ReportWire

Tag: Opinion

  • Americas Record-Breaking Immigration

    Americas Record-Breaking Immigration

    [ad_1]

    Source: U.S. American Community Survey, 2021 and Census Bureau, 1960.
    • Opinion by Joseph Chamie (portland, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    PORTLAND, USA, Oct 04 (IPS) – America’s immigration has reached record-breaking levels having weighty consequences domestically and internationally.

    Based on the Census Bureau’s 2023 Current Population Survey, the estimated number of foreign-born residents in the United States as of September 2023 is at a historic high of nearly 50 million.

    The U.S., with 4 percent of the global population of 8 billion, is also the home to the largest number of immigrants in the world. Approximately 17 percent of the world’s total number of immigrants reside in America, followed by Germany at 5 percent, or about 15 million immigrants.

    The current number of the foreign-born residing in America is substantially higher than the 44 million estimated at the time of its 2020 population census. Today’s figure is also five times larger than the number of immigrants residing in the country in 1965 when America passed the far-reaching Immigration and Nationality Act.

    That Act created a new system that prioritized highly skilled immigrants and those who already had family living in the country. The legislation paved the way for millions of non-European immigrants to come to the United States.

    In 1960 the five largest immigrant groups in America were from Italy followed by Germany, Canada, Great Britain and Poland. About a half century later, the five largest immigrant groups were from Mexico and then at considerably lower levels India, China, the Philippines and El Salvador (Figure 1).

    Source: U.S. American Community Survey, 2021 and Census Bureau, 1960.

    With a U.S. total population of 335 million, the estimated proportion of foreign-born residents in America stands at 14.9 percent, breaking the previous records of 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910. In contrast, immigrants in 1970 comprised a record low of 4.7 percent of America’s resident population (Figure 2).

    Source: Migration Policy Institute.

    The number of foreign-born workers in America also reached a record high of 29.8 million in 2022, or 18.1 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, up from 17.4 percent in 2021. In addition, the Biden administration in September granted nearly a half a million Venezuelan migrants an opportunity to work and live in the U.S. legally for at least the next 18 months under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

    Among the 50 million foreign-born residents in America, 38 million entered the country legally. The estimated remaining number of foreign-born, approximately 12 million, again a record high, consists of unauthorized or undocumented migrants.

    It is noteworthy that during the past ten years, visa overstayers in the U.S. have outnumbered unlawful border crossings by a ratio of about two to one. In addition to the increasingly large numbers of people visiting America who choose to overstay their temporary visas, migrant apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border are reported to be on track to break all-time records.

    During the past two and a half years, Border Patrol reported unprecedented levels of migrant apprehensions, including 2.76 million in FY 2022 breaking the previous annual record by more than 1 million. That high level of migrant apprehensions is on track to be matched in FY 2023. The surge in undocumented migrants crossing the U.S. southern border seeking asylum has created a humanitarian crisis.

    The number of migrant encounters in September is record-setting, exceeding 260 thousand, and notably higher than the previous record monthly high of 252 thousand in December of 2022. Also in September, border agents processed more than 200 thousand migrants who crossed the U.S. southern border unlawfully, the highest level in 2023.

    Record numbers of migrant families from various countries are streaming from Mexico into the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol arrested a record-breaking number of 91 thousand migrants who crossed the border as part of a family group in August, substantially exceeding the prior one-month record of 84 thousand set in May 2019.

    The increase in migration to the United States is happening across the Western Hemisphere. Record numbers of people are on their way north to the U.S. across Central and South America and many then riding on the top of freight trains through Mexico. In August alone, more than 80,000 people crossed Panama’s treacherous Darién Gap, a monthly record high for a major migration crossroads for hundreds of thousands of migrants hoping to reach the United States.

    Also, unprecedented numbers of migrants entering Mexico are coming from other continents, as the journey to the U.S.-Mexico border has become the largest migration corridor in the world. For example, the number of African migrants registered by Mexican authorities so far this year is already three times as high as during all of 2022.

    Since President Biden took office the average monthly growth of America’s foreign-born population has been about 143 thousand. That figure is significantly higher than the 76,000 per month during Obama’s second term, and the 42,000 per month under Trump before Covid-19 pandemic began in March 2020.

    The U.S. lacks the capacity to detain and process the growing numbers of unauthorized migrants at its southern border. Hundreds of thousands of people from around the world are crossing the Rio Grande with U.S. Border Patrol agents now encountering between 10,000 to 11,000 migrants each day.

    The recent dramatic spikes in the numbers of unauthorized migration have further strained federal services and overwhelmed local resources. In some areas of Arizona, California and Texas, the U.S. Border Patrol recently released unmanageable large numbers of migrants into communities to prevent overcrowding in federal facilities.

    The mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas, recently issued a disaster declaration, citing the record-breaking daily arrival of thousands of undocumented migrants to the city. Similarly, the mayor of El Paso said that the city was at the breaking point amid the dramatic jump in migration of more than 2,000 people per day.

    Far from America’s southern border, the recent arrival of more than 100,000 migrants in New York City has overwhelmed shelters, services and local resources and fueled anti-immigration sentiment.

    Also in other U.S. cities, including Boston, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia and Portland (Maine), the arrivals of the large numbers of asylum seekers have swamped local government facilities and budgets as well as stressed volunteer groups.

    It is also worth noting that the proportions foreign-born vary considerably across America’s states. California has the highest proportion with more than a quarter of its population being foreign-born. It is followed by New Jersey, New York, Florida and Hawaii with approximately a fifth of their populations being foreign-born. In contrast, less than four percent of the population is foreign-born in West Virginia, Mississippi, Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota (Figure 3).

    Source: World Population Review.

    The increases in unauthorized border crossings are creating political challenges across the country. In particular, the increases pose re-election issues for the Biden administration whose policies aimed at slowing down the unauthorized migrant flows.

    Nearly 75 percent of Americans say the government is doing a bad job dealing with the large numbers seeking asylum. Also, a slight majority, 52 percent, indicate that it is very important to require people to apply for asylum before they travel to the U.S. southern border.

    In addition, close to half of Americans consider illegal immigration to be a very big problem for the country. That view varies considerably by political party affiliation. Whereas 70 percent of Republicans consider illegal immigration to be a very big problem for the country, the corresponding figure among Democrats is 25 percent.

    Over the coming four decades, America is expected to receive slightly more than one million authorized immigrants annually. If those levels continue as expected, the projected number of foreign-born residing in America in 2060 is about 69 million, or about 17 percent of the population.

    However, that projected number of foreign-born does not take into account visa overstayers and unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. southern border. If the projection took into account unauthorized migrants, the foreign-born population in 2060 is likely to be closer to 80 million, or about a fifth of America’s projected population.

    In sum, America’s immigration has reached record-breaking levels and over the coming decades, those levels are expected to be even higher. As has been the case throughout its history, America’s immigration levels continue to have profound demographic, economic, social and political consequences domestically as well as internationally.

    Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Wanted: Teachers For Change!

    Wanted: Teachers For Change!

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Education Cannot Wait
    • Opinion by Heike Kuhn (bonn, germany)
    • Inter Press Service

    BONN, Germany, Oct 04 (IPS) – Once a year, on October 5, we celebrate World Teachers’ Day. Why is it so important to have a closer look on the teaching profession? What is so special about being a teacher nowadays?

    World Teachers’ Day is an international day which was established to attract public attention on the work of teachers. The day was established in 1994, in commemora-tion the signing of the “ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers” in 1966, which focused on “appreciating, assessing and improving the ed-ucators of the world” and on providing a global opportunity to consider issues related to teachers and teaching (see Wikipedia, The Free Encycopledia, World Teachers’ Day).

    With benchmarks regarding teacher’s rights and responsibilities, standards for their preparation when starting the profession as well as their ongoing training and em-ployment their profession got international attention. This is due to the fact that teaching and learning conditions are most important for the development of pupils and students everywhere.

    Dr. Heike KuhnEducation is also at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with a stand-alone goal: SDG 4 demands inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. With a special target, SDG focuses on teachers, stating that by 2030, there is a need to substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in develop-ing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states (SDG 4c). The 2030 Agenda was signed in 2015 in New York, but was has happened up to now in order to reach this goal?

    Special attention was given to teachers during the UN Transforming Education Summit on September 19, 2022, with relevant recommendations stating that teaching should be an attractive and recognised profession, taking into account that teachers need autonomy, decent working conditions, support and lifelong learning opportunities.

    However, a year later, reality is quite disillusioning as we can see from the theme for World Teachers’ Day 2023: “The teachers we need for the education we want: The global imperative to reverse the teacher shortage”.

    How come that this profession has suffered from attrition? For decades, the educa-tion sector has been chronically underfunded. Already in 2016, data analysis from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) estimated that in order to meet the targets of the SDGs by 2030, nearly 69 million more teachers were needed. Most recent estimates by UNESCO and the Teacher Task Force (TTF) confirm this number today, revealing that in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia alone, an additional 24 million teachers are required.

    So what are the root causes and what should be done? Starting with the most im-portant reasons: The COVID 19 pandemic and its long school closures have even worsened an already dire situation. Becoming a teacher is simply no longer attrac-tive: teaching many pupils, put together in crowded classes in not adequately main-tained buildings and not being reasonably paid for the often exhaustive pedagogic work does not come along with incentives for this ambitious profession.

    Credit: Education Cannot Wait

    Disillusioned by these working conditions, teachers leave their countries for better paid teaching jobs in other regions (e.g. Caribbean teachers move to the US) or – even worse – quit being teachers in order to pursue other jobs.

    With children dropping out of schools due to wars, conflicts or the ongoing climate crisis, teachers face new challenges all the time, their mental health is as endan-gered as the mental health of their pupils. And how can a child traumatized by war and escape, living in overcrowded refugee camps concentrate on school subjects? And what a challenge for teachers who might have made similar experiences but nonetheless try to convey hope and structure as well as a bit or normal life to the children in their lessons.

    So what is teaching all about? It is about learning and changing your mind-set. Teachers can empower children of all sexes, can open perspectives for lives and therefore ignite change in millions of young pupils. Female teachers are often role models for girls, conveying self-esteem, questioning harmful gender norms. Teachers can educate green skills needed so much nowadays when we are taking the first steps, sometimes stumbling on our way to a green economy, no longer exploiting our planet.

    Let me ask you: Do you remember when a teacher empowered you, believing in you? Hopefully you do and hopefully you could experience the power and the impact on your life.

    This is exactly why we need qualified teachers so urgently, everywhere. Education is a human right that shall no longer be a privilege for few people, but an opportunity for all – including the possibilities of digitization and AI. All children and learners deserve it. And we need teachers to inspire all human beings, letting them thrive in order to restore and save the planet.

    In my country, Germany, there is a saying: A teacher is much more important than two books. I firmly believe this is true.

    Dr. Heike Kuhn is Head of Division, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bonn, Germany
    Co-Chair of the Teacher Task Force (with South Africa), https://teachertaskforce.org/
    Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of ECW (with Norway), https://educationcannotwait.org/

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Pronatalism on the Rise to Counter Growing Push for Gender Equality

    Pronatalism on the Rise to Counter Growing Push for Gender Equality

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Nandita Bajaj (st paul, minnesota, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    ST PAUL, Minnesota, USA, Oct 04 (IPS) – There’s an insidious new tactic emerging for selling right-wing ideology to wider audiences, evident in last month’s Budapest Demographic Summit for “family-friendly thinkers and decision-makers,” the upcoming pro-birth Natal conference in Austin, Texas, and the recent film “Birthgap.”

    They all peddle pronatalism, a set of norms and policies that exhorts and often coerces women to have more children to raise fertility rates, often coupled with alarmism over alleged “population collapse.”

    Pronatalism is on the rise to counter the growing push for gender equality, contraceptive access, and women’s educational and economic empowerment. It is connected to totalitarian policies dictating reproductive choices, the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory, the religious anti-abortion movement, tech elite futurism.

    Elon Musk, for example, is an avowed pronatalist who donated $10 million to population collapse “research” and liked the idea of denying voting rights to childless people. He wanted to attend the Budapest summit, but couldn’t make it so he met last week in Texas with Hungary’s President Novák instead to draw attention to the “demographic crisis.”

    Lately, pronatalists are trying to pull a more appealing game face. The Budapest Summit says it wants to support the “psychological health and security of families,” so they can “plan for a secure future.” The Natal conference claims it “has no political or ideological goal other than a world in which our children can have grandchildren.”

    The “Birthgap” film purports to help cure an epidemic of “unplanned childlessness” and proposes “re-engineer our societies to reduce many more people would go on to have…children just like parents naturally do.” It conducts tearful interviews with regretful women who lament that their natural drive to have children was thwarted by society, and now it’s too late.

    Who could object to standing up for families’ health and security, and for the right of people who want children to have them? Yet behind this innocuous-seeming family-friendly rhetoric lurk unsavory connections to right-wing propaganda, manipulation, and straight-up lies.

    The Budapest summit touts Hungary’s achievement of the “highest rates of marriage and childbearing in Europe, while divorce and abortion rates are falling,” a nice way of saying that its right-wing populist leader Viktor Orbán adopted and implemented the Great Replacement ideology, which motivated mass-shooters in the U.S., as state policy. “We do not need numbers, but Hungarian children,” he said. “In our minds, immigration means surrender.”

    The Natal conference has demonstrable links to far-right eugenicists and racists. “Birthgap” filmmaker Stephen Shaw is feted by right-wing talk show hosts like Jordan Peterson, Neil Oliver, and Chris Williamson, and presented as a “renowned demographer” despite having no credentials in demography. Shaw and Peterson both gave keynotes at the Budapest summit.

    But ad hominem objections to the people behind the conferences and the film aside, the assertions they make are discreditable and counterfactual. Decrying imminent “population collapse” while the global population grows by 80 million each year and is projected to hit 10.4 billion in the 2080s is absurd.

    To make depopulation seem like a threat, “Birthgap” resorts to lying about data on the reasons for declining birth rates. It cites a 2010 study (which it calls a “meta-analysis”) by Prof. Renska Keizer which the film says indicates that just 10% of women chose not to have children and 10% can’t have them for medical reasons, which “leaves a whopping 80% of women without children childless by circumstance” as opposed to by choice.

    But that’s not at all what Keizer’s research says. The 2010 study Birthgap cites is not a meta-analysis, not quantitative, and does not indicate 80% of childless women didn’t choose to be so. In fact a 2011 study by Keizer et al. analyzed a 2006 dataset surveying women in the Netherlands who were childless at age 45, and found that 55% of them were childless voluntarily, while 45% were childless due to medical or other reasons.

    Other studies found similar results: 56% of those without children were voluntarily childless according to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, 72% according to the CDC National Survey of Family Growth, and 74% according to a 2022 Michigan State University study. Researchers working on my organization’s fact-checking project Birthgap Facts found no credible data supporting the film’s claim that 80% of childless women were “childless by circumstance” as opposed to by choice.

    What the data does show is that women exercising their right to choose if and when to have children results in delaying childbirth, smaller families, and a decline in teen pregnancy. Those outcomes are beneficial and should be celebrated, not stigmatized.

    According to the United Nations, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18 every year, and more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Around 257 million women globally face unintended pregnancies due to lack of access to contraception, abortion care, and counseling.

    At current levels of consumption, today’s population of eight billion is driving resource depletion, soil erosion, water shortages, species extinctions, and climate catastrophe. Over a billion children are already at “extremely high risk” from climate change.

    High fertility rates and population growth undermine climate resilience and complicate efforts to end poverty and hunger and ensure basic services and infrastructure.

    These are the real threats to the future, not some imagined conspiracy to stigmatize reproductive choices and hold fertility rates down. They make Shaw’s proposal of “social engineering” to reverse the imaginary threat of depopulation all the more reprehensible.

    By distorting and lying about childlessness, he’s trying to manipulate young people and their governments into prioritizing procreation over education and career. This purports to avoid a dystopian future, yet it would actually usher one in.

    Rather than manufacturing a crisis whose remedy entails “social engineering” to roll back progress on human rights and women’s control over their own lives, we should focus on the real crisis fueled by pronatalist pressures from family, religion, and governments that force millions into motherhood against their wishes, often by means of coercion and sexual violence.

    The rhetoric of the Budapest summit, Natal, “Birthgap” and their ilk claiming they’re simply trying to help families and alleviate the heartbreak of “unplanned childlessness” is insidious, and we should recognize and call it out for what it is: another arrow in the pronatalist quiver, another weapon wielded against hard-fought gains in gender equality and reproductive autonomy.

    Nandita Bajaj is the Executive Director of the NGO Population Balance and an adjunct lecturer at the Institute for Humane Education at Antioch University. Her research and advocacy work focuses on the combined impacts of pronatalism and human expansionism on reproductive, ecological, and intergenerational justice.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • These 20 stocks in the S&P 500 are expected to soar after rising interest rates have pushed down valuations

    These 20 stocks in the S&P 500 are expected to soar after rising interest rates have pushed down valuations

    [ad_1]

    Two things investors can be sure about: Nothing lasts forever and the stock market always overreacts. The spiking of yields on long-term U.S. Treasury securities has been breathtaking, and it has led to remarkable declines for some sectors and possible bargains for contrarian investors who can commit for the long term.

    First we will show how the sectors of the S&P 500

    have performed. Then we will look at price-to-earnings valuations for the sectors and compare them to long-term averages. Then we will screen the entire index for companies trading below their long-term forward P/E valuation averages and narrow the list to companies most favored by analysts.

    Here are total returns, with dividends reinvested, for the 11 sectors of the S&P 500, with broad indexes below. The sectors are sorted by ascending total returns this year through Monday.

    Sector or index

    		 2023 return

    		 2022 return

    		 Return since end of 2021

    		 1 week return

    		 1 month return
    Utilities

    		 -18.4%

    		 1.6%

    		 -17.2%

    		 -11.1%

    		 -9.6%
    Real Estate

    		 -7.1%

    		 -26.1%

    		 -31.4%

    		 -3.0%

    		 -8.8%
    Consumer Staples

    		 -5.4%

    		 -0.6%

    		 -6.0%

    		 -2.2%

    		 -4.4%
    Healthcare

    		 -4.2%

    		 -2.0%

    		 -6.1%

    		 -1.7%

    		 -3.3%
    Financials

    		 -2.5%

    		 -10.5%

    		 -12.7%

    		 -2.5%

    		 -4.7%
    Materials

    		 1.3%

    		 -12.3%

    		 -11.2%

    		 -1.9%

    		 -7.0%
    Industrials

    		 3.5%

    		 -5.5%

    		 -2.1%

    		 -1.8%

    		 -7.3%
    Energy

    		 4.0%

    		 65.7%

    		 72.4%

    		 -1.9%

    		 -1.4%
    Consumer Discretionary

    		 27.0%

    		 -37.0%

    		 -20.0%

    		 -0.6%

    		 -5.2%
    Information Technology

    		 36.5%

    		 -28.2%

    		 -2.0%

    		 0.8%

    		 -5.9%
    Communication Services

    		 42.5%

    		 -39.9%

    		 -14.3%

    		 1.1%

    		 -1.3%
    S&P 500
    		 13.1%

    		 -18.1%

    		 -7.4%

    		 -1.1%

    		 -4.9%
    DJ Industrial Average
    		 2.5%

    		 -6.9%

    		 -4.5%

    		 -1.7%

    		 -4.0%
    Nasdaq Composite Index
    COMP     		28.0%

    		 -32.5%

    		 -13.7%

    		 0.3%

    		 -5.1%
    Nasdaq-100 Index
    		 36.5%

    		 -32.4%

    		 -7.7%

    		 0.5%

    		 -4.2%
    Source: FactSet

    Returns for 2022 are also included, along with those since the end of 2021. Last year’s weakest sector, communications services, has been this year’s strongest performer. This sector includes Alphabet Inc.
    GOOGL
    and Meta Platforms Inc.
    META,
    which have returned 52% and 155% this year, respectively, but are still down since the end of 2021. To the right are returns for the past week and month through Monday.

    On Monday, the S&P 500 Utilities sector had its worst one-day performance since 2020, with a 4.7% decline. Investors were reacting to the jump in long-term interest rates.

    Here is a link to the U.S. Treasury Department’s summary of the daily yield curve across maturities for Treasury securities.

    The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes

    jumped 10 basis points in only one day to 4.69% on Monday. A month earlier the 10-year yield was only 4.27%. Also on Monday, the yield on 20-year Treasury bonds

    rose to 5.00% from 4.92% on Friday. It was up from 4.56% a month earlier.

    Market Extra: Bond investors feel the heat as popular fixed-income ETF suffers lowest close since 2007

    The Treasury yield curve is still inverted, with 3-month T-bills

    yielding 5.62% on Monday, but that was up only slightly from a month earlier. An inverted yield curve has traditionally signaled that bond investors expect a recession within a year and a lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. Demand for bonds pushes their prices down. But the reverse has happened over recent days, with the selling of longer-term Treasury securities pushing yields up rapidly.

    Another way to illustrate the phenomenon is to look at how the Federal Reserve has shifted the U.S. money supply. Odeon Capital analyst Dick Bove wrote in a note to clients on Friday that “the Federal Reserve has not deviated from its policy to defeat inflation by tightening monetary policy,” as it has shrunk its balance sheet (mostly Treasury securities) to $8.1 trillion from $9 trillion in March 2022. He added: “The M2 money supply was $21.8 trillion in March 2022; today it is $20.8 trillion. You cannot get tighter than these numbers indicate.”

    Then on Tuesday, Bove illustrated the Fed’s tightening and the movement of the 10-year yield with two charts:


    Odeon Capital Group, Bloomberg

    Bove said he believes the bond market has gotten it wrong, with the inverted yield curve reflecting expectations of rate cuts next year. If he is correct, investors can expect longer-term yields to keep shooting up and a normalization of the yield curve.

    This has set up a brutal environment for utility stocks, which are typically desired by investors who are seeking dividend income. In a market in which you can receive a yield of 5.5% with little risk over the short term, and in which you can lock in a long-term yield of about 5%, why take a risk in the stock market? And if you believe that the core inflation rate of 3.7% makes a 5% yield seem paltry, keep in mind that not all investors think the same way. Many worry less about the inflation rate because large components of official inflation calculations, such as home prices and car prices, don’t affect everyone every year.

    We cannot know when this current selloff of longer-term bonds will end, or how much of an effect it will have on the stock market. But sharp declines in the stock market can set up attractive price points for investors looking to go in for the long haul.

    Screening for lower valuations and high ratings

    A combination of rising earnings estimates and price declines could shed light on potential buying opportunities, based on forward price-to-earnings ratios.

    Let’s look at the sectors again, in the same order, this time to show their forward P/E ratios, based on weighted rolling 12-month consensus estimates for earnings per share among analysts polled by FactSet:

    Sector or index

    		 Current P/E to 5-year average

    		 Current P/E to 10-year average

    		 Current P/E to 15-year average

    		 Forward P/E

    		 5-year average P/E

    		 10-year average P/E

    		 15-year average P/E
    Utilities

    		 82%

    		 86%

    		 95%

    		 14.99

    		 18.30

    		 17.40

    		 15.82
    Real Estate

    		 76%

    		 80%

    		 81%

    		 15.19

    		 19.86

    		 18.89

    		 18.72
    Consumer Staples

    		 93%

    		 96%

    		 105%

    		 18.61

    		 19.92

    		 19.30

    		 17.64
    Healthcare

    		 103%

    		 104%

    		 115%

    		 16.99

    		 16.46

    		 16.34

    		 14.72
    Financials

    		 88%

    		 92%

    		 97%

    		 12.90

    		 14.65

    		 14.08

    		 13.26
    Materials

    		 100%

    		 103%

    		 111%

    		 16.91

    		 16.98

    		 16.42

    		 15.27
    Industrials

    		 88%

    		 96%

    		 105%

    		 17.38

    		 19.84

    		 18.16

    		 16.56
    Energy

    		 106%

    		 63%

    		 73%

    		 11.78

    		 11.17

    		 18.80

    		 16.23
    Consumer Discretionary

    		 79%

    		 95%

    		 109%

    		 24.09

    		 30.41

    		 25.39

    		 22.10
    Information Technology

    		 109%

    		 130%

    		 146%

    		 24.20

    		 22.17

    		 18.55

    		 16.54
    Communication Services

    		 86%

    		 86%

    		 94%

    		 16.41

    		 19.09

    		 19.00

    		 17.43
    S&P 500
    		 94%

    		 101%

    		 112%

    		 17.94

    		 19.01

    		 17.76

    		 16.04
    DJ Industrial Average
    		 93%

    		 98%

    		 107%

    		 16.25

    		 17.49

    		 16.54

    		 15.17
    Nasdaq Composite Index
    		 92%

    		 102%

    		 102%

    		 24.62

    		 26.71

    		 24.18

    		 24.18
    Nasdaq-100 Index
    		 97%

    		 110%

    		 126%

    		 24.40

    		 25.23

    		 22.14

    		 19.43

    There is a limit to how many columns we can show in the table. The S&P 500’s forward P/E ratio is now 17.94, compared with 16.79 at the end of 2022 and 21.53 at the end of 2021. The benchmark index’s P/E is above its 10- and 15-year average levels but below the five-year average.

    If we compare the current sector P/E numbers to 5-, 10- and 15-year averages, we can see that the current levels are below all three averages for four sectors: utilities, real estate, financials and communications services. The first three face obvious difficulties as they adjust to the rising-rate environment, while the real-estate sector reels from continuing low usage rates for office buildings, from the change in behavior brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Your own opinions, along with the pricing for some sectors, might drive some investment choices.

    A broader screen of the S&P 500 might point to companies for you to research further.

    We narrowed the S&P 500 as follows:

    • Current forward P/E below 5-, 10- and 15-year average valuations. For stocks with negative earnings-per-share estimates for the next 12 months, there is no forward P/E ratio so they were excluded. For stocks listed for less than 15 years, we required at least a 5-year average P/E for comparison. This brought the list down to 138 companies.

    • “Buy” or equivalent ratings from at least two-thirds of analysts: 41 companies.

    Here are the 20 companies that passed the screen, for which analysts’ price targets imply the highest upside potential over the next 12 months.

    There is too much data for one table, so first we will show the P/E information:

    Company

    		 Ticker

    		 Current P/E to 5-year average

    		 Current P/E to 10-year average

    		 Current P/E to 15-year average
    SolarEdge Technologies Inc.

    		 SEDG 89%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    AES Corp.

    		 AES 66%

    		 75%

    		 90%
    Insulet Corp.

    		 PODD 18%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    United Airlines Holdings Inc.

    		 UAL 42%

    		 50%

    		 N/A
    Alaska Air Group Inc.

    		 ALK 51%

    		 57%

    		 N/A
    Tapestry Inc.

    		 TPR 39%

    		 49%

    		 70%
    Albemarle Corp.

    		 ALB 39%

    		 50%

    		 73%
    Delta Air Lines Inc.

    		 DAL 60%

    		 63%

    		 21%
    Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc.

    		 ARE 59%

    		 68%

    		 N/A
    Las Vegas Sands Corp.

    		 LVS 96%

    		 78%

    		 53%
    Paycom Software Inc.

    		 PAYC 61%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    PayPal Holdings Inc.

    		 PYPL 33%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    SBA Communications Corp. Class A

    		 SBAC 27%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

    		 AMD 58%

    		 39%

    		 N/A
    LKQ Corp.

    		 LKQ 92%

    		 44%

    		 78%
    Charles Schwab Corp.

    		 SCHW 75%

    		 54%

    		 73%
    PulteGroup Inc.

    		 PHM 94%

    		 47%

    		 N/A
    Lamb Weston Holdings Inc.

    		 LW 71%

    		 N/A

    		 N/A
    News Corp Class A

    		 NWSA 93%

    		 73%

    		 N/A
    CVS Health Corp.

    		 CVS 75%

    		 61%

    		 67%
    Source: FactSet

    Click on the tickers for more about each company or index.

    Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

    News Corp
    NWSA
    is on the list. The company owns Dow Jones, which in turn owns MarketWatch.

    Here’s the list again, with ratings and consensus price-target information:

    Company

    		 Ticker

    		 Share “buy” ratings

    		 Oct. 2 price

    		 Consensus price target

    		 Implied 12-month upside potential
    SolarEdge Technologies Inc.

    		 SEDG 74%

    		 $122.56

    		 $268.77

    		 119%
    AES Corp.

    		 AES 79%

    		 $14.16

    		 $25.60

    		 81%
    Insulet Corp.

    		 PODD 68%

    		 $165.04

    		 $279.00

    		 69%
    United Airlines Holdings Inc.

    		 UAL 71%

    		 $41.62

    		 $69.52

    		 67%
    Alaska Air Group Inc.

    		 ALK 87%

    		 $36.83

    		 $61.31

    		 66%
    Tapestry Inc.

    		 TPR 75%

    		 $28.58

    		 $46.21

    		 62%
    Albemarle Corp.

    		 ALB 81%

    		 $162.41

    		 $259.95

    		 60%
    Delta Air Lines Inc.

    		 DAL 95%

    		 $36.45

    		 $58.11

    		 59%
    Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc.

    		 ARE 100%

    		 $98.18

    		 $149.45

    		 52%
    Las Vegas Sands Corp.

    		 LVS 72%

    		 $45.70

    		 $68.15

    		 49%
    Paycom Software Inc.

    		 PAYC 77%

    		 $260.04

    		 $384.89

    		 48%
    PayPal Holdings Inc.

    		 PYPL 69%

    		 $58.56

    		 $86.38

    		 48%
    SBA Communications Corp. Class A

    		 SBAC 68%

    		 $198.24

    		 $276.69

    		 40%
    Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

    		 AMD 74%

    		 $103.27

    		 $143.07

    		 39%
    LKQ Corp.

    		 LKQ 82%

    		 $49.13

    		 $67.13

    		 37%
    Charles Schwab Corp.

    		 SCHW 77%

    		 $53.55

    		 $72.67

    		 36%
    PulteGroup Inc.

    		 PHM 81%

    		 $73.22

    		 $98.60

    		 35%
    Lamb Weston Holdings Inc.

    		 LW 100%

    		 $92.23

    		 $123.50

    		 34%
    News Corp Class A

    		 NWSA 78%

    		 $20.00

    		 $26.42

    		 32%
    CVS Health Corp.

    		 CVS 77%

    		 $69.69

    		 $90.88

    		 30%
    Source: FactSet

    A year may actually be a short period for a long-term investor, but 12-month price targets are the norm for analysts working for brokerage companies.

    Don’t miss: This fund shows that industry expertise can help you make a lot of money in the stock market

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Record-Breaking Global Migration

    Record-Breaking Global Migration

    [ad_1]

    On Monday 15 May 2023, the Member States of IOM elected Ms. Amy Pope as its new Director General.
    • Opinion by Lansana Gberie (geneva, switzerland)
    • Inter Press Service

    GENEVA, Switzerland, Oct 03 (IPS) – On 14 June, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued his flagship annual report, Global Trends: Forced Displacement 2022. It states that by the end of 2022, the number of people displaced by war, persecution, violence and human rights abuse had dramatically increased by 19.1 million — the biggest increase on record — reaching a total of 108.4 million.

    This record-breaking displacement resulted mainly from the war in Ukraine and the eruption of conflict in Sudan. Ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, in Africa’s Sahel region and elsewhere also contributed, as did prominent natural disasters related to climate change.

    Rush to conflict, slow to solution

    In the report, High Commissioner Filippo Grandi was right to blame this tragedy on people who “are far too quick to rush to conflict, and way too slow to find solutions,” leading to such “devastation, displacement and anguish for each of the millions of people forcibly uprooted from their homes.”

    On Monday 15 May 2023, the Member States of IOM elected Ms. Amy Pope as its new Director General.

    Yet, to blame the perpetrators of such conflicts is not to absolve the rest of the world for responding so appallingly to such displacements. This is inevitably irregular or illegal migration. On the day that the UN report was released, as many as 600 men, women and children perished needlessly when a human smuggler’s boat, Adriana, capsized off the coast of Greece.

    In the following month of July, news photographs showed 27 bodies of African migrants along with dozens of inebriated figures stranded along the Libya-Tunisia border. A few weeks later on 21 August, Human Rights Watch reported that border guards of an important Middle Eastern country had carried out “widespread and systematic” abuse of hundreds of African migrants and asylum seekers trying to cross its border between March 2022 and June 2023.

    That country has rejected the allegation as false. If the evidence proves otherwise, then we could consider this an extreme example of “a kind of grim and tragic monotony,” the phrase used by the American Quaker humanitarian Louis W. Schneider in 1954 to characterize the world’s aggressive attitude toward unwanted migrants.

    Lansana GberieSecure borders, safe passages

    Perhaps more pernicious, because more subtle and more easily replicable elsewhere, is the growing practice by wealthy countries of providing training, logistical coordination and other high-tech support to poorer countries so that those poorer countries can forcibly prevent migration to the rich ones.

    Linked to such pernicious support and coordination is the recent migrant boat tragedy off the coast of West Africa, after patrol boats chased a fishing boat carrying migrants. Maneuvering in pitch darkness to escape, the migrant boat lost its way and struck rocks off a popular beachfront in Dakar, Senegal, killing at least 16 people.

    No doubt those countries have legitimate, and probably even humane, reasons for their robust efforts to stop this kind of irregular and dangerous migration: thousands of young Africans have died over the years trying this perilous route. And state sovereignty requires secure borders.

    Still, it is hard to shake off the impression that staunching illegal migrant flows is a greater priority than helping desperate young people — often displaced by conflict and ecological disasters — to more secure and prosperous destinations.

    The issue is not just a matter of moral consideration. It is a hugely complex problem, clearly one of the great global challenges of our unequal world, and one without an easy fix. Even so, the world must find a more humane and effective way of addressing it.

    Humane management of migration

    The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) was founded in 1951 to “help ensure the orderly and humane management of migration, to promote international cooperation on migration issues, to assist in the search for practical solutions to migration problems and to provide humanitarian assistance to migrants in need, including refugees and internally displaced people.”

    The vision is ennobling, and IOM takes its mission seriously. The organization is currently made up of 175 member states, operating in 180 countries around the world (including my own, Sierra Leone). It employs thousands of people from diverse backgrounds in fulfilling this mission.

    In March this year, as chair of the governing council of IOM, I visited two African countries where IOM has a significant presence. My first stop was Morocco — Rabat and Casablanca — where, during two days in March this year, I met with migrants, staff of IOM, senior government officials, diplomats and civil society organizations working with migrants.

    Morocco is a critical migration hub — a source country, a transit point, and increasingly, a destination country for migrants. It combines border security arrangements with richer countries to its north with its own efforts to accommodate migrants, though perhaps with a lopsided provision of resources between the two.

    Because of Morocco’s strategic location, the African Union in 2020 established the African Migration Observatory (AMO) in Rabat. Headed by an Egyptian diplomat, Ambassador Amira Elfadi, the observatory could potentially assist in monitoring events such as the tragedy at the Tunisia-Libya border. But when I met Ms. Elfadi, she had no staff yet. The AMO needs support for operations as extensive and energetic as those in Kenya.

    The most effective combination

    I had wide-ranging conversations with IOM staff in both countries, in town halls organised by local IOM leaders. Passion for the work of the organisation was very strong. Passion combined with strong technical knowledge and an eagerness to engage with migrant communities and local authorities at all levels — which I found stronger in Kenya — makes for greater effectiveness.

    In May, by resounding vote and unanimous acclamation, IOM elected Amy Pope as its director general. She is a resourceful and energetic American who embodies this combination of passion, knowledge, and enthusiasm for engaging with staff at all levels, with all governments and local authorities, and with migrant communities.

    A veteran migrant defender, Ms. Pope is the first woman to head this important organization since its founding 72 years ago. In her vision statement, she committed to a “people-centred” approach, defining this as a commitment to “the migrants, vulnerable people, and the communities IOM serves, IOM’s member states and its workforce.”

    Since becoming deputy director of IOM over two years ago, Ms. Pope has consistently pursued this vision with a passion rare in the staid corridors of Geneva power offices. She is now one of a handful of pioneering women to lead important international organizations in Geneva, which hosts a few dozen. All of them assumed their positions within the past four years. It has been a refreshing change.

    A novel leadership of a global organization grappling with a large global challenge tends to come with high expectations. It is both the attraction and a pitfall of progressive change. Either way, it will not detract from Ms. Pope’s commitment to posit that she will be as successful only in so far as the world wants her to succeed.

    With the extraordinarily grim developments heralding her tenure, the world must embrace her “people-centred” approach. A failure to do so could mean unending calamities like the ones described above.

    Dr. Lansana Gberie is Sierra Leone’s Permanent Representative in Geneva. He is Chair of the Governing Council of International Organization for Migration.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Small Islands with Big Aspirations

    Small Islands with Big Aspirations

    [ad_1]

    Kentaste is a local company reviving the coconut industry along the Kenya coast. (Photo courtesy of Joanne Muchai)
    • Opinion by James Michel (victoria, seychelles)
    • Inter Press Service

    VICTORIA, Seychelles, Oct 02 (IPS) – Everyone knows that small island states are on the frontline of global warming. Rising sea levels, acidification destroying fisheries and coral reefs, and changing patterns of rainfall are just some of the challenges. Some low-lying islands have already been lost to the ocean.

    These challenges are real and can hardly be understated. Yet there is another side to the story, too: one that tells of a creative response and new opportunities. The fact is that small island states are on the frontline of the Blue Economy.

    Several years ago, in 2016, I wrote a book (Rethinking the Oceans: Towards the Blue Economy) to show why urgent action was needed. The interconnected seas cover most of our planet and yet we have always treated them as second best, as if the riches that are found there will last forever. Instead, I have for long argued that our approach must be sustainable. It must serve not only today’s needs but also tomorrow’s generations.

    A decade ago, the idea of the Blue Economy was poorly understood. Why, people would ask, is it any different from how the sea has always been used? Things have changed since then and the question is no longer ‘why’ but ‘how’. In my second book on the subject, Revisiting the Ocean: Living the Blue Economy, I show what progress has been made and where we can find some of the most important changes.

    There is a great deal more to be done, not least of all in stemming the relentless flow of harmful practices. But there are already signs of progress. To show this, I look to local communities and business startups, to visionaries and philanthropists, as well as international bodies. Go to remote beaches to see how communities (often led by women) are taking matters into their own hands. Or to the workshops of inventive young entrepreneurs who are finding ways to do things better. I am a realist but also an optimist and in my new book I try to balance a pervasive sense of impending doom with a strong message of hope.

    Kentaste is a local company reviving the coconut industry along the Kenya coast. (Photo courtesy of Joanne Muchai)

    COP28 will bring together the great and the good, drawn by the prospect of a new approach. But it will also attract those who are not so enamoured with a sustainable approach to the ocean. Fast-growing nations with, literally, billions of mouths to feed will not so easily be persuaded that sustainability is the right approach. Nor will commercial and other interests which are poised to scrape the ocean floor for rich mineral reserves. Yet, if we are not to destroy our planet, restraint has to win the day. In the crowded rooms of the upcoming event in Dubai, we must lose no opportunity to press the case.

    My own nation, Seychelles, has one of the world’s smallest populations and yet, surrounded by a vast stretch of ocean, we have pioneered new ways to sensibly manage this immense gift of nature. Planning our marine space in a rational way is how we are making progress and I commend the lessons to other small island nations. We have also been innovative in attracting funds and the ways we have done this, too, is a shared resource.

    Under the auspices of the European Union, Seychelles last year hosted an event where African entrepreneurs displayed their exciting ideas and projects. Fabrics produced from leaves and fish skin gathered locally, natural fertilisers from seaweed, productive ways to recycle fishing nets, and desalination units using renewable energy. With the help of large funding bodies like the UN and EU, much more can be done to unleash creative energy. Revolutions invariably start in small ways and nothing short of an ocean revolution is needed. Urgently!

    I look forward to COP28 and I know that the host nation, the United Arab Emirates, will do all that it can to lead by example. Let us go to the conference with enthusiasm, welcoming every new initiative. I will be there, along with friends from other small island states and it is up to us all to make our voice heard.

    Copies of my new book will be available at the event (as well as direct from https://www.jamesmichelfoundation.org) and I hope I can share with you some of my own ideas and a record of the wonderful efforts being made around the world to save our precious ocean.

    James Michel is a former president of the Republic of Seychelles and a leading international advocate of the Blue Economy.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Human Cost of a Green Energy Transition Without Safeguards

    The Human Cost of a Green Energy Transition Without Safeguards

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke (goma, democratic republic of congo)
    • Inter Press Service

    GOMA, Democratic Republic of Congo, Oct 02 (IPS) – The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards so-called “green” energies as a solution to the climate crisis, which has increased the demand for strategic minerals such as cobalt, copper and lithium.

    As a human rights lawyer in the Democratic Republic of Congo – which has the world’s largest cobalt reserves and among the largest copper reserves – I represent communities and ecosystems in Virunga, Kahuzi Biega, Okapi and elsewhere that have suffered numerous human rights violations as a result of the extraction of these minerals.

    Home to the second-largest tropical forest in the world and vast mineral wealth, the DRC has exceptional natural resources. However, the country has faced a complex humanitarian crisis since 1994; plagued by war and violence in the eastern regions which has led to conflict, poverty, malnutrition and recurring epidemics.

    The people I represent have been forcibly evicted from their land due to mining operations by extractive companies; major human rights violations and violence that accompany the mining process; and loss of clean air, soil and water because of destructive mining practices. Certain companies exploit land in protected areas in violation of national laws, and fail to respect due diligence standards in place for businesses.

    Corruption is rampant – Chinese and Canadian companies, among others, wield influence on public institutions to cut corners and avoid living up to their obligations. In many cases, no impact assessments are carried out; when they are carried out, it is often to formalise the exploitation process and not to safeguard the climate, let alone to provide social protection for the communities most affected.

    In short, thousands of farmers, their villages, their means of survival and their cultural values are impacted by the exploitation of cobalt, copper and other strategic minerals in the DRC.

    This panorama poses a number of major challenges. In the pursuit of their interests, multinationals extracting minerals from the DRC have no respect for the rights of peasants, national laws, climate emergency needs or social safeguards.

    People living in areas surrounding mining operations suffer endemic poverty and health crises amid wider energy and climate injustice. Children are not able to attend school, there are widespread land evictions and expropriations, rivers are polluted, and women and children are exploited.

    State institutions are often weaponised against ordinary people – the justice system and certain military officers and/or armed groups are co-opted for security, to protect business interests against local people.

    It shouldn’t have to be this way for communities living in resource-rich countries like DRC. There should be some minimum guidelines in place to safeguard against such violations.

    States in the Global North and Global South should set up a major strategic coalition to ensure compliance with due diligence standards and strengthen the corporate social responsibility of extractive companies. Such a coalition should:

      • Ensure the monitoring and evaluation of national and international mechanisms for mining investment;
      • Reinforce local communities’ knowledge of international laws and best practices in the field of human rights and investment;
      • Provide legal support for victims of land and environmental injustice caused by mining operations;
      • Build the capacities of civil society organisations in terms of technical and scientific expertise in impact monitoring and evaluation;
      • End investments in fossil fuels which negatively impact people’s livelihoods, biodiversity and land, and instead invest in sustainable alternatives;
      • Strengthen legal reforms to better uphold climate and social safeguards, prohibit the exploitation of certain more devastating natural resources, develop community guidelines on rights and legal means against investments;
      • and decolonise energy narratives.

    Over 13 kg of cobalt are needed to produce the battery for an average electric vehicle, and around seven grams are required for a cell phone. Demand for cobalt, which has tripled since 2010, is expected to reach 222,000 tonnes by 2025.

    Without a major shift to put in place safeguards in the supply chain, extractive industries will continue to ride roughshod over the rights of local communities, and we will sadly see an escalation of human rights violations.

    We need to act fast to stop this. We need a global monitoring programme and far-reaching legal reforms for a fair energy transition that prioritises the human rights of local communities.

    Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke, from Goma, eastern DRC, is described as a leader among environmental and land defenders in the country and one of the most trusted advocates on behalf of communities impacted by land grabs, trafficking, and illegal resource extraction activities. He was the Africa regional winner of Front Line Defenders’ 2023 Award for Human Rights Defenders at Risk.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How to maximize your streaming in October 2023, and why Netflix is all you really need

    How to maximize your streaming in October 2023, and why Netflix is all you really need

    [ad_1]

    It’s time to churn, baby, churn.

    The streaming scene has changed significantly over the past year or so, and for the worse: more expensive, less new programming, smaller libraries of older shows. And it’s coming at a time when consumers are being increasingly pressed by higher costs on all fronts. Prices for Disney’s ad-free tiers are rising sharply in October, and Amazon will jack up prices early next year for those who don’t want to see commercials. So it’s time for consumers to once again reassess which services are really worth paying for.

    There are three options if you don’t want your monthly streaming bill to look like your old triple-digit cable bill: bundle (you can save significantly with a Hulu-Disney+ package, for example), move to cheaper plans with commercials (ugh) or just drop the services you watch least. Pick a maximum monthly price ceiling and stick to it — at this point, most people don’t need more than two or three services anyway.

    If you’re frustrated by paying more for less, and want to make a point, cancelling a service is the one way that companies will take notice. Streaming services hate churn (adding and dropping services month-to-month) because it lowers their subscriber base and forces them to raise their marketing costs to win you back. As a consumer, it’s really your only weapon.

    Don’t like how Max keeps removing older shows? Dump it. Finding yourself watching less and less Disney+? Ditch it. It’s satisfying, it’s economical and you can always sign up again in the future.

    One benefit of streaming services is they’re a lot easier to cancel than cable. With prices soaring, now’s the time to be brutal in winnowing your subscriptions. A churn strategy takes some planning, but it pays off. Keep in mind that a billing cycle starts when you sign up, not necessarily at the beginning of the month.

    Each month, this column offers tips on how to maximize your streaming and your budget, rating the major services as a “play,” “pause” or “stop” — similar to investment analysts’ traditional ratings of buy, hold or sell, and picks the best shows to help you make your monthly decisions.

    Here’s a look at what’s coming to the various streaming services in October 2023, and what’s really worth the monthly subscription fee:

    Netflix ($6.99 a month for basic with ads, $15.49 standard with no ads, $19.99 premium with no ads)

    After a ho-hum past few months, Netflix
    NFLX,
    +0.33%
    is rolling out a more robust lineup in October. Which is nice, because no other streaming service is.

    After a two-year layoff, the French heist thriller series “Lupin” (Oct. 5) returns for its third season. Omar Sy stars as a master thief who’s now on the lam, and he carries the show largely on his charisma. It’s a fun one, and a welcome return for viewers.

    But the big-name show of the month is “The Fall of the House of Usher” (Oct. 12), from horror hit-maker Mike Flanagan (“The Haunting of Hill House,” “Midnight Mass”). The miniseries, based on Edgar Allan Poe’s classic story, combines Gothic horror with a modern twist, as the corrupt CEO of a family-owned and scandal-plagued pharmaceutical company is forced to face demons from his past as his family members keep dying, one by one, in increasingly gruesome ways. The sprawling cast includes Bruce Greenwood, Annabeth Gish, Carl Lumbly, Carla Gugino, Rahul Kohli, Mark Hamill, Henry Thomas and Mary McDonnell. This should be one to watch, if for nothing else than to finally see a Sackler-like family get their comeuppance.

    Also on the way: the seventh seasons of the raunchy animated adolescent comedy “Big Mouth” (Oct. 20) and the Spanish high school soap “Elite” (Oct. 20); “Pain Hustlers” (Oct. 27), a meh-looking satirical crime drama starring Emily Blunt and Chris Evans as scheming pharmaceutical reps; and the nature documentary “Life on Our Planet” (Oct. 25), narrated by Morgan Freeman.

    More: What’s new on Netflix in October 2023 — and what’s leaving

    And you may have missed it, but Netflix snuck in a new season of “The Great British Baking Show” at the end of September. New episodes stream every Tuesday, and feature new co-host Alison Hammond, replacing Matt Lucas, who always seemed out of place.

    Who’s Netflix for? Fans of buzz-worthy original shows and movies.

    Play, pause or stop? Play. Between some good-looking new shows, fresh eps of the “Great British Baking Show” and recent additions such as “Sex Education” (though its final season is underwhelming) and HBO’s classic “Band of Brothers,” Netflix is once again a must-have.

    Max ($9.99 a month with ads, or $15.99 with no ads)

    After a dismal September, Max has a better October lineup, with Season 2 of the beloved pirate comedy “Our Flag Means Death” (Oct. 5), starring Rhys Darby and Taika Waititi as wildly different ship captains involved in a star-crossed romance; Season 2 of “The Gilded Age” (Oct. 29), Julian Fellowes’ “Downton Abbey”-esque costume drama set in 1880s New York high society, with a sprawling cast that includes Carrie Coon, Cynthia Nixon, Christine Baranski, Morgan Spector and Louisa Jacobson; and the fourth and final season of the DC superhero dramedy “Doom Patrol” (Oct. 12).

    Notably, Warner Bros. Discovery’s
    WBD,
    +1.59%
    Max is launching its live-sports tier — the unfortunately named Bleacher Report Sports — on Oct. 5, just in time for the MLB playoffs and upcoming NBA season. The add-on tier will be free for all subscribers through February, when its price will shoot up to $9.99 a month.

    Also: What’s new on Max in October 2023 — and what’s leaving

    This is also your last chance to watch a bunch of AMC shows that are getting a two-month promotional run on Max: “Fear the Walking Dead” Seasons 1-7, “Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire” Season 1, “Dark Winds” Season 1, “Gangs of London” Seasons 1-2, “Ride with Norman Reedus” Seasons 1-5, “A Discovery of Witches” Seasons 1-3, and “Killing Eve” Seasons 1-4 will all leave Oct. 31. Do yourself a favor and at least watch “Dark Winds.”

    One more hidden gem to discover: Season 3 of the British rom-com “Starstruck,” which landed Sept. 28. It’s utterly charming and unwaveringly romantic, with literal LOL moments and some of the most swoon-worthy banter in recent years. Catch up with all three seasons, it’s an easy binge that’s well worth it.

    Who’s Max for? HBO fans and movie lovers. And now, unscripted TV fans too, with a slew of Discovery shows.

    Play, pause or stop? Pause and think it over. It’s an exceptionally weak month for streamers, but Max’s lineup — especially with the addition of live sports and its deep library — makes it one of the least weakest.

    Amazon’s Prime Video ($14.99 a month, or $8.99 without Prime membership)

    Prime Video has a fine lineup in October. Not great. Not terrible. But very OK.

    “Totally Killer” (Oct. 6) looks to be a cleverer-than-most spin on a horror trope, as Kiernan Shipka (“Mad Men”) stars as a 17-year-old who travels back in time to 1987 to stop a serial killer before he can start a slaying spree that terrorized her mother (Julie Bowen).

    Greg Daniels’ existential comedy “Upload” (Oct. 20) is back for its third season of rom-com exploits in a digital afterlife, thanks to uploaded consciousness. (Disclaimer: I liked Season 1, but can’t for the life of me remember if I ever watched Season 2, which doesn’t bode well, but perfectly fits this month’s “meh it’s OK” theme.)

    Meanwhile, Amazon’s
    AMZN,
    +0.90%
    free, ad-supported channel, Freevee, has the second season of “Bosch: Legacy” (Oct. 20), the “Bosch” spinoff starring Titus Welliver as a private investigator in L.A., while his daughter Maddie (Madison Lintz) charts her own path as a police officer. As gritty detective shows go, it’s solid.

    Prime Video also has a decent lineup of NFL Thursday Night Football; “The Burial” (Oct. 13), a funeral-home drama movie starring Oscar-winners Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones; all 11 seasons of the classic sitcom “Frasier” (Oct. 1), just in time for the reboot on Paramount+; as well as new eps every week of “The Boys” spinoff “Gen V” and the season finale of “The Wheel of Time” (Oct 6).

    See more: Everything coming to Amazon’s Prime Video and Freevee in October 2023

    It’s also a good time to dig into Prime Video’s extensive library, before commercials come early next year. In an obnoxious move, rather than add an ad-supported tier at a lower price, Amazon will subject all subscribers to commercials — unless they pay an extra $3-a-month ransom. Commercials will be especially annoying on Prime’s more cinematic series, so watch great-looking shows like “I’m a Virgo,” “Dead Ringers” and “The English” interruption-free, while you still can.

    Who’s Prime Video for? Movie lovers, TV-series fans who value quality over quantity.

    Play, pause or stop? Pause. There’s no a compelling reason to start a subscription now, but if you already have one, there’s probably enough to watch.

    Disney+ ($7.99 a month with ads, $13.99 with no ads, starting Oct. 12)

    After a hiatus of more than two years, Marvel’s “Loki” (Oct. 5) is finally back for its second season. The new season finds the eponymous god of mischief (played by Tom Hiddleston) bouncing across the multiverse in a battle for free will while trying to elude agents of the mysterious Time Variant Authority. Season 1 of “Loki” was one of Marvel’s better TV adaptations, and hopes are high that Season 2 can recapture that sense of chaotic fun. Owen Wilson returns as TVA agent Mobius, and Oscar winner Ke Huy Quan (“Everything Everywhere All at Once”) joins the cast, which also features Jonathan Majors as big bad Kang the Conqueror, which is… problematic. Disney is reportedly still planning for Majors to play a key role in “Loki” and the next phase of “Avengers” movies despite his arrest on assault charges earlier this year, which prompted troubling allegations of past physical and emotional abuse toward women. (“Loki” had already finished filming prior to his arrest.)

    Disney also has “Goosebumps” (Oct. 13), about a group of high school friends fighting supernatural forces as they uncover long-buried secrets about their small town in this series adaptation of R.L. Stine’s hugely popular series of spooky novels. (It’ll also stream on Hulu.)

    The “Star Wars” spinoff “Ahsoka” has its season finale Oct. 3, while ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” will stream every Tuesday.

    Who’s Disney+ for? Families with kids, hardcore “Star Wars” and Marvel fans. For people not in those groups, Disney’s
    DIS,
    +1.15%
     library can be lacking.

    Play, pause or stop? Pause. The price of ad-free Disney+ jumps by $3 a month starting Oct. 12 — how much do you or your family really want to watch “Loki” and “Goosebumps”? It’ll be worth it for some, but an opportune time to cancel for others.

    Hulu ($7.99 a month with ads, or $17.99 with no ads, starting Oct. 12)

    Hulu has been on a fantastic run since the start of summer, but all good things must end. And it happens to coincide with a $3-a-month hike to its ad-free subscription.

    October’s lineup is weak, and heavily weighed toward Halloween-themed fare, such as Season 2 of FX’s spinoff anthology “American Horror Stories” (Oct. 26); the Stephen King thrillers “Rose Red” (Oct. 1) and “The Boogeyman” (Oct. 5); the Starz horror series “Ash vs. Evil Dead” (Oct. 1); the body-horror movie “Appendage” (Oct. 2); and “Goosebumps” (Oct. 13), a live-action adaptation of R.L. Stine’s bestselling kids’ book series (which will also stream on Disney+).

    Non-horror shows include new seasons of Fox’s “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy” and “Bob’s Burgers” (all Oct. 2), and Season 2 of the comedy “Shorsey” (Oct. 27), the “Letterkenny” spinoff series about minor-league hockey that has a surprising amount of heart to go with its absolutely filthy dialogue.

    For more: What’s coming to Hulu in October 2023 — and what’s leaving

    As an added bonus, all five seasons of ABC’s 1980s detective-agency rom-com “Moonlighting” (Oct. 10), starring Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd, will stream for the first time ever (legally at least). If I remember correctly, there were some really high highs but also some really low lows — but it’ll be worth checking out, for nostalgia if nothing else.

    There are also new eps every week of “The Golden Bachelor” and “Bachelor in Paradise,” the season finale of “Only Murders in the Building” (Oct. 3) and the series finale of “Archer” (Oct. 11). And if you missed it, all three seasons of “Reservation Dogs” are there and just begging to be watched, or rewatched. (It’s about as perfect as a TV series could ever be, and the recently concluded Season 3 is the best thing I’ve seen this year.)

    Who’s Hulu for? TV lovers. There’s a deep library for those who want older TV series and next-day streaming of many current network and cable shows.

    Play, pause or stop? Stop. If you’re on the ad tier, this month might be tolerable, but it’s certainly not worth $17.99.

    Paramount+ ($5.99 a month with ads, $11.99 a month with Showtime and no ads)

    Twenty years after ending its 11-season run (with 37 Emmy wins), the classic sitcom “Frasier” (Oct. 12) is back. Sort of. Kelsey Grammar returns in this revival as the pompous Dr. Frasier Crane, who’s moved back to Boston to be closer to his adult son (played by Jack Cutmore-Scott), who doesn’t necessarily want him there. The cast is mostly new, though Bebe Neuwirth (as Frasier’s ex-wife Lilith) and Peri Gilpin (his radio producer Roz) will reportedly guest star. David Hyde Pierce (Niles) and Jane Leeves (Daphne) will not return, however, which is a bummer since that’s where much of the original show’s laughs came from (John Mahoney, who played Frasier’s father Marty Crane, died in 2018). The jury’s out on this one — while in theory, it could be a refreshing update to a nostalgic favorite, the trailer is not encouraging.

    Paramount+ also has “Pet Sematary: Bloodlines” (Oct. 6), a creepy prequel to the 2019 horror reboot; “Fellow Travelers” (Oct. 27), a decades-spanning queer love story starring Matt Bomer and Jonathan Bailey; and Showtime’s courtroom drama “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” (Oct. 6), the late director William Friedkin’s last film, starring Keifer Sutherland, the late Lance Reddick and Jake Lacy.

    That’s on top of a live-sports lineup that includes SEC and Big Ten college football on Saturdays, NFL football every Sunday and UEFA Champions League soccer matches.

    Who’s Paramount+ for? Gen X cord-cutters who miss live sports and familiar Paramount Global
    PARA,
    +0.62%
     broadcast and cable shows.

    Play, pause or stop? Stop. There’s a good football lineup, at least.

    Apple TV+ ($6.99 a month)

    It’s another slow month for Apple
    AAPL,
    +0.30%    ,
    highlighted by the miniseries “Lessons in Chemistry” (Oct. 13), based on Bonnie Garmus’ bestselling novel. Brie Larson stars as a woman in the 1950s whose dreams of becoming a scientist are scuttled by male chauvinism, and instead becomes the host of a TV cooking show, where she inspires housewives and fights the patriarchy. Apple is getting a reputation for getting big-name stars for prestige-type series, only for the shows to fizzle out and quickly be forgotten (like “Mosquito Coast,” “Hello Tomorrow” and “Dear Edward,” for starters). I have yet to see any marketing for this series, and it would not be a surprise for someone to ask six months from now: “Wait, Brie Larson was in an Apple show?”

    There’s also a new documentary from Errol Morris, “The Pigeon Tunnel” (Oct. 20), about the life of spy-turned-writer David Cornwell, aka John le Carré; and “The Enfield Poltergeist” (Oct. 27), a four-part docuseries about the supposed real-life haunting that inspired “The Conjuring 2.”

    Apple’s biggest title will be on Oct. 20 in movie theaters, with the wide release of Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the spectacular-looking historical drama about a series of mysterious killings of Osage tribal members in Oklahoma in the 1920s, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone and Robert De Niro. There’s no streaming release date yet, but expect it to land on Apple TV+ after its theatrical run, possibly in November but more likely in December.

    There are also new episodes every week of “The Morning Show,” “The Changeling” (season finale Oct. 13) and “Invasion” (season finale Oct. 25).

    Who’s Apple TV+ for? It offers a little something for everyone, but not necessarily enough for anyone — although it’s getting there.

    Play, pause or stop? Stop. Apple’s had a great year, but there’s just not a lot on right now. But there’s good stuff coming in November (Season 4 of “For All Mankind”) and December (Season 3 of “Slow Horses”).

    Remember, you can get three free months of Apple TV+ if you buy a new iPhone, iPad or Mac. Strategically, if you buy an iPhone 15, and wait a bit to redeem the free trial, you’ll want it to extend into January.

    Peacock (Premium for $5.99 a month with ads, or $11.99 a month with no ads)

    It’s all about horror and sports for Peacock this October.

    On the scary side, there’s Season 2 of the werewolf rom-com “Wolf Like Me” (Oct. 19), starring Josh Gad and Isla Fisher; “Five Nights at Freddy’s” (Oct. 27), a horror movie based on the videogame about a troubled security guard who starts working the night shift at a cursed pizza parlor, starring Josh Hutcherson and Matthew Lillard; and the true-crime anthology “John Carpenter’s Suburban Screams” (Oct. 13).

    On the sports side, Peacock has the Rugby World Cup (through Oct. 28), NFL Sunday Night Football, Big Ten and Notre Dame college football, English Premier League soccer, and a full slate of golf, motorsports and horse racing.

    Meanwhile, the “John Wick” prequel miniseries “The Continental” ends Oct. 6.

    Who’s Peacock for? Live sports and next-day shows from Comcast’s
    CMCSA,
    -1.16%
     NBCUniversal are the main draw, but there’s a good library of shows and movies.

    Play, pause or stop? Stop. The live-sports offerings are the only lure.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why stocks are likely to be especially volatile this October

    Why stocks are likely to be especially volatile this October

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. stock market has been volatile in September. Brace yourself for October.

    September has the reputation of being the worst month for the stock market, but October far and away is the most volatile month of the year — as you can see from the accompanying chart. So if this October follows the historical averages, the stock market won’t lose as much as it has so far in September but investors will still feel whipped around.

    You might think October’s historical volatility can be traced to the U.S. market crashes that occurred in 1929 and 1987, each of which occurred during that month. But you’d be wrong: October remains at the top of the volatility rankings even if those two years are removed from the sample. Nor is there any trend over time in October’s place in those rankings: If we divide the period since the Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    was created in 1896 into two periods, October is the most volatile in both the first and second halves.

    Why would October be the most volatile month? I’m not aware of any plausible theory, and that normally would be a reason not to expect the historical pattern to continue. But not in this case.

    That’s because an expectation of volatility can itself lead to greater volatility. So the fact that past Octobers have been so volatile is a reason to expect this coming October to also be a particularly choppy month on Wall Street.

    If so, our job is not to get spooked by October’s volatility into going to cash. Of course, you may have other reasons why you might want to reduce your equity exposure. But if you were otherwise wanting to be heavily invested in equities, fasten your seat belt and hold on.

    Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com

    More: Wall Street analysts expect the S&P 500 to rise 19% over the next 12 months. Here are their 10 favorite stocks.

    Plus: Let’s debunk the bears’ top arguments against further stock market gains

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown looms: Here’s how to help preserve your investment portfolio.  

    Government shutdown looms: Here’s how to help preserve your investment portfolio.  

    [ad_1]

    “ The economic impact of a shutdown and the potential implications on your portfolio depend largely on how long the shutdown lasts. ”

    The potential for a U.S. government shutdown can raise alarm for investors and send the phone of a financial adviser like me ringing off the hook. Headlines in front of them, my clients are increasingly asking about potential portfolio implications and how they should respond.

    There is certainly a measured response, which includes not overreacting to the headlines and sticking to your long-term investment plan, and I’ll show you how to draw it.

    Government shutdown explained

    First, it’s important to understand what is happening. During a shutdown, the federal government will suspend all services that are deemed nonessential until a funding agreement is reached. This is much different than a default — which can happen when the government can’t pay its debts or satisfy its obligations. A default can have significant ramifications on U.S. creditworthiness and in turn, the global financial system. You may recall lawmakers’ discussions earlier this year regarding raising the debt ceiling — a solution to avoid defaulting. 

    A U.S. default has never happened, but shutdowns have occurred more than 20 times since 1976. Unlike a default, a shutdown does not affect the government’s ability to pay its obligations, and many critical government services, like Social Security may continue. When weighing the two, one can presume that markets may react more negatively to a default.   

    Markets may experience heightened volatility in response to the shutdown uncertainty, but markets do not react consistently to the news. In the past we have seen U.S. stocks — as measured by the S&P 500
    SPX
    — finish positively after more than half of these shutdowns. Results are similar for fixed-income securities, as we’ve seen an even split between positive and negative returns in the bond markets in shutdowns since 1976. 

    Of course, all investing is subject to risk, past performance is not a guarantee for future returns, and the performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment. 

    The economic impact of a shutdown — and the potential implications on your portfolio — depend largely on how long the shutdown lasts. The longer the shutdown, the more Americans experience dampened economic activity from things like loss of furloughed federal workers’ contribution to GDP, the delay in federal spending on goods and services, and the reduction in aggregate demand (which lowers private-sector activity). 

    Read: Government shutdown: Analysts warn of ‘perhaps a long one lasting into the winter’

    A measured response 

    A government shutdown is just one of many factors, both positive and negative, that can cause fluctuation in the market, so it’s important to treat it just as you would other fluctuations.

    With so many variables, it’s impossible to precisely predict the effects the shutdown will have or determine how long it will last. This can seem scary for many, so it’s important to remember your long-term financial plan and focus on the factors you can control.  

    First, do not try to time the market. Doing so based on short-term events is never a good idea, and volatility is unpredictable. Even if the markets fall, we don’t know when they might recover. If you make an emotionally charged decision, you run the risk of missing out on potentially substantial market gains. 

    Instead, focus on the following: align your asset allocation with your risk tolerance; control your costs; adopt realistic expectations; hold a broadly diversified portfolio and stay disciplined. Doing so can help you weather any form of market uncertainty, including a shutdown.

    Stick to healthy financial habits

    In addition to not making any sudden moves in your investment portfolio, now is a suitable time to make sure you are keeping up with healthy financial habits, especially if you are a federal employee facing a furlough. This can look like readjusting your budget based on your current needs, keeping high-interest debt to a minimum, paying the minimum on all debt to keep your credit score in good standing and continuing to save.

    Remember, using your emergency fund to navigate tight times is exactly what you have saved for and tapping it in this instance is considered a healthy financial habit. Just be sure to replenish it when you have the funds to do so. As a good practice, Vanguard recommends having three- to six months of expenses saved in readily accessible investments.

    With a level, long-term approach and a personalized financial plan, you can be prepared for this potential storm and the inevitable ones to come. 

    Lauren Wybar is a senior financial adviser with Vanguard Personal Advisor. 

    More: Bill Ackman says Treasury yields are going higher in a hurry, and that investors should shun U.S. government debt

    Plus: Social Security checks will still come if there’s a shutdown. But there are other immediate threats to America’s benefits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Food Loss and Waste: An Unacceptable Reality

    Food Loss and Waste: An Unacceptable Reality

    [ad_1]

    When addressing food insecurity, it’s clear that insufficient food production isn’t the problem. According to FAO estimates, Latin America and the Caribbean could feed over 1.3 billion people, twice their population. Credit: Riccardo De Luca / FAO
    • Opinion by Mario Lubetkin (santiago)
    • Inter Press Service

    SANTIAGO, Sep 29 (IPS) – Mario Lubetkin is FAO Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Latin America and the CaribbeanIn recent years, the population of Latin America and the Caribbean has seen a worrying increase in hunger figures, especially among the poorest in the region.

    When we talk about food insecurity in our region, as in the rest of the world, we realize that this problem does not stem from deficient food production. According to FAO estimates, Latin America and the Caribbean could feed more than 1.3 billion people, twice its population.

    Thus, where does this problem arise? A relevant factor in this matter is food loss and waste, which prevention is fundamental in the development of agri-food systems.

    In 2019, the United Nations General Assembly first established 29 September as International Food Loss and Waste Awareness Day, recognizing the positive impact of reversing FLW can have on people’s food and nutrition security.

    Four years after the declaration of this day, we must take stock of what we have achieved, look ahead and take immediate action to reverse a complex scenario with economic, social, environmental, and moral costs.

    According to FAO figures, 13% of the world’s food is lost in the supply chain, from post-harvest to retail, and a further 17% is wasted in households, food services, and retail. The highest levels of losses occur in nutrient-rich foods such as fruit and vegetables (32%), meat, and fish (12.4%).

    Inefficiencies along the food chain and in consumption also have a significantly impact on the environment. Therefore, preventing food loss and waste can help to combat hunger and the consequences of climate change through greenhouse gas emissions.

    Current scientific evidence points to innovative solutions that support family farming, distribution and supply systems, drive circular bio-economy actions, and target investments and funding to develop monitoring and early warning systems to prevent FLWs, as well as comprehensive legal frameworks aimed at prevention. But it is still not enough.

    At the end of August, the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean organized a discussion on how to prevent and reduce food losses and waste in the context of food security and nutrition, with the participation of the Holy See, representatives of the Chilean government, and FAO.

    This conversation explored ideas and solutions to move from reflection to action and to understand that ending the phenomenon of food loss and waste has a direct impact on the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

    The way forward is clear: to address this situation it is imperative to work in a coordinated and multi-sectoral way to achieve results quickly. Governments, businesses, civil society and academia must join forces, to generate evidence, investments in infrastructure and technology, and other measures to address this situation.

    Much needs to be done. Food loss and waste must be addressed from an ethical, political and scientific perspective. We are all responsible for this challenge.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Wanted: A New Local Oversight Structure to Achieve SDGS, Climate Action & Biodiversity Preservation

    Wanted: A New Local Oversight Structure to Achieve SDGS, Climate Action & Biodiversity Preservation

    [ad_1]

    Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 29 (IPS) – The links between Agenda 2030 and SDGs, including climate action and biodiversity preservation are clear and straightforward. Yet, leveraging them, and bringing them to together in a unified framework, remains extremely challenging.

    The only way possible to create synergies would be to rethink the way governments are accountable towards these issues at national and local levels. After all, there are two whole SDGs, SDG 13 and SDG 15, respectively focus on climate and biodiversity preservation.

    On the top of these two goals, there are plenty of additional elements, within Agenda 2030, that have a direct, impact in the double-edged fight against climate change and biodiversity loss.

    Unfortunately, despite these profound connections and interdependences, climate action and biodiversity preservation have been discussed and dealt with through staggering separate and disjointed processes.

    Proving this disconnection, hardly any news reports are covering the underlying interconnections that are indispensable to achieve a sustainable, just and fair planet. This is indeed, an overarching goal only possible if a new novel, holistic framework of action comes in place.

    In an attempt to a common response to this siloes like system, UN DESA and UNFCCC, convened in May this year, a technical group of experts, focused at “analyzing climate and SDG Synergies and aiming to maximize action impact”.

    During the recently held SDG Summit 2023, these experts released their first report entitled Synergy Solutions for a World in Crisis: Tackling Climate and SDG Action Together. As evident from its official title, the remit of this group neglected biodiversity.

    Despite this weakness, the document is an important contribution to what I call the “Better Sustainability and Better World Global Agenda”. With this term, I imply the need to come up with a truly comprehensive blueprint that can turn around the global, UN led mechanisms intended to deliver a fairer, more just agenda for our planet.

    The insights found in the document are not only important in terms of analyzing the “win-win” policies and related benefits from pursuing better joint policies.

    Green infrastructures that follow the latest technological breakthrough in their design and construction modalities, sustainable consumption practices, including new approaches in the agriculture, all offer potent solutions to reduce emissions and preserve the environment.

    Furthermore, the report explains how “the co-benefits related to health and agricultural productivity were found to globally offset the costs of climate policy and contribute to increased global GDP”.

    As much as new evidence on the correlations of between the SDGs and climate action is essential, yet, the more fascinating aspect of the report is the focus on what are defined as the “political and institutional barriers and governance and institutional settings”.

    An honest and frank assessment of the systems governing the implementation of Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement and the Kunming- Montreal Biodiversity Framework, provide a frank assessment of the existing segmentation.

    Climate change, with the legally binding framework approved in Paris commands, by vast margin, the highest level of attention and are perceived as the most important issue. Instead, much less is known or discussed about both the SDGs and the new biodiversity framework approved, thanks to the co-stewardship of China and Canada.

    Among the three processes, no matter how much emphasis on the recently held SDG Summit, Agenda 2030 is where inaction and carelessness from the global leaders is most visible. The reason is simple: Agenda 2030 is not intergovernmental and therefore not legally binding.

    Its enforcement mechanism, the so called Voluntary National Review, as it is self-evident from the name itself, remains purely up to the member states for its implementation. In an overly complex and fragmented landscape, it is unsurprising to know that bureaucrats and policy makers, especially in the developing world, do struggle in both planning and reporting because they have to deal with different and unrelated toolkits and frameworks.

    The climate agenda is itself complex with multiple areas of work within the broad Paris Agreement. Governments have to prepare not only the so called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) in relation to the mitigation aspect of climate action but also separate planning and reporting for its adaptation dimension.

    On the latter, states should, at least in theory, prepare National Adaptation Plan or NAP, geared for longer terms and National Adaptation Programme of Action or NAPA. Planning and reporting, as a consequence, is truly, a daunting job for national governments and for an utterly unprepared and unequipped global governance system.

    The experts’ report could not be clearer.

    “Complex governance arrangements and institutional structural rigidity can impede synergistic action and integration due to factors like overlapping authority, lack of mandate, department-specific jargon, unequal access to information, and lack”, the document explains.

    The reality is that Agenda 2030, due to its weak legal dimension and its equally weak accountability mechanisms, is falling short of the expectations. It is doing so, especially in relation to its incapacity to include and bring together all the existing mechanisms and processes related to fights against poverty, climate and biodiversity.

    Unfortunately, the ambitious agenda to reform the multilateral system, put forward by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is not ambitious enough. There is no joint or combined planning, neither globally nor locally, to achieve a real a new Global Deal for the future of our planet.

    Indeed, at ground level, local governance mechanisms are, structurally unable of bringing coherence and unity among the three dimensions. Yet it is at local levels where we should place our best hopes to create a truly “anti-silos” system approach that unifies the three agendas.

    Because of the way they have been designed and implemented so far, the Voluntary Local Reviews or VLRs, should be entirely repurposed. We are talking about the tools at the hands of local governments to monitor the implementation of the SDGs.

    They should not only be strengthened in terms of accountability but should become real planning instruments able to engage and involve the people. The creation of the expert working group on the synergies between climate action and the SDGs was possible thanks to a number of reports generated from a series of UN convened conferences, focused on climate change and SDGs.

    The latest of these global events, formally the 4th Global Conference on strengthening synergies between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was held on the July 16 this year. This series of events and the insights they generated, also backed, though vaguely and in general terms, the importance of revisiting the institutional mechanisms.

    At very practical level, what could be done?

    To start with, in terms of higher accountability standards, the UN Country Systems should be further empowered. The experts’ report calls for leveraging system wide changes and fostering policy integration.

    Among its recommendations there is “promote institutional capacity building and cross-sectoral and international collaboration at national, institutional, and individual levels, especially for the Global South”.

    Moreover, the document highlights the importance of “ensuring policy coherence and coordination among policy makers across sectors and departments for enhancing climate and development synergies at the national, sub-national, and multi-national levels”.

    Here few ideas on how these principles could be put into practice.

    In what could become an almost revolutionary evolution of the ways the UN works at local levels, the offices of the countries level UN Resident Coordinators should be transformed into watchdogs able to independently evaluate the work done by the governments

    While the UN agencies and programs, at national levels, are mandated to support the governments to implement their international commitments for a fairer, greener and more just planet, the UN Resident Coordinators should embrace the role of impartial and independent evaluator.

    Alternatively, these offices should become the guarantors of independently UN managed but country owned local mechanisms tasked with verifying and checking on the compliance of the governments.

    This could be either a permeant mechanism of a new global accountability system put in place at local level to ensure the common good or, otherwise, a temporary one.

    In the latter option, we could imagine a transitionary only solution that would remain in place till when national authorities would become capable of developing and running independent, fit for purpose, compliance instruments on the three issues of the SDGs, climate and biodiversity.

    In either way, an equal number of international and local independent experts, under the leadership of an authoritative local national, a person of undisputed integrity, symbolically responding to the UN Resident Coordinator, would make up the mechanism with the support of local staff.

    Only bold solutions will help achieve the “Better Sustainability and Better World Global Agenda”. Starting from the bottom, rethinking how UN works to ensure governments fulfill their responsibilities locally, could offer the best odds for success.

    States must admit and accept that, in order to fight inequality and poverty while reducing and slowing climate change and biodiversity degradation, they need to work under enhanced scrutiny and within a much more tighter accountability system.

    This new proposed approach, while very ambitious and radical, is not impossible to be negotiated and put in place.

    We just need, imagination and tons of political will!

    The Writer, co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership, is based in Kathmandu.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Navigating Challenges of New City Development for Nusantara, Indonesias Future Capital

    Navigating Challenges of New City Development for Nusantara, Indonesias Future Capital

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Asian Development Bank
    • Opinion by Omar Sidique – Diani Sadiawati – Diandra Pratami (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service

    BANGKOK, Thailand, Sep 27 (IPS) – Many nations are engaged in ambitious urban planning endeavors and the creation of new capital cities. Nusantara, Indonesia, is the latest in a series of modern cities that have sprung up across Asia.

    The government aims to create a model capital city based on the principles of liveability and green urban development on the island of Borneo.

    Indonesia seeks to relocate its capital due to flooding, land subsidence, overpopulation and congestion in Jakarta, located on the island of Java, where 60 per cent of the country’s population of close to 280 million lives.

    Nusantara will also play a role in rebalancing the country’s economy, and redistributing economic growth outside Java. But how can the government get such a complex endeavor right?

    In this article, we explore how planners of Nusantara are leveraging a UN-supported mechanism, called the Voluntary Local Review (VLR), to promote sustainability and uphold human rights. VLRs are typically performed by authorities of existing subnational administrative areas such as provinces and cities.

    Nusantara will be the first VLR for a new city ever undertaken – in order for authorities to integrate sustainability actions and key principles such as leaving no one behind already during the development stage.

    Valuable lessons from other new Asian cities

      • Malaysia’s sustainable approach: Putrajaya, just south of Kuala Lumpur, was designed as an intelligent garden city. Its planning emphasizes green and sustainable development. Rather than separating indigenous residents from their traditional land, it incorporated existing Malay villages into the plan. The lesson here is that new capital cities should prioritize local land rights and sustainability through green infrastructure. Such initiatives contribute to a better quality of life and environmental preservation.
      • Republic of Korea’s phased development: Sejong City’s incremental approach to its development as an administrative capital is a testament to the advantages of not rushing construction and drawing from lessons learned throughout the process. It was created to decentralize economic and political power away from Seoul. It also showcases the importance of designing new capital cities with resilience to climate change in mind, given the increasing threats of extreme weather events.
      • Kazakhstan’s sustained investments: Astana’s development and transformation as a capital city involved substantial investment in infrastructure, including the futuristic Norman Foster-designed Khan Shatyr Entertainment Center and the Bayterek Tower. One key lesson is that comprehensive urban planning, including spatial integration of transportation, housing, green spaces and public services, are crucial. Astana’s transformation into a thriving city of 1.3 million demonstrates the importance of having a clear, long-term vision.
    Credit: Asian Development Bank

    Seven key takeaways for Nusantara’s way forward

    Nusantara is learning from these examples by leveraging sustainability in its master planning and closely working with ESCAP, the UN Country Team in Indonesia and the Asian Development Bank to prepare a baseline VLR report as a tool for fostering inclusive, sustainable and rights-based development.

      1. Transparency and accountability: The VLR promotes transparency by providing detailed information about the progress and challenges faced in implementing the new capital. This transparency can help build trust among stakeholders, including the public, investors and government agencies. The VLR can demonstrate how the new capital’s development aligns with global goals.
      2. Assessment of progress: The VLR can evaluate the sustainability of the new capital, including its expected environmental impact and efforts to promote sustainable practices. Nusantara aims to be a “sustainable forest city” with 25 per cent built up urban area, 65 per cent tropical forest through reforestation and 10 per cent parks and food production areas. The plan aims to conserve much of Nusantara’s tropical forest, allowing the city to be a net carbon sequestration sink before 2030 along with the goal to be a carbon neutral city by 2045.
      3. Data-driven decision making: By collecting and presenting data on the new capital’s development in one place, the VLR can facilitate integrated data-driven decision-making. It can help policymakers identify trends and make informed choices regarding resource allocation and policy adjustments. In this process, the VLR requires municipal government departments to effectively work together and break down silos.
      4. Stakeholder engagement: Indigenous communities live on the site, including approximately 800 families of the Balik people. The VLR can highlight the importance of involving local communities in the planning and implementation process. It can document community feedback and demonstrate how their input has been considered and make recommendations for institutionalizing stakeholder engagement processes.
      5. Attracting investment: The cost estimate for Nusantara is $33 billion (Rp466 trillion), with the state budget only able to cover up to 19 per cent of the cost. Investors often look for transparent and well-documented information when considering investments. A VLR can serve as a tool to attract both domestic and international investors by showcasing the potential and progress of the new capital.
      6. International collaboration: Sharing a VLR report with international organizations and other countries can open avenues for benchmarking, collaboration and support. This can include financial aid, technical assistance, and knowledge exchange.
      7. Risk mitigation: Identifying risks and challenges in the VLR allows for proactive mitigation strategies. This can help prevent delays and cost overruns in the development process.

    While significant attention is focused on Nusantara, it’s clear that relocating administrative functions may not address all social and environmental problems in Jakarta, especially for those most vulnerable.

    The development of Nusantara has the potential to help Jakarta address its longstanding problems by relieving population pressure, improving infrastructure and setting an example for sustainable urban development. However, the success of this endeavor will depend on careful planning, infrastructure investment, and effective governance.

    Omar Sidique is Economic Affairs Officer, UN Economic and Social Commissions for Asia and the Pacific; Diani Sadiawati is Special Staff to the Head, Nusantara Capital City Authority, Government of Indonesia; and Diandra Pratami is Development Coordination Officer, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office, Indonesia

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • ‘Free speech’ is not an excuse for misogyny

    ‘Free speech’ is not an excuse for misogyny

    [ad_1]

    Laurence Fox has long positioned himself as a defender of free speech. The right to say whatever the hell pops into his head – consequences be damned – is one of many jagged hills that the ‘actor’ has chosen to die on. Is it a coincidence that Fox seems to exclusively use this God-given ‘right’ to incite misogyny and hatred? We think not.

    GB News has suspended Fox after he went on a misogynistic rant about political journalist Ava Evans. He appeared on Dan Wooton’s show to discuss comments made by Evans about men’s mental health before launching into a tirade about her appearance, sex appeal, and why he would ignore her in a bar.

    “Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel,” Fox said to Wooton, who was smiling along. “We need powerful, strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves. We don’t need these sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing. Who’d want to shag that?”

    In a statement, GB News confirmed it would be investigating Fox’s comments and “apologising formally” to Ava Evans.

    Evans tweeted that she felt “sick” about the comments, adding, “This is the sort of talk that you worry that men have about you when you’re not in the room […] There’s always a worry in the back of your mind”

    “You’d think that Laurence Fox would be defending Evans’ right to free speech – no matter how divisive – rather than spewing a litany of sexist abuse.”

    So what had Evans done to deserve such an attack? Well, she’d exercised her right to free speech by appearing on a BBC Politics Live discussion about whether there should be a government minister specifically for men’s mental health. Her stance – there should be a minister for mental health more generally – was met with some negativity on social media. She has since tweeted that she regretted her comments.

    You’d think that Fox and the rest of the free-speech brigade would be defending Evans’ right to voice her personal opinion – no matter how divisive – rather than unleashing a litany of sexist abuse.

    But, of course, for people like Fox, free speech isn’t actually about free speech. In her seminal work The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir wrote, “Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.” And her words certainly ring true in relation to Fox: he relentlessly muddles up his subjective opinion with objective fact. Thus when he’s given a platform on the likes of GB News, he deludes himself into believing that he’s speaking the truth to the masses rather than merely spewing misogynistic tripe to other misogynists.

    In response to the backlash, Fox predictably employs reductive logic to justify his comments, stating, “If a woman wants to go on television and belittle male suicide, she is totally within her rights to do so and not apologise, just as I am totally within my rights to say that I wouldn’t want to shag a hyper offended fourth wave feminist and not apologise, just as people are totally within their rights to be offended by my stating I would run a mile in the opposite direction from women like her, should our paths cross in a bar.”

    Oh, if only that were the case, Laurence! Unfortunately – and excuse me while I go “hyper-offended fourth wave feminist” over here – no one’s words exist in a vacuum. In fact, all our words exist within a deeply patriarchal society, which is hell-bent on suppressing women’s voices while uplifting men’s. In a stonking essay about free speech and feminism, Mary Anne Franks writes that free speech, in practice, can “obscure the gendered nature of power and the particularities of women’s lived experience.” So enticed by the allure of free speech, Fox doesn’t bother to contemplate how men’s and women’s words land differently within an unequal society.

    Had a man expressed the same opinions as Evans, would Fox have lambasted their sexuality? Of course he bloody wouldn’t! Because on some sub-conscious level, he knows that free speech is for the exclusive enjoyment of white, heterosexual men. And women who dare to voice unpopular opinions – women like Ava Evans – pose a threat to this enjoyment. No wonder he’s throwing his toys out of the pram.

    For more from Glamour UK’s Lucy Morgan, follow her on Instagram @lucyalexxandra.

    [ad_2]

    Lucy Morgan

    Source link

  • Don’t Count on PPP Solutions

    Don’t Count on PPP Solutions

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
    • Inter Press Service

    KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Sep 27 (IPS) – In recent years, public-private partnerships (PPPs) have spread rapidly. While usually profitable for the private partners, PPPs have generally not served the longer-term public interest.

    PPPs as miracle all-purpose solution

    As Eurodad has shown, PPP financing has grown in recent years, particularly in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) funding discourses. Adopted by the UN in September 2015, the SDGs endorsed PPP financing.

    Jomo Kwame Sundaram

    Earlier, the mid-2015 Third UN Conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa had failed to ensure adequate financing. This was mainly due to rich nations opposing a UN-led international tax cooperation initiative.

    Instead, PPPs were strongly endorsed in the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Weeks later, SDG17 referred to PPPs as ‘means of implementation’. This all sought to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships”.

    PPPs have been promoted as a means to finance and deliver infrastructure, social services and, increasingly, climate-related projects. Advocates claimed PPPs would also help overcome other problems besides funding. PPPs, they claimed, would help improve project selection, planning, implementation and maintenance.

    PPP promotion

    Some advocates even claim only the private sector can deliver high-quality investment and efficiency in infrastructure and social service delivery. Private financing reduces budget-constrained governments’ need to raise funds upfront to finance, develop and manage projects.

    Increased private financing supposedly also overcomes public sector incapacity to deliver high-quality infrastructure and public services. Undoubtedly, many government capacities have been diminished by decades of structural adjustment, austerity and less public finance.

    This has been worsened by rich countries’ unmet commitments to contribute 0.7% of national income as official development assistance (ODA) on concessional terms. The global North has also been unwilling to effectively stem illicit financial outflows, e.g., due to tax dodging.

    PPP promotion has involved many means, media and institutions, including ‘donor’ agencies, multilateral development banks (MDBs), UN agencies, international consultants, transnational accounting firms, and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

    The World Bank has long promoted private financial investments in development, as well as ‘blended finance’ and PPPs more recently. In 2022, the influential WEF even proclaimed PPPs as essential for pandemic recovery.

    Promoting private finance

    Such promotion of private finance has implications far beyond the actually modest amount of funds raised through ‘blended finance’ and PPPs. Almost every project so funded is touted as proof that private finance should be privileged, including by guaranteeing returns using public finance.

    The World Bank and other MDBs are devoting considerable effort to advise governments on the use of PPPs. By contrast, they have not put comparable efforts into improving the quality and effectiveness of publicly financed infrastructure and social services.

    Over the years, the World Bank Group has produced different tools – including model language for PPP contracts, which favour private sector interests – often to the detriment of the public partner, ultimately governments in need of financing.

    Regional development banks – such as the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank – have strategic frameworks, networks and dedicated offices to support countries implementing PPPs.

    National PPP promotion

    PPP advocacy has led to changes in laws, regulatory frameworks and policy environments at international, national and local levels. Developing countries have also started including PPPs – to scale up infrastructure and public service provision – in national development plans.

    Many developing countries have enacted laws enabling PPPs and set up ‘PPP Units’ to implement PPP projects. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and regional development banks work closely with private partners to provide policy guidance advising governments on how to best enable PPPs.

    All this has transformed policy formulation for public service provision to attract private investors – an agenda Daniela Gabor dubs the ‘Wall Street Consensus’. This implies “an elaborate effort to reorganize development interventions around partnerships with global finance”.

    PPPs have not delivered

    But actual experiences have not confirmed this favourable impression promoted by PPP advocates. Instead, PPPs have become a major cause for concern. Reliable data on international PPP trends are hard to find. Also, different PPP definitions and terminology have confused reporting.

    The World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects Database reports on economic infrastructure – such as for energy, transport, water and sewerage – in 137 low- and middle-income countries.

    The Covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly disrupted PPP planning, preparation and procurement. But even the World Bank admits that delays and cancellations were not only due to Covid-19 as the pandemic exposed projects already in trouble for other reasons.

    Nonetheless, PPPs’ financial impacts to date have been small, as the public sector continues to dominate. But little private investment – including PPPs – goes to low-income countries. Most such projects are concentrated in a few countries.

    PPPs tend to be found in countries with large and developed markets allowing faster cost recovery and more secure revenues. This implies market ‘cherry-picking’ – a selection bias – with private investments going to more affluent urban areas rather than to the needy.

    The major setbacks to both the SDGs and climate progress in the last decade are not only due to financing. But they are more than enough to underscore that recent reliance on blended finance and PPPs has worsened, rather than helped the situation. The empire of private finance has no clothes!

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Bahrains Political Prisoners: Resistance Against the Odds

    Bahrains Political Prisoners: Resistance Against the Odds

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Ines M Pousadela (montevideo, uruguay)
    • Inter Press Service

    MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 26 (IPS) – Maryam al-Khawaja’s journey home ended before it had begun: British Airways staff stopped her boarding her flight at the request of Bahraini immigration authorities. Maryam was no regular passenger: her father is veteran human rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, in jail in Bahrain for 12 years and counting.

    Abdulhadi was sentenced to life in prison on bogus terrorism charges for his role in 2011 democracy protests, part of the ‘Arab Spring’ regional wave of mobilisations. His health, weakened due to denial of medical care, has further declined as he joined other political prisoners in a hunger strike demanding improvements in prison conditions.

    Emerging from the unlikeliest place – a prison designed to break wills and destroy the desire for freedom – this hunger strike has become the biggest organised protest Bahrain has seen in years.

    Maryam has four judicial cases pending in Bahrain but was ready to spend years in prison if this was what it took to save her father’s life. This is far from Abdulhadi’s first hunger strike, but his family warns that his fragile health means it could be his last. In denying Maryam the chance to see her father, the Bahraini regime has reacted as those who rule by fear often do: in fear of those who aren’t afraid of them.

    A prison state

    The Bahraini cracked down severely on the 2011 protests, unleashing murderous security force violence to clear protest sites, arresting scores of protesters, activists and opposition leaders, subjecting them to mass trials and stripping hundreds of citizenship. It sentenced 51 people to death and has executed six, while 26 wait on death row having exhausted their appeals. Most were convicted on the basis of confessions obtained through torture.

    Many of those arrested in the 2011 protests and subsequent crackdown remain behind bars. According to estimates from the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over the past decade the government has arrested almost 15,000 people for their political views, and between 1,200 and 1,400 are still jailed, mostly in Jau prison in Manama, the capital. Abdulhadi is one of many.

    On 7 August, Jau’s political prisoners went on hunger strike. Their demands include an end to solitary confinement, more time outside cells – currently they’re only allowed out for an hour a day, permission to hold prayers in congregation, amended visitation rules and access to adequate medical care and education. Over the following weeks the numbers taking part grew to more than 800. Their families took to the streets to demand their release.

    On 31 August, the political prisoners extended their protest after rejecting the government’s offer of only minor improvements.

    On 11 September, a two-week suspension of the strike was announced to allow the government to fulfil promises to improve conditions, including ending isolation for some prisoners. It seemed clear the government had shifted position to avoid embarrassment as Bahrain’s Crown Prince and Prime Minister Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa prepared to meet US President Joe Biden.

    Abdulhadi, however, soon resumed his hunger strike after being denied access to a scheduled medical appointment, only to suspend it a few days later when he was promised improvements in conditions, including a cardiologist appointment. But the next day it became apparent that these were all lies, and he resumed his hunger strike. It felt, as Maryam put it, ‘like psychological warfare and an attempt to kill solidarity’.

    International solidarity urgently needed

    In her attempt to return to Bahrain, Maryam received strong international support. Several Bahraini, regional and international civil society groups backed a joint letter urging European Union authorities to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all Bahrain’s political prisoners. A similar letter was sent to the UK government.

    In late 2022, backlash from human rights organisations forced Bahrain to withdraw its candidacy for a UN Human Rights Council seat. And earlier this year, during the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s global assembly in Bahrain, which the regime sought to use for whitewashing purposes, parliamentarians called on Bahrain to release Abdulhadi and send him to Denmark for medical treatment.

    But while Bahrain’s political prisoners have many allies, some powerful voices aren’t among them.

    Bahrain’s foreign allies include not only repressive autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates but also democratic states, notably the UK and the USA, which clearly value stability and security far more highly than democracy and human rights.

    Following Bahrain’s independence in 1971, the UK has continued to back the institutions it established – and has pretended to see progress towards democratic reform. In July, Bahrain’s Crown Prince made an official visit to the UK, where he met Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and signed a ‘Strategic Investment and Collaboration Partnership’ between the two countries. This included a US$1 billion investment deal in the UK. Barely a month before the start of the hunger strike, Sunak welcomed ‘progress on domestic reforms in Bahrain, particularly in relation to the judiciary and legal process’.

    For the USA, Bahrain has been a ‘major non-NATO ally‘ since 2002 and a ‘major security partner’ since 2021. Bahrain was the first state in the region to be accorded major non-NATO ally status, the first to host a major US military base and the first, in 2006, to sign a free trade agreement with the USA. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, one of seven around the world, is stationed there, and the country hosts the headquarters of the US Naval Forces Central Command.

    On 13 September, the Crown Prince visited Washington DC and signed a ‘Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement’ meant to scale up military and economic cooperation with the USA.

    Only in the last paragraph of its pages-long announcement, meticulously detailed in every other respect, did the White House briefly acknowledge that human rights were an item of discussion. Nothing was said about the content or outcome of those alleged conversations.

    The USA has been repeatedly chastised for a ‘selective defence of democracy‘. President Biden promised a foreign policy centred around human rights, but that rings hollow in Bahrain. It’s high time the USA, the UK and other democratic states use the many levers at their disposal to urge the Bahraini government to free its thousands of political prisoners and move towards real democratic reform.

    Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • African Coups and Resource Rights

    African Coups and Resource Rights

    [ad_1]

    What Africa needs is deep systematic changes in land governance. Communities need to control the disposition of their territories; peace will never happen if populations are stuck in economic instability. Credit: Tommy Trenchard/IPS
    • Opinion by Solange Bandiaky Badji (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    WASHINGTON DC, Sep 25 (IPS) – When the heads of state of all United Nations members spoke in front of the UN General Assembly last week, a number of African leaders were not be able to attend, having been removed from office in military-led coups.

    On the surface, these nations do not share many similarities outside of geography and colonial histories. Consider Gabon and Niger, the most recent countries to experience “regime change.” Gabon is a small, biodiverse nation; the president under house arrest and his father before him have been in power since 1967. Niger is a much larger, mostly desert country; the president under house arrest had been elected in 2021.

    This instability, taking place across West and Central Africa, has drawn plenty of attention, both regionally and internationally. But missing in the debates on which international power is behind each coup or whether they should be tolerated is the far more basic question on resources.

    While France, the U.S., Russia, and China have condemned or worried about the wave of coups, they have mainly focused on the need to restore “constitutional order” and democracy. The root cause of the coups and conflicts in Africa is about resource extraction that drives poverty and human rights violations.

    There are now seven African countries whose militaries have removed national governments, and all of their economies are largely dependent on resource extraction. Mali and Burkina Faso are among the world’s leading producers of gold. Chad and Sudan depend on oil extraction. Niger is the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium. Guinea holds between one quarter and half of the world’s bauxite reserves, the primary source of aluminum. Gabon is the second biggest producer of manganese in Africa and its economy also depends on oil and gas extraction, even as the government was exploring ways to tap emerging carbon credit markets for the tropical forests that cover almost 90% of its land.

    The land needed for resource extraction, and the labor needed for the mines, drilling operations, or refineries—this economic activity comes at a cost. Families eking out a livelihood based on agriculture or forest products have little recourse when larger economic interests swoop in and take their land and resources.

    In these countries, the rural communities have lived on and tended the land for generations—far longer than the governments have been in power. Land and property ownership is the basis of individual wealth in the Global North. But in the Global South, legal systems that disenfranchise rural communities are accepted because of the resources that their land contains.

    The resource extraction sector does not provide a suitable replacement for the livelihoods that community members lose when their lands are taken. We have yet to see an example where miners, for example, are adequately compensated and protected from workplace hazards.

    In the Sahel, Niger is often commended for its recognition of customary tenure rights. Niger has a progressive Rural Code adopted in 1993 that set innovative land governance systems, legislation and institutions.

    A Rural Land Policy was adopted in 2021 with provisions to recognize rights and prevent land conflicts. Niger also has the most progressive pastoral law in the Sahel, adopted in 2010, that recognizes the rights of nomadic communities dependent on livestock. Burkina Faso and Mali also have strong protections for community rights, but enforcement was lacking in all three countries.

    Foreign investors are always happy to exploit these countries’ resources; enforcing community rights is never their priority. Equitable sharing of the benefits from the extractive sector, to provide local youth with gainful employment or land ownership, and respecting rural land ownership arrangements, are rarely on the table.

    I look at Senegal, where I was born and raised, and all the ingredients are there for the country to join this string of coups. Government revenues depend on resource extraction—phosphate mines drive most of the economy.

    Natural gas and oil have been discovered off the coast and the government ambition is to make Senegal an oil, gas, and hydrocarbon giant. While Senegal has been the most stable country in the Sahel, we are seeing democratic rollback with arrests of opposition political leaders and citizens, which triggered massive street protests.

    And, Senegal’s legal system does not protect the land rights of rural communities—leaving them without a basis for wealth. Senegal has struggled to come up with a new land policy and law to take into account the current political and economic context and give ownership rights to the communities. The land law in force is the “Loi du Domaine National,” adopted immediately after we gained independence from France in 1964.

    Ultimately, it’s not about who is in power and is certainly not limited to former French colonies. This is all about how resource extraction is prioritized. What Africa needs is deep systematic changes in land governance. Communities need to control the disposition of their territories; peace will never happen if populations are stuck in economic instability.

    “Africa is a beggar sitting on a gold mine,” said Birago Diop, the 20th century Senegalese poet and storyteller. Despite their natural riches, four of these seven countries—Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad—scored in the bottom 10th of the global “Prosperity Index;” the other three score in the bottom 40%.

    The challenge before all of us—for Africa’s regional bodies like ECOWAS and the African Union, and for global institutions like the UN—is how we can leave these outdated economic models in the 20th century. Two decades into this century, we still haven’t embraced the need for a more equitable approach to natural resources. Until we do so, no government is safe.

    Dr. Solange Bandiaky-Badji, PhD is Coordinator of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). She holds a PhD in Women’s and Gender Studies from Clark University, Massachusetts, and an MA in Environmental Sciences and in Philosophy from Cheikh Anta Diop University, Senegal.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Beyond Words: The Urgent Call for the US to Address Global Inequality Through Climate Action

    Beyond Words: The Urgent Call for the US to Address Global Inequality Through Climate Action

    [ad_1]

    Abby Maxman visits Rufisque and Bargny, Senegal, where Oxfam partners are helping communities cope with climate change, protect the environment, and advocate for their rights. Credit: Djibril Dia/Oxfam
    • Opinion by Abby Maxman (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Sep 25 (IPS) – With its global representation, one would expect the UN General Assembly to touch on many diverse issues. And it does. But talks have repeatedly come back to one unifying call: if we want to save ourselves, our planet, and our future, we must act now.

    In his remarks at the UN General Debate last Tuesday, President Biden reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to combat the intersecting challenges of the climate crisis, hunger, and worldwide inequality. Yet the following day at the Climate Ambition Summit, the U.S. was not recognized as a climate leader or granted speaking time since the U.S. had no new climate commitments.

    In his remarks, President Biden said that extreme weather events around the world “tell the urgent story that awaits us if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.” Yet, with current policies in place, the United States accounts for more than one-third of planned global oil and gas expansion through 2050 and has the largest shortfall between its climate plans and what is needed to meet its fair share of emissions reductions to prevent catastrophic climate change.

    Now President Biden and the United States government need to step up with more investments and more action – not only to be the climate president he promised, but also to realize the United States’ obligation as the largest historical emitter.

    Abby Maxman visits Rufisque and Bargny, Senegal, where Oxfam partners are helping communities cope with climate change, protect the environment, and advocate for their rights. Credit: Djibril Dia/Oxfam

    But this is not only about combatting climate change. The latest UN report confirms what many of us in the humanitarian sector have been emphasizing for years: the quests to combat climate change, fight inequality, and achieve our Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not mutually exclusive missions.

    During a recent trip to the Sahel, I visited Bargny, a coastal community south of Dakar. There, one woman activist, a mother and grandmother, shared her experience of losing her home to sea-level rise and erosion. She and other displaced families were promised land to resettle, only to have the government grant that land to a foreign company to build a coal-burning power plant.

    According to the people we spoke with, this was done without any community consultation or compensation for the people affected. Unfortunately, such injustices are all too common because of our continued investment and reliance on fossil fuels.

    Marginalized communities bear the brunt of decisions made on their own land and from thousands of miles away, and these people often have little say in the policies that impact their lives so profoundly.

    As we approach the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda, we’re falling far short of our SDG targets that aim to protect communities like Bargny all around the world. Our research at Oxfam showcases the depth of this crisis: as extreme weather events and poverty surge, so does extreme inequality.

    The carbon emissions of the richest 1 percent are more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity combined. But once we consider the investments of those at the very top, in addition to their lifestyles, the data is even more stark. On average, a billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person, and billionaires are also much more likely to use their wealth to invest in polluting industries.

    Whether in response to the recent floods in Libya, rising hunger across nations, or the earth’s hottest and most brutal summer since global records began in 1880, the call for immediate climate action, with emphasis on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and safeguards for affected communities has never been louder.

    The US, having historically contributed massively to climate pollution, shoulders an immense responsibility to lead the charge against climate disasters and empower and finance local leaders, young people, and marginalized communities.

    This past Sunday, many of my Oxfam colleagues were part of the 75,000 people marching through New York City to demand an end to fossil fuels. They held up signs that said “climate change knows no borders.” What we do here – good or bad – affects all the countries represented in the United Nations.

    It’s an uphill battle, but every moment, and every decision, counts. While President Biden’s words resonate with hope and commitment, we must see more action or they are merely platitudes. Time is running out, and the world watches, hopeful and expectant, for transformative actions that match these promising words.

    Abby Maxman is the President and CEO of Oxfam America

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Reality is Governments Not Truly Held Accountable to Implement SDGs

    Reality is Governments Not Truly Held Accountable to Implement SDGs

    [ad_1]

    The SDG Summit gets underway in the General Assembly hall at UN Headquarters in New York. September 2023. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 22 (IPS) – What does transformative and sweeping really mean in the overarching efforts to achieve the Agenda 2030?

    With the conclusion of the second edition of the SDG Summit, it is time for stocktaking on what was agreed at the United Nations HQ in New York this week. At the core of the Summit were not the several Leaders’ Dialogues that, as important as it can be to have heads of state and government reflecting on the Agenda, are just talking shops without any practical implications.

    Instead, what deserves more scrutiny is the Political Declaration that was issued during the Summit after months of negotiations facilitated by the governments of Ireland and Qatar. The document has been heralded as truly significant, a “transformative and sweeping” game-changer that will be able to reposition sustainable development at the center of the global deliberations.

    But is it really so?

    Certainly, the Declaration contains some bold language that truly makes an attempt at securing the international community’s steadfast leadership towards the Agenda 2030. Yet would this be enough to command not only the commitment of the world’s government to achieve it but also a through follow up and implementation in the months and years ahead?

    As we know, the SDGs are far from being on track and each report being published, confirms it. The fact that the Declaration is comprehensive because it covers the whole spectrum of policy making that is covered by the 17 SDGs contained in the Agenda, is hardly enough.

    After all, the expectations were high as the document was supposed to be an actionable and provide impetus for change.

    Real leadership means and implies actions and after the conclusion of the Summit, no one can be optimistic that the governments will concretely step up. The reality, no matter how much the UN is trying to portray it in a such a way, those expecting doable, concrete and detailed advances, are now feeling disappointed and frustrated and rightly so.

    It is true that the final text does offer a lot of attention has been given to the inter-linked challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet for these two global issues, any figures estimated to address them, disappeared from the final approved document.

    Indeed, any references to the goal of delivering 100 billion US Dollar by 2025 (yearly, let’s not forget it, even if this detail did not make even in one of the initial draft circulated) did not find space in the approved Declaration. The same could be said for the $700 billion biodiversity fund included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

    A consolation could be found in having the proposal of an SDG Stimulus, one of the key proposals being pushed by the UN Secretary Geneal, being mentioned. Unfortunately, also in this case, the number of $ 500 billion annually proposed by Mr. Guterres did not make the final cut.

    With the industrialized nations struggling to deliver on their promises in the field of climate action, having a paragraph, even though a brief one on the Stimulus, can be seen as a victory especially for Mr. Guterres. The Secretary General might feel mixed emotions about the final Political Declaration.

    It is true that his ambitious idea of the Summit of the Future, scheduled in 2024, got included even though apparently without much enthusiasm from the international community. Yet, on the other hand, the concept of a New Social Contract, so central to the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, was completely ignored.

    This might be unsurprising considered the political implications (and consequences) of what can be described as a bold attempt at reviewing and renewing the relationships and dynamics between the state and its citizens.

    After all, at the United Nations everything that sounds too political (and truly transformative) is going to be strongly pushed back by the member states, especially those which have their own “unique” understanding of democracy and human rights.

    Positively and probably unexpected was the attention that the Declaration gave to the latter. Indeed, human rights found acceptance in the document not only once but multiple times and this is praiseworthy, albeit, only symbolically.

    A disappointment is the fact that no space was given to the importance of civic engagement, itself an element instrumental to bring forward the idea of a New Social Contract. Yet, even without any linkages to this overtly progressive idea, civic engagement and with it, one of its greatest manifestations, volunteering, did not find any space in the document.

    Apparently UNV was not particularly active in the drafting process nor throughout the jamboree of side events organized around the SDG Summit and this is quite alarming. Even more is the fact that the Declaration does not offer any transformative plans or promises to empower youths.

    It is as if the Policy Brief published in April by the Office of the Secretary General, Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policymaking and Decision-Making Process was not at all digested by the member states involved in the drafting of the final document.

    On this regard, the establishment of an UN Youth Office, another key part of the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, while significant, it is not at all transformative if tools and mechanisms are not created to enable youths to participate.

    The issue of localization of the SDGs, probably, the best approach to involve and mobilize citizens, especially the youths in the pursuit of the Agenda 2030, also did not find due prominence. Likewise, the whole process of the Voluntary National Reviews or VNRs was not highlighted the way it should have been.

    It remains quite incomprehensible why the member states are not so keen to translate the SDGs at local level. “We will continue to integrate the SDGs into our national policy frameworks and develop national plans for transformative and accelerated action” reads the Declaration.

    “We will make implementing the 2030 Agenda and achieving the SDGs a central focus in national planning and oversight mechanisms”, the document further adds.

    This acknowledgement is certainly welcomed but only a lot of political capital and commitment will be able to translate these lofty sentences in a truly revolution in the way policy making is currently carried out that is, far too remote and disconnected from the people.

    Yet localizing the SDGs should have been seen as a true game changer and much more focus should have been devoted to. We should have gone well beyond the statement found in the Declaration, according to which, the Leaders says that “will further localize the SDGs and advance integrated planning and implementation at the local level.”

    The Political Declaration is a positive document but, in no measure, a game changing one. The reality is that governments are not truly held accountable to implement their SDGs.

    The VNRs mechanism is utterly inadequate and not only because it is voluntary but it is so also structurally speaking. Ultimately, there is no real watchdog with powers over the countries lacking their commitments in terms of delivering the SDGs nor the UN System has any real leverage to force the member states to submit their VNRs through a binding timeframe.

    I wish the SDG Summit would resemble a COP Process like the annual one related to Climate Change with real pressure and real negotiations occurring. As per its current design, the leaders at the Summit just come to talk, preach, complain or condescending but there is no real high-level bargaining.

    That’s why, for example, the wording on climate change, mentioned throughout the document, as significant as they are, do not touch the real debate of phasing down and phasing out fossil fuels.

    In this context the fact that the Political Declaration did not mince a word on the ongoing but stalled negotiations on a legally binding mechanism or Treaty on Business and Human Rights, becomes, unfortunately, something superfluous and expendable.

    The Writer is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership and is based in Kathmandu.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • By buying Splunk, Cisco is closer to becoming a software company

    By buying Splunk, Cisco is closer to becoming a software company

    [ad_1]

    With Cisco Systems Inc.’s pending acquisition of Splunk Inc., the networking giant is making another major step toward becoming a software company.

    On Thursday, Cisco CSCO said it was buying Splunk SPLK in a deal valued at about $28 billion, or $157 a share in cash, for the cloud-security company. The match had been speculated about for years, and Cisco has been on a buying binge this year, as it seeks to grow with more security and software offerings.

    “Together, we will become one of…

    [ad_2]

    Source link