The GFC also exposed massive resource misallocations due to financial liberalization with minimal regulation of supposedly efficient markets. With growing arbitrage of interest rate differentials, achieving balanced equilibria has become impossible except in mainstream economic models.
Financialization has meant much greater debt and risk exposure as well as vulnerability for many households and firms, e.g., due to ‘term’ (duration) and currency ‘mismatches’, resulting in greater overall financial system fragility.
This has worsened global imbalances, reflected in larger trade and current account deficits and surpluses. In unfavourable circumstances, exposure of firms and households to risky assets and liabilities has been enough to trigger defaults.
Bold fiscal efforts succeeded in inducing modest economic recoveries before they were nipped in the bud soon after the ‘green shoots of recovery’ appeared. Instead, the US Fed initiated ‘unconventional’ monetary policies, offering easy credit with ‘quantitative easing’.
Currencies in flux
The seemingly coordinated rise of various, apparently unconnected asset prices cannot be explained by conventional economics. Thus, speculation in commodity, currency and stock markets has been grudgingly acknowledged as worsening the GFC.
The exchange rates of many currencies have also come under greater pressure as residents borrowed in low interest rate currencies such as the Japanese yen. In turn, they have typically bought financial assets promising higher returns.
Thus, higher interest rates attract capital inflows, raising most domestic asset prices. Exchange rate movements are supposed to reflect comparative national economic strengths, but rarely do so. But conventional monetary responses worsen, rather than mitigate, contractionary tendencies.
Globalization of trade and finance has generated contradictory pressures. All countries are under pressure to generate trade or current account surpluses. But this, of course, is impossible as not all economies can run surpluses simultaneously.
Many try to do so by devaluing their currencies or cutting costs by other means. But only the US can use its ‘exorbitant privilege’ to maintain both budgetary and current account deficits by simply issuing Treasury bonds.
Currency markets can also undermine such efforts by enabling arbitrage on interest rate differentials. International imbalances have worsened, as seen in larger current account deficits and surpluses.
Contrary to mainstream economics, currency speculation does not equilibrate national, let alone international markets. It does not reflect economic fundamentals, ensuring exchange rate volatility, to damaging effect.
Commodity speculation
Thanks to currency mismatches, many companies and households face greater risk. Exchange rate fluctuations, in turn, exacerbate price volatility and its harmful consequences, which vary with circumstances.
Changes in ‘fundamentals’ no longer explain commodity price volatility. Meanwhile, more commodity speculation has resulted in greater price volatility and higher prices for food, oil, metals and other raw materials.
These prices have been driven by much more speculation, often involving indexed funds trading in real assets. The resulting price volatility especially affects everyone, as food consumers, and developing countries’ agricultural producers.
Sharp increases in commodity prices since mid-2007 were largely driven by speculation, mainly involving indexed funds. With the Great Recession following the GFC, most commodity producers in developing countries faced difficulties.
Since then, nearly all commodity prices fell from the mid-2010s as the world economic slowdown showed no sign of abating until economic sanctions in 2022 pushed up food, energy, fertilizer and other prices once again.
Besides hurting export revenues, lower commodity prices and even greater volatility have accelerated depreciation of earlier investments in equipment and infrastructure following the commodity price spikes.
Integrated solutions needed
The uneven financial system meltdown following the GFC raised expectations that ‘finance-as-usual’ would never return. But lasting solutions to threats, such as currency and commodity speculation, require international cooperation and regulation.
Meanwhile, goods and financial markets have become more interconnected. Thus, a truly multilateral and cooperative approach has to be found in the complex interconnections involving international trade and finance.
In this asymmetrically interdependent world, policy reforms are urgently needed. All countries need to be able to pursue appropriate countercyclical macroeconomic policies. Also, small economies should be able to achieve exchange rate stability at affordably low cost.
Although prompt actions were undertaken in response to the GFC, the world economy experienced a protracted slowdown, the ‘Great Recession’. Myopic policymakers in most developed economies focus on perceived national risks, ignoring international ones, especially those affecting developing countries.
Contrary to widespread popular presumption, the Bretton Woods multilateral monetary and financial arrangements did not include a regulatory regime. Nor has such a regime emerged since, even after US President Nixon unilaterally ended the Bretton Woods system in 1971.
With the gagged voice of developing countries in international financial institutions and markets, the United Nations must lead, as it did in the mid-1940s.
It is the only world institution which could legitimately develop a better alternative. Thankfully, the UN Charter assigns it responsibility to lead efforts to do so.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Despite the necessity of refining green marine fuels, Mexico lacks a plan to transit towards those varieties. In the imagen, some ships wait for arrival at the port of Veracruz, in the state of the same name, in in the southeast of the country, in August 2022. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS
By Emilio Godoy
VERACRUZ, Mexico, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)
By 2025, the state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) should comply with Mexican regulations to produce clean fuels, including marine ones, but there’s an obstacle: Mexico lacks a plan for the development of cleaner marine fuels.
