Monthly Archives: February 2020

Matsheka

ACT NOW, CHANGE NOW: TRANSFORMATION BEGINS WITH YOU DOING JUST THAT

The Botswana Forum for Action and Reform (B-FAR) is an independent and non-party organization established to advocate for accelerated and radical structural and socio-economic transformation of Botswana. Our focus areas are: citizen engagement and empowerment; inclusive and participatory growth; innovative economic diversification; and rapid and sustainable development. This matches what the ruling BDP-led government has pledged to Batswana and by and large, what we all desire as Batswana.

B-FAR works by calling for action and demanding reform to truly and successfully transform Botswana into a prosperous, inclusive and high income nation. Our response to the 2020 Budget Speech is a CALL FOR ACTION.

We congratulate Hon Dr Matsheka for his maiden Budget Speech, and we appreciate the charged delivery of yet another doze of promises to make life better for Batswana, promises made on behalf of the newly elected BDP government that swore to Batswana that it was capable and willing to bring change.

As we recognize the new tone of it can not be business as usual in the Budget Speech, we are reminded that it has been business as usual by the same government for 54 years. We often hear that talk is cheap and action speaks louder than words. Honourable Minister, will you just talk and not act? The only way we can believe you and the BDP government is if we see immediate action and immediate change. As an accomplished scholar, the following words will possibly speak more to you of what we wish to impress upon you and your government:

Transformation isnt a future event. Its a present day activity, Jillian Michaels.

The most useless people are the ones who have never changed for the better over the years, James Barrie.

If you always do what youve always done, you will always get what youve always got, Henry Ford.

If the above wise words from across the world are not sufficient, let us bring you back to a stark reality that Botswana faces. If we do not change now, chances are that it might be too late to do so even if we start as early as 2024 when your current social contract ends. The National Anthem tells us that this desert land is a gift from God. We remind you and your government, with sternness and a sober and solemn mind, that God gave us resources from the desert so as to find ways and means to survive on the desert land.

Your government has toyed with economic diversification, citizen empowerment, sustainable development and all the parameters with which we can survive in the aftermath of the desert resources and your government has done so for decades. We remind you, with the same degree of grimness born out of disappointment that by 2036, sixteen years from now, some of those resources are likely to be depleted, and that if the government does not change now, every year that is wasted out of those 16 years will be drawing us closer to a situation from which we can not escape as a nation. A desert land with an undiversified resource-based economy without resources and a poor and disempowered citizenry is not beneficial to anyone, including those who would somehow have made it this far as even their hard-earned wealth will become of insignificant value.

Honourable Minister and all your compatriots who listened to the 2020 Budget Speech in Parliament as you delivered it, take the following home and remember it: THERE WILL BE NO SECOND CHANCE IN 2036 AS THERE WAS IN 2016. Whilst you do so, and may you do so everywhere you go, let us loudly and emphatically disagree with your observation that The Vision sets high and ambitious targets for all stakeholders to move the country forward. That Vision sets befitting and achievable targets that any government playing a proper facilitatory role should confidently guarantee to its people.

Even without the guarded articulation of the 2020 Budget Speech we all know the problems that we face in Botswana. We will therefore not waste time going over them. Instead, we will go through the interventions, by which we will judge the willingness and preparedness of the government to act and solve those problems. We will also propose measures that are symbolic of committed change, of business unusual, of leaders prepared to think and act outside the box and make brave but thoughtful changes to drive the country beyond the cushioned life that is supported by finite minerals. As we do so, be reminded that Transformation literally means going beyond your form, as one Wayne Dyer observed.

Let us hope you will begin to realize henceforth that you are not telling us the truth when you say The same government transformed the economy to an upper middle income status in the 1990s. The truth that we know as Batswana is that DIAMONDS transformed the economy, starting from the 1970s, admittedly with the good oversight and prudent management of government, BUT government FAILED AND IS FAILING to transform it further from what the diamonds could do or where they could take it. This is the truth.

COMMITMENT TO TRANSFORM THE ECONOMY. Honourable Minister, you expressed the commitment of government to transform the economy through a number of interventions and refocusing existing policies, strategies and programmes such as: service delivery through ICT; creating sustainable jobs; fighting corruption; improving education and training; providing quality healthcare; and attracting local and international investors. We have heard this before. We await specifics, not of things being done as before but things being done differently. Remember the quotation at point 4c above: you can not continue to do things the same way and expect different results. They say, Nothing changes if nothing changes. And we await ACTION. Diamonds can not take us to High Income status, but government should.

B-FAR has cautioned the assertion at SONA 2019 that the National Transformation Strategy was the blue print of Government Development Agenda and likened it to holding on to a straw. You should have realized by now that your strategies are failing because often you do not act and when you do, your actions are mundane and passive. We call for the following actions to be carried out during the 2020/21 financial year:

Service delivery through ICT: We expressly demand that government articulates and begins to implement practical measures in e-governance, blended education, remote healthcare, drone assisted wildlife management (including anti-poaching), intelligent climate resistant agriculture, trade portals and e-commerce, etc. The list goes on and on and the technology has been around for long to allow practical interventions.

Creating sustainable jobs: We request government to issue unemployment reduction targets, with specific figures and accurate statistical projections over time, to provide clear and unambiguous information on job-creating opportunities and projects and to commit to such projects. We can no longer believe blanket statements on job creation and believe it is irresponsible for government to refuse to commit to clear targets.

Fighting corruption: there is absolutely no mention of specific ways by which this will be done. Corruption is likened to cancer for two reasons: 1) just as cancer kills so does corruption destroy economies and livelihoods; 2) just as cancer that is not treated properly can relapse and spread, so does corruption that is handled in a haphazard and shoddy way. This government created the environment for corruption and it is the same government that should take precise, consistent, and determined measures, without fear and favour, to stamp out corruption in all areas once and for all. The BDP-led government will not be forgiven for any less.

Improving education and training and providing quality healthcare: The strategies may be there, but it is the output that tells a different story. This has been the case for a number of years now. We demand less talk but more action.

Attracting local and international investors: Every time the government mentions this intervention, it very quickly becomes clear that government is hypnotically attached to a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) strategy that works against citizen empowerment a strategy that unashamedly professed in SONA 2019 to rolling out the red carpet to foreign entities at the exclusion or marginalization of citizen and domestic enterprises. For once, we demand that there be clear and unadulterated focus of domestic investment and citizen engagement as would be illustrated in the choice of projects and the nature of the facilitatory role of government.

PERFORMANCE OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES. Our response to SONA 2019 carried the following statement:

B-FAR notes the intention of government to embark on a rationalization exercise of ministerial portfolio responsibilities and functions. This is a welcome development. We urge the government to extend this exercise to the State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and quasi-government (parastatal) entities. We believe they too have duplications, overlaps, loss of relevance, shift from mandates and inefficiencies that have become burdensome to the nation.

Honourable Minister, we note with regret that is no visible effort on the rationalization of ministerial portfolio responsibilities and functions. Was it just talk as well. How will we believe and trust the current talk on the SOEs will also remain just that, talk and no action. Nonetheless, we make these specific recommendations, which we demand that they be carried out to move Botswana forward:

Public Enterprises Evaluation & Privatisation Agency (PEEPA): This is where you should start. The reason why government intends to review SOEs is simply that PEEPA failed to do the same for many years. We recommend that the mandate for institutional review be removed from PEEPA and be placed within a Parliamentary Committee. The government plans for Public Private Partnerships can also be removed from PEEPA, where they seem deadlocked, and moved to the Public Procurement & Asset Disposal Board (PPADB). These changes will render PEEPA irrelevant.

Botswana National Productivity Centre (BNPC): There is no evidence of productivity being a problem in Botswana. This may have been the case when BNPC was established by today, government is misreading the attitude that Batswana have against their kindred as lack of productivity. There is no English word to describe that attitude and it appears peculiar to Botswana. There is need to work on that attitude at institutional level and within government structures so that government begins to look at citizens in a more positive light. This should be the new mandate for BNPC.

Combination of PEEPA and BNPC into a new Citizen Empowerment SOE: There is also a running theme in the 2020 Budget Speech for citizen empowerment. Specifically, government wishes to migrate the Citizen Empowerment Policy to Citizen Empowerment Act. The biggest problem in Botswana is implementation, whether it is of policies, strategies or even Acts of Parliament. B-FAR agrees with the move from policy to an Act but believes an institutional body will still be required to enforce the Act and implement its provisions. We recommend the combination of BNPC and PEEPA into a new SOE for Citizen Empowerment. Honourable Minister, government should think outside the box and make impactful changes rather than mere sugar coating reviews. This change is what Botswana needs to realize any meaningful and lasting citizen empowerment and should be done as a matter of extreme urgency.

Air Botswana (AB): AB does not appear in your list of examples of SOEs to be reviewed. We mention it to open the eyes of government that fashionable catchphrases do not work in all cases. Lack of profitability of AB can not be solved through staff retrenchments as its management believes, nor through privatization as government has always believed. In the case of AB, profitability will be a consequence of critical mass. This can be achieved through regional collaboration. As an example, collaboration of Air Botswana with its Namibian counterpart, if not complete merger into a form of sub-regional Air Kalahari. It is wrong for our government to be asking us to celebrate Air Qatar coming to Botswana when we should be celebrating a regional airline with our interests going to Qatar. We ask government to review this possibility during the current financial year and map a more beneficial way forward.

Botswana Power Corporation (BPC) and Water Utilities Corporation: The mandates for these SOEs are given and can not really be changed, the question is a closed-minded approach to solving problems. For BPC, government should insist on a wholesome solar energy strategy and targets beginning now into the future. Solar is no longer an alternative energy source but the preferred source. For WUC, government should probe WUC to look beyond the costly North-South Water Carrier project. A system exists in Kenya for desalination of sea water, and our relations with Namibia provide access to a long-term water solution.

Botswana Meat Commission (BMC): We are deeply concerned that government refuses, year after year, to privatise BMC when it should have do so at the time the two depots in the north were created. We recommend the division of BMC into three companies according to the depots, and privatization of each to the farmers association in those locations without any further delay. We also recommend closure of all BMC off-shore structures and migration of interests to the embassies. The new private owners will by themselves create Direct Investment Abroad (DIA) systems as they are capable of doing so outside of government control. At the same, amf for the same reasons, privatise the Botswana Agricultural Marketing Board (BAMB) and the National Agroprocessing (NAPRO). In place of these entities, establish a regulatory body for all agricultural products and services.

Local Enterprise Authority (LEA): LEA has failing its mandate, specifically the two objectives of improving technology access and enhancing market access for SMME enterprises. In Kenya, hawkers accept electronic payments through mPESA whilst in Botswana they do not even know what e-wallet is. LEA failed to improve access to technology. Botswana remains the only country without a proper market system and is burdened by the chain store and mall syndrome which has suffocated and eliminated local productive enterprises, taking massive amounts of employment potential with it, yet LEA has offices in all major settlement areas in Botswana.

Botswana Development Corporation (BDC): The component of the original mandate of BDC of investment facilitation has been taken over by the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre (BITC). There are two other components: high value project funding and investment holding for the government. Government should review BDC with the specific intention of facilitating it to fund major projects for Batswana, especially in consonance with new developments such as SPEDU and SEZA, and also with the specific intention to derive value for money as an investment holder. There should be an expectation of payment of dividends to government, not the other way round.

Botswana Institute of Technology Research and Innovation (BITRI): BITRI is clearly an institution that deliberately moved away from the intended industrial research and innovation. It exists and functions as an academic institution and is of no relevance to the economy. Despite common belief, it is not a necessary entity for a country to have, and in fact, if mismanaged as it is currently, it stands in the way of private sector led research, technology application and it obstructs private enterprise. It should either be closed or changed to a research interface form more suitable to Botswana, and many such forms exist.

Botswana Innovation Hub (BIH): BIH is largely a construction company that pretends to be a Science & Technology Park. First, the model for innovation hubs has gone through a complete revolution in the past twenty years and is no longer a matter of brick and mortar. Second, S&T Parks typically exist under a higher level entity such as a university or the municipality or even privately controlled enterprise groupings. BIH, has been a costly experiment for the government, and existing on its own, is a misplaced concept that should be changed as a matter of urgency.

Special Economic Zones Authority (SEZA): This new entity appears to be on a wrong footing and has all the bad hallmarks of BIH. It operates on a SEZ Act that was based on a SEZ Policy that was drafted by non-experts, but failed to recognize the need to refine those founding instruments. As an example, it is legally constrained to a specific number of zones in specific technology-based economic areas, yet technology and market environments change all the time. As further example, the SEZ in Tuli Block is for horticulture and water management. Our belief is that horticulture belongs to LEA and of the over 7000 SEZs in the world, ours will be the only one dealing with water management. This SOE needs to be guided before it joins the list of failed SOEs.

Botswana Energy Regulatory Authority (BERA): Our response is that it is not necessary for Botswana to have individual regulatory bodies for every field of activity and some should be combined as much as possible. Energy, water, sanitation and environment should be placed as departments under one authority. In this way, resources will be best utilized and there will be inter-connection between services.

Botswana Fibre Networks (BOFINET): The name of this entity is a license not to innovate as technology evolves. The mandate of BOFINET is of extreme significance in relation to the prospects of Botswana to become a knowledge-based economy. There has also been substantial expenditure todate on projects under BOFINET. Rather than a review on project delivery, it should be a review of impact. Technologically, it should be a review of the speed of communication, economically, a review of the cost. There is another element as there should in all SOEs: the indirect benefits to Batswana. With this high level of expenditure, government should be able to show how much direct employment was created, how many contracted companies had grown as a result of the work from BOFINET and how many new ones were created and how many have graduated to higher levels as a result of work contracted from BOFINET.

National Development Bank (NDB): We take note of the assessment made on NDB by the African Development Bank that is mentioned in the Budget Speech. We do not know why it was called or what the outcome would be. What we know is that there is a need in this country that we are all fully aware of; the need for venture capital, seed capital, angel investment capital or a basket of on-risk funding especially for the youth and for innovative project ideas that have not been tried and tested elsewhere. NDB is currently an unnecessary duplication of CEDA, but as a bank, it already has the capacity to handle this category of funding. We strongly recommend that NDB is restructured for this purpose.

Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency (CEDA): The only review we call for is with regard to: 1) ensuring that CEDA is adequately capitalized to help Batswana; 2) removing apparent bottlenecks to funding, specifically loan contribution and security. If the intention is to help Batswana, then it is self-defeating to impose limiting conditions on the people that we know will struggle but are the same people we want to assist. Despite the recent post-Budget announcement by the CEDA CEO on security as being limited to curbing proposed salaries of applicants, government should issue a statement in this regard and let it be consistently applied.

SOE Problem is Monumental: The above SOEs are exemplary and we could have interrogated many more. We hope that this analysis and recommendations therefrom demonstrate to the government that Botswana is in a mess with regard to SOEs. The P4.9 billion annual expenditure on SOEs mentioned in the 2020 Budget Speech is a very unnecessary and easily avoidable waste. The loss is much more than just financial, as some of the SOEs operate counter to the aspirations of the nation and continually reverse the gains made in such areas as employment and private sector growth. We earnestly call upon government to take immediate measures to curb the loss even before an extensive review is done, and to execute and finalize the first extensive review during this financial year, and undertake regular reviews annually henceforth

Priority of Evaluation of SOEs: It is difficult to expect that government will evaluate all of the over 60 SOEs this year. It is logical to expect that some of them are not priority cases. It will be a waste of effort to prioritize the evaluation of SOEs like BOCRA, BITC, NAFTRC, BTC and SPEDU at this point in time. B-FAR strongly recommends a Pareto-styled selection of SOEs to evaluate, and puts forward the above SOEs as priority areas for this year. Enough mileage will be achieved from the above listed SOEs alone.

Terminate Long-Serving CEOs: It will not be enough to look inside the SOEs and leave out the leadership. B-FARs response to SONA 2019 carried the following statement:

We further call upon government to appraise senior positions in all of these SOEs as a large part of their inefficiencies has to do with their leadership. To this end, we call upon the removal of underperforming and long-serving officials.

B-FAR reiterates the above call for the removal of all CEOs who have served more than two terms or a total of ten years. This should be easy as government shuffles employees all the time, and is obligatory for a government that preaches inclusive and participatory growth. Keeping CEOs for this long excludes those who deserve to ascend to those positions and denies the country from fresh ideas to move forward. As this is an easy intervention, action is expected even in the first quarter of 2020/21.

AREAS OF CONTENTION COAL BENEFICIATION. There are areas in the 2020 Budget Speech in which government contradicts its intentions. Government seeks to empower citizens, encourage citizen participation in the economy, grow the private sector all very good intentions, but out of the blues it wishes to undertake a large coal beneficiation project. We are saddened by this massive betrayal. We call upon government to cease involving itself in commercial activities that the private sector is well capable of doing. By this act alone, government will have gone against all that it has promised. To make it clear, as a general rule, we call upon government to stay away from commercial activities in which there is processing, manufacturing, packaging, and distribution. The coal beneficiation is bound to fail under the government, the BMC way. We wish to be loudly clear that we do not want to see government jumping from beef to coal, denying citizens and local companies the opportunity as it has done with beef and messing up the economy of Botswana for years to come. This move is even more shocking as the Palapye SEZ is specifically for mineral and energy beneficiation and Batswana, who have long sought to enter this field, are waiting to participate in coal beneficiation when the SEZ is ready. For government to have such significant contradictions is a sign of lack of sincerity on its behalf. We demand that government immediately halts and reverses its intentions to undertake coal beneficiation and issues a statement in that regard.

GENERAL ADVICES: B-FAR advises as follows:

Be prepared to depart from NDP 11: We notice throughout the Budget Speech that anything government intends to do will be within the limits of NDP11. This is prudent, but only to the extent that it does not deter new thinking and innovative solutions that were not captured by NDP11. We hope that the NDP11 will itself be revised with this mindset of thinking outside the box and driving transformative action.

Take advantage of bi-lateral relations: We also notice a glaring omission of Botswanas activities in relation to regionalization and developments across Africa. It appears Botswana is pushed by an external stimulus to participate in multi-lateralism because the country completely ignores bi-lateral opportunities in which it could show initiative. Whilst we participate in the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which is highly commendable, we have nothing to show emanating from our relations with countries like Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya. We urge government to review its position in this regard. A case in point is the collaboration between Air Botswana and its counterpart in Namibia that we have proposed above. Similar collaborations can be made in the areas of mining, tourism, water, energy, transport, education, agriculture and trade. There is no doubt that bi-lateral collaborations can drive future growth, so we should be seeing examples of this happening in future Budget Speeches.

IN CONCLUSION, we expected nothing less than a unified declaration of a DECADE OF COMMITTED CHANGE from the 2020 Budget Speech. There is a lot that needs to be done. We have not started the transformation journey yet if it is talk and no action and if we do what we have always done.

For the sake of transparency, B-FAR reports that it records all the promises made by government and all the requests for action made by B-FAR. It follows them up and will in time issue a status review of Botswanas transformation journey, failures and successes.

FATSHE LENO, LA RONA. PULA!

See more here:

Botswana Forum for Action and Reform (B-FAR) CALL FOR ACTION - The Patriot On Sunday

ADVERTISEMENT

In order to support the campaign to diversify the economy from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy through Information technology(IT), High tech for women and youth launched and inaugurated Steam boys, Tech men Initiative.

The Director General of NITDA Mr Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi CCIE, was the special guest of honour at the launching and inauguration of the initiative with the theme Muscles with brains for technology innovation in Abuja on thursday 13th February.

Digital technologies are disrupting the way we live, the DG said, as he gave his opening remarks at the event which was well attended by mostly students from secondary schools.

He pointed out that the internet has changed the way we live, access information and interact with one another and urged the students to meaningfully utilize their access to computers in other to proffer solutions to challenges or improve on existing ones.

The convener of the event, President and CEO, High tech Centre for Women and Youth Dr Wunmi Hassan informed the participants that the goal of Nigeria STEM summit and Train of Trainers workshop taking place on the 24th-26th of March 2020 is to produce a mobile phone.

She confirmed that the need for the STEAM boys/Tech men initiative is to incorporate boys/men into the vision of the organisation, stating that STEM has been hosting just females in the last two years but for 2020 the summit will comprise of both genders.

The urge to diversify took us from not just learning information technology but producing technology, said Dr Hassan.

Related

See the article here:

Diversifying the economy through IT - Daily Trust

Progress on protecting life on land has been agonisingly slow, as deforestation and habitat loss has accelerated, but hopes remain that a step change in global land management can yet be engineered

We often take the land for granted, even though - or perhaps because - it is literally the foundation of everything we do, from the materials that make up our homes, workplaces, and transport systems to the source of our food, water, and medicines. And those are the only the most obvious essential services provided by the land. When well managed the land helps regulate water and air quality, sequester and store carbon, and minimise flood and soil erosion risks. On top of that, the land plays host to much of the planet's biodiversity, providing incalculable benefits to humanity and the global economy, starting with the pollination that underpins the global food system.

The problem is that terrestrial ecosystems can quickly flip from sources of life-sustaining abundance into actively hostile environments when they are exploited unsustainably. Soil erosion, wildfires, floods, monocultures, and pollution can all pose a serious threat to life and the viability of the economies and communities that are dependent on the land. And then there are the big picture climate threats that poorly managed land can rapidly amplify. As the World Resources Institute points out, "land is critically important - both as a source of greenhouse gas emissions and as a climate change solution". The reality is that the land-based foundations of both the global economy and a stable climate are being eroded from beneath our feet.

That is why SDG15 - the UN goal to protect "life on land" and to "protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss" - is regarded by many commentators as one of the most important of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Cristiana Paca Palmer, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, points out that "while all the SDGs are important in themselves and for the achievement of the others, biodiversity is clearly the linchpin between all of them. Essentially, without biodiversity, we would not exist, let alone develop".

To take just one example, an estimated 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihood and they are home to more than 80 per cent of all terrestrial species of animals, plants, and insects, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In addition, 74 per cent of the poor are directly affected by land degradation globally and over 80 per cent of the human diet is provided by plants, with just three cereal crops - rice, maize and wheat - providing 60 per cent of humanity's energy intake.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes in characteristically understated fashion, land "provides the principal basis for human livelihoods and well-being, including the supply of food, freshwater and multiple other ecosystem services, as well as biodiversity". The group even puts a valuation on land's contribution to the global economy in its report on Climate Change and Land, calculating that land ecosystems and biodiversity contribute some $75tr to $85tr to the global economy, far more than global GDP. It is an intriguing academic exercise that highlights the critical economic importance of healthy terrestrial ecosystems and is part of a growing body of work to assess how natural systems enable sustainable economic development. Although critics will note that, given that presumably without land the planet would be a dusty, lifeless husk, the $85tr figure is ultimately pretty meaningless.

And yet despite the huge clear and present threat to critical environments, every year the global economy puts ever more pressure on global ecosystems and biodiversity. The Global Footprint Network calculated that in 2019, Earth Overshoot Day, the date when humanity has used nature's resource budget for the entire year, was reached on July 29, the earliest date ever. The global economy first went into ecological deficit in the early 1970s and over the past 20 years, the date has advanced by three months. Human civilisation is now "using nature 1.75 times faster than our planet's ecosystems can regenerate, [consuming resources] equivalent to 1.75 Earths," the network says.

This inherently unsustainable level of consumption is having multiple real world impacts. "Ecological overspending costs are becoming increasingly evident: deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to climate change and more frequent extreme weather events," says Mathis Wackernagel, co-inventor of Ecological Footprint and founder of Global Footprint Network.

UNEP is among the group of official bodies that fear these impacts could create feedback loops, whereby a warming climate puts more pressure on terrestrial ecosystems, leading to more emissions, and in turn more warming. "Land is already under growing human pressure and climate change is adding to these pressures," the agency states. "At the same time, keeping global warming to well below 2C can be achieved only by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors including land and food."

SDG15 aims to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss, including by tackling poaching and trafficking of protected species. The key targets within the Goal include commitments to:

Progress on SDG 15 is decidedly mixed. A lot more ecosystems are now in protected areas and there has been considerable progress on slowing deforestation, but that has been threatened by developments such as a less forest-friendly government in Brazil, as well as a spate of devastating wildfires around the world, from California to Australia.

"There are some encouraging global trends in protecting terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity," the SDG Knowledge Platform states. "Forest loss is slowing down, more key biodiversity areas are protected and more financial assistance is flowing towards biodiversity protection."

But it admits that "the 2020 targets of Sustainable Development Goal 15 are unlikely to be met, land degradation continues, biodiversity loss is occurring at an alarming rate, and invasive species and the illicit poaching and trafficking of wildlife continue to thwart efforts to protect and restore vital ecosystems and species". In short, the expansion of some nature reserves and encouraging debates about 'rewilding', in no way compensate for complex market failures and the continued expansion of unsustainable and under-regulated extractive and agricultural industries.

Consequently, the level of species extinction is truly alarming. For example, a recent study found that at least one million species face extinction in coming decades, at least half of them insects. "It is not only their vast numbers, but the dependency of ecosystems and humanity on them, that makes the conservation of insect diversity critical for future generations," the study in the journal Biological Conservation states, adding that it is overwhelmingly mankind that has caused these extinctions, through habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, and climate change.

This is not just a biodiversity issue - insects provide the economy with a variety of services, including pollination, nutrient cycling, and pest control. In the US alone, these services are estimated to be worth $57bn a year, while the UN's biodiversity panel says that insect pollination is vital to crops with a value of $235bn-$577bn a year. Although again, critics of such economic modelling would say the true value of insect pollination is incalculable, given that without any insects entire food systems could collapse.

Unless we reverse nature loss, trillions of dollars will be wiped off the world's economies - WWF's Global Futures report

The proportion of key biodiversity areas on land, including in the mountains and in fresh water that are covered by protected areas, has increased significantly since 2000, yet between the turn of the century and 2015, more than a fifth of the Earth's total land area was degraded, largely as a result of "human-induced processes, such as desertification, cropland expansion and urbanisation". At the same time, land cover became significantly less productive. The number of species threatened with extinction has also increased drastically over the past 30 years.

WWF calculates in a new Global Futures report that environmental degradation, if it continues at current rates, will cost the global economy a minimum of 368bn a year, leading to total losses of 8tr by 2050. The losses are expected to be caused by a range of factors, such as higher food prices, droughts, commodity shortages, extreme flooding, and coastal erosion if action is not taken to confront the multiple environmental crises facing humanity.

"Unless we reverse nature loss, trillions of dollars will be wiped off the world's economies, industries will be disrupted and the lives of millions will be affected," the group says.

However, it says that if land use is carefully managed to avoid further loss of areas important for biodiversity and ecosystem services, global GDP could rise by $490bn per year above the business as usual calculation. The opportunity is still there to rebuild the foundations, to reclaim the land.

Steve Polasky, co-founder of the Natural Capital Project, which was involved in the study, spells out what is at stake. "The world's economies, businesses and our own well-being all depend on nature," he says. "But from climate change, extreme weather and flooding to water shortages, soil erosion and species extinctions, evidence shows that our planet is changing faster than at any other time in history. The way we feed, fuel and finance ourselves is destroying the life-support systems on which we depend, risking global economic devastation."

The business community is right at the heart of whether or not the targets contained in SDG15 can be achieved and disaster averted. Business both impacts and depends upon nature. All economic activity is ultimately dependent on value derived from nature, and the survival of nature depends on the decisions and actions of businesses, argues Dr James MacPherson, head of the natural capital and ecosystem services practice at sustainability consultancy Anthesis.

"If both nature and the economy are to thrive in the long term, businesses must integrate nature into their decision making," he says. "To do this, we must provide relevant, reliable and useful data on natural capital impacts and dependencies."

That means that getting to grips with SDG 15 should be a key priority for businesses, yet this is not always the case, according to Gudrun Cartwright, environment director at Business in the Community.

"It very much depends what kind of business you talk to as to how important it is," she says. "It was the least considered issue in our Business Tracker survey in 2019, but for certain sectors, such as food and drink, construction and utilities, it is very much on the agenda."

It is likely to rise up the agenda for many sectors this year because a critical meeting of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in China is hoping to deliver a biodiversity equivalent of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The CBD may be less high profile than its climate change cousin, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), but the hope is that just ahead of the crucial COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow the biodiversity COP will broker a sweeping new agreement under the hugely ambitious heading "Ecological Civilization: Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth".

This higher profile for biodiversity policy coincides with a raft of sustainability initiatives from the business community, ranging from the World Economic Forum's focus on stakeholder capitalism to growing calls from investors for businesses to report on deforestation and biodiversity-related risks. "There is much more understanding now of how companies and their supply chains are dependent on the health of nature to be successful," Cartwright argues. "There will be an increasing focus from financial institutions because of the need to think about climate change. When they get more interested, there will be a cascade effect down to the people they lend to and the businesses they invest in."

Insurers are already starting to think about nature and its health in relation to issues such as flood risk and mitigation, while manufacturers are thinking about the availability of resources, where they come from and how secure is that supply, she adds. The expectation is that these concerns will quickly spread beyond the usual suspects in the food, fashion, and infrastructure industries.

Progress on nature is lagging action on climate because it's a much more complex issue -Dr James MacPherson, natural capital consultant at Anthesis

Nonetheless, the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems is often overshadowed in many businesses and government corridors by more direct efforts to tackle climate change. "One of the big challenges for this SDG is framing biodiversity issues and how organisations interact with nature to highlight companies' impacts and dependencies and their response to that," Macpherson points out. "Progress on nature is lagging action on climate because it's a much more complex issue. There's no single unit of measurement like a ton of CO2. It's a lot easier for people to understand carbon impacts than potential biodiversity risks around materials in products they buy. It's a much more challenging concept because it is a much more multi-faceted problem. It's much harder to know what to do because there are so many different components involved."

This complexity is further amplified by competing theories around how best to protect nature and reverse damage to terrestrial ecosystems.

"To protect nature, we need to engage stakeholders and catalyse change on the ground through market mechanisms," Macpherson argues. Known as a 'Capitals' approach, this market-based model encourages businesses, investors and policymakers to consider not only the implications of a decision for financial capital, but also for natural capital, human capital, and social capital. By putting a value on natural capital stakeholders can then identify how and where nature provides value beyond that which might be gained from its exploitation.

The concept makes complete sense as an economic theory and it is gaining traction with a growing number of businesses and governments. Many corporate now undertake natural capital accounting exercises to help them manage watersheds or forest resources. Meanwhile, the UK government is piloting a number of new initiatives, including biodiversity offsets that are designed to ensure developers better consider the environmental costs of new projects.

But critics of the approach have long argued that it is impossible to accurately calculate the economic value of nature and in doing so policymakers can inadvertently help justify nature-destroying developments. The journalist and campaigner George Monbiot has been a vociferous critic of the very idea of natural capital and ecosystem services, saying that "efforts to price the natural world are complete and utter gobbledygook" and arguing that the natural capital agenda represents a "neoliberal road to ruin".

Regardless of whether or not businesses regard natural capital thinking as a useful tool in protecting nature or a dangerous distraction, there are plenty of other reasons why engagement with biodiversity and habitat protection, as well as wider reforms to land management, is growing fast.

Natural capital thinking is one of a number of policy ideas jostling for position as governments consider how best to tackle accelerating levels of environmental damage. Massively expanded nature reserves; the 'rewilding' of vast tracts of land enabled by a shift away from livestock-based diets; farming subsidy changes and wider land ownership reforms; lab based meats and vertical farms; and more stringent forest protection regulations backed by advanced satellite monitoring technologies are all firmly in the mix.

Savvy businesses are aware of this evolving policy debate, as well as the intensifying pressure from consumers and investors for them to publicly demonstrate that they are actively minimising their environmental impacts. As in so many other aspects of the economy, transparency is increasing and more and more companies are being held to account.

For example, the NGO Global Canopy has recently published a report calling out "world-famous brands selling everything from high fashion to supermarket favourites, who are ignoring deforestation caused by demand for the commodities they use". In its latest Forest 500 report, it pulls no punches, declaring that "vast areas of tropical forest are being cleared each year to make way for six globally-traded commodities - palm oil, soy, beef, leather, timber and pulp and paper - used in millions of everyday products. Yet, of the leading companies trading these commodities and the financial institutions that finance them, nearly half (242 of 500) have made no public commitment to end deforestation".

It then highlights the role of some of the world's biggest corporate names, including Amazon; Capri Holdings - owner of Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors; Us food giant Tyson Foods; and investors such as Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street.

"Many of the world's best-known brands are complicit in the destruction of tropical forests, which undermines our ability to combat global climate change," says report author Sarah Rogerson. "They are turning a blind eye to deforestation caused by demand for the commodities they use and failing to publicly recognise their responsibility to act."

With wildfires in the Amazon, Australia, and California raising awareness among consumers, and 244 financial institutions having signed a statement calling on companies to take action to avoid deforestation, it is increasingly difficult for businesses to hide. Yet even when companies have made deforestation commitments, too many stand accused of abandoning, watering down or refusing to report on their progress against those pledges. Global Canopy reports that in 2018, 157 companies had pledged to end deforestation. But of those, 81 companies have since removed or weakened commitments or reduced reporting, including the owners of brands such as Burger King, Nike, KFC, Walmart, and Carrefour.

"Forest risk commodities are in almost everything we eat, from beef in ready meals and burgers, palm oil in biscuits, to soy as a hidden ingredient in poultry and dairy products," says Rogerson. "Many people would be shocked to know how many familiar brands in their shopping basket may be contributing to the destruction of the Amazon and other tropical forests."

Such practices are particularly high risk in today's economic and social landscape, Cartwright argues. "Public interest about the environment is very driven by how horrified people are by the damage caused by things like plastic pollution," she says. "There is a public expectation now that companies are doing the right thing. If consumers find out that companies are harming nature or they have supply chains that are causing environmental damage, they are really surprised and they punish them. If you're not aware of what's going on in your supply chain, you put yourself at risk."

However, despite the many daunting challenges there are sources of optimism. Emerging technologies, such as satellite mapping and blockchain, are giving firms ever greater insight into their land-based supply chains. Technological progress has coupled with increased management focus and a growing understanding of the value of ecosystem services so as to allow executives to actively minimise supply chain risks. The green procurement codes of a few years ago have evolved into wide-ranging suppler engagement programmes that see consumer brands work closely with suppliers to minimise environmental impacts at every turn.

For example, Michelle Norman, head of sustainability at Lucozade Ribena Suntory, says that the company "is driven by its desire to work in harmony with people and nature" and as such it "wants our supply chain to be as sustainable as possible and the traceability of our ingredients forms a huge part of that".

"Blackcurrants rely on life on land to thrive," she continues. "That's why we support our growers all year-round to implement Biodiversity Action Plans on their farms and have done since 2004. This includes water conservation, habitat restoration and other initiatives designed to promote biodiversity, without which we couldn't sustain our wonderful blackcurrant crop." Consequently, the company says it can now trace the 10,000 tonnes of British blackcurrant that go into Ribena, right through from bush to bottle.

Meanwhile, product innovation in everything from packaging to proteins is helping to curb land use impacts.

For example, over the last two years, the market for lab-grown or plant-based meat substitutes has grown from being essentially science fiction to a market where, in 2019, "one of the world's biggest alternative protein brands, Beyond Meat, the manufacturer of the plant-based Beyond Burger, went public at a valuation of almost $1.5bn", according to CB Insights. Another company, Impossible Foods, whose plant-based meat features in Burger King's meat-free Impossible Whopper, was valued at $2bn at its last funding round.

"In addition to offering new products, these alternative protein start-ups have the potential to upend the meat production process," CB Insights explains. "Going forward, the meat value chain could be simplified dramatically, as 'clean meat' labs could take the place of farms, feed lots, and slaughterhouses." This disruption could have profound effects on the $1.8tr meat market on a similar scale to the upheavals being experienced by carmakers, utilities, and oil and gas groups as a result of competitive clean technologies and escalating concerns over climate change.

Another trend that offers businesses the opportunity to reduce their harmful impacts on land and biodiversity is the growth of the circular economy, which has the potential to massively reduce resource use, waste, and pollution. Indonesian start-up Evoware provides just one example of the resource-saving innovation that is accelerating around the world, thanks to its edible alternative to plastic cups and food sachets. Made from seaweed, the new material promises to not only reduce plastic pollution but also sequester CO2. Similarly, Finnish oil refiner Neste is one of a number of companies moving from making products from crude oil to alternatives made from materials such as waste oils and fats to produce biodiesel, bioaviation fuel, and bioplastics. The race is on to develop low carbon fuels that avoid the land use impacts that inevitably come with first generation biofuels.

It is these many innovations, coupled with the kind of policy interventions that have proven to increase forest cover in many industrialised nations and slow deforestation rates in emerging economies, which provide hope that slow progress on SDG15 to date could yet reach an inflection point.

Cartwright argues it is proactive businesses that are likely to trigger a new wave of action to deliver on SDG15. "This is an area where we really need business to lead, because otherwise we get stuck in a cycle of government saying that companies are not doing enough and businesses saying they can't do any more because it is not compulsory for their competitors to act as well," she says. "It's a real opportunity for companies to step up and tackle these issues."

The debate over 'ecosystem services' and 'natural capital' accounting may continue to rage on, but alongside escalating corporate and investor fears over the climate crisis a fundamental truth is dawning in boardrooms around the world. "There is a growing realisation that we can't tackle climate change without restoring nature," reflects Cartwright. "It's easy to take nature for granted until it's gone - but once it's gone, we can't get it back. It's really interesting that the connection doesn't get made that we are nature; we are life on land. We're not separate from it. If we damage life on land, we are damaging ourselves."

Read more here:

SDG15: The fight for life on land - http://www.businessgreen.com

Finance Minister Grant Robertson says New Zealand'sin a strong position to stand up to the economic and health impacts of coronavirus, and said in a worst case scenario "immediate fiscal stimulus to support the economy" may be considered.

Ina speechon Thursday Robertson noted it was "welcome" that there has not yet beena case of coronavirus in NZ. Nonetheless he said health experts adviseit remains a high probability that NZwill have a case at some point. The Governmenthasthe capacity and ability to "do what it takes," he said.

"Beyond the public health response, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to managing the outbreak and planning for further scenarios. A key part of this is our planning for the economic impacts of the virus," Robertson said.

"We go into this situation with the economy in good shape. We are in a strong position to stand up to the economic and health impacts of coronavirus. Looking across fiscal and monetary policy, our labour market, consumer and business confidence readings and our housing market, the economy showed solid signs of improvement in late 2019."

"We go into this with our official interest rate higher than many other advanced economies our Reserve Banks OCR at 1% is above Australia and the UK at 0.75%, and there are negative rates across Europe, said Robertson.

"We go into this with very low Government debt compared to the rest of the world. Credit ratings agency Moodys recently reported that New Zealands Government debt position is significantly lower than other countries with its top Aaa rating."

"And we go into this situation off the back of our Governments announcement of additional infrastructure investment in roads, rail, schools and hospitals under the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. We are investing to support, grow and modernise our economy," Robertson added.

Nonetheless Robertson acknowledged there'sa high level of uncertainty about what will unfold.

"It is not possible for anyone at this stage to give definitive answers to significant questions, such as: How long will it last? What will the global reach be? How deep will the impact be felt?"

"But while we look for answers for those questions, we can say some things with certainty. This will have a serious impact on the New Zealand economy in the short term," he said, highlighting the impact on tourism and the tertiary education sector with estimates of about 40% of foreign students not travelling to NZ.

"It is obvious that if the docks in China are shut down because workers are not able to get to work, then this will impact New Zealands log and food exports. Although I will add that we are starting to hear reports of some shipments getting through. Chinese authorities are also prioritising food shipments into China, which is positive for a country like New Zealand," Robertson said.

"We also know that the supply chain disruption in China is having some effects here in New Zealand, where domestic companies rely on imports from China that are not moving at this time. Very early, we began speaking to industry groups about how we could help them respond to the initial impacts of coronavirus."

Robertson said current international analysis of the economic impacts fromcoronavirus focuseson a scenario where the virus is contained and there is a short, sharp impact on the global economy in the first half of 2020, before activity returns to normal levels.

Within NZ an Economic Advisory Group led by the Treasury and including the Reserve Bank and the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment is assessing three scenarios:

Scenario one predicts a temporary global demand shock where there'sa temporary but significant impact on the NZeconomy across the first half of 2020, before growth rebounds in the second half as exports return to normal.

The second scenario is based on a longer lasting shock to the domestic economy, as the global impact feeds through for a period of time, and where there are cases of coronavirus in NZ.

And the third scenario is planning for how to respond to a global economic downturn if the worst case plays out around the world, and there'sa global pandemic, Robertson said.

"We believe it is sensible and responsible to plan for these multiple scenarios. It does not mean we are predicting them. But it means we can continue to act swiftly and decisively as the impacts of coronavirus on the global and domestic economies become clearer, so that we can support Kiwis and New Zealand businesses," said Robertson.

"Our officials here are actively monitoring this situation, drawing on all data and analyses that they can to adjust our assumptions and forecasts. This includes administrative data that might provide more timely signals than traditional economic indicators which are reported with a lag."

"It also includes high-frequency data from China that economic analysts around the world are keeping tabs on ranging from coal consumption to air pollution levels and traffic jams in Chinese cities to monitor activity there," said Robertson.

The second scenario would see the domestic economy experiencing a longer period of slower growth, throughout 2020,due to the global effects of coronavirus.

"Under this scenario, global uncertainty about the worldwide spread and containment of the virus causes deeper impacts on directly exposed sectors, as our trading partners feel the effects of coronavirus. We would expect to experience a decline in visitor arrivals from other markets outside of the temporary travel ban due to the economic impact that the virus has in other countries like what were seeing now with South Korea," said Robertson.

"These external effects lead to broader indirect impacts across the domestic economy, with business and consumer confidence falling and the subsequent impact on investment and spending decisions."

In scenario three,where the virus outbreak becomes a global pandemic leading toa global downturn or a global recession, "it may be necessary to consider immediate fiscal stimulus to support the economy as a whole and businesses and individuals through this period," said Robertson.

"I hasten to add that we are not predicting this scenario. But we are doing the planning for it. I also remind you that these scenarios are all temporary. The effects of this virus will pass. We are in a strong position to handle these scenarios."

"We have the capacity and ability to do what it takes," Robertson said.

Bank lobby group the New Zealand Bankers' Association says businesses and individuals financially affected by coronavirus should talk to their bank.

Were aware that some businesses, particularly small to medium sized ones, are being financially impacted by this unfolding global issue. The same may apply to individual customers working in sectors directly affected. Banks can offer affected customers support, says New Zealand Bankers Association chief executive Roger Beaumont.

The sooner you talk to your bank, the better placed they are to help you. Good two-way communication between customers and their banks is essential to helping get through financial stress. Depending on your circumstances, there are a number of ways in which banks can help.

Reducing or suspending principal payments on loans and temporarily moving to interest-only repayments

Referring individual customers to budgeting services.

Robertson's full speech is below.

NZ economy in strong position to respond to coronavirus

Prepared remarks on coronavirus by Finance Minister Grant Robertson to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

The topic of this speech is the Budget 2020 priorities. But, given the considerable interest that I imagine is in the room about COVID-19 coronavirus, I do want to make some comments about that first.

Because we do meet today in the shadow of one of the biggest uncertainties that the global economy has seen in recent times.

This is a rapidly changing situation that the world finds itself in.

This week we have seen stock markets react to news of the virus spreading.

Just overnight, the World Health Organisation reported there were more new cases recorded outside China than inside it.

I am going to spend a bit of time outlining what we are doing to respond to coronavirus, and how we are planning for a range of scenarios so that we are prepared and able to support the New Zealand economy as the global impact of the virus becomes clearer.

First and foremost, our response to coronavirus must be led by our responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of our people. That is why our first response has been a public health response.

The Ministry of Health has done significant work over recent years on our pandemic planning and response. That means we are in a position to deploy that plan if this virus outbreak spreads and cases reach New Zealand.

The Ministry is working closely with DHBs, public health units, general practitioners and other health providers, including holding daily teleconferences on emerging issues.

The Prime Minister earlier this week set out some of that work. This includes even the level of detail of having 9 million P2 masks, and 9 million general purpose surgical masks available.

Weve initiated an intensive care network of clinical ICU directors. Weve undertaken a national stocktake from DHBs, which shows that we can deploy new staff across ICUs and high-dependency unit beds around the country.

We have access to negative pressure rooms across 15 DHBs, and New Zealand has the ability to test for the virus in Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington, with same-day turnaround.

As you know, weve also put in place the travel ban on people who have left or transited through mainland China in the previous 14 days. We continue to review that ban every 48 hours, including taking into account the spread of the virus to other countries.

Public health staff are at our international airports, providing advice and information, and they are available to undertake health assessments of passengers.

That information includes guidance on self-isolation. Since early February there have been more than 5,000 registrations of people in self-isolation. I want to take a moment here to thank New Zealanders for showing that kind of responsibility.

Healthline has established a dedicated phone line for coronavirus information 0800 358 5453.

It is, of course, welcome that we have not yet had a case of coronavirus in New Zealand.

The advice from health experts is that, with an outbreak of this type, it remains a high probability that we will have a case at some point. But I want to congratulate our public health officials on their response.

What it has done is buy us some time to prepare ourselves should a case arrive.

Beyond the public health response, we are taking a whole-of-government approach to managing the outbreak and planning for further scenarios.

A key part of this is our planning for the economic impacts of the virus.

As we do this, we know that this Governments economic plan has been strengthening and growing the economy, even in the face of the global headwinds we have faced over the past two years, like the US-China trade war and Brexit uncertainty.

We go into this situation with the economy in good shape. We are in a strong position to stand up to the economic and health impacts of coronavirus.

Looking across fiscal and monetary policy, our labour market, consumer and business confidence readings and our housing market, the economy showed solid signs of improvement in late 2019.

The Governments accounts for the first six months of the fiscal year to the end of December 2019 were strong. We had a surplus over the first six months of our fiscal year and were sitting $500 million higher than expected due to the stronger economy. This is on top of the $12 billion of surpluses in our first two years in Government. Tax revenue, including corporate tax and GST, were running ahead of forecast highlighting the underlying strength of our businesses and our economy.

Just yesterday, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research reported how the fundamentals of the economy are still strong, saying there is underlying momentum in the economy. This was off the back of higher consumer and business confidence, and following the announcement of the Governments significant infrastructure plans, which will boost domestic economic activity.

We go into this with our unemployment rate having ticked down to 4%. Just last week, Australias rate ticked up to 5.3%.

We go into this with our official interest rate higher than many other advanced economies our Reserve Banks OCR at 1% is above Australia and the UK at 0.75%, and there are negative rates across Europe.

We go into this with very low Government debt compared to the rest of the world. Credit ratings agency Moodys recently reported that New Zealands Government debt position is significantly lower than other countries with its top Aaa rating.

And we go into this situation off the back of our Governments announcement of additional infrastructure investment in roads, rail, schools and hospitals under the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. We are investing to support, grow and modernise our economy.

New Zealand is in a strong position to respond to the impacts of coronavirus.

We are operating in an environment of high uncertainty. It is not possible for anyone at this stage to give definitive answers to significant questions, such as: How long will it last? What will the global reach be? How deep will the impact be felt?

But while we look for answers for those questions, we can say some things with certainty.

This will have a serious impact on the New Zealand economy in the short term.

It is clear that there is an immediate impact on the tourism industry, particularly given there are now very few flights between China and New Zealand.

Chinese tourists typically spend around $180 million per month in the peak travel months of January through to April.

Within education exports, our tertiary sector has been impacted due to foreign students not travelling. The estimates we have are that around 40% of students have not been able to travel here.

Thats why we are working closely with our tertiary education sector to see what they can do to make sure New Zealanders public health isnt put at risk if the travel ban is lifted for students.

It is obvious that if the docks in China are shut down because workers are not able to get to work, then this will impact New Zealands log and food exports. Although I will add that we are starting to hear reports of some shipments getting through. Chinese authorities are also prioritising food shipments into China, which is positive for a country like New Zealand.

We also know that the supply chain disruption in China is having some effects here in New Zealand, where domestic companies rely on imports from China that are not moving at this time.

Very early, we began speaking to industry groups about how we could help them respond to the initial impacts of coronavirus.

This week, Minister Davis and I held a meeting with leaders from the tourism industry regarding the $11 million fund we set up to help identify new markets and opportunities as visitor numbers from China remain low due to the public health travel ban.

At that meeting we agreed to establish a tourism industry advisory group to ensure a continuous flow of information between the industry and the Government.

We also agreed on the importance of working together to rebuild the Chinese market from a New Zealand Inc. point of view once restrictions are lifted.

In terms of Government departments, MSD and IRD are working closely with affected businesses and individuals to make sure they receive the support they need.

The most recent numbers show the IRD has spoken directly with more than 100 businesses to give them advice and support.

An MBIE website atbusiness.govt.nzhas been set up as a dedicated resource for businesses to source information about a range of potential issues like where exporters can go for assistance, implications for landlords and tenants, issues around tax obligations and questions around planning for travel.

As of yesterday, there had been 45,000 hits on the site so its good to see information flowing between Government and businesses.

Minister Stuart Nash moved quickly to help our live rock lobster industry with a set of common sense changes to rules that he oversees to help them manage their stocks after it became difficult to export to China.

Economic impact

It is important to keep in mind that this outbreak will end, just as we saw with other outbreaks like SARS. The question is a matter of, when that will be?

New Zealands economy is in a strong position to respond to coronavirus. We are well prepared to respond to a range of scenarios that could play out.

Current analysis of the economic impacts of coronavirus from various forecasters has focussed on a scenario where the virus is contained and there is a short, sharp impact on the global economy in the first half of 2020, before activity returns to normal levels.

Over the weekend, the IMF downgraded its China growth forecast for 2020 from 6% to 5.6% under a scenario which assumes the spread of the virus is contained. The impact on global growth from this would take it from 3.3% in 2020 to 3.2%.

The OECD publishes its next set of interim forecasts next week, which will contain further updates.

The IMFs Managing Director did say they are looking at further scenarios where the spread of the virus continued for longer, was more global, and had more protracted global growth consequences.

This is similar to what we are doing here in New Zealand, through an Economic Advisory Group led by the Treasury and including the Reserve Bank and MBIE.

Through this, we are assessing three scenarios:

Scenario one predicts a temporary global demand shock where we experience a temporary but significant impact on the New Zealand economy across the first half of 2020, before growth rebounds in the second half as exports return to normal.

The second scenario is based on a longer lasting shock to the domestic economy, as the global impact feeds through to the economy for a period of time, and where there are cases in New Zealand, and,

The third scenario is planning for how to respond to a global downturn if the worst case plays out around the world, and we have a global pandemic.

We believe it is sensible and responsible to plan for these multiple scenarios.

It does not mean we are predicting them. But it means we can continue to act swiftly and decisively as the impacts of coronavirus on the global and domestic economies become clearer, so that we can support Kiwis and New Zealand businesses.

This week NZIER released a piece of research showing they expect a short, sharp shock, with the effects expected to be temporary in line with what Ive outlined in scenario one, where containment works.

But it is important to note that NZIER said that if its assumption around containment does not hold, then there would likely be a larger impact on export demand, meaning weaker GDP growth in the New Zealand economy.

Read more here:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson says New Zealand is in a strong position to respond to the impacts of coronavirus - Interest.co.nz

LeoPatrizi via Getty ImagesIn this stock photo, pedestrians cross a busy street in downtown Toronto.Canadians have serious doubts about their financial future and the economy as a whole, a new survey from Edelman has found.

MONTREAL Despite a strong economy that has churned out a record number of jobs in recent years and a housing market that has fattened many households assets, Canadians have serious doubts about their financial future and the economy as a whole.

Those are the key findings in the latest edition of the annual trust barometer from public relations firm Edelman, which measures public trust in the system government, business, non-governmental organizations and the media.

Watch: Its easier to get rich in Canada than in the U.S., but it comes at a cost. Story continues below.

The survey of 1,500 Canadians was carried out from Oct. 19 to Nov. 18, 2019, well before the coronavirus outbreak and the Wetsuweten solidarity protests placed large question marks on the economic outlook.

It found that 76 per cent of Canadians are worried about losing their jobs, with the gig economy, a lack of training or skills, and fears of a recession the top reasons for the concern.

EdelmanThis chart from Edelman ranks the top causes for why 76 per cent of Canadians are worried about losing their job.

It found that barely more than a third of Canadians 35 per cent expect they will be better off in five years time. Thats lower than the U.S., where 43 per cent expect to be better off, but higher than in some developed countries, such as the U.K. and Japan.

EdelmanThis chart from Edelman's 2020 trust barometer ranks countries according to the percentage of people who believe they will be better off in five year's time. Canada is among the countries where a majority are pessimistic.

There is a narrative in Canada that while there are indicators of a strong-performing economy, there are some underlying issues, said Lisa Kimmel, CEO of Edelmans Canada and Latin America operations.

She listed off the countrys high household debt levels, the still-unratified new North American free trade deal, trade tensions with China and obviously the whole pipeline issue in a conversation with HuffPost Canada.

The reality is we are a resource-based economy still, our future economic prosperity to a large degree is dependent on our ability to get oil out of the country. Those are issues that cause great anxiety.

And there seems to be an inability were seeing it play out around these [pipeline] protests in coming to an agreement as to what were going to do as a country about that issue, Kimmel said in a phone interview.

Edelmans survey breaks down respondents into two groups: The informed public those who tend to consume a lot of news and who tend to have higher incomes and education and the mass public, which is everyone else.

One use of this breakdown is that it offers an insight into how the countrys elites are thinking, and its among this group that pessimism is particularly on the rise in Canada a trend that Kimmel describes as concerning.

As in most other countries, Canadas informed public has more faith in institutions such as government, business and media than the mass public, but that faith dropped sharply among Canadians in the latest survey.

Faith in government, business and media fell by eight percentage points each, and the share of informed public who believe they will be better off five years from now dropped to 47 per cent from 53 per cent a year earlier though thats still more optimistic than the public as a whole.

Kimmel thinks that may have had to do with last years federal election.

For many people among the informed public and this extends to the mass public as well we didnt have great options to choose from, she said. You had to choose the best of not great options. That to me demonstrates there is not a lot of confidence and trust thats being placed in political leaders today in Canada.

What people demand from leaders is changing, Kimmel acknowledged.

Expectations of leadership have evolved. The characteristics that defined leaders in the past [for example] delivering strong financial results arent necessarily going to be the qualities that make a good leader in the future.

Business leaders, for instance, are expected not only to deliver financial results, but to prioritize the well-being of the communities in which they operate. And more than ever, politicians need to be collaborative, [to] lead with purpose and understand the issues that are most concerning to their stakeholders, Kimmel said.

The expectations are greater than they once were.

Continue reading here:

Canada Trust Survey Finds Only 1 In 3 Believe They Will Be Better Off In 5 Years - HuffPost Canada