by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Human economic activity makes extensive use of the ecosystem services nature provides.
Human economic activity makes extensive use of the ecosystem services nature provides, but these barely feature in measurements of GDP. It is vital to restore nature to economic analysis and policy before the damage to the natural world – and thus to everybody’s standard of living – becomes irreparable.
DIANE COYLE
CAMBRIDGE – “This land is your land,” sang the American folk singer Woody Guthrie, listing the redwood forests, wheat fields, and golden valleys of the United States. Guthrie was making a moral claim that everyone should be able to share in the riches of the land. But his song also highlights the economic truth that the use of natural resources affects everyone. In particular, if we deplete or irreversibly degrade them, the economic consequences affect all of us and future generations.
Human economic activity makes extensive use of the ecosystem services nature provides. Classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who wrote at a time when agriculture accounted for a much greater share of the economy than it does today, were well aware that human activity occurred within the natural world and relied on nature’s bounty. They always included land in their analyses. But modern economics has largely excluded nature from definitions and measurements of the economy.
Today, of course, the risks posed by climate change are attracting more attention, including from investors. But many other aspects of nature’s role in economic activity have been overlooked until now.
For example, the money farmers earn from selling their crops counts toward GDP, but there is no accounting for the services of the bees that pollinate the crops, or for the quality of the soil – that is, until the bees die or the soil loses its fertility, causing yields to fall. Nor do conventional economic statistics incorporate the services provided by clean air, or the negative impact of pollution. But the link between COVID-19 mortality and respiratory disease has made the latter cost clear, even seen through the very narrow lens of reduced human capital and future earnings.
A recent landmark independent review of the economics of biodiversity, commissioned by the UK Treasury and carried out by my Cambridge colleague Partha Dasgupta, makes a powerful case for restoring nature to economic analysis. Dasgupta argues that we should regard a country’s natural assets as no less a part of its productive capital than assets like broadband, bridges, or the skills base.
The job of economic policymakers should thus be to manage a country’s entire portfolio of assets in order to deliver a positive return for society. This means taking into account the depreciation of individual assets, including important species and ecosystems, and the complementarities between them.
Under such a framework, a government taking a long-term portfolio approach might decide not to build flood defenses from costly, energy-intensive, and unsightly concrete, and instead make a lower-cost investment in tree planting upstream and wetland preservation downstream. Likewise, farmers are well aware of the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of bee populations, but perhaps less aware of the negative consequences such as poorer soil quality and less productive crops, which result in greater dependence on chemical fertilizers and more dead bees, in an accelerating downward spiral. The encroachment of human activity on wilder natural areas is also contributing to the spread of zoonotic diseases like Ebola and COVID-19, at huge cost to societies, economies, and governments.
There is some hope that economic analysis and policy will rediscover nature before the damage to the services we get from it – and thus to everybody’s standard of living – becomes irreparable. Now that investors have understood the risks that climate change poses to their returns, they will find it easier to see the importance of biodiversity or clean oceans and air as well. Significantly, it was the UK’s hardheaded treasury, and not the cuddly Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, that commissioned the Dasgupta Review. But compiling the statistics needed to capture nature’s services to the economy will be crucial.
This is a work in progress. The United Nations has defined standards for the measurement of natural capital. And the ongoing process of revising the definitions used to measure GDP and other economic statistics is an opportunity to bring ecosystem services inside the so-called “production boundary” that separates what is counted as the economy from everything else.
The pandemic is driving home many lessons, including the old but important one that money is a poor measure of value. “Essential workers” from hospital porters to delivery drivers are often among the lowest paid. Anyone currently supervising school lessons at home or doing extra cooking during lockdowns will have a fresh appreciation of the value of unpaid work in the home. And the value people place on access to a public park has jumped since March 2020. Similarly, because much of the value we get from nature currently is not measured, much less paid for, economists ignore it.