Clean gasoline is expected to be processed in the Dos Bocas refinery, located in the southeastern state of Tabasco, which would begin operations in 2023, with a capacity to process 170,000 barrels of gasoline and 120,000 barrels of ultra-low sulfur diesel daily, to prop up domestic production and thus cushion dependence on imports, especially from the United States.
Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the burning of high-sulfur fuels, derived as a residue from crude oil distillation, lead to sulfurous particles in the air, which can trigger asthma and worsen heart and lung diseases, as well as threaten marine and land ecosystems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
SO2 lasts only a few days in the atmosphere, but when dissolved in water it generates acids that lend it its dangerous nature to human health.
Meanwhile, the emissions of nitrous dioxide (NOx), derived also from hydrocarbon consumption, stream into smog, when mixed with ground-level ozone. NOx remains 114 years in the atmosphere, according to several scientific studies.
Finally, CO2 pollution contributes to the climate crisis. Global greenhouse gas emissions from shipping grew from 977 million tons of CO2 in 2012 to 1 076 million in 2018 – an expansion of 9,6% – and could increase 90%-130% by 2050, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Its total level went from 2,76% to 2,89% in that period. Between 2021 to 2030, the sector needs a 15% curtailment to meet the climate goals.
In water, hydrocarbons block the entry of light and limit the photosynthesis of algae and other plants, and in fauna they can cause poisoning, alterations of reproductive cycles and intoxication, EPA adds.
But Mexico lacks measurements of atmospheric and marine pollution. Nor does it have roadmaps for its reduction or concrete plans to produce marine fuels with reduced sulfur content, an element harmful to human health and the environment.
The production of green fuels is vital for maritime transport, whose main consumer in Mexico is the national fleet, and Pemex would play a prominet role in it.
The fact is that the national oil company “has no capacity to refine clean fuels, nor does it intend to do so,” said Rodolfo Navarro, director of the non-governmental company Comunicar para Conservar, established in the area of Cozumel, in the southeastern state of Quintana Roo and one of the largest cruise ships receiver in the world.
The 2021 report “Mexico: Promoting the Future of Mexico’s Maritime Transport Role in Transforming Global Transport through Green Hydrogen Derivatives” calculated international ships departing at Mexico emitted 7,85 million tons of CO2, 10 874 of SO2, 18 920 of NOx and 3 200 tons of particulate matter in 2018.
The report, prepared by the non-governmental organization Getting to Zero Coalition and the global platform Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030, estimated international arrivals to Mexico released into the atmosphere 10,35 million tons of CO2, 14 947 of SO2, 25 697 of NOx and 4 300 tons of particulate matter.
The national shipping industry was responsible for the emission of 1,67 million tons of CO2, 20 370 of SO2, 33 870 of NOx and 5 710 of particulate matter in 2018.
As of 2020, IMO has applied regulations limiting the sulfur content used on cargo ships to 0,5%, from 3,5%. Thus, the agency will need to reduce pollution by 77%, equivalent to 8,5 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2).
A marine diesel truck pump at Ensenada, in the northwestern state of Baja California, property of Pemex and a private partner. Credit: Pemex
A needed national contribution
From December 2018, 15 parts per million (ppm) ultra-low sulfur diesel has been sold in Mexico, while all gasoline must have a content of 30-80 ppm.
The regulation on oil quality also stipulated a timeline for the reduction of sulfur in gasoline and diesel in a range of 15-30 ppm. The lower that amount, the less sulfur and the better for the vehicle’s engines, because they function more efficiently. But despite the progress, Pemex never fully complied with that standard. Meanwhile, the limit for agricultural and marine diesel stands at 500 ppm, meaning it is much more laden with sulfur.
Since 2018, Pemex’s domestic sales of marine diesel have fallen. That year it distributed 12,150 barrels per day. In 2019 sales fell to 10,670, the following year, to 7,260; in 2021, to 6,700, and last May they jumped to 9,218 barrels, according to figures from the state company.
Marine diesel has more energy density because a motorboat needs more power than a land vehicle.
A similar phenomenon has occurred with intermediate 15 (IFO), a residual fuel produced from the distillation of crude oil – and diesel – a lighter fuel –, and whose sales totaled 1,850 barrels per day in 2018, 1,290 in 2019, 1,100 in 2020, 940 in 2021 and 840 as of last May.
This data indicates, on one hand, that domestic ships tend to consume more marine diesel than IFO 15, which is more polluting. On the other hand, it would be easier to replace this with green fuels.
The Mexican fleet comprises 2 697 vessels, including fishing vessels, tankers, freighters, and containers. By 2030, these would emit 6 963 tons of NOx, docked ships would emit 528 235 tons and cargo handling would be responsible for 3 752 tons. Regarding SO2, these indicators would add up to 861, 65 294 and 276 tons, respectively. Maritime transport would release 277 tons of particulate matter and docked ships, 20 970, according to projections by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Big ship cruisers docked in Cozumel, one of the biggest ports of the world that receive this type of recreational ships, in southeast Mexico. Credit: Government of Quintana Roo
Insufficient progress
Mexico should introduce other policies beyond clean diesel refining, according to Alison Shaw, policy lead at the University College of London’s Energy Institute Shipping Group.
