Global justice - the big picture

UK Election 2010 - who's signed the Simultaneous Policy pledge?

2010-05-06T10:39:00.002+01:00

The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign is on track to have a greater influence in the next Parliament.

Simpol Adopters around the country have been asking candidates to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. The policies are to address global problems where competition between nations makes progress difficult through conventional politics. Adopters are invited to propose, develop and approve the policies to be implemented. In the last annual vote, climate change was once again the top issue.

You can find a list of candidates who have signed the Simpol pledge at:

http://simpol.org.uk/simpol-in-action/whos-signed-up

Candidates from all main parties have signed up.

In Cambridge Daniel Zeichner, the Labour candidate, has given his support and said:

“The world is changing rapidly and progressive politics must not be limited by out-dated national boundaries. With new ways to communicate easily, ideas rather than geography will be the key. I want to work with like-minded people to challenge inequality, prejudice and ignorance, wherever it occurs. We are all in this together and must work together to meet the challenges ahead.”

In Cambridgeshire South constituency, Tariq Sadiq, the Labour candidate, has given his support.

You may wish to consider this when voting today. If you are not in these constituencies, see the site, which will also have an update after the results are in to show how much closer we are to having the UK Parliament and Government back the Simultaneous Policy.

Mbewa Self-Help Project in the news

2009-10-02T08:19:00.001+01:00

To help with fundraising for my Malawi project, I recently gave an interview to our local paper, The Warrington Guardian.

A scan of the article appears below. You can read it online at:

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/pload/4659175.Have_a_heart_for_orphans_of_Malawi/

Campaigning for the Simultaneous Policy - film clips

2009-09-18T19:15:00.002+01:00

Clips from the 2004 DVD Campaigning for the Simultaneous Policy are being posted on youtube.

Film of my Malawi visit

2009-09-01T11:36:00.007+01:00

Here's a short (7 minute) film of my return to Malawi in 2009. Highlights for me were visiting the projects in Mbewa village I have been supporting with family and friends and being a guest of honour at the 13th Mulanje Mountain Porters' Race - I organised the first race in 1996, shortly before leaving after working in Malawi for 4 years.

Malawi is one of the world's poorest countries. Life expectancy is 39 years and under-5 mortality is 140 per 1000 live births (the UK rate is 6 per 1000 live births).

You can help development projects in Mbewa village by providing money for loans at:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/mbewa/

Here's the film:

Listening to people in one of the world's poorest nations

2009-08-12T16:24:00.015+01:00

In a world of inequality, suffering and early death, what can be done?

Supporting the Simultaneous Policy is something tangible and straightforward to achieve the structural change we need.

But we can also do something more immediate to help those whose lives are not so fortunate as the majority of those who have access to the internet to read this blog.

The most important thing is to first listen and to learn. For example, what is it that people in a village in Malawi want to improve their lives? A maize mill. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/mbewa/maizemill.html

I have tried to listen while returning to Malawi, one of the world's poorest nations, where I worked for four years in the 1990s. Since leaving I have been doing what I can do support some of the friends I made at Mbewa Village at the foot of Mulanje Mountain, the highest in Central Africa.

I've kept contact since those days with Francis Atiya, a mountain guide, who organised the first Mulanje Mountain Porters' Race with me in 1996, just before I left. There were 33 participants, mainly porters and guides, but me and a friend from the Mountain Club of Malawi, which sponsored the event, also took part. The route I chose covers 25 kms up one side of the Likhabula valley and down the other. The winner, Hamilton Makhalila, completed the course in 2 hours 39 minutes. After the prize giving (first prize - walkman, second prize - hurricane lamp) we had a slap up meal to celebrate and as a thank you to the porters' service over the past year.

I billed it as the First Mulanje Mountain Race, in the hope there would be more. And some dedicated people have kept it going. Last month, I was able to attend the 13th event and gave a speech as the founder of the race.

Amazingly, there were about 300 participants, including from outside Malawi, and the winning time was 2 hours 5 minutes. The event is now being promoted by the Ministry of Tourism to try to draw more people to Mulanje Massif. (The mountain has gained some unwanted publicity since then as a tourist attempted to climb the highest peak without a guide and died after becoming lost.)

While some people gain employment as porters and guides or carving the unique Mulanje cedar, the majority are subsistence farmers. Priorities are producing enough food to live through the year and finding a way to earn a little cash.

With the help of donations from family and friends, we set up a chicken raising project, profits from which have been used to help pay school fees for some of the village's orphans.

These small donations have also enabled the village of about 3,000 people to employ an agricultural advisor. One of his own innovations has been to implement an irrigation system for growing maize in the dry season as a cash crop. Water is routed from nearby streams through channels to the maize fields as shown in the clip below:

This scheme started with 7 farmers and proved so successful that many more have joined this year. My friends and family have been making loans for the fertilizer needed for the maize. Members of the farmers' club will pay for this when they sell the maize and those lending money will receive their repayment by 30 November. A little extra is raised at the same time to build up a fund for fertilizer for the next time.

I discussed many ideas for other schemes with the Project Committee, which has been elected by the village and we have a list to develop over the next three years of so. Their priority is to set up a maize mill for grinding maize into flour.

We've investigated the economics of this and put together a project to proceed in a phased way.

The Committee has identified suitable land, which the owner has donated. They were then to produce the bricks for the house for the mill, but another villager quickly donated a stock of bricks.

So they are ready to start as soon as I can raise the loans for the cement, roofing sheets and other materials.

While building proceeds, I will also be seeking funds for buying the milling equipment. Hopefully this money will be available to transfer to the manufacturer in Malawi once the house is ready, so the mill can immediately go into operation and generate income.

All the self-help projects aim to repay the investment and be self-sustaining. Income from the maize mill will be used to repay loans over the following 18 months. Additional income after running costs will contribute to a maintenance fund, other projects and for support for orphans and other vulnerable people in the village.

If you want to help by contributing a sum of money, be it large or small, then you can contact me or make a pledge via the website I've set up for the project. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/mbewa/maizemill.html

This has information on other projects under way and some of those in development and lots of great photos.

Here's one of a mother working her irrigated field.

Climate change action in Malawi - building from the community level

2009-07-03T15:00:00.003+01:00

This is not about global action for a change - it is about grassroots action.

I am presently in Malawi supporting a community project called the Beehive Centre for Social Enterprise.

One aspect of it is using hydraform bricks for construction. These are made without the need to cut down trees to fire them. Here's a clip I put together showing how they are made. You can support the project by purchasing bricks for buildings. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/krizevac/shop/

Simpol and elections: publicity and progress

2009-06-05T06:45:00.004+01:00

Voting in the UK election for Members of the European Parliament has ended, though results will not be known until Sunday.

There were 16 candidates who supported Simpol, 6 of them lead candidates who are first on the list for taking up a seat if their party gains enough votes.

The UK campaign in the build up to the elections was regrettably low key, with the onus falling on local groups and individual campaigners and the indefatigable John Bunzl to contact candidates.

With a general election due within a year, and possible only months away, now is a time to be thinking about promoting Simpol to voters and politicians so we are ready. Personally, I would love to see at least one Simpol-UK training and preparing day, which we can start planning for now.

I have recently been invited to join the Simpol-UK Strategic Planning Group and would love to hear from anyone who is interested in being involved in helping to prepare for the general election, either in organising such a day, producing materials, contributing ideas or as a participant looking for support.

It can be immensely rewarding to take action - and taking action can be as simple as sending a message to candidates in your area: there is no need to commit to more than you are able.

As an example, I contacted candidates in the Eastern Region with the message I posted on my blog at:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/03/countdown-eu-election.html

I was pleased that the Green Party candidate, Rupert Read, gave Simpol his support, as a long-time Adopter himself. His comment was: "I have long been a signatory to Simpol, and hope that this election campaign will bring more power to your arm."

Rupert's support for Simpol will have benefited his campaign, with Adopters checking the website to see who had signed up or receiving updates I sent out. I even had someone telephone me directly just before election day to check who had made the Simpol pledge.

This benefits candidates and helps to put those supporting Simpol into power, so bringing us closer to the time when the policies developed through our democratic process can be implemented.

At the same time, Simpol gains publicity. Rupert posted news of his support on his blog as follows, available at:

http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2009/05/rupert-read-pledges-support-for.html

---quote

Rupert Read Pledges Support For Simultaneous Policy

In the Eastern Region, Green Party candidate, Rupert Read, has become the first to give his support to the Simpol approach. Other candidates have also been invited to do so.