That is no longer sustainable (an often-used word with profound implications, because what is not sustainable can never be sustained). Humanity’s relationship with nature will inevitably change in the coming years, and economic policymakers must influence how it changes. Ignorance is no defence.
_________
Diane Coyle, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, is the author, most recently, of Markets, State, and People: Economics for Public Policy.
Courtesy: Project Syndicate
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
BJP leader Kapil Mishra
‘Hindu Ecosystem’ led by the controversial BJP leaders ‘shows several levels of communal messaging mainly targeted against minorities
NEW DELHI – Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) leader Brinda Karat on Tuesday wrote to Delhi Police Commissioner demanding arrest of controversial Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra after an investigative report revealed that he led an ecosystem which spreads hatred against Muslims, Sikhs and farmers of the country.
“We demand that you arrest Kapil Mishra for spreading enmity between different communities. His actions are anti- national and appropriate legal clauses should be invoked to take action against him,” reads the letter. The letter was written by Karat and CPM secretary of Delhi unit K.M. Tewari to S.N Shrivastva, Delhi Police Commissioner, referring to the arrest of Bangalore-based climate activist Disha Ravi in a toolkit case. They condemned Disha’s arrest saying that there was nothing seditious in Disha’s tootlkit. They said that on the contrary Disha’s toolkit called for unity.
On the other hand, the letter pointed out, Mishra’s group ‘Hindu Ecosystem’ “shows several levels of communal messaging mainly targeted against minorities.” “There are also numerous malicious fake news messages which seek to defame the farmers’ protests. There is also an attempt to link the anti-CAA protests with the farmers’ protests calling it “anti-Hindu”.
CPM targeted the Union Home Ministry under which the Delhi Police functions for showing leniency to Mishra and arresting a climate activist Disha.
Mishra, who has been accused of inciting Delhi’s anti-Muslim riots last year February, had shared the membership form of ‘Hindu Ecosystem’ on 16 November 2020 from his Twitter handle and appealed to his followers to join the group. Reporters at the portal Newslaundry infiltrated the group and exposed what was being done in the group.
“Thus we came to have a fly-on-the-wall view of how this ecosystem operates, how it creates propaganda material, how it comes up with toxic narratives, and how it manufactures trends across social media platforms to whip up communal hatred and bigotry, and, of course, support for Hindutva,” said the report.
There are 27,000 people who joined Mishra’s communal ecosystem; 15,000 joined its Telegram group; and 5,000 people joined its Twitter group. Most of the members of the group are from upper castes. They all work in a very organized manner to spread communal hatred against Muslims, Sikhs, Farmers and others. They share Islam and Muslim related unverified information. For example, they have shared lists of mosques located in various states which they claim has been built after demolishing temples. They also shared a way of spreading the same information by every member of the group on Twitter which helps in trending the information on social media. They also share fake claims and reports which show Hindus are in danger.
After protesting farmers clashed with the Delhi Police on the Republic Day, they shared information related to Sikh attributing it to terror activities. Posts were shared related to “Sikh terrorism”.
“If you don’t yet fully grasp the gravity of what’s being done through groups such as the Hindu Ecosystem, allow us to spell it out: they are fountains of misinformation, propaganda directed at hatred. They create and spread, in an organised way, Hindu supremacist and anti-minority bile, and incite communal hatred,” said the report.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Corporate, News
Positions of chairperson, other important functionaries not filled since October 2020
NEW DELHI — The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Ministry of Minorities Affairs as to why various posts at the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) are lying vacant and directed it to submit a status report.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh was hearing a petition seeking filing up of vacancies. Petitioner Abhay Ratan Bauddh told the court that only the post of the Vice Chairman was functional, while six others are vacant since October 2020.
“There cannot be so many vacancies,” the court observed and directed the Ministry to file a status report in 10 days. It has also been asked to explain why the posts are not filled up.
“The National Commission for Minorities cannot protect the interests of minority communities without its Chairperson, members Buddhist, Christian, Parsi, Sikh and Jain,” the petition stated.
The plea, filed through advocate Vinay Kumar, also contended that not filling the vacant posts is affecting the safeguards and interests of the petitioner’s Buddhist minority community.
The court has, however, removed the Prime Minister’s Office from the list of respondents after Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma raised an objection, apprising the court that it has no role to play in the process of appointment.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Business Summit, Events, Social Round-up
Uzma Naheed, Iqra International Women’s Alliance (IIWA) receiving Maeeshat Media’s THE BUSINESSWOMEN OF THE YEAR 2021 Award from Saira Shah Halim, Member of the West Bengal Federation of United Nations Association at 9th All India Minorities Business Summit & National Brand Awards 2021, organised by Maeeshat Media Private Limited in Kolkata.
Kolkata: Uzma Naheed, famous social activist has received a prestigious National Brand Award for her exemplary work for women mainly to uplift them economically and socially.
Her programs under her NGO, Iqra International Women’s Alliance (IIWA) is recognized for women empowerment at national level in India. The award was given to her by the Saira Shah Halim, Member of the West Bengal Federation of United Nations Association in 9th All India Minorities Business Summit & National Brand Awards 2021, organised by Maeeshat Media Private Limited in Kolkata.
Addressing to the august gathering of delegates from different part of the country she narrated a story of a mother who was thrown out of the house by her five sons, she fainted by this harsh act of her own sons and was lying whole night on a road, with dogs trying to bite her. She said this incident made her so restless that she vowed to empower women.
Uzma Naheed further said that there are two problems of poor women who have art in their hands: ‘what to make and where to sell’? IIWA solved these problems. IIWA is an NGO of the women and more than 3000 women are manufacturing 150 products with high quality. It is very important to open avenues for them specially to promote them.
She said we do not want our customers to do charity since the product manufactured by these women conforms to the international standard and quality at competitive price. It is sad that a majority of workers manufacturing beautiful Indian handicrafts are Muslim women but they work as petty labourers.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Asad Mirza
The recent demonstrations in Russia might have raised the West’s hope to see an end to the Russian oligarchy, but it may turn out to be a wishful dream.
Over the last two weeks, many Russian cities including Moscow and St. Petersburg witnessed a second wave of public demonstrations in support of opposition figure Alexei Navalny.
However, the demonstrations were mostly against Kremlin’s policies and less in Navalny’s support. In most cities demonstrators expressed frustration with Russia’s coronavirus-related lockdown measures, anti-Putin sentiments and government’s actions against other anti-establishment political activists.
Putin-Navalny fight
Russian opposition leader, politician, lawyer, and anti-corruption activist, Alexei Anatolievich Navalny came to international prominence by organising anti-government demonstrations and running for office to advocate reforms against corruption in Russia, President Vladimir Putin and his government.
Navalny’s video of Putin’s alleged palace on Russia’s Black Sea coast has now been viewed more than 111m times. His detention and court appearance prompted the biggest street protests in Russia since 2011-12, with demonstrations in 180 towns and cities across Russia.
Navalny has also antagonised the Kremlin by calling on the west to impose personal sanctions on 35 individuals linked to Vladimir Putin. They include oligarchs, the judge who remanded Navalny in custody last month, and senior government figures.
Navalny poses a serious threat to the country’s political elite. They don’t seem to know how to handle him. If Navalny is kept in prison or released, his movement will be strengthened, and it has the potential to fuse to broader public dissent over Russia’s long-term economic performance and government ineffectiveness.
Besides pro-Navalny support, other factors fuelling public anger are falling living standards, pandemic-related troubles, diminished political freedom, and Putin’s decision to effectively remain in power beyond 2024. Many Russia observers are of the view that these demonstrations represent a new stage in Russian public dissent.
Emil Avdaliani, a professor at the Tbilisi State University in his recent paper for BESA Centre on the continuing demonstrations opines that the first indicator that these rallies are different is their sheer size. Totalling nearly 100,000 people, they were the largest nationwide displays of dissent in recent years. The detention of 3,700 people greatly exceeds the detentions that occurred during the wave of anti-Kremlin protests that rocked Russia in 2011 and 2012.
Moreover, these protests have spread countrywide. According to latest reports Russians in nearly 100 cities across the country took to the streets. Avdaliani opines that historically, Putin enjoyed the advantage of Russia’s geography, which precluded the spread of public dissent. Much has changed, however, as modern technologies have enabled the coordination of simultaneous protests across Russia’s vast territory.
The manner in which Putin and his cliques have handled the issue has catapulted Navalny into a celebrity. Currently, Navalny is Russia’s second most prominent face and voice abroad after Putin, and has become a politician with global reach.
Initially, for nearly a decade, the Russian authorities treated Alexei Navalny like a minor political headache. The county’s political elite addresses him in an imperious manner by not referring to him by his name, but then the decision to assassinate him catapulted him to the status of a national figure. Not long ago, many Russians had any idea who Alexei Navalny was, but he is now famous enough to pose a direct threat to the leadership.
At present, Russia is experiencing what it experienced in the 1990s and the early 2000s – a struggle for a more effective government, more accountability, transparency over public spending, and most of all, the ability to change the government through elections, and Putin’s gambit to remain in power indefinitely has added fuel to the public dissent, in which the Navalny episode has acted as a catalyst.
EU’s response
Meanwhile, the internal affairs of Russia had an after effect on the manner in which the European Union functions. So far, the UK and EU have already introduced targeted sanctions over the poisoning of Navalny, and the EU is considering additional measures over his jailing and the subsequent crackdown.
The Guardian reported that the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has said that his country country was prepared to break off relations with the bloc if there were any new sanctions.
But the inner EU wrangling may perhaps take a toll on the organisation’s ability to handle international issues, as a unified response to the Russian affair has been missing, as the EU member states can’t agree on how to handle Putin.
More European sanctions on Russia may be announced soon, but not even the humiliation of the EU’s foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell’srecent visit to Moscow looks likely to sharpen the bloc’s woefully divided policy towards the Kremlin, analysts say.
EU unity on Russiacan’t be expected any time soon. Despite mounting concern at Moscow’s behaviour in many capitals,there is widespread disagreement over how to respond, with national strategic and economic interests far from aligned.
Germany, which played a major role in EU sanctions against Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, is resisting calls to back out of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project, preferring targeted sanctions against wealthy Kremlin supporters.
Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron of France still favours dialogue and a strategic ‘reset’ in EU-Russia relations, while Poland and the Baltic states want far tougher action.
Judy Dempsey of the think-tank Carnegie Europe opines that Moscow prefers dealing separately with each member state, instead of EU as a bloc, and on the other hand most EU states don’t know what they clearly want from Russia.
According to Dempsey, like his predecessors, Borrell’s visit was bound to fall short because the bloc lacks a genuinely European strategy. Until now, national interests in Europe have prevented that from happening and it’s hard to see that changing.
NicuPopescu of the European council on foreign relations argues that European attempts to reset relations with Russia were doomed to failure because they are “predicated on the idea of mutual concessions”. Instead, a more muscular approach might yield better results, he added.
Meanwhile, Russia issued an international arrest warrant for Leonid Volkov, one of Navalny’s senior allies, who is currently based in Lithuania.
However, European nations’hope that dissent may generate a liberal movement to replace Putin may not be fulfilled. Though some degree of a liberal mood might be present amongst the demonstrators, they are clearly not either pro-West or pro-democracy. Instead of the young crowd, the demonstrators have included middle-aged, middle-class Russians. These people are frustrated with the government’s economic performance and corruption and the end result may not be what Europe wants – an end to the Putin era.