“While clean diesel may offer a bridging fuel for some sectors, perhaps for public transport or trucking, the deep-sea commercial shipping industry still widely relies on heavy fuel oil and this sector’s transition is about moving from fossil fuels entirely,” she wrote in an email to IPS.
The specialist highlighted the production of clean diesel doesn’t cut GHG in the same level as scalable zero-emissions fuels, such as hydrogen or ammonia, and it would just be a small, temporary improvement. “It’s not the solution for the maritime industry,” she emphasized.
Some reports stress the Mexican potential to transition to a sustainable maritime shipping industry.
The Getting to Zero Coalition’s and Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030’s study underlined that Mexico could become a central player in supplying global demand for green fuel and attract investment of between 7-9 billion dollars by 2030.
The paper underscores that this Latin American country has “huge renewable energy potential” and direct access to busy maritime routes.
The ports of Manzanillo, Mexico’s largest; Cozumel, specialized in cruise ships; and Coatzacoalcos, focused on the export and import of oil and gas and their derivatives, could show how different types of facilities in Mexico could capitalize on a transition to pollution elimination. This transition would diversify current port activities and create a hub for the production and export of zero-carbon fuels.
Small ferries transport passengers to spend the day in Cozumel island, the biggest in Mexico’s Caribbean, off the touristic Mayan Riviera, in the state of Quintana Roo, in the southeastern Yucatan Peninsula. Credit: Emilio Godoy/ IPS
According to Eliana Barleta, independent expert in shipping and ports, the substitution options are mainly low-sulfur fuel, liquified gas – both fossil fuels – or scrubbers’ (filters) installation on ships. These are control devices that can be used to remove some gasses from industrial exhaust streams.
“The port location, the number and type of ships that arrive to it, are all important aspects to understand the fuel choice and the infrastructure solutions. Some maritime fuel applications will be more appropriate for the quick adoption of zero-emissions new fuels. The largest ships, like bulk carriers that travel between a small number of big ports, are very suitable for early adoption, because it’s much likely the biggest ports can offer fuel supply agreements, and the same largest ships’ regular demand will support the investment,” she said to IPS.
But the ships that visit more destinations or smaller ports could have problems finding installations that could supply the new fuels, so it may take longer for them to adopt zero-carbon alternatives.
The international maritime sector considers hydrogen, its byproduct methanol and ammonia to be viable as fuels. Due to its safety and energetic potential, methanol seems to take the lead in comparison with the other two alternatives, according to two recent studies.
The problem lies in the Secretary of Energy’s refusal to promote clean fuels, said one anonymous source from the maritime sector to IPS.
The scenarios collide with the fossil fuel-supporting policies that the president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has applied since December 2018, when he took office, and that focus on enhancing Pemex’s operations, as the transition to cleaner energy and fuels is paused.
Pemex and the Secretary of Energy didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Alison Shaw, the British expert, foresaw one possible effect of these policies would be Mexico’s late entrance to that market.
“Mexico’s energy policies risk locking the country into a soon-to-be outdated energy infrastructure and forgoing the sustainable development advantages associated with engaging in renewable energy and green fuel production,” she critiqued.
The scholar foresaw that maritime transportation will be an important market for new green fuels and will source their supply wherever it is available, which would mean “if Mexico doesn’t produce and provide green fuels, it might enter a crowded market down the line.”
For Barleta, the shipping expert, the production of green fuels seems to be a regional opportunity. “All nations should have access to opportunities related to the decarbonization of global maritime transportation. Many countries are well situated to become competitive suppliers of zero-carbon fuels, like green ammonia and hydrogen,” she suggested.
But there are important issues to resolve. “Which are the most appropriate engines and fuels? Which is the fuel with the lowest impact (as fuels may have reduced carbon, but release other pollutants)? Which trade routes may favor decarbonization, without affecting normal commercial performance?”, she questioned.
IPS produced this article with support from Internews’ Earth Journalism Network.
Related Articles
New York City, January 5, 2020: People marching from Manhattan to Brooklyn against the rise in antisemitism in New York. Antisemitic incidents reached an all-time high in the United States in 2021. Credit: Shutterstock.
By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)
It’s time to step up, speak out and object to antisemitism. Antisemitic remarks, behavior and events cannot continue to be swept under the rug, unethically edited for political media consumption, or ignored in hopes that they will simply go away.
Events several weeks ago as well as those from the recent past that took place at the highest political levels of an advanced developed country, the United States, are indicative of the worrisome rising trend of antisemitism in many parts of the world.
On 22 November former president Trump had dinner at his home with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and antisemite Kanye “Ye” West. The notorious event was followed by the largely silent responses of many Republican officials and leaders, including some seeking the presidential office.
The repeated behavior and words of the former president, including his troubling response to the Charlottesville tragedy in 2017, and the tepid reactions to antisemitism by most of his supporters legitimizes the animosity expressed toward Jewish Americans.
Such behavior and remarks cannot be excused as being insignificant instances that have been blown out of proportion by the news media. Nor can they be simply deflected, diminished or explained away with references to irrelevant overseas diversions.
The former president and his various enablers have minimized, dismissed and legitimized antisemitism events in the United States, including harassment, threats, vandalism, assaults, killings and bombings. The failures to address the antisemitism facing America are inexcusable, disgraceful and dangerous.
The Jewish population of the United States is a relatively small proportion of the country. In 2022 Jewish Americans are estimated to represent slightly more than two percent of America’s population of 333 million inhabitants. In contrast, the largest religious group, Christians, is close to two-thirds of country’s population (Figure 1)
Source: PEW Research.
Despite Jewish Americans representing a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population, the number of reported antisemitic incidents involving assault, harassment and vandalism reached an all-time high in 2021 of 2,717, or more than seven incidents per day and nearly triple the level in 2015 (Figure 2).
Source: Anti-Defamation League.
The reprehensible incidents of the recent past took place in various places across the United States, including in places of worship, community centers, schools and colleges. The motivations for the antisemitism were not always evident as they typically lacked an identifiable ideology or belief system.
One notable exception, however, is the “great replacement” theory being promoted by U.S. white supremacist groups. They believe in the conspiracy that white Christians are being intentionally replaced in the population by individuals of other races through immigration and other means.
That great replacement, they believe, is leading to white Christians no longer being the dominant majority in America. In their various demonstrations and gatherings, including the Charlottesville event in 2017, the neo-Nazi marchers often chant out such hateful antisemitic nonsense as ”Jews will not replace us”.
The former president and his various enablers have minimized, dismissed and legitimized antisemitism events in the United States, including harassment, threats, vandalism, assaults, killings and bombings. The failures to address the antisemitism facing America are inexcusable, disgraceful and dangerous
In the American Jewish Committee’s “The State of Antisemitism in America 2021” report, an estimated 60 percent of U.S. adults indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country. However, approximately one-quarter of the respondents felt that antisemitism wasn’t a problem for the country.
In contrast, some 90 percent of Jewish Americans in the report indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country and approximately three-quarters of Jewish Americans felt that there is more antisemitism in the country today than there was about five years ago. A majority of Jewish Americans, 53 percent, reported feeling personally less safe than they did in 2015.
Contributing to antisemitism is the apparent self-induced amnesia among some extremist groups regarding the methodical persecution followed by the horrendous events that were committed against Europe’s Jews approximately eight decades ago. That amnesia is easily dispelled by a viewing of the illuminating Ken Burns’ documentary, “The U.S. and the Holocaust”. The Holocaust resulted in the murder of approximately six million European Jews, or roughly 63 percent of Europe’s Jewish population at the time.
Sadly, antisemitism was also evident in America’s refugee policy with respect to European Jews seeking asylum from their harrowing persecution in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps the most memorable single event reflecting its ignoble refugee policy in the past is the refusal of the U.S. government in 1939 to grant entry to about 900 Jewish refugees seeking asylum aboard the USS St. Louis that had reached Miami, Florida. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where nearly one third of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.
In addition, America too often has chosen to ignore its troubling antisemitic past and the many popular figures who were openly antisemitic in their public attacks on the character and patriotism of Jewish Americans. Among those ignoble figures are Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Coughlin, Fritz Kuhn, Coco Chanel and Louis Farrakhan.
Furthermore, besides facing educational quotas at major universities in the 1920s, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, Jewish Americans experienced discrimination among the major professions and restrictions on residential housing. They were also denied membership to most clubs, camps, resorts and associations, with some hotel advertisements explicitly excluding Jewish Americans.
While that recent tragic history remains beyond doubt, many of America’s antisemitic white supremacists, including Fuentes and West, continue to deny the existence of the Holocaust, express hateful rhetoric and discriminate against Jewish Americans. They attempt to negate the historical facts of the Nazi genocide, promote the false claim that the Holocaust was invented or greatly exaggerated in order to promote the Jewish interests, and display the Nazi swastika flag and make the “Heil Hitler” gesture.
Antisemitism also fueled vocal criticism and opposition to many U.S. political leaders in the past who attempted to address the discrimination against Jewish Americans. For example, at conference of some 20,000 people in New York City in 1939, Fritz Kuhn, leader of the German American Bund, mocked President Franklin Roosevelt as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, referred to the New Deal as the “Jew Deal”, and declared Jews to be enemies of the United States.
Some current U.S. political leaders, including some eagerly seeking to become president, continue to dismiss or ignore antisemitism. When confronted with offensive behavior and words such as the former president’s recent dining with two notorious antisemites, the initial reluctance verging on muteness of many political leaders to express outrage only contributes to antisemitism.
No matter the place, occasion or time, the U.S. electorate cannot tolerate or support those who promote, permit or condone antisemitism. In particular, U.S. elected and appointed government officials must be held accountable for their words and deeds.
An encouraging development in the U.S. was a letter recently signed by more than one hundred members of Congress to President Biden calling for a unified national strategy to monitor and combat antisemitism in the country. The letter also recognized that rising antisemitism is endangering people in Jewish communities both in the U.S. and abroad
Another encouraging development aimed at recognizing the rise of antisemitism was the 2022 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism. More than 25 mayors from around the world and dozens of local government officials participated in the two-day Summit held in Athens, Greece, from 30 November to 1 December.
The Summit highlighted the significant problem of rising antisemitism worldwide and presented strategies and solutions to address it. Various countries around the world have reported a rise in antisemitic incidents between 2020 and 2021. In addition to the rise of incidents of approximately one-third in the United States, higher percentage rises were reported in Australia, Canada and France (Figure 3).
Source: Antisemitism Worldwide Report 2021.
The Mayors Summit also provided a framework for exchange of ideas and cooperation between cities. The meeting also emphasized the particular role of mayors in creating inclusive societies for their cities.
Finally, recalling the tragic lessons of the recent past and troubled by today’s rising antisemitism, it’s time for everyone to speak out and denounce the hate, discrimination and violence. Tolerating antisemitism is categorically wrong and poses a serious moral threat to the world in the 21st century.
Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”
By External Source
Dec 12 2022 (IPS-Partners)
A joint mission to Ethiopia by Education Cannot Wait (ECW), and Norway’s International Development Minister has drawn attention to one of the world’s largest education crises that have left 3.6 million children out of school. The number of out-of-school children has spiked from 3.1 million to 3.6 million, according to UNICEF. However, ECW-funded schools provide children with ‘whole-of-child’ interventions, including school feeding, psychosocial support, teacher training, school materials, accelerated learning, gender transformative approaches, and the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities.
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
The author is Executive Director, Financial Transparency Coalition
By Matti Kohonen
LONDON, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)
The European Court of Justice on November 22, 2022, made a ruling that reversed much of the progress we have made in a decade in the fight against corruption, economic and natural resource crimes, tax abuses and other forms of illicit financial flows across the world. In the ruling, the court declared invalid the part of the European Union’s Anti Money Laundering Directive that allowed public access to registries about companies’ beneficial owners (that is, the real people who own or actually control them).
Matti Kohonen
This has a direct impact in the fight against environmental crimes, particularly illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing which is devastating the world’s fisheries resources, accounting for up to one-fifth of global catches.The financial secrecy surrounding the owners of vessels is a key driver of IUU fishing as secrecy makes it harder to catch the real perpetrators of this illegal trade. In a report published by the Financial Transparency Coalition in October 2022, we discovered that among the top 10 operators of vessels reported to be engaged in this illicit practice, one was based in Spain while a total of 30 vessels were flagged to Italy, making it the highest European flag jurisdiction for IUU fishing. In total, we found that 12.8% of all vessels engaged in IUU fishing were flagged to a European country.
The ECJ ruling makes it impossible for a member of the public to investigate these linkages further. In Spain and Italy, the commitment to open up the registry was made in principle but remains unimplemented. This decision takes all pressure off to implement open beneficial ownership registries in these two countries that are most responsible for IUU fishing in the continent.
This is a welcome present to owners of IUU fishing vessels who often use complex corporate structures to hide their identities and evade punishment. Underscoring this problem, in our investigation we found the individual shareholder data was only available for 16% of industrial and semi-industrial vessels engaged in IUU fishing.
But the ECJ’s ruling impact will be felt well beyond Europe’s borders. Most of the world’s IUU fishing takes place in Africa which loses US$11.5bn in illicit financial flows linked to IUU fishing every year. A significant proportion of this illicit catch in Africa is caught in West Africa, with US$9.5bn losses in this region alone, with much of the fish caught there by foreign fleets ending up in Europe. In total, the European continent imports some US$14bn worth of seafood from the global South each year, making it a key market for seafood products.
The court’s decisions rested on a narrow interpretation of the purpose of the beneficial ownership registry, limited to fighting money laundering and terrorist financing. Fishing related offences are not yet recognised as ‘natural resource crimes’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global anti-money laundering regulator, while illegal logging and illegal wildlife trade (IWT) related offences are already included in their definition of what constitutes money laundering. If this were to be upgraded by FATF, we could claim most, if not all, IUU fishing offences as money laundering crimes.
The ECJ decision also rests on a narrow interpretation of the ‘right to private life’ as a fundamental civil right as subscribed in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that partly lays the legal foundation for the EU. Worryingly, the court did not consider any evidence of the benefits of public access to beneficial ownership information in both fighting money laundering and terrorist financing, let alone the risks that natural resource crimes pose to other rights, such as the right to a healthy environment recognised as a human right by the UN General Assembly in 2022.
Ultimately, the real winners of this ruling are the thousands of companies engaged in IUU fishing and other environmental crimes across the world, and which benefit from money laundering at the tune of billions of euros per year. The ruling undermines collective action to make the money trail of these crimes more traceable, at a time when countries especially in the global South are desperate for funds amid a cost of living crisis and high inflation.
Reacting to the ruling, the European Council signalled that member states should ensure that any natural or legal person demonstrating a legitimate interest has access to information held in the beneficial ownership registers, including especially journalists and civil society organisations as long as they can demonstrate legitimate interest in relation with fighting money laundering and terrorist financing.
However, this is insufficient since this will likely only apply to journalists and civil society in the same country as the registry, and application processes generally take a long time. Also one will need to know the company of interest before accessing any information, blocking the option of looking through public registries to spot risks and red flags.
The EU Parliament should be expected to start negotiations on a new anti-money laundering directive next spring. It must not allow the ECJ ruling to stand, for everyone’s sake.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
The author is Executive Director, Financial Transparency CoalitionCredit: United Nations
By Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)
Three weeks have gone by since the much-ballyhooed mega-gathering of the 27th Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), generally known by its easy-to-say-and-remember title – COP27, concluded at the resort city Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt.
This year the annual rotational hosting of COP was the turn of Africa attended in total by 33,449 people, including 16,118 delegates from Parties, 13,981 observers, and 3,350 members of the media.
Think of the carbon footprint logged by the onrush of this huge crowd! Last COP26 in Glasgow in the United Kingdom – delayed by one year due to Covid – was the turn of West European and Others turn and the next one – COP28 – will be Asia’s turn and host would be the United Arab Emirates’ wonder-city Dubai.
ELUSIVE LOSS AND DAMAGE FUND?
Overshooting the scheduled date of closure on Friday 18 November by two days, COP27 finally ended on Sunday 20 November. This unusual delay was needed to pressurize the industrialized countries, the so-called developed nations, which finally gave up their three-decade long unjust, irrational, and steadfast opposition and agreed to creating a fund to help countries ravaged by consequences of climate change.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
Citing legal implications for using the easily understandable term “compensation”, the foot-draggers prefer to call it a “loss and damage fund”. Yes, that is the in-principle agreement to use the term “fund”. That has been touted by the media as a breakthrough, a major success, a first-ever agreement, end of the deadlock.
Knowledgeable observers of the COP negotiations are of the opinion that such high-octane excitement – regret the use of this fossil fuel related term – was simply naïve and could have been a tactic of the fossil-fuel lobby to divert attention away from the failure of COP27 to include the much-needed agreement on serious measures to cut in the emissions.
HEARTBREAKING INDIFFERENCE:
While COP27 outcome is overplayed highlighting the agreement to create the Loss and Damage fund. On the other hand, there is an uncanny silence about the decision taken on women and climate change issues. A totally different picture emerges on this core issue, may be not considered by the media as well as country delegations and their leaders worthy of attention.
Some NGOs observed that while the media was flashing the agreement on the “compensation” fund as “Breaking News”, for them the total indifference to the relevance of gender and climate change was “Heartbreaking News”.
EARTH SUMMIT INITIATED CLIMATE ACTION:
The international political response to climate change began with the 1992 adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It sets out the basic legal framework and principles for international climate change cooperation.
The Convention, which entered into force on 21 March 1994, has 198 parties. To boost the effectiveness of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December 1997. In December 2015, parties adopted the much-highlighted Paris Agreement.
The first Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (COP1) took place in Berlin in 1995.
GENDER ACTION PLAN:
At COP25 in 2019 in Madrid, Parties agreed a 5-year enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender and its Gender Action Plan (GAP). In 2014 the COP20 in Lima established the first Lima Work Programme on Gender (LWPG) to advance gender balance and integrate gender considerations into the work of Parties and the UNFCCC secretariat in implementing the Convention and the Paris Agreement so as to achieve gender responsive climate policy and action. COP22 in Marrakech decided on a three-year extension of the LWPG, with a review at COP25, and the first GAP under the UNFCCC was established at COP23 in 2017 in Bonn.
Gender inequality coupled with the climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It poses threats to ways of life, livelihoods, health, safety and security for women and girls around the world.
CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GENDER NEUTRAL:
Women are disproportionately impacted by climate change but are also left out of decision-making. They are overwhelmingly displaced by climate disasters and are over 14 times more likely to be killed by climate-linked disasters, according to the UN Human Rights Commission. In spite of their vulnerability to climate insecurities, women are active agents and effective promoters of climate adaptation and mitigation.
In a recently published book, ‘Climate Hazards, Disasters and Gender Ramifications’, Catarina Kinnvall and Helle Rydstrom examine the gendered politics of disaster and climate change and argue that gender hierarchies, patriarchal structures and masculinity are closely related to female vulnerability to climate disaster.
The climate crisis is not “gender neutral”. Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of climate change, which amplifies existing gender inequalities and poses unique threats to their livelihoods, health, and safety.
CLIMATE CHANGE AS THREAT MULTIPLIER FOR WOMEN:
Climate change is a “threat multiplier”, meaning it escalates social, political, and economic tensions in fragile and conflict-affected settings. As climate change drives conflict across the world, women and girls face increased vulnerabilities to all forms of gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence, human trafficking, child marriage, and other forms of violence.
In March this year, the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) considered for the first time questions of gender equality and climate change. It recognized that in view of the existential threat posed by climate change, the world needs not only global solidarity, but also requires concrete, transformative climate action, with women’s and girls’ involvement at its heart.
UN WOMEN ASSERTS GENDER EQUALITY CENTRAL TO CLIMATE ACTION:
In her remarks at the Conference, UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous asserted that “UN Women is here at COP27 to challenge the world to focus on gender-equality as central to climate action and to offer concrete solutions.” She highlighted pointedly that “Climate change and gender inequality are interwoven challenges. We will not meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal, or any other goal, without gender equality and the full contribution of women and girls.”
Ms. Bahous rightly underscored at COP27 that “Eighty per cent of all people displaced by climate emergencies are women and girls. The impacts of the climate crisis have a distinctly female face.”
COP27 UNDERPERFORMS FOR GENDER:
But this articulated and substantive core of the issues in UNFCCC and COP did not get the needed attention. There was a basically housekeeping decision titled “Intermediate review of the implementation of the gender action plan” with many paragraphs beginning with “Notes with appreciation”, “Also notes with appreciation”, “Welcomes”, “Encourages”. The decision reads as if Parties are more beholden to the UNFCCC secretariat than to women and girls of the world.
COP27 took a so-called “cover decision” during extended period on 20 November on the “intermediate midterm review of the GAP” underscoring the need to promote efforts towards gender balance and improve inclusivity in the UNFCCC process by inviting future COP Presidencies to nominate women as UN High-Level Champions for Climate Action (embarrassingly, both the current Champions are men nominated by COPs 26 & 27 Presidents); and requesting Parties to promote greater gender balance in national delegations, as well as the Secretariat, relevant presiding officers, and event organizers to promote gender-balanced events.
It also encourages parties and relevant public and private entities to strengthen the gender responsiveness of climate finance. The decision also requests the Secretariat to support the attendance of national gender and climate change focal points at relevant mandated UNFCCC meetings.
The decision ends with the paragraph 22 which says that “Requests that the actions of the secretariat called for in this decision be undertaken subject to the availability of financial resources”. What an awful paragraph to be included in the decision on the implementation of the Gender Action Plan (GAP). Some participants quipped that the paragraph was reflecting the ubiquitous gender GAP at every aspect of human activity.
The cover decision on gender at COP27 showed starkly that since the GAP was adopted at COP23 in 2017, nothing much has progressed in terms of gender balance, inclusivity, and representation in the climate change context.
The omnibus cover decision titled “Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan” encouraged “Parties to increase the full, meaningful and equal participation of women in climate action and to ensure gender-responsive implementation… including by fully implementing the Lima Work Programme on Gender and its Gender Action Plan …” It also invited “Parties to provide support to developing countries for undertaking gender-related action and implementing the Gender Action Plan.”
If the record of COPs is considered on gender and climate issues, there is no scope, no hope for optimism. To make this contention plausible and widely accepted, this opinion-piece quotes extensively the civil society leaders whose organizations have credibility, expertise, and experience.
MEN & GENDER ADVOCATES OUTRAGED:
The Women and Gender Constituency (WGC), the platform for the civil society working to ensure women’s rights and gender justice within the UNFCCC framework, has been one of the most vocal entities on the decisions of COP27.
In a press release after its conclusion on 20 November 2022, the WGC said that “As feminists and women’s rights advocates strategized daily to advocate for gender-just and human rights-based climate action, negotiators once again ignored the urgency of our current climate crisis.”
The WGC is a coalition of NGOs established in 2009 and is recognized as official observer by the UNFCCC Secretariat in 2011. It is one of the nine stakeholder groups of the UNFCCC, consisting currently of 33 women’s and environmental civil society organizations and a network of more than 600 individuals and feminist organizations or movements.
The WGC asserts that “Together we ensure that women’s voices are heard, and we demand the full realization of their rights and priorities throughout all UNFCCC processes and Agenda 2030.”
Calling COP27 outcome as failed talks, the civil society activists for gender and climate change, expressed their disappointment in strong terms about the exclusive negotiations, saying that “We condemn the fact that negotiators played politicking and wordsmithing at the cost of substance and action to deliver climate justice. “
“COP27 gave us crumbs, with some concessions here and there. But these come at a very high cost of sacrificing the healing of the planet with no real carbon emissions reduction from historical and current emitters. This is unacceptable!” said Tetet Lauron of Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, Philippines in a public statement.
As COP27 was the platform for the scheduled mid-term review of the UNFCCC Gender Action Plan, the WGC left COP27 “deeply disappointed with the process and outcome.”
Marisa Hutchinson of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch (IWRAW) Asia Pacific, Malaysia articulated this publicly by saying that “The WGC recognizes an eleventh hour decision under the Gender Action Plan but we remain deeply frustrated with the total lack of substantive review that occurred here and in the lead up to COP.
Gender experts and women’s rights advocates were left out of the rooms while Parties tinkered at the edges of weak and vague text that failed to advance critical issues at this intersection, nor deliver adequate funding. We demand that the social protection of women and girls in all their diversity be at the forefront of the gender and climate change negotiations of the UNFCCC.”
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations, former Ambassador of Bangladesh to the UN and former President of the Security Council.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
Part One of ThreeAt the 17th Internet Governance Forum (GF) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which concluded December 2. Credit: Daniel Getachew/UN ECA
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)
The digital divide – between the world’s rich and poor nations —remains staggeringly wide.
For over 2.7 billion people, many of them living in developing and least developed countries (LDCs), meaningful connectivity remains elusive, according to a UN report released during the 17th Internet Governance Forum in Addis Ababa, last month.
“Bridging the gap will be a catalyst for advancing an open, free, secure and inclusive Internet, and achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) “
Africa is one of the regions which is the least connected, with 60 per cent of the population offline, due to a combination of lack of access, affordability and skills training.
Africa’s burgeoning youth population, however, holds the key to transforming the region’s digital future. There is immense potential in empowering youth to thrive in a digital economy and leapfrogging technologies, says the UN.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres says. “With the right policies in place, digital technology can give an unprecedented boost to sustainable development, particularly for the poorest countries”.
This calls for more connectivity; and less digital fragmentation. More bridges across digital divides; and fewer barriers. Greater autonomy for ordinary people; less abuse and disinformation, he declared.
While COVID-19 accelerated digital transformation in some sectors like health and education, it also exacerbated various forms of digital inequality, running deep along social and economic lines, says the UN report.
Globally, more men use the Internet (at 62 per cent compared with 57 per cent of women). And in nearly all countries where data are available, rates of Internet use are higher for those with more education.
Besides the digital divide– between the world’s “haves and have-nots”– there is also a marked increase in “gender divide”. In Africa, only 21 % of women have access to the Internet. The gender divide starts early as Internet use is four times greater for boys than for girls.
Emma Gibson, the Campaign Lead, Universal Digital Rights, for Equality Now, told IPS challenges in our digital society, including unequal access to digital technology and platforms, online gender-based and sexual violence, internet shutdowns, and AI and algorithmic biases, profoundly affected those with the least power and privilege.
“Women, children, and people in other groups facing discrimination are all disproportionately impacted”, she said.
“Widespread patriarchy and misogyny found in the physical world are being replicated, exacerbated, and facilitated in the digital realm, with violence against women and children perpetrated online on a huge scale”.
Offenders are rarely held to account, and this is unsurprising considering that there is currently no universal standard for ending online sexual exploitation and abuse.
“From the explosion in online violence towards women and girls to the threats posed by internet shutdowns, it is clear that there is an urgent need to bring in a new global agreement to protect our human rights in the digital world”.
“All of us have a right to safety, freedom, and dignity in the digital space, and the Internet needs to work in our interests, not against them”, declared Gibson.
The increase in Internet use has also paved the way for the proliferation of its dark side, with the rampant spread of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, the regular occurrence of data breaches, and an increase in cybercrimes, according to the UN.
“Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition documented 182 Internet shutdowns in 34 countries in 2021, an increase from 159 shutdowns recorded in 29 countries in 2020, demonstrating the power governments have in controlling information in the digital space.”
The theme of Addis Ababa Forum, “Resilient Internet for a Shared Sustainable and Common Future”, called for collective actions and a shared responsibility to connect all people and safeguard human rights; avoid Internet fragmentation; govern data and protect privacy; enable safety, security and accountability; and address advanced digital technologies.
“The Internet is the platform that will accelerate progress towards the SDGs. Our collective task is to unleash the power and potential of a resilient Internet for our shared sustainable and common future,” said Li Junhua, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, during the Internet Governance Forum.
Gibson of Equality Now said in developing solutions, it is important to acknowledge the continuum of injustices, power imbalances, and gendered violence that predate technology and which manifest and multiply online.
The root causes of these need to be addressed when developing and implementing policies to ensure universal, secure, and safe access for all.
“A human-centered and resilient digital future not only includes ensuring affordable access but meaningful and secure access to digital technologies.”
“We need a universal approach to defining, upholding, and advancing digital rights so that everyone has universal equality of safety, freedom, and dignity in our digital future,” she noted.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau