Daily Archives: May 23, 2020

A Resource Based Economy is an economical model, that defines the criteria by which we can or cannot afford a consumable based on the resources required to construct it, rather than it's percieved value.

In simpler terms, it's an alternative to using money. I will not bore you or underestimate your intellectual capacity, with high flying utopian dreams, about how such a hypothetical economical system could or could not work, in some kind of perfect world that may never be, there are ample resources you can find on the Internet that already discuss this.

This website, was created with the intention of sharing information on the historical context within which these concepts first arose, as well as information on theoretical research that myself and my colleagues have done on the subject of applying such a system in the here and now, as well as our educated guesses and recommendations for the future.

We are a group of people who used to work together in the non-profit research organizations dedicated to these subjects. We are people with theoretical knowledge, technical expertise and practical busiess experience related to the research we did and unlike so many others, we do know what we are talking about. Most of my colleagues have decided to no longer activelly pursue this research, due to practical constraints, but I believe that it is important to share what we know. Hopefully this website will provide that bit of insight required to actually help somebody out there.

mail:

Visit link:

Resource Based Economy

Spatial structure of the enzyme AmbDH3.

In the bioeconomy, biotechnological processes are replacing processes that rely on fossil resources. Microorganisms and enzymes are being used in targeted fashion as biocatalysts for industrial production. Researchers at the University of Bayreuth have now discovered an enzyme that offers great advantages as a biocatalyst. It is eminently suited for the production of natural product-derived drugs that promise a broad spectrum of medical application. Conventional synthesis processes for these substances are very laborious. In the journal "ACS Catalysis", researchers from the team of Prof. Dr. Frank Hahn present their discovery.

Nature holds a wealth of substances that could be of great medical benefits for humans. Due to their complex structures, however, these natural products can often only be produced at great expense when using conventional chemical processes. One promising approach to this problem is the use of biocatalysts, which often help to markedly simplify production. The new biocatalyst discovered by the Bayreuth researchers is the enzyme AmbDH3. It can be used to produce ring-shaped building blocks of natural products, so-called tetrahydropyrans. They often cause the biological activity of natural products, and therefore play an important role in medical applications.

In their study, the Bayreuth scientists succeeded in proving that AmbDH3 can be used to produce the antibiotically active ()-centrolobin. On the basis of this, the Bayreuth research team intends to tackle the synthesis of further, even more complex tetrahydropyran-containing natural products. One example are the Bryostatins, which are of great interest in drug research due to their antiviral activity. They might even be suitable for the treatment of cancer or Alzheimer's disease.

Tetrahydropyrans are ring-shaped molecules that belong to the chemical group of heterocycles. The research group of Prof. Dr. Frank Hahn at the University of Bayreuth shows, in its new study, that a variety of different heterocycles can be obtained with the help of the biocatalyst AmbDH3. The new biocatalyst has the advantage of allowing the spatial structure of the resulting ring-shaped molecules to be precisely controlled. In addition, AmbDH3 is a very stable enzyme and suitable for the production of large quantities of a desired substance. Until now, no biocatalyst has been known to combine all of these properties.

The scientists discovered AmbDH3 while studying bacteria that use this enzyme to produce ambruticin. This is a potential drug candidate for treatment of fungal diseases.

"I expect future applications for the enzyme AmbDH3 primarily in the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients, but also in the synthesis of fine chemicals. Our research group is confident that we will be able to discover further enzymes related to AmbDH3, which will further expand the repertoire of these biocatalysts. Our work has proven that biocatalysis can make a significant contribution to establishing a more natural resource-based economy. It thus contributes to solving central social challenges," says Hahn, who, together with his team at the University of Bayreuth, is conducting research into the drug potential of natural products, and the synthetic potential of biosynthetic enzymes.

Industrial (or White) biotechnology is indispensable in the development of a sustainable bio-economy. By allowing microorganisms or enzymes to take over the production of substances that were previously obtained by 'artificial' chemical synthesis processes, energy is conserved and significantly fewer toxic chemicals used. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are very interested in such gentle processes. "With new biocatalysts, areas that until recently were reserved for traditional chemical synthetic methodology can be opened up to the bio-economy. In future, it will be important to combine the advantages of both research and development approaches in a targeted way," Hahn explains.

'+_msgObj.message+'

'+_msgObj.message+'

'+_msgObj.message+'

'+_msgObj.message+'

'+_msgObj.message+'

You are currently not logged in to my.chemeurope.com .Your changes will in fact be stored however can be lost at all times.

See more here:

On our way to the bio-economy: High-performance biocatalyst discovered - Chemie.de

Two weeks before Stephen Poloz leaves his position as governor of the Bank of Canada, he's issued an optimistic assessment of Canada's economic potential.

In a May 21 briefing with reporters, he pointed out that the financial markets have improved. And he predictedthat the housing market will also be able to rebound.

That's because it had already stabilized somewhat before the pandemic was declared in March.

In addition, Poloz described media headlines as being "a little too dire"while still acknowledging that the timing of the lifting ofhealth restrictions will play a huge role in any recovery.

His comments contrasted with a bleak assessment delivered by the president of the CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Evan Siddall.

Speaking before the Commons finance committee on Tuesday (May 19). Siddall talked about a "debt deferral cliff" that will come in the fall. This will occur when those who lost their jobs in the spring will be required to resume making mortgage payments.

As much as one fifth of all mortgages could be in arrears if our economy has not recovered sufficiently, he declared.

Siddall also suggested that home prices could fall by up to 18 percent over the next year in some parts of Canada.

Canadians can be forgiven for feeling confused when hearing such wildly differing perspectives from senior officials.

The reality is that this recovery could take different forms.

Think of it as a series of letters: V, U, W, and L.

The V-shape is the most desirableit begins with a sharp drop, like we've seen in March and April. That's when three million Canadians were thrown out of work.

These economic contractions can be followed by an equally sharp incline, such asoccurred in 1953 in the United States.

The difficulty in replicating that this time around is the high level of consumer debt that preceded the current recession.

Many Canadians were already overextended. That's been compounded by a jobless crisis that has had a disproportionate impact on millennials and Gen Z.

The U-shaped recession involves a longer-lasting trough in which unemployment levels remain high.

In these contractions, it takes a while to wash all the economic issues through the system.

A prime example of this was the 1973 to 1975 recession, which was characterized by "stagflation"stagnation combined with inflation.

This situation was triggered in part by an Arab oil embargo and U.S. president Richard Nixon's decision to cancel the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold.

Even though it only lasted a couple of years, it seemed to go on forever. And the economic malaise may have contributed to the overall grumpy mood in the United States that coincided with Nixon being forced to resign.

The W-shaped recession involves a bit of a recovery, followed by another dip, and then prolonged economic growth.

That occurred in the early 1980s when Canada's resource-based economy was thrashed by falling international prices for commodities.

Epidemiologists talk a lot about a second wave of COVID-19 infections. Were that to occur, it might be sufficient to create a W-shaped recession in the western world.

Parts of Europe already experienced the W-shaped economic curve. It began during the 2008 global meltdown, followed by another slowdown from 2011 to 2013 when some of the Eurozone's debt-saddled nations, notably Greece, experienced grave fiscal pressures.

The most frightening economic scenario is an L-shaped recession, which dogged Japan after the crash of the yen in 1991. What followed has been described as the "lost score" as home and stock values remained in the doldrums for 20 years.

The Great Depression of the 1930s was another L-shaped economic disaster.

"L-shaped recoveries are characterized by persistently high unemployment, a slow return of businesses investment activity, and a sluggish rate of growth in economic output, and are associated with some of the worst economic episodes through history," states the Investopedia website.

Canadians who listen to Poloz are likely to conclude that we're in store for a reasonably quick recovery.

But those who paid attention to Siddall's comments might worry about an L-shaped asset crash that could have long-term ramifications.

Those who hear health officials' warnings about a second wave of COVID-19 cases may anticipate a W-shaped curve.

And anyone fixated on resource prices might foresee a U-shaped situation unfolding as the Canadian economy adjusts to a shrinking energy sector.

The challenge for business executives and politicians is to build strategies based on what type of recession we might currently be in. And that could differ, depending where they live.

A prime example is the recession of 1991 and 1992, which hit Central Canada much harder than British Columbia.

It's exceedingly difficult to make predictions, given the plethora of contradictory information out there.

On the one hand, stock markets are doing well and housing prices have held up.

On the other hand, we've seen record job losses, retail sales have crashed, and certain sectors, like hospitality, are on their knees.

It's going to take a while to know for sure which letter of the alphabet will best describe what's unfolding in the Canadian economy.

But it's pretty clear where the governor of the Bank of Canada standshe's looking at a "V"for victory, perhaps, as he's on the way out the door.

Read more from the original source:

What shape is your economic curveV, U, W, or L? - Straight.com

The COVID-19 crisis is exposing the shortcomings of Canadas economy, particularly when it comes to supply chains and the development of value-added products that would keep the country competitive, innovation experts say.

Dan Breznitz, the co-director of the innovation policy lab at the University of Toronto, said he expects global trade in raw commodities to decline as the novel coronavirus makes it more difficult to move people and goods around the world.

Its a wake-up call for Canadas resource-based industries, he said, noting Canada will have a problem just selling wood and unprocessed oil.

The country must rebuild its capacity to produce sophisticated goods through innovation in those sectors and beyond, said Breznitz, who is also the chair of innovation studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs.

We no longer can actually produce the basic things we need in order to survive under (a) pandemic, and we cannot count on global production networks to do that in times of crisis.

Story continues below advertisement

Alan Winter, British Columbias former innovation commissioner, agrees, saying COVID-19 has further exposed Canadas dependence on purchasing goods and technology offshore with profits from primary resource industries.

The issues that we see today around (personal protection equipment) and getting stuff out of China is all illustrative of the fact that our economy, to some extent, has been totally submerged into other countries in terms of supply chains, he said.

Our strategy of selling raw natural resources doesnt make a lot of sense. We need to have the capability of developing more finished goods ourselves.

Canada lags behind other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for investing in research and development on new products and technology, said Winter.

In his final report to the B.C. government, released last week, Winter pointed out that about 1.4 per cent of the provinces GDP goes towards research and development, while the OECD average is about 2.4 per cent. Several of Canadas competitors make investments in the 3.5 per cent range, he added.

[ Sign up for our Health IQ newsletter for the latest coronavirus updates ]

Breznitz said Canada lacks policies aimed at creating more small- and medium-sized enterprises and then helping them grow, particularly when it comes to access to capital in the early stages before investments from venture capitalists.

Story continues below advertisement

Right now in Canada, it will be almost impossible to get the finance, just the basic finance for you to be able to scale up, he said, using an example of a family owned, medium-sized business with an idea for a new product or technology.

Canadian entrepreneurs also face regulatory red tape in selling newly developed products in Canada, said Breznitz.

It expensive and each province has its own little quirks. So, its actually easier to sell to the whole United States.

He said the federal government should provide targeted grants and loans directly to entrepreneurs and companies, rather than funnel money into more innovation superclusters, accelerators and incubators.

The silver lining is that Canadas workforce is much more sophisticated than it was 15 years ago, with the proven potential for innovative ideas, Breznitz said.

Others are commercializing those ideas, said Breznitz, pointing to large multinationals that have ramped up operations in Canada including Facebook and Google.

The question is what kind of policies would allow more Canadian entrepreneurs, small businesses and big businesses, old and new, to do exactly what the multinationals are doing.

Private companies operating in Canada have also failed to invest in research and development because innovation is costly and risky, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

You can make easy money with less risk by being less sophisticated.

The need for economic support and opportunities is even more pronounced in rural communities, where Breznitz said the lack of investment has been catastrophic.

Ken Coates, Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation, said many residents lack access to a reliable internet connection, let alone access to start-up capital and training opportunities in science and technology.

We should be delivering basic services at a national level to all Canadians. And were not even close to there right now.

The pandemic may mobilize rural residents to demand the same essential service standards available in urban areas, said Coates, who also teaches at the graduate school of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan.

He said Canadas natural resources have made the country rich and complacent.

The irony is that much of Canadas resource development happens in and around rural and remote communities that should have become prosperous as a result, Coates said.

Economic development in rural and remote areas should capitalize on local strengths, he said.

For example, the capital of Swedens northernmost county was well-suited to become the host of Facebooks European data servers. The city of Lulea has cheap and abundant hydro electricity and cold temperatures for the hot servers, much like parts of B.C., said Coates.

Story continues below advertisement

But it takes a lot of nerve, enthusiasm, commitment and support for a rural or remote community to decide to stand up and fight for new jobs, investors and residents, he said.

Theres no easy solution whatsoever.

2020 The Canadian Press

See the article here:

Innovation experts say COVID-19 exposing vulnerabilities of Canadas economy - Globalnews.ca

object(WP_Post)#882 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(66458) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2020-05-20 18:42:27" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-05-20 13:12:27" ["post_content"]=> string(27512) "

The COVID-19 pandemic is exerting complex impact on global development. The aggravation of negative processes (the growing rivalry of great powers and the struggle for leadership) is accompanied by the emergence of potentially positive ones (the increasing demand for joint response to global challenges) which in the long run will affect the international environment. However, the essence of modern world politics remains unchanged: it is the struggle for positions in building a new order in place of the rapidly collapsing present one and the approaching finale of not only the unipolar moment, but also of the Wests five-hundred-year domination based on military superiority achieved in the 16th-17th centuries. There is a danger that by focusing entirely on the pandemic Russia and the international community might get distracted from addressing fundamental problemsdevising and implementing a new, future-oriented ideological base and agenda for Russias foreign policy.

For several years, the world has been drifting towards a pre-war state as the danger of unintended global war due to the escalation of multiplying crises grew. There are several reasons for that: the fastest ever redistribution of power in the world; degradation of elites in many countries and their despair over the inability to cope with snowballing problems, which has been clearly exposed by the global coronavirus attack; the emergence of a new generation of destabilizing weapons and the expansion of military rivalry into new spheres (outer space, cyberspace, artificial intelligence); the emasculation of previous arms limitation regimes; escalating U.S. rivalry with China and Russia; the blurring of the line between war and peace; and dwindling resistance of societies to the threat of wara kind of strategic parasitism, a habit of peace, utterly unjustified in view of the factors listed above.

The pandemic is dangerous, but by historical standards probably not catastrophic, even though it is perceived as such because it has triggered an avalanche of problems and imbalanceseconomic, financial, and those related to growing inequality, pollution, climate change, migration, intra-European and intra-Atlantic problemswhich kept mounting but were never addressed. Many elites have seized on the pandemic as the equivalent of a relatively safe little war that will write everything off. It may help release the steam, but it is equally likely that it may precipitate a deep global economic crisis, similar to that of 1929 which was one of the causes of World War II, and exacerbate numerous international problems and contradictions. The U.S. has stepped up its confrontational policy towards China and Russia in a desperate attempt to regain global leadership, thus increasing the threat of war between the great powers.

At the same time, the current upheavals cannot but make mankind revise many habitual models of relations and reassess existing values. Issues pertaining to environmental pollution, climate change, natural and technological disasters and pandemics will gain greater importance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also become a powerful catalyst for the growing trend towards renationalization of the world economy and politics. It has shown that anti-epidemic measures are largely being taken at the national level. In fact, it has proven that only sovereign states are able to provide people with public benefits. This generates much stronger demand for sovereignty, rejection of external dominance, and freedom in choosing ones political and cultural path, development models, and foreign policy orientation.

Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the need for a new philosophy of development that would center on the preservation and development of man and protection of nature, not on unbridled consumption.

All these trends require that Russia fundamentally upgrade the ideological framework of its foreign policy and offer its own society and the world attractive and future-oriented ideas.[1]

This need was fairly obvious even before the pandemic. Russias foreign policy of the last fifteen years has been quite successful. The restoration of effective deterrence capability, the creation of highly efficient conventional armed forces and state-of-the-art strategic systems, brilliant diplomacy, and competitors mistakes have let the country return into the top league of world politics. At the same time there are indications showing that the ideological content of Russias foreign policy is lagging behind global development trends and the needs of Russian society, which may cause a loss of some of the regained international positions and may reduce public support for a strong foreign and defense policy.

Russias foreign policy rhetoric lacks bright, forward-looking ideas that would be consistent with main global development trends and be able to lead. For example, the idea of multipolarity, which still underlies Russian foreign policy rhetoric but actually represents the agenda of the 1990s and 2000s, is no longer attractive to most countries. The unipolar moment is over, and the main question now is not whether or not a multipolar world order will ever become a reality, but what rules and norms will lie at its foundation.

Naturally, Russias foreign policy can boast some promising ideas such as the Greater Eurasian Partnership. However, at the global level, Russias unique contribution to world affairs and its special mission have remained unidentified or inconsistent with the general trends and aspirations of most countries. Russia has often been even wary of talking about its mission.

There is an ideological vacuum in the world, and a fierce struggle is unfolding to fill it. The U.S., while still waving the flag of freedom and democracy and building up its economic and military power, is trying hard to retain dominance while at the same time giving up the liberal approach and displaying Darwinian egoism. China has proposed a Community of Common Destiny, which represents its mission as the promotion of harmony and development. But it is not yet quite clear what exactly this means in practice.

Big ideas, which simultaneously reflect internal identity, make the national existence meaningful and illuminate distinctive contribution that a country could offer for the rest of the world, constitute the defining feature of a great power. If such ideas fade away or are abandoned, great powers become weak and even fall apart. Russia has already gone through that.

We do not suggest adopting a state ideology in the classical sense, an ideology that would claim to elaborate the only correct views on historical development and offer a true and universal system of values, or that would impose its views and values on others. The country and the world had enough of that in the 20th century. The pragmatism of Russias foreign policy, that is, its ability to develop relations with all countries regardless of their internal regimes, must be preserved as it gives great advantages and reduces costs.

But it is necessary to understand what Russia is in the world of today and tomorrow, what its positive contribution to international affairs is in comparison with the role of other powers, and why Russian society and most countries of the world should be interested in preserving a strong Russia and making it even stronger. What role will it play in a world where, on the one hand, two superpowers (the U.S. and China which is turning into a superpower) come to the fore, but, on the other hand, more and more countries do not want to become dependent on them? Can Russia contribute to the fight against epidemics and environmental degradation and how? The answers to these questions will largely determine Russias international position, its influence, its role in shaping a new world order, and even its internal political stability.

The ideas that were proposed by one of the authors of this article in a previous publication (seeNew Ideas for Itself and the World) have not only lost relevance now, in the conditions of the coronavirus pandemic, but, on the contrary, have become more pertinent and important. In our opinion, Russias foreign policy should be based on the following ideological triad:

It is desirable that each of these ideas become the basis of the relevant policy, a set of foreign policy initiatives.

Russias mission in this case would be saving the planet from nuclear catastrophe and environmental disaster, protecting sovereignty and freedom of choice for all countries. This is not an urge for Russia to make everyone happy at its own expense, as it was in Soviet times, but a policy that meets the interests of Russian society. Since such a mission cannot be carried out unilaterally, it is necessary to seek maximum cooperation of all countries in order to consolidate peace and protect the environment. One of the slogans for the proposed policy could sound likeLets save the planet together.

These ideas and priorities are,first, fully consistent with global trends. Peace, freedom of choice and sovereignty, the preservation of nature and humans is what is needed everywhere today and will be even more needed tomorrow.

Second, these ideas are akin to domestic identity, to what has always been valued in Russia. Ensuring sovereignty and independence is one of Russias highest priorities; preserving peace has historically been the main pursuit of the country that has survived several devastating incursions and has been existing in a challenging geopolitical environment. The emphasis on the spiritual and cultural development of man and society, not just on material goods and consumption, is also in line with Russias spiritual tradition.

Third, these ideas largely reflect what Russia is de facto already doing but has not yet conceptualized or is not yet been promoting as its own contribution to global development. By pursuing a firm foreign policy and creating new weapon systems that make it impossible for the U.S. and NATO to restore military superiority in the foreseeable future, Russia has reduced the threat of aggression against itself, a large-scale war, and a new conventional and nuclear arms race. This makes such a race too costly, if not completely meaningless, for the other side in the years to come. We have got a window of opportunity for a new policy and domestic development. Having put an end to the Wests military superiority, on which its political, economic, and cultural dominance has rested for the last five centuries, having stopped a series of destabilizing color revolutions and regime change endeavors in Syria, by playing an active role in Asia and the Middle East and maintaining a balanced partnership with all centers of power in these regions, Russia is strengthening the basis for preserving and strengthening the sovereignty of dozens of states. Russian policy guarantees them the freedom to choose a civilizational and cultural path as well as economic and political models of development, thereby allowing them to avoid making the exclusive either-or choice.

Fourth, the proposed foreign policy ideas and priorities are largely low-cost and even economically profitable. The only partial exception is environmental protection, the improvement of the national health system and assistance to the closest partners in modernizing their own health systems. But the development of these spheres will bring economic benefits in the future as well. Besides, this is inevitable anyway. It is always better to lead the way and reap international political benefits than respond to external or internal pressures.

It can encompass three key dimensions.

The first one is reducing the threat of war by easing political confrontation, reducing military activities, and forging dialogue between the military and political leaderships.

It is necessary to improve conflict prevention mechanisms (deconfliction) and to develop rules of conduct in gray zones, where the threat of unintentional military clash is the highest, especially in the cyber sphere.

One step further, when the Americans appear prepared for it, a new round of arms limitation negotiations can be proposed in order to block the most destabilizing directions of the arms race (space-based weapons, medium-range missiles, low-yield nuclear weapons on strategic carriers, precision non-nuclear weapons, etc.). But there must be no hurry so that to avoid falling into the trap of the traditional arms control formula.

It is necessary to propose a multilateral dialogue among all nuclear powers devoted to strengthening strategic stability. The efforts should be aimed at devising new rules of the game in the military-strategic field for the future, which would minimize the possibility of accidental and unauthorized use of nuclear weapons due to a fatal mistake or misjudgment. It would also be desirable to urge all nuclear powers to reject the use of military force, at least against each other, since it risks provoking nuclear escalation and may cause catastrophic consequences for the planet and the whole mankind. Such a statement could be adopted at a meeting of the leaders of the UN Security Council permanent member states.

The second dimension is the strengthening of deterrence. This will remain the main way to prevent the use of force between nuclear powers in the foreseeable future as the world is rapidly restructuring the international system and developing new rules of international co-existence (or restoring traditional ones). When Russia de facto gave up the policy of active deterrence against the West in the 1990s and 2000s, the latter immediately committed a series of aggressive acts (against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya). A possible slogan for such a policy could beRussianstrengthfor peacein contrast to the American peace through strength.

The strengthening of deterrence means further improvement of Russias nuclear and non-nuclear deterrent capabilities, without getting involved in an arms race. It also means production of the most advanced strategic systems, but keeping them in limited numbers, without building them up in big quantities. It would also be desirable to extend the New START Treaty until 2026 in order to preserve the current mechanisms of ensuring predictability and to have time for developing a new understanding and architecture for maintaining strategic stability.[2]Russia should keep repeating publicly that a limited nuclear war against it is impossible, which would also be true of a nuclear war against Russia in Europe without a retaliatory strike against the United States, or that Russia can be defeated in a large-scale non-nuclear war.

The third dimension is the positioning of Russia as an effective and successful peacemaker, which in fact it already is. Russia should give more importance to peacemaking and the settlement of military conflicts in its foreign policy rhetoric, and to work closely with relevant international organizations and NGOs, engaging more actively with China, as well as BRICS and SCO countries in general, to ensure economic reconstruction in Syria.

Another possible dimension is promoting Russia as an exporter of trust and security through the supply of air and missile defense systems, and the protection of digital infrastructure.

By playing the role of an independent global center of power, pursuing active policies in key regions of the world, and maintaining balanced relations with regional players, Russia can counter any attempt to impose universalism, political, cultural or economic hegemony, or put countries in a situation where they would have to make a tough either-or choice. Perhaps Russia, in cooperation with other BRICS and SCO countries, should consider proposing the establishment of a Global Alliance for Sovereignty and Diversity, an informal association of countries advocating the protection of sovereignty as one of the highest values.

Russia can also become a guarantor of a New Non-Alignment, bringing together countries that do not want to side with states seeking global or regional hegemony, and that want to develop independently. Naturally, Russia should maintain friendship and strategic partnership with China and seek to improve relations with the United States. This will strengthen Russias position as a global independent center of power and at the same time make it a desirable partner for countries seeking to avoid an obligatory strategic choice. Russia should also support the existing Non-Aligned Movement. This work is not noticeable in Russias foreign policy rhetoric and practice yet.

It may encompass developing a national and international pollution (and, in the long run, carbon emission) control program, including rejection of household plastic products, limitation of harmful emissions and energy losses, and a massive (and at the same time inexpensive) reclamation and reforestation campaign in areas affected by fires or overexploited. This program should include areas around big cities in order to involve more people in the process.

It is necessary to promote, both inside and outside the country, Russias image as a green country, emphasizing its natures riches and diversity as values, not only as a resource of economic development. The Arctic should become the worlds main platform for scientific cooperation, a natural laboratory for studying climate change.

As a supplier of environmentally-friendly and resource-intensive goods, Russia can help East Asian countries solve ecological and resource problems. Siberia and the Far East should be actively turned into a region for the development of an innovative resource-based economy built on a fusion of natural wealth and high technologies.

There is also an obvious need to provide information support for our readiness to help increase the supply of organic food and water-intensive goods, bringing tens of millions of hectares of idle land into use. For example, during its BRICS presidency, Russia could propose increasing its grain supplies to Africa using Chinese-built infrastructure. There is an obvious need to establish an International Grain Fund to help in case of crop failures.

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need for international cooperation to combat pandemics, including assistance to the least protected countries with weak health systems. Together with China and other BRICS and CSO countries, Russia could lead the way in the following areas: broadening scientific and technical cooperation in the production of vaccines; coordinating the positions of BRICS and SCO countries in the WHO and promoting increased funding and broader powers for the organization; sharing best practices to strengthen national health systems; coordinating BRICS, SCO and G20 countries policies to assist countries with less developed health systems.

Russia should once again show its readiness to cooperate in dealing with industrial and natural disasters (especially in the most vulnerable countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America). It would be useful to deepen cooperation on these issues within the BRICS and/or SCO framework. Humanitarian assistance offered by China and Russia to a number of European countries opens up opportunities for interaction with them to address these issues.

Russia needs a new humanitarian policy. The Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) should turn from an institution organizing relatively low-effective cultural events and seminars abroad into a humanitarian policy coordinating center that would become responsible for the provision of Russian bilateral non-military and non-macroeconomic aid to other countries.

The 75th anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War, and Russias chairmanship in BRICS and the SCO, which have coincided with the world-rattling pandemic, can be used for launching new foreign policy initiatives.

The policy of securing peace, protecting the freedom of choice for all, the environment, and human lives must be implemented gradually over a period of 10-15 years, that is, the expected duration of acute struggle for the restructuring of the international system, the development of new (restoration of old) rules, and the establishment of balances.

A new language free from Cold War-era terminology is very important. For example, instead of struggle for peace we should speak of ensuring peace and saving Earth, joint peace creation, and saving Earth and peace as a common cause.

It is necessary to prevent arms race not only in order to reduce the threat of war, but also in order to use the funds thus saved for protecting the environment and reducing social inequality. Russia should propose strengthening not just strategic stability, but multilateral strategic stability. New foreign policy initiatives should grab attention even linguistically.

Priority target audiences must be Russian society, elites and people in the non-WestSCO, BRICS, ASEAN and Arabcountries, and such states as Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. A powerful potential ally is China, a country that sustained the biggest human losses in World War II after the Soviet Union.

The West should be considered a target audience, let alone partner, only on a secondary or even tertiary basis. In fact, Western elites, gripped by a massive anti-Russian information campaign, barely hear Russias reasoning. (Although there is a visible fear of war in Europe and it seems to be more and more willing to cooperate, especially Southern and Central European countries). The obvious inability and unwillingness of the EU and NATO to address the real challenges to European security, migration, and the pandemic will only reinforce this trend. But the desire to take revenge will also grow stronger. It seems that politically the West is already losing the pandemic battle.

Once a tentative Coalition for Peace and Earth is established, it would be possible to engage Western countries and their political forces in the implementation of the new policy. In the meantime, it is worth showing the U.S. that it cannot regain strategic superiority. This, however, does not exclude dialogue, even if it can hardly achieve results but is able to improve the atmosphere, at least in the short term.

There is no need to frighten Europe with the Russian force, it is well aware of Russias capabilities. On the contrary, it should be invited to step up confidence-building measures. It would also be expedient to point out that European NATO countries spend much more on military needs than Russia does today. Dialogues with Europeans should seek to develop common approaches to security challenges, including pandemics, for future. These challenges are not on the East-West axis, on which the North Atlantic Alliance remains stubbornly fixated.

The promotion of these and other ideas for Russia and the world must not be put off until the contours of a new world begin to take shape. The deconstruction of the old and the formation of a new order will occur simultaneously. In this situation one must be not only strong and decisive, but also active and creative.

The sooner Russia shows its own society and everyone else a positive contribution to the world affairs, the more opportunities it will have in building the future world order and the better its chances will be for strengthening itself as one of its founders.

See the article here:

Russia in the post-coronavirus world: New ideas for foreign policy - Observer Research Foundation

by Brighton Kaoma, Alice Ruhweza, and Jeff Worden|May 22, 2020

A herd of elephants in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Photo: World Wide Fund for Nature

Today, as we celebrate International Day of Biodiversity, the global community is called to re-examine our relationship to the natural world. We celebrate this day in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that is severely impacting people and organizations around the world, and highlighting the fragility of so much of what we hold dear. We stand in solidarity with all those who are suffering at the hands of this global crisis.

Todays theme,Our solutions are in nature,emphasizes hope, solidarity and the importance of working together at all levels to build a future of life in harmony with nature. This message resonates with particular strength today, as the scope and scale of the devastation of COVID-19 to human health and wellbeing becomes increasingly clear. While most African governments have acted expeditiously to contain the spread of this virus across the continent, the economic impacts of the pandemic are both acute and far-reaching. These impacts threaten the very foundation of Africas sustainable development agenda.

The post authors, from left to right: Brighton Kaoma is an alum of Columbia Universitys MPA in Environmental Science and Policy program, as well as the WWF International Presidents Youth Awardee and Queens Young Leader. Alice Ruhweza is the Africa Regional Director at WWF International. Jeff Worden is the Africa Conservation Impact Director at WWF International.

One sector where the impacts of COVID are particularly clear is tourism. Estimates by the African Union suggest that the economic impact of COVID-19 on Africas tourism and travel sector alone may be as much as $50 billion USD nearly 7 times greater than the 2008 economic crisis with widespread job losses and the looming threat of food insecurity.

These economic impacts reach far beyond the sector itself, however. With the rise of ecotourism over the past three decades, the fate of the industry has become increasingly linked with the wellbeing of rural communities in high biodiversity areas. In many parts of Africa, human health and wellbeing is inextricably linked to sustainable management of their natural resources. The sudden and comprehensive collapse of global tourism has brought to the fore a largely hidden but parallel crisis brewing for Africas conservation landscapes and the people that protect and depend on this rich natural heritage.

In addition to providing alternative livelihoods to vulnerable rural communities, tourism has transformed the very nature of conservation in Africa. It has engendered a revolution in community-based natural resource management through revenue sharing, enabled the expansion of conservation outside of protected areas, and provided a mechanism to fundamentally change the conservation narrative from exclusion to inclusion from government ownership to community rights. Tourism has also demonstrated the potential for channeling resources from wealthy economies to developing countries and communities in support of conservation. Critically, income from tourism has supported conservation both inside and outside of protected areas and provided an incentive for many communities to protect biodiversity.

Mountain gorilla silverback male playing in habitat in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. Photo: World Wide Fund for Nature

Furthermore, tourism has created vast multiplier effects across economic sectors. For example, it is estimated that every night that a tourist stays at a high-end wildlife lodge in a remote part of Africa, up to 14 people in the surrounding community benefit indirectly from the income generated. On a macro level, there are numerous examples of countries whose revenue from the tourism sector significantly contributes to the national treasury, with much of this revenue being channeled to other essential sectors such as health and education.

In countries like Uganda and Rwanda, tourism revenue pays for the construction of schools and health care facilities for communities neighboring protected areas. In Kenya, tourism is the third largest source of foreign exchange; it supports 1.5 million jobs (especially in rural areas), and dominates the service sector. In 2018, the World Travel and Tourism Council reported that South Africas tourism sector directly contributed to 2.9 percent of the GDP, and the economic contribution from tourism could be multiplied by a factor of four to include its revenue-generating ability across other sectors, ranging from agriculture to manufacturing.

Tourism also fueled the transition of nations like Cabo Verde, the Maldives and Samoa from what the U.N. defines as least developed countries to middle income countries.

On this International Day of Biodiversity, however, it is equally important that we remember the existential value of nature. Even without tourism, we are completely dependent on nature for our water, food, medicines, clothes, fuel, shelter and energy. The collapse of tourism reminds us to appreciate the other essential services that nature provides, such as reducing vulnerability to climate change; providing food and water security; reducing pollution; ensuring access to important genetic material and traditional medicine; timber production, and carbon storage. All of which are essential to Africas future economic development. A recent report on Global Futures by WWF suggests that a business-as-usual development strategy that fails to protect nature and its essential services could result in an economic loss of nearly $10 trillion USD by 2050. It is therefore imperative that nature is part and parcel of our local and national development plans.

We know that tourism has its challenges, and even as we emerge from this crisis, we will need to critically examine issues such as the negative impacts of carbon emissions from international travel, and the environmental degradation resulting from too many tourists, among other things. We also recognize that it is time to explore new models of sustainable finance for nature that go beyond the current tourism model. But we know fundamentally that the ability of this sector (and our economies more generally) to recover will be based on the health of the product it is selling in this case nature and biodiversity.

Africas tourism industry will be an important launching pad for economic recovery. We call on African leaders and policy makers to consider tourism as one of the key components of stimulus packages and economic recovery plans. Aside from being deeply entrenched in the African continents development DNA, tourism fosters unparalleled positive ripple effects to other sectors of the economy during this recovery phase. But lets not stop there. Even as we build on the social and environmental benefits that tourism can support, lets ensure that biodiversity, and nature more generally, are recognized as key building blocks for a post COVID -19 recovery.

In the spirit of todays theme, our solutions are in nature, let us seize this opportunity to reflect on the central role of nature in our health, wellbeing, and sustainable development. Happy International Day of Biodiversity!

Go here to read the rest:

Africa's COVID-19 Recovery Should Harness the Benefits of Nature and Conservation - State of the Planet