The Simultaneous Policy is a package of measures being developed democratically by people around the world to address global problems.

Simpol proposals include creating a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (WTCRA) and 'Contraction and Convergence' - a policy aimed at addressing climate change.

Supporting the Simpol campaign does not mean you have to support individual policies however! It is free to sign up as a Simpol Adopter and all Adopters can vote on policies or put forward their own proposals.

Simpol policies have been picked up widely - the WTCRA policy (developed in Cambridge by Mike Brady) has been published in the newsletter Jus Semper in English and Spanish, for example. See:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/04/simpol-builds-networking.html

Click here to sign up or to learn more about Simpol.

http://simpoleuroelection2009.blogspot.com/

---quote ends

This shows Simpol synergy in action! In this case, not only does the candidate gain votes, people have been encouraged to sign up as Adopters. And proposals that have done well in past voting have been highlighted, demonstrating once again how putting proposals forward for inclusion in the policy package brings them to the attention of a wider audience.

Obviously I'm pleased that my own proposal comes in for special mention – though it remains to be seen if it survives future voting rounds to remain in the process.

Repeatedly I see how the strategy developed by John Bunzl proves itself time and again in all its facets. This should encourage us all. All that is missing is wider involvement - but that will surely come.

Even with a relatively low level of activity in these elections we will see MEPs elected who have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

With the general election on the horizon we can make a breakthrough in every constituency where there Adopters if we think ahead.

So if you are interested in helping to prepare, whether on the internet, at a future event or in your community, please contact me directly.

I'd welcome suggestions or requests and can take these forward to the Strategic Planning Group for approval.

The Group itself is open to new participants, so if you are interested, let me know and I'll pass it on.

Euro election press release

2009-06-01T12:52:00.002+01:00

Global justice campaigners call for voters to turn out in the European Parliament elections

Press release 1 June 2009

Supporters of the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign for global justice are calling for people to use their votes in the forthcoming European Parliament election (4 June 2009) to help to solve the pressing problems the world is facing. The campaign is not aligned to any party and seeks support from all candidates. Lead candidates for parties in several constituencies, as well as other candidates, have already pledged support for the campaign.

Simpol brings people together around the world to propose, develop and approve the policies they wish to see introduced to address global problems. In the last annual vote, the top problems were identified as: climate change, the power of transnational corporations, environment, international financial markets and other financial issues (fuller list below). Simpol campaign supporters, known as Simpol Adopters, give a preference to candidates who pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments or, if they have a party preference, to encourage their prefered party to make this pledge. Simultaneous implementation is intended to remove the fear politicians have that their national economy will suffer if they act unilaterally. It is not intended as an alternative to other ways of working for change, but as a parallel strategy to overcome the obstacle of competition between nations.

Voters in most constituencies already have the choice of a candidate (many of them lead candidates on party lists) who has signed the Simpol pledge, and the pressure is on for other candidates to make the same pledge.

Cambridge SP Adopters' Group (CAMSPAG) Coordinator, Mike Brady, said:

"The Simpol campaign is a way for people to reclaim democracy. Our leaders are currently failing to deal with global problems such as climate change. Anyone can sign up as a Simpol Adopter free of charge and shape the policies they want to see implemented. With Simpol the European elections are critically important: the more MEPs elected who have pledged to introduce these policies, the sooner they will become reality. We are fortunate to already have a lead candidate who has signed the Simpol pledge.”

In the Eastern Region, which includes Cambridge, Rupert Read, Green Party candidate said today: “I have long been a signatory to Simpol, and hope that this election campaign will bring more power to your arm.”

For an updated list of candidates who are backing the Simpol campaign, see

http://simpoleuroelection2009.blogspot.com

Politicians from all parts of the political spectrum in the UK Parliament have signed the Simpol pledge and there is growing support in other countries. MPs are listed on the Simpol-UK website: http://www.simpol.org.uk/

When the Simultaneous Policy was first proposed in John Bunzl's book with that title, veteran campaigner and author Noam Chomsky commented: "It's ambitious and provocative. Can it work? Certainly worth a serious try."

For further information contact Mike Brady on 07986 736179.

Notes:

The campaign is coordinated by the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO) - see http://www.simpol.org/. Simpol-UK is a not-for profit company formed in 2004 – see http://www.simpol.org.uk/
Simpol's starting point is that we live in pseudo-democracies because governments are limited in the action they can take as they fear disinvestment and loss of jobs if they introduce policies which are distasteful to transnational corporations and financial markets. Human rights and the environment take second place to what is best for 'the economy' and voters become increasingly apathetic, it is argued. Simpol puts 'we, the people' in charge of deciding the global rules which shape our world and the campaign strategy compels politicians to implement that package of policies when all, or sufficient, other governments have also pledged to do so. Simultaneous implementation removes the threat of disinvestment.
Any Adopter can put forward a proposal after gathering the required number of seconders. The top policies in the last annual vote are given in the policy zone of www.simpol.org.uk. Policy titles are

Contraction and Convergence (for addressing climate change): 78%
World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority: 69%
Beyond GDP: 64%
International Clearing Union: 63%
The Oil Depletion Protocol: 63%
A Defensive Defence Policy: 61%
Nuclear Disarmament: 60%
The Tobin Tax: 57%
Remodelling Companies to Become Stakeholder-Governed Organisations: 53%

Adopters were also asked to vote on issues, giving the top tem as:

1. Climate change

2. The power of transnational corporations

3. Environment

4. International financial markets and other

financial issues

5. Governance (global and national)

6. The system of international trade

7. Human Rights

8. Understanding between peoples

9. Disarmament

10. Conflict resolution

Cambridge Simultaneous Policy Adopters’ Group (CAMSPAG) has contacted all parties known to be fielding candidates in the Eastern Region for the European Parliament election and will issue updates as additional candidates sign the candidate's pledge.

The Simultaneous Policy campaign creates networking opportunities

2009-04-26T12:10:00.006+01:00

The Simultaneous Policy campaign provides a democratic space for discussing how to address the global problems we face. It is a place to meet people, share and develop ideas and have your ideas reach a wider audience beyond the Simpol campaign.

The space exists in the virtual world, with the discussion forum and email lists, and the real world, with local groups, policy fora and events such as the recent street party in Brighton and participation in G20 demonstrations. Here's a picture of Barnaby Flynn with his moveable stall at the G20. I found this on the BBC website.

The annual vote on policies to be included in the Simultaneous Policy is a particularly fruitful time for making contact with people, if you are active in promoting the policies you back.

I made contact with Álvaro de Regil Castilla of the Jus Semper Global Alliance, which promotes the Living Wages North and South Initiative. I was invited to contribute a paper on my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (WTNCRA) to the Jus Semper publication. This can be downloaded by clicking:
http://www.jussemper.org/Resources/Corporate%20Activity/Resources/MBradyWTNCRA.pdf

The paper has also been published in Spanish.

This has helped raise awareness of my proposal further afield. The paper has been added to the Eldis website, which is a resource database of the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University:
http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/corporate-responsibility&id=42900&type=Document

Not only that, but it has been highlighted in the Eldis email updates. In turn, I have seen that the Eldis link has been sent to the OECD Watch email list. This is just over the past couple of days.

I think this shows there is a receptive audience for proposed solutions for global problems. Simpol encourages us to develop these and can actively link Adopters together to discuss a work in progress. You can post a work in progress to the Simpol forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

And, of course, as the proposals are distributed, so is information on the Simpol campaign as a way to make them a reality.

Global governance at the G20: protest on the outside, national self interest on the inside. Where will the solutions we need come from?

2009-03-28T11:55:00.004Z

Simultaneous Policy Adopters are planning a visible presence at protests in London today in advance of the G20 summit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/28/g20-protest-police-rainbow-alliance

Many other groups are also to be there. The Guardian reports disparate groups are setting aside their differences to protest.

And there is the nub of the problem of the Global Justice Movement in my view. It can unite in opposition, but has no real mechanism for debate and building consensus on alternatives. It has struck me at the European Social Forums I have attended that those seeking democratic discussion are frustrated; the slogan may be 'another world is possible', but there is no route map for bringing it about.

Even amongst campaign coalitions such as the Trade Justice Movement, I have seen how policy aspirations have to be scaled back to what is politically achievable: it is a piece meal approach that wins important concessions, but nothing like the sweeping changes advocated. A broad coalition campaigning in the UK for corporate accountability measures had to celebrate as a victory a requirement that corporations report on their social and environmental impacts; indeed, it was a significant victory given the scale of political opposition. Yet there are no standards for the reports, nor sanctions if companies lie. Perhaps those will be achieved in the decades to come once the reporting principal has bedded in. That is the best hope on offer through conventional campaigning. On climate change, some campaigners are already voicing fears that the lack of progress means there is no hope left: runaway climate change could be unavoidable.

It is such concerns that fuel my support for the Simultaneous Policy approach, which provides a structure for discussing, developing and approving the policies needed to address global problems. My own proposal, which gained good support in the last voting round, is for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, something with real teeth to ensure corporations comply with the human rights and environmental standards their glossy reports claim to respect and means to ensure governments play their part in regulating wayward corporations. See:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/world-tnc-regulatory-authority.html

Other top issues and policies are given in the youtube clip below.

Simultaneous Policy Adopters call on politicians to pledge to implement, alongside other governments, the policies agreed on by we, the people, of the world. Simultaneous implementation removes the principal obstacle to progress: the fear that unilateral action will put a country at a competitive disadvantage, harm its economy and lose political leaders their power. It breaks the power of vested interests to play one country of against another.

The democratic process and the undertaking by Adopters to give a voting preference at elections to candidates who have made the pledge overcomes the second obstacle: the influence of vested interests on the political process. Business leaders may gain privileged access to politicians, but their hold on setting policies to address global problems is broken.

Some politicians have already signed up, as much for the logic of the approach as the chance to pick up votes. When I briefed one MP on the strategy she immediately saw the point, having campaigned without success for aviation fuel to be taxed as other fuels; such a tax, the government argues, would shift air transport from London to Paris or Amsterdam. But not if introduced simultaneously. She returned the signed pledge a few months later.

Even the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, sees the point of simultaneous action even if the Simultaneous Policy is not yet on his radar. Look at what he was saying in New York this week, as reported in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/28/gordon-brown-g20-summit

---

"Global problems will need better global solutions. In the wake of the second world war, we managed to create an IMF [International Monetary Fund], a World Bank, a WTO [World Trade Organisation], a Marshall Plan. We had the capacity with vision and determination to create institutions based on the principle that for prosperity to be sustained it had to be shared and we had to have mechanisms by which we brought the whole world into this enterprise.

"I think we need the same vision now to say the IMF was built for the days when you were dealing with balance of payments problems of individual countries in essentially a national set of economies. Now we've got a global market place, global competition, global flows of capital, global sourcing of goods.

"The institutions you need to deal with these problems are going to be quite different for this new era, so we must shape them."

---

Well, that's great, but if the G20 is capable of the vision and agreement to achieve these new institutions, what guarantee is there that they will not be as divisive and flawed as the IMF and World Bank and the structural adjustment policies they forced developing countries to adopt? Ironically the IMF, controlled by rich nations, has in the past pressured developing countries not to intervene to protect their banking systems, saying they must be allowed to fail; when it suits them, rich countries do not follow the rules they impose on others.

The answer is, of course, that there is no guarantee. Even if it works, the vision is still for perpetual growth on a planet that already cannot support the demands placed upon it.

While the Simultaneous Policy campaign cannot offer guarantees about the policies developed in the democratic space it provides, the fact that people around the world are invited to participate in the process, shape the policies and vote on them does provide checks and balances missing from the rich countries' club.

The G20 will see campaigners united in opposition on the outside and leaders inside protecting their individual national interests when we need coordinated, coherent and effective action.

If all involved backed the Simultaneous Policy approach, at the very least as a parallel strategy, we might get somewhere. Global problems require global solutions, but they also merit global involvement of citizens in deciding those solutions.

You can take part by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter free of charge at:

http://www.simpol.org/

This clip gives information on the state of policies at the moment. As an Adopter you will be able to vote against any you don't like and put forward and support those that you do.

Put People First March - London 28 March 2009. 11:00 - 16:00.

2009-03-23T13:27:00.002Z

From Simpol-UK

Put People First March
Saturday 28th March, London
11:00 - 16:00 Victoria Embankment to Hyde Park
Nearest tubes - Embankment, Waterloo, Temple

We have harmonicas, amped loop stations, beat boxers, bass guitars and sensible ideas; so bring yourselves, voices, instruments and enthusiasm.

How do want the world to be? (Rap)

Let's write the next chapter of history.
Become our own world leaders
Our own global authority, by signing up to Simpol for free!
So what is your policy? X3

Governments issue interest free money internationally?
To finance existing CO2 neutral technology?
Job creation re-mechanisation of the global industry?
To save us all from impending climate change catastrophe
And civilization break down, lack of energy security.

Don't demand it, make it happen via the Simpol Voting Strategy!
Simpol is global co-operation for peace, justice sustainability and prosperity.

Chorus

Sing-along "Let's Work Together"

Together we stand, Divided we fall, Come on now people and let's get on the ball and
work together, Come on come on let's work together, Because together we will stand,
every boy, girl, woman and man."

To get versed with this song see –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN7j-LCgaiE

Sign up and invite others on Face Book - "Simpol Mobile Musical Street Stall Put People First March"

For exact location on the day call Barnaby on 07799603042
barnaby@simpol.org

We should have acted on climate change yesterday - please do so today

2009-03-19T12:36:00.005Z

At the end of 2009 our leaders will meet in Copenhagen to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol for addressing climate change. On past experience, they will stress the need for urgent action and do little, fearing the steps necessary are to unpalatable for their citizens. And it is short-term considerations and the fear of losing power that drives them, that and the industrialists whispering in their ears threatening disinvestment and loss of jobs while pushing a wadge of money into their election campaign chests.

Climate change scientists have been meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the latest scientific findings. It is scary stuff. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero today would not be enough: the gases in the system are already having an impact and will continue to do so. Limiting mean global temperature increases to 2C is likely a lost battle. Much above this and the human race itself is facing defeat. Here is part of the analysis from George Monbiot in The Guardian yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/monbiot-copenhagen-emission-cuts

---
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that "global mean temperature changes greater than 4C above 1990-2000 levels" would "exceed ... the adaptive capacity of many systems". At this point there's nothing you can do, for instance, to prevent the loss of ecosystems, the melting of glaciers and the disintegration of major ice sheets. Elsewhere it spells out the consequences more starkly: global food production, it says, is "very likely to decrease above about 3C". Buy your way out of that.

And it doesn't stop there. The IPCC also finds that, above 3C of warming, the world's vegetation will become "a net source of carbon". This is just one of the climate feedbacks triggered by a high level of warming. Four degrees might take us inexorably to 5C or 6C: the end - for humans - of just about everything.
---

In its last drought, the Amazon rainforest is calculated to have emitted more carbon dioxide than Japan and Europe combined. With more disruption to the climate, droughts will become increasingly common and severe. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/monbiot-copenhagen-emission-cuts

Our leaders have failed us and may well fail us again in Copenhagen. There are two things that you can do about this.

Firstly, join in marches to put pressure on the leaders of the main industrialised nations meeting at the G20 in London. There are various groups organising things. One is AVAAZ. For details see:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/london_citizens_march_28/

Secondly, call on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. The measures that are needed to address climate change are being discussed within the democratic space created by Simpol. Anyone can join in by signing up as a Simpol Adopter, which is free to do. Adopters can propose, discuss and vote on proposals. In the last annual vote climate change came out as the top issue and 'Contraction and Convergence' to deal with it as the top issue. See:
http://www.simpol.org/ - to sign up.

http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/ - to join in the discussion.

Combine the two actions and go on a march with a Simpol placard. Hopefully Simpol will make resources available on the website.

You can write to your elected representatives at any time. Or better still arrange a meeting. My Member of Parliament signed the Simpol pledge after a 10 minute briefing from me. A candidate in the European elections brought a signed pledge along to a local group meeting I invited her to. The more pledges from politicians, the sooner we get governments on board and the sooner implementation of the Simultaneous Policy can be triggered. If they let us down in Copenhagen and waste another decade, Simpol may be our best hope. Please support it as a parallel strategy to marching!

The European Parliament elections are coming up, so now is a key time to contact the candidates. We cannot let these opportunities pass by. For information on how to do this, see:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/03/countdown-eu-election.html

If we cannot move to constructive cooperation between nations to address climate change and other global problems, the future is bleak: nations battling for resources as food supplies diminish and mass movement of refugees leads to social breakdown.

Better to contact your politicians now while there is still time.

Simpol visionaries

2009-03-17T12:04:00.005Z

A proposal was submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy in 2007 for 'Regulation of the Sale of Debt'.

Proposer David Smith, wrote: "The level of defaults on 'sub prime' mortgages in the US affects world markets and possibly the real economies, because these debts are sold on without being understood by the purchaser. The panic has affected credit and interest rates everywhere. In an interdependent world this probably has more effect on third world economies than on us. Surely there could be some kind of regulation which would force banks to evaluate such transactions properly beforehand. Why hasnt the international financial community already set its house in order? I dont know but partly because it is not very farsighted, but also there is a lack of will."

See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=27.0

A year later, the international banking system collapsed and the world financial system would have ceased to operate had governments not stepped in.

Good to see a Simultaneous Policy Adopter was way ahead in warning of this. Unfortunately the proposal gained insufficient support in voting in 2007 and dropped out of the process. David's proposal for the 'regulation of derivative markets' also failed to gain support:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=26.0

Which goes to show that the democratic space promoted by Simpol is a great place to look for visionary ideas, but also that people who see the point of ideas need to help in explaining them and encouraging other Adopters to support them. As David said on his proposal for regulating the sale of debt: "This suggestion needs input from someone who undertsands financial markets better than I do."

Following the credit crunch, many journalists and others have investigated these issues and tried to explain them. If the proposal was resubmitted (perhaps in revised form) it would probably do much better in voting. There is now a requirement to have 9 seconders for proposals, which helps to beef up proposals and put together a team to promote them.

Some proposals do perhaps deserve to drop out. Certainly there was little support for Esperanto being made the world language. But it is also worth revisiting some of those that did not catch the imagination of Adopters in past voting. The policy development process is one of reformulation and refinement. See all policies on the discussion board at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

You can post your own 'work in progress' to gain help in developing it and to find seconders at: at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=32.0

Countdown to the European Union elections 2009

2009-03-08T15:53:00.005Z

The election of the European Parliament will take place in less than three months (from 4 - 7 June 2009). These are the biggest trans-national elections in history as elected candidates will represent 500 million Europeans.

It is also an ideal opportunity to encourage election candidates to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. No doubt the Simultaneous Policy organisations will be announcing the campaign and tools to help with this in due course.

In the meantime, it is possible to find the list of election candidates on party websites. I have started sending message like the following to candidates:

---
Congratulations on being the lead candidate on the party list for our regions European Election.

I am contacting you to ask your position on the Simultaneous Policy campaign. I am also sending you the pledge form for supporting the Simultaneous Policy campaign in case you have not signed this already.

As Gordon Brown and other leaders have been heard to say repeatedly in recent weeks and months: “Global problems require global solutions”.

The Simultaneous Policy or Simpol campaign brings people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented. Anyone can take part in this process by signing up as a Simpol Adopter, which is free to do. This democratic and transparent process is ongoing. In the last annual vote conducted in October 2008, the top five issues identified by Adopters were: Climate change, The power of transnational corporations, Environment, International financial markets and other financial issues, Governance (global and national).

You can find further details in the policy section of http://www.simpol.org.uk/

Politicians are asked to sign a pledge agreeing in principle to implement these policies alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. Until such time that implementation can be triggered, it is business as usual: doing as much as we can unilaterally, while trying to address these pressing issues through attempting to forge international deals and facing down powerful vested interests that play governments off against each other, threatening disinvestment if their agenda is not followed.

If you add your pledge to those already received from other politicians at both national and European level it will move us closer to being able to implement policies that have the backing of the people of the world. The Simultaneous Policy is to be coherent package that can break through the obstacle of destructive competition between nations to move the world into a new era of constructive cooperation. The pledge is provisional as the policies can only be finalised when there is sufficient global support as they need to address the situation faced at that time and all people of voting age will be given a chance to approve or reject the package.

The campaign is undeniably ambitious, but conventional policy making has failed to address global problems adequately and may be unable to do so. By signing and returning the attached pledge you are indicating you are prepared to give the Simultaneous Policy approach a try as a parallel strategy. The pledge can also be downloaded from:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/candidatesform0108.pdf

Adopters undertake to encourage their preferred party to support the campaign. Those without a party preference undertake to give a preference to any candidates at elections (within reason) who have signed the pledge. Hence the campaign makes addressing global problems an election issue and signing the pledge can provide an advantage to those candidates that have done so. In the run up to the election, Simpol’s website will indicate which candidates have signed the pledge.

Please let me know if you will sign the pledge and if so, any statement of support you would like to communicate to voters in our region. If you do not wish to sign the pledge, I would be interested to know why as I can see no disadvantage from signing. As global problems threaten to run out of control, it is surely worth a try.

Global problems do indeed require global solutions. It will be wonderful if those are introduced in the immediate future. But if that does not happen it will be wonderful to know that the Simultaneous Policy approach has your support as a parallel strategy.

The Amazon rainforest is wobbling on a climate change tipping point

2009-03-07T17:50:00.001Z

On 28 February 2007 I heard Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute speak on his proposal for addressing climate change: Contraction and Convergence.

He spoke of climate change tripping points, citing in particular the risk that the Amazon rain forest could dry out to such an extent that it becomes a net producer of carbon dioxide. In other words, it would change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. He said that an increase in forest fires (not at all common in a rain forest) had already been noticed.

Well there is a report yesterday that during a drought in 2005 the Amazon was a significant producer of carbon dioxide due to tree death. There is a report here:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=351

---extract
The unusual and severe Amazon drought in 2005 led to the region emitting an extra five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This exceeds the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined, according to new research published today.
---extract ends

Previously I have written here about efforts to protect the Amazon from deforestation. The Brazilian government has set up an Amazon fund to this end. If the Simultaneous Policy (or other means of forming global policies) bring in polluter-pays taxes, some of these could go to such a fund. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/amazon-fund.html

But we should be very afraid because it was not deforestation as such that caused the Amazon to be a carbon source in 2005, it was climate change itself. As the climate changes, weather patterns become unstable, leading to droughts and flooding, unprecedented heat waves and cold snaps. The destruction of trees that took decades, if not centuries, to develop is not something that can easily be reversed. More carbon dioxide is released and there are less trees to absorb it. Weather becomes more extreme, and so on in a positive feedback cycle that could run away.

The 100 months campaign has suggested there is a very narrow and closing window for the necessary action: it has now closed to 93 months. Certainly this is a campaign strategy designed to galvanize action, nobody can be so precise. But this research suggests the tipping point on which the Amazon forest pivots is already starting to wobble.

NOTE: I recorded Aubrey Meyer and other speakers at the event in 2007 and subsequently played his talk at a virtual meeting in Second Life (international meetings without air travel), see:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/2007/03/report-on-climat-change-event-on-11.html

You can hear the talk on the rolling programme of Second Life Simultaneous Policy Adopters' Group (SL-SPAG) radio at:
http://www.live365.com/stations/luzoorbit/

Gordon Brown calls on Obama to join a global crack down on tax havens

2009-03-03T22:35:00.004Z

Once again Gordon Brown is calling for synchronised action by governments to address a global problem, this time on tax havens.

According to a report in The Guardian today, he is seeking support from the US and other G20 countries and suggesting that countries that do not cooperate should be sanctioned:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/gordon-brown-tax-havens

---
Gordon Brown has said he hopes the G20 summit in London will agree to name and shame those countries that refuse to end banking secrecy, warning that their behaviour endangers the stability of the world economy.
---

The suggestion is countries will be put on a blacklist: "Countries on the list are put at a disadvantage in terms of mutual cooperation and recognition of jurisdictions."

There could be a stronger enforcement regime. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, I propose that governments that seek to gain competitive advantage by allowing their corporations to abuse human rights and the environment anywhere in the world could have punitive sanctions levied upon them. Such an approach has worked to enforce World Trade Organisation agreements. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=31.0

With the Simultaneous Policy process, proposals are developed transparently and democratically, unlike the way global policies are usually developed. Back room (or Green room) deals, economic blackmail and other forms of threats are used by the powerful to force through their agenda.

No proposals on tax havens have been put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as yet. Whether those of Gordon Brown are the best on offer is debatable, and should be debated. Other proposals are being put forward by the Tax Justice network. See:
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2

Anyone who has signed up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter can put forward proposals. Simply go to the 'policy' section of:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

Adopters call on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. Adopters call on their preferred party to sign the pledge, or if they do not have one, all parties to do so, giving a preference to any (within reason) that does so.

Gordon Brown is right to say that global problems need global solutions. But in a globalised world, democratic involvement in developing those global solutions is required. That is what the Simultaneous Policy aims to provide.

Gordon Brown calls for global regulation, but what about democracy and transparency?

2009-02-22T16:05:00.005Z

The logic of the Simultaneous Policy approach to addressing global problems - at least the Simultaneous part of it, if not the democracy and transparency - becomes ever more prominent during the current global financial crisis.

Gordon Brown, writing in today's Guardian, states:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/gordon-brown-comment-banks

"All markets and all jurisdictions that want to benefit from the global economy should play by the global rules. Institutions with global reach should be regulated in a global way, not by a patchwork of national regulators."

I agree, to a point. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (which is conceived more to end human rights and environmental abuses than regulate financial markets), I suggest that the first port of call should be the national juridsticion, particularly of the home country of the firm. If home countries refuse to act, because they gain income and tax revenue from the business, and the country were the abuse takes place does not act, perhaps fearing disinvestment, then there should be recourse to an international institution. My suggestion is the World TNC Regulatory Authority, which can present a case to a revamped International Criminal Court for sanctions on the corporation and, perhaps, the home government that profited from turning a blind eye. For more on this proposal click on the tag link in the side panel.

Mr. Brown vision at present seems to be restricted to financial systems, where the logic for some form of global regulation arises from the cross-border nature of the business, rather than the simple power of the companies to play fast and loose with their human rights obligations and face down governments who try to hold them to account.

But Mr. Brown also makes a telling comment in his article. One which places too much faith in current systems of corporate governance. He states: "Banks must act in the long-term interests of their shareholders and therefore of the economy as a whole, not in the short-term interests of bankers."

This is really an non-sequeter. Benefits for shareholders may not be the same as benefits for the economy. For example, shareholders will benefit if a bank uses every tax dodge it can think of to maximise profits and lobbies, through fair means or foul, to stymie efforts for effective regulation.

More broadly, shareholders may benefit from corporations abusing human rights and the environment. I've had the shocking experience of sitting in a Nestle shareholder meeting when shareholders have booed and hissed anyone who has the affrontery to keep them from their free junk food samples by raising concerns about pushing of baby milk, exploitation of coffee and cocoa farmers, depletion of water reserves or trade union busting. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/glimpse-of-nestls-soul.html

Shareholders serving their own interests does not 'therefore' benefit the rest of us, as Mr. Brown suggests.

But he is right in suggesting global problems need global solutions. Those solutions should be the subject of democratic scrutiny. That is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy. Perhaps Mr. Brown should take a look.

World TNC Regulatory Authority article in Jus Semper newsletter (English and Spanish)

2009-02-10T10:08:00.004Z

During the annual voting on policies for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy last year, I was fortunate to make contact with the Jus Semper Global Alliance for wage equality and was invited to submit an article for their newsletter on my policy proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.

This appears in the new Jus Semper newsletter, Winter 2009, which is available at:
http://www.jussemper.org/Newsletters/ournewsletters.html

Many thanks to the editor, Álvaro de Regil Castilla, for arranging this and the translation of the article into Spanish.

I strongly believe that it is through discussing and sharing the real changes that the Simultaneous Policy can bring that we will reach more people and involve them in the campaign. The World TNC Regulatory Authority gained good support in the last voting round, being the second-best supported policy and to continue to do well, it will need ever greater support, so promoting policies is a two way street: promoting policies brings people to the Simpol campaign and helps to grow support for this approach; at the same time, individual Adopters can rally future voters for their proposals.

In this case, those interested in promoting the World TNC Regulatory Authority have a valuable resource to use in their campaigning, which is being added to my blog. Of course, Jus Semper also benefits through having their wage equality proposals promoted to a wider audience at the same time. Perhaps a member of that campaign will put them forward for inclusion in Simpol in time for the next voting round and encourage Jus Semper supporters to sign up as Adopters to vote for them.

The problems the world faces seem ever more pressing, so the more we can focus on solutions and the role Simpol can play in making them reality, the faster we will make progress.

After reading the article, feel free to leave comments on the World TNC Regulatory Authority in Simpol’s discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=30.0

President Obama urged to use carbon tax, not carbon trading, to address climate change

2009-01-19T11:58:00.005Z

As the era of President Obama dawns, the top climate change scientist in the US has warned he has to take decisive action in his first term.

As I have suggested here before, the 'carbon trading' approach pushed by Europe is having little effect. For example, it is far cheaper to pay the Congo not to cut down trees than to invest in carbon capture development for power stations. The net result being that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/clean-coal.html

Here's what caught my eye in the Guardian report of the comments from Jim Hansen, described as "Nasa scientist and leading climate expert":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

---
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels.
---

The advantage of a carbon tax is that it enables policy makers to set a price for producing greenhouse gases that will make reducing emissions economically viable. With market-derived prices for licences for the right to pollute, it is proving to be more economic to buy the licences rather than reduce emissions. Though it seems to me it would be better to levy this on carbon emitters, rather than the producers of fossil fuels. That will drive efficiencies in use of fossil fuels as well as switching to other sources of energy. It may, however, be harder and more controversial to measure.

Another advantage of a tax on fossil fuels or the greenhouse gases they produce is tax income can be used directly for investing in sustainable energy, carbon capture and ameliorating the effects of climate change.

A third advantage is that carbon taxes, to a greater or lesser degree, could be used to offset other taxes. For example, green goods could be zero rated for sales tax, providing an added incentive for consumers to select them - and, incidentally, helping the economy out of recession as society is restructured to be low carbon.

These are the type of practical, national policy steps that could be taken within the framework of global commitments to contract total emissions, while converging the right each person on the planet has to produce greenhouse cases to be equitable. This 'contraction and convergence' approach is the best-supported proposal for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy's annual voting yet again. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=14.0

Quantitative easing, monetary reform and green credit

2009-01-09T10:35:00.004Z

In the current financial crisis it has been proposed that the Bank of England print money to lubricate the economy. This is referred to as 'quantitative easing'. This proposal has received a lot of criticism, dubbed in the press as 'helicopter money' with pictures of bankers throwing money for people to spend to avoid recession. The allegation is such action would devalue the pound, with Zimbabwe's currency collapse and hyperinflation cited as a cautionary tale.

But, as I have raised here, monetary reformers propose something very much like this. They point out that new money, required as the economy expands, is currently created by commercial banks at a profit as interest-bearing loans. They propose that central banks take over the role and provide the money to governments to spend into circulation through investment in capital projects or by funding tax cuts.

Monetary reform proposals didn't do well enough in the last annual vote to stay in the process - I think due to the apparent contradiction between the claim that commercial banks create money out of nothing and credit drying up. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7.0

I've been looking for those who know more about this subject than I do to explain more about quantitative easing and how it links with monetary reform proposals. So I was very pleased to receive the following email from Barbara Panvel and links from Sabine McNeill of the Green Credit campaign, which I am off to explore.

I hope that the monetary reform proposals come back stronger and clearer. Anyone interested in working up a proposal can do so in the 'work in progress' of Simpol's online forum. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=32.0

---Email from Barbara

Will the opportunity offered by the current dialogue about ‘quantitative easing’ - a term first noticed by me a couple of months ago - be taken by people working on the Green New Deal?

The definition of quantitative easing given by those with a vested interest in opposing such measures is ‘printing money’ and warnings are given citing the example of Zimbabwe.

Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times, does not agree, describing printing money as ‘the new prudence’ now that the Washington consensus has been fractured.

However, printing and distributing banknotes – once suggested by Milton Friedman and the Fed's chairman, Ben Bernanke - is not on the agenda of most monetary reformers.

MP Austin Mitchell has for years consistently and constructively proposed to spend fiat money, issued electronically, into circulation in a focussed way, meeting unfulfilled public needs such as improving transport, education and health provision – and the range of measures advocated in the Green New Deal.

In November 07, his EDM 265 called for a policy of using publicly-created money to finance carbon neutral measures and conversions which could be adopted to create additional economic growth and recommended the Treasury to use its powers to create non-interest bearing money to fund activities to combat climate change.

The real issue is not one of bank-notes versus virtual money but of the uses to additional ‘liquidity’ could be put: as Andrew Lydon once pointed out, money issued in this way could be used for good or ill.

To date, Alistair Darling has not ruled out quantitative easing, so I hope that readers will press for the funds released to be used in the interests of the ‘real’ economy and the environment - and not to give further subsidies to the arms trade or to build incinerators and nuclear power stations.

---email ends

---Links provided by Sabine McNeill

Money Supply or Public Credit Petition
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/stop-the-cash-crumble-to-equalize-the-credit-crunch.html
Parliamentary Scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee.

Money as Debt also known as Credit
http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/

Green Credit for Green Purposes
http://greencredit.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/green-credit.pdf
our submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into the Stern Report

Green Credit campaign
http://greencredit.org.uk/

In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumnews.wordpress.com/

Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumforstablecurrencies.org.uk/

Expanding Dr. Yunus' Sphere of Influence
http://yunusphere.net/

A New Year message from John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy campaign

2008-12-31T16:27:00.001Z

The power to create a better world is already ours

With the world in the grip of financial crisis and a deepening economic slump, those of us who've long been concerned about global warming, looming energy shortages and other global issues will no doubt be feeling even more despondent than before. To ordinary citizens all over the world, the ability to gain any traction on these issues seems inadequate and our efforts to get politicians to do anything substantive likewise seem somewhat futile. And yet the power to reverse this is, I contend, already in our hands if only we realise it. We - at least those of us in democratic countries - already have the necessary power to drive our politicians to implement substantive global solutions.

To fully realise our power, however, first requires that we take stock of the various misconceptions that prevent us from seeing it. We are limited not so much by corrupt or blind politicians, nor by greedy corporations, nor by the "money masters" - the private banks. We are limited only by the false walls of misconception we've constructed in our own hearts and minds.

The first of these is our assumption that politicians have the power to make the substantive changes needed to put the world on a just and sustainable path. There can be no doubt we believe politicians have this power because if we didn't, we'd hardly spend so much time lobbying them or taking direct action to persuade them to change their policies. We lobby them and protest because we think they have power - but they don't, at least not nearly as much as we think they do, and certainly far less than they'd need if they're to really solve global problems.

How can this be? Their lack of power stems from the fact that, today, capital and corporations can move fairly easily and instantaneously across national borders, so determining which country gains investment and employment and which loses it. Since politicians have no choice but to implement policies designed to attract or retain capital so as to maintain employment and competitiveness, it's not hard to see why they're constrained to implementing only market- and business-friendly policies which favour the rich, the corporations and the bankers and thus disfavour greater social justice and the environment. So, to lobby politicians in the way we do now is rather illogical. Because for any nation, implementing our demands unilaterally would risk making its economy uncompetitive, leading to capital flight, unemployment and so on. Implementing our demands, in short, would not be in the national interest. So, why do we persist in demanding substantive change from people - in this case our politicians - when they don't have the power to deliver? Clearly there must be something wrong with our thinking; with our conception.

Our second major misconception is that the above problem must be the fault of the rich or the corporations who move their capital around. While no one should condone poor or greedy corporate behaviour, we have to realise that on the whole corporations do what they do because not doing it would mean losing out to others. For corporations, acting ethically or refraining from taking advantage of countries with lower regulations and taxes would by and large mean losing out to their less scrupulous competitors, so it's not difficult to see why they so often fail to behave as we'd like. So while it's right we should highlight poor corporate behaviour when we see it, why do we persist in blaming corporations when it's clear that their behaviour is only the natural consequence of the lack of a level playing field of globally binding regulations? Again, there must be something wrong with our conception.

What's more, these misconceptions only lead us into contradictory thinking, such as identifying free trade as our enemy. At a recent Trade Justice strategy event, for example, delegates were disappointed that a survey carried out during the Make Poverty History campaign showed that supporters could not say what trade justice actually meant. Following that, a delegate from one major NGO gave his own answer, proclaiming that "We are against free trade and we're for protectionism, but only in certain circumstances". But he failed to see the inherent contradiction that if you are for protectionism only in certain exceptional circumstances, you must logically be for free trade in all other circumstances! What that delegate and most of his colleagues are missing, then, is that their real enemy is not free trade itself but the fact that free trade occurs without adequate global social and environmental regulations, without any redistribution of wealth across national borders, and without any adequate transnational enforcement. In short, it's not free trade that is our enemy; it is the lack of effective global regulations and governance. And if the leaders of our movement cannot accurately identify the real enemy, surely we shouldn't be surprised if the public cannot define trade justice.

But lying deep beneath these misconceptions are the false walls we build in our hearts. We build them on the above misconceptions and hold to them dearly because they allow us to blame, shame and complain about others and that makes us feel self-righteous; it makes us feel good - like campaigning warriors, boldly speaking out for the good of the world! But while raising public awareness of global abuses is certainly necessary, how can blaming people who are not really responsible possibly be good for the world? How can it be right to blame politicians or businessmen when it's not really their fault and when change is not in their power and when, moreover, if we were in their shoes, global economic forces would demand that we behaved pretty much as they do? This, perhaps, is why Gandhi asserted that "It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist or attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same b rush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being is to slight those divine powers, and thus to harm not only that being but with him the whole world."[i]

If we want to help and heal the world, then, it is the largely unregulated global market system that we must recognise as our real enemy - that we must resist and attack - and not any person or corporation or mode of trade that operates within it. We must realise that we are all caught, at one level or another, in that system and are thus all "tarred with the same brush". And from that it follows that while none of us is really to blame, all of us must hold ourselves jointly responsible for changing the system itself - for doing something about it. When we stop blaming each other, then, we realise that we are all prisoners of the system and all in the same planetary boat. If we take down the false walls of misconception in our hearts, we open them to the truth that those who we fondly believed to be at fault are not, and so our hearts open to each other without discrimination or reserve and so to the whole world. For how else could we be permitted to do good for the world? How else could we possibly build a non-judgemental space that is open to all; the vital open and forgiving space that is needed to begin our joint search for a genuine global solution? None of this means we should stop our present campaigns, of course; it means only that we must recognise their limitations, and so realise that an additional, more global, thoroughly non-judgemental, more truthful, more inclusive approach is also needed.

Let us now go further to see what such an approach might actually look like. What might its design criteria be?

If the free movement of capital and corporations is a global phenomenon, our first deduction must be that only a truly global solution could possibly fit the bill. And since the nature of governments' failure to act is their fear of losing jobs and investment to other countries, it follows, secondly, that any solution must be implemented simultaneously by nations to avoid that fear. If all or sufficient nations act simultaneously, no nation, corporation or citizens need lose out to any other: global and simultaneous - everybody wins. But since dominant nations may not see global cooperation as in their interests and would seek to free-ride and undermine global cooperation, our solution must give citizens the power to compel their governments to cooperate. So our solution must not just be global and simultaneous but also be driven by citizens. And if citizens are to drive the process and be capable of compelling their politicians to cooperate globally, the solution must enable them to operate on politicians in a way that is democratic, legal and binding. It must, in short, operate through existing electoral systems but do so in a way that is completely new, has trans-national coverage and yet transcends party-politics.

For a few years, now, a relatively small number of citizens, primarily in the UK, have been test-running a global solution which meets all the above design criteria. Over the course of two general elections, in 2001 and 2005, they succeeded in getting 27 Members of the UK parliament and countless electoral candidates from all the main political parties to pledge to implement the campaign's global policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. In some UK electoral constituencies, more than one candidate signed the pledge, meaning the campaign gained a seat in parliament regardless which of those candidates won the seat. This showed that the campaign was capable of transcending party-political divides and was global in scope, leading one supporting MP, Lembit Opik, to recognise that, "We live together at once, on the same small planet. There are some things we should do together, at once, on this same small planet."

But how could a relatively small number of citizens achieve such big results in such a short time? The answer lies in their discovery of a new and powerful way to use their votes. They do this by making it clear to all politicians that they'll be voting in all future national elections for ANY politician or party - within reason - that pledges to implement the campaign's policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. Or, if they have a party preference, they encourage their favourite politician or party to sign that pledge. In that way, campaign supporters still retain the ultimate right to vote as they please but they also make it clear to all politicians that they'll be giving very strong preference to candidates that have signed the Pledge, to the exclusion of those who haven't. So politicians who sign the Pledge attract those votes and yet they risk nothing because the policy package only gets implemented if and when sufficient governments around the world hav e signed up to it too. But if politicians fail to sign the Pledge they risk losing votes to their political competitors who do, and so could risk losing their seats. With many parliamentary seats and even entire elections around the world often hanging on a relatively small number of votes, it's not difficult to see that only relatively few campaign supporters will be needed to make it in the vital survival interests of all politicians to sign up. And therein lies the power that citizens already have, even in dominant countries such as the USA, to ensure that their governments sign up and cooperate.

Thanks to this novel way of voting, not only have many UK MPs signed up, some Members of the European, Australian and other parliaments have too. The campaign has supporters in over 70 countries and they are self-organising to take the project forward and roll it out internationally. In 2005 they started a global process by which they - potentially with the help of chosen independent experts - gradually develop the global policies to be included in the campaign's overall policy package. This ensures that the policies to be implemented are democratically developed, globally inclusive, tailored to the needs of each country and yet that the process still remains open and flexible over time. Many non-governmental and campaigning organisations already have well thought out global policies to deal with climate change, oil depletion and other problems but what they don't have is a viable political means for getting them implemented in a globalised world. That's why they're increasin gly seeing this novel campaign as a vehicle for driving politicians and nations towards cooperatively implementing them. They're increasingly recognising that if politicians don't have the unilateral power to deal substantively with global problems, then citizens must logically take the lead both in designing the necessary policies, and in using their collective voting power to drive politicians to implement them simultaneously. So, the power to create a better world is already in our hands - we only have to use it; we only have to realise it.

The campaign we're talking about is called the Simultaneous Policy (or Simpol, for short). As Lembit Opik went on to say, "The compelling logic of Simultaneous Policy is really collective common sense - it's a campaign to find out how common sense really is!"

With global problems now mounting steeply around us, isn't it time more of us found out and played our parts? Isn't it time you let go your misconceptions and opened your heart to all the world? Isn't it time we all jointly discovered, as Gandhi said, that the "divine powers within us are infinite"?

Joining the Simpol campaign is free. Please go now to
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Concept_FS.htm

Seasons greetings and happy New Year!

John Bunzl

Founder, International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)

December, 2008. http://www.simpol.org

----------------------------------------------------------

[i] M.K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1927, 1929.

Nuclear disarmament synergies

2008-12-12T20:02:00.003Z

Once you’ve spent a bit of time browsing the proposals put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy, you see the synergies. This is brought out in some of the policy supplements to the newsletter too, such as that on ‘Turning weapons into windmills’ on the impact on climate change of redirecting weapons spending to renewable energy production.

Similar synergies occurred for me yesterday. The proposal for Nuclear Disarmament did well in the recently concluded voting on policy proposals, gaining 60% approval for its further development. Mark Horler has taken up the challenge and posted a ‘work in progress’ expanding on the initial proposal to reference a proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention. He is looking for seconders for this to go forward. You can add your name at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=90.0

At the same time, I saw a news report of a new international organisation called Global Zero, which launched a campaign this week on exactly the same issue.

According to the International Business Times:
http://www.ibtimes.com/prnews/20081211/dc-global-zero-nukes.htm

---
Global Zero released a poll of 21 countries that found global public opinion overwhelmingly favors an international agreement for eliminating all nuclear weapons according to a timetable -- 76 percent of respondents across all countries polled favor such an agreement. The question specified that "all countries would be monitored to ensure they follow the agreement." In the five nations with large nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery systems, large majorities favor the plan -- Russia (69%), the United States (77%), China(83%), France (86%), and Great Britain (81%). In nations that do not have nuclear weapons, similarly large majorities favor it.
---

This week too I wrote of the financial crisis and how re-thinking how we calculate GDP would prompt very different policy action from that we are seeing from our leaders, who encouraging people to take on more debt and consume more to get the world out of recession. Putting arms money into factors that boost health, environmental and social issues would make the ‘Beyond GDP’ figure improve. I wasn’t initially sympathetic to the ‘Beyond GDP’ proposal – which gained 64% approval – but with the prominence given to GDP figures in policy making now see the point. Also highly relevant is the proposal that ‘weapons spending be excluded from GDP’ - which gained 60% approval (though the proposer has today insisted that this proposal be withdrawn - the Policy Committee shortly to be elected will need to face in the new year how to handle this situation given it received the backing of Adopters).

You can sign up in support of the Global Zero campaign on their website at:
http://www.globalzero.org/

But I would suggest also sending them a message to back the disarmament proposals within the context of the Simultaneous Policy and giving the Nuclear Weapons Convention your support at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=90.0

The Simultaneous Policy leads us to think of a coherent package of measures, addressing the major issues facing our planet, not each in isolation. If we can harness some of the Global Zero energy to the broader Simultaneous Policy campaign and vice versa it will be mutually beneficial.

Reforming the financial markets - part 2

2008-12-09T16:32:00.004Z

In part one of this article I examined the credit crunch and how this has brought the world to the brink of financial collapse and began to look at proposals for recovering the situation.

Bad news continues to arrive. Today there are worrying figures for the UK economy, suggesting that industrial output has fallen by 5.2% compared to a year ago. The television news is tracking how many thousands of jobs are being lost every week. The country is officially in recession as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is falling. There is also the fear of deflation - that is goods becoming cheaper. This is bad news because if the new HD TV I've been planning to buy is likely to be cheaper in 3 months time, I'll wait to buy it. If people put off purchases, the economy will contract even more.

Nobel laureate for economics, Paul Krugman, puts the necessary action in simple terms: "Policy-makers around the world need to do two things: get credit flowing again and prop up spending."

This has seen governments take shares in banks to improve their financial position and to put pressure on them to lend. Central bank interest rates have been cut to make loans, and particularly mortgages, cheaper so people have more money to spend. Various governments are trying 'fiscal stimulus' packages - tax cuts, again to put more money in people's pockets in the hope they will spend it, so boosting the economy. In the UK, the government is trying to make homeowners feel more secure - and so able to spend - by promising help with paying mortgages if they become unemployed or suffer a drop in income.

At the same time governments are planning public works. Plans are not yet announced, but there is talk of investment in green infrastructure projects to reduce carbon emissions. In the US, car manufacturers who are all but bankrupt are being offered funds to re-tool to produce energy efficient green vehicles.

To fund the investment and the tax cuts, governments are having to borrow money. They do this by issuing bonds. These are offered to investors. They do not pay the highest interest, but are supposed to be attractive because they are safe : governments don't default on loans. There is a problem, however, with many governments trying to attract investment as they may have to offer higher returns to be sure to raise what they need. If these rates go up, it will feed through to the mortgage rates. There is an analysis of this situation in The Guardian at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/dec/04/government-bonds-investments

Now the Monetary Reform proposals put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy suggested that instead of borrowing money in this way, governments should simply receive the money from the central bank, which creates it out of nothing for spending into circulation. This has an attraction for governments and tax payers, but what would the wider implications be? I imagine that if a government was creating money in a way economist thought was diluting its value, then the currency would fall against others. That is already happening to the pound with the increased borrowing. Perhaps other policies put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy would prevent this, such as the Tobin Tax on currency exchanges (aimed to dampen speculation) or the International Clearing Union, as proposed by Keynes to ensure companies balanced their imports and exports. It would be great to hear from Monetary Reformers how their proposals would work in the current situation and why this would be better than the methods being followed.

The methods that are being followed are geared to getting people spending, to get the GDP figure up and to ensure there is sufficient demand for goods and services to stop prices deflating. The strategy is to get back to business as usual in the shortest possible time, which the most optimistic analysts seem to say will take a least a year.

But what if we look at the crisis as an opportunity for restructuring how the economy works? The Simultaneous Policy approach allows us to think radically about what we might do.

So here is a possible set of policies that could be implemented. They are offered not so much as a manifesto to be pursued, but more to show that if we remove the old boundaries set around policy making, we can address a wide range of apparently intractable problems. I hope others who are more knowledgeable than me will be inspired to put together something more sensible.

For me there is something terribly wrong that the response to the credit crunch is to try to get people to borrow more money and spend it to keep the GDP figures up. Isn't this what got us into the mess in the first place?

Let's question the basic assumption here that increasing GDP should be the aim of policy makers. The human race is already using more resources than the Earth can provide - a UN study suggests we need 1.2 Earths for current consumption patterns, and because we only have one Earth, it is suffering irrepairable damage and non-renewable resources are being exhausted.

The third most popular policy proposal in recent voting was 'Beyond GDP' - which calls for "health, social and environmental statistics" to complement wealth statistics in providing the measure of the economic well being of the country.

I didn't initially see the point of this proposal, because there is no explanation as to what difference it would make to policy making or why policy makers would look to this figure rather than the conventional GDP figure. But recent events have shown the great weight that is put on these numbers.

The calculation of such influential numbers is controversial. A thread in the discussion forum suggests that the US government has cooked the books to improve GDP figures and that on a proper measure, the US economy has been in recession since 2000. This chimes with an analysis of the US economy by journalist Larry Elliot, who describes how the US economy was been held up by cheap money coming from countries that had taken over much of the US manufacturing base and fuelling the credit boom. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/21/us-economy-recession

Well, let's try cooking the number another way to include the 'Beyond GDP' factors. While the economic slow-down will reduce this number, less consumption and less travel will actually benefit the environment, so that will improve the number.

Policy makers can look at boosting the 'Beyond GDP' elements in addition or instead of the economic part. Investing in green infrastructure would be good for both - and the 'Beyond GDP' figure should perhaps be suffering a major reduction while the economy is based on unsustainable energy use and harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Anything to counter this will start to make things look much better.

All the same, the economy is slowing down and people are being made redundant. A war has been a way to turn this around in the past, so it is perhaps a sensible precaution to remove weapons spending from the GDP calculation, as has been proposed and supported by Simultaneous Policy Adopters in voting.

To ensure full employment, policy makers could take the step of cutting the working week to 30 hours or 4 days, as a permanent change. This would mean for every 4 employees, a business would take on an extra worker. If people were paid for the hours they worked, then the costs to business would be the same.

What about employees, forced to cut working hours and pay? Well, firstly in parallel to the restructuring of the working week, investment could be made in community projects to provide activities for the free day. For example, parents could easily form a rota for walking kids to school, cutting out the school run. Those that volunteer for say 6 months, could be eligible for coordinator roles, with payments attached.

Extra staff could be taken on at schools to provide adult education and sports for parents on their extra day off. With the olympics coming up in the UK in 2012, there could be a national programme for a people's games to take place after the international event, where amateurs winning local heats will compete on a national stage.

There could be a new national allotment scheme, with community workers helping people use their extra free day to grow food locally.

Indeed, local life will be promoted, to build up the sense of community and volunteering once more. Grants can be made available for communities that want to organize refurbishing or constructing local amenities. If more adults are around during the day, this will have a positive impact on anti-social behaviour and crime. This will all reflect well in the 'Beyond GDP' figures.

Some people would find it hard to manage with a 20% cut in income. But in some respects life will be cheaper. If polluter-pays taxes are included on transport, for example, people will switch from weekend mini-breaks in cities across Europe to local trips, so saving money and carbon emissions. That particular party has to come to an end.

But there are steps that could be taken for managing a transition. People who need to maintain income levels could work overtime on their 5th day. The cost to the business will be higher - time and a half, for example - which could be offset in the short term by tax cuts. But these would gradually be phased out, so in the longer term staff will adjust to the four-day week.

So we come through the recession with less consumption, more time with family and strengthened communities, progress towards sustainable energy use, full employment, populations eating and exercising more healthily and a measure of the economy that values more than money.

Investors will look to the rising 'Beyond GDP' figure for the UK and see it is a country with a bright future.

There are no doubt other implications of this approach and perhaps better action that could be taken. We need to talk about them.

The conventional approach of getting people to take on more debt to continue consuming more than they need and more than the planet can provide is surely not a better option.

Reforming the financial markets - part 1

2008-12-08T23:39:00.005Z

Why is the financial system on the brink of collapse, what is being done about it and what better alternatives could be brought in through the Simultaneous Policy campaign? Those are three questions which I aim to answer over the course of these two articles.

There is an in-depth article on the credit crunch on The Guardian website from Paul Krugman, new Nobel laureate for economics, which provides valuable insight. I'm not going to attempt to reproduce his argument, but will put some of it in terms that I can understand and fill in some of the gaps. For his article see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/dec/06/paul-krugman-financial-crisis-2008

Those who have followed proposals put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy will be familiar that for Monetary Reform, originating from James Robertson. This claims that commercial banks create money out of nothing as interest-bearing loans and demands that this role be taken over by central banks. Commercial banks would then be "linking potential lenders to potential borrowers as many people wrongly assume they are now." The proposals failed to gain large support in the recently-completed voting round and are on the way out. Why? I think because people thought it cannot be true that banks create money out of nothing, otherwise credit would not have dried up.

The fact is that commercial banks do need lenders. This is why banks and building societies offer interest to savers to have a capital base from which to lend. If you want a loan, they can give you some of this money, which you repay with interest. Some of the interest goes to the lender, some goes to the bank - as profits and to cover liabilities because some borrowers will default. Banks are required to keep a certain level of stocks of money to maintain confidence in case savers decide to withdraw their deposits - if the bank told savers their money was not available no-one would trust the bank, everyone would try to remove their money and it would collapse.

So banks are acting as brokers between lenders and borrowers. However, because most savers simply leave their money in the bank to earn the interest, the banks are allowed a trick. They are able to lend more money than they really have on deposit. If you sign a contract for a mortgage, the bank can create the money out of nothing, write the amount into your bank account and you can use it to buy the house. This system is regulated by the central bank. It sets a limit on how much money the commercial bank can create.

Part of the solution being followed by central banks in the current crisis is to change the rules so that banks have to have a better ratio of loans to savings - that is, more money on deposit. This is why in the UK people say the banks that have been bailed out by the government are in a bind. Publicly the government is saying the banks should start lending again. But at the same time, the banks are trying to build up their deposits. This also explains why commercial banks feel it hard to pass on the full cut in the bank base rate when the Bank of England makes cuts.

According to Krugman, this issue will resolve itself and is not too serious in isolation.

The bigger problem is the shadow banking system, which is not regulated to the same degree. This is where the sub-prime mortgage problem originates.

An important fact to realise is that the assets of a bank are not the money they have from its savers, it is the loans they have with borrowers. Loans provide income. So a mortgage contract is an asset. What has happened is these have been traded, en masse. Investors have bought them because they provide a return as people repay the mortgage with interest. They were thought to be low risk because if someone couldn't pay, the house would be sold and clear the debt, plus a profit on top for the owner of the debt in default fees. But it all went wrong because house prices stopped going up and people who should never have been given loans in the first place started to default. Even if the house could be sold, the investor would get less than they paid to buy the contract.

So investors with billions of pounds invested in these assets have had to write them off as losses, which, for some, has pushed them to the edge of bankruptcy, or even into bankruptcy, in the case of Lehman Brothers.

Because financial markets have become globalized, these losses have had a devastating effect.

The banks and hedge funds that have made huge losses are trying to recover their positions. So they are sacking people. They are also selling assets they own overseas. I was living in Brazil until recently and the stock market was falling drastically as investors cashed in their assets. The supply of dollars dried up as investors bought up supplies to repatriate the money. Brazilian companies needing dollars to pay for imported materials have found it difficult to obtain dollars and the value of the dollar has soared, making imports more expensive and adding to costs. At the same time, Americans are tightening their belts so there is less of an export market. Annual growth in Brazil, predicted to be above 5% is now likely to be below 3%. Other countries are being tipped into recession.

There is another factor at play identified by Krugman. It is that money lending is now global, where banks or shadow banks find money at cheap interest rates (such as Japanese Yen) and lend it in countries with high interest rates (such as Brazil). This is called carry trade.
Krugman simply states: "And one of the casualties of the latest round of panic was the carry trade. The conduit of funds from Japan and other low-interest nations was cut off."

Personally I need a few more dots joined up to understand why this happened and the implications. Funds have dried up because faith in the organisations that ran the carry trade has evaporated with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which was unable to honour its contracts.

Prior to this, people with Yen were keen to lend them even if the return was small. With lots of Yen on offer, Yen were cheap to convert into the currency of other countries where the money was to be leant. When the borrower in, say, Brazil, repaid the loan in Brazilian Reais, this was converted back to Yen and the payments made along the chain.

Now with no-one wanting to lend out Yen, for fear they won't be repaid, the exchange rate has gone up. A simple case of supply and demand. In Brazil people are still desperately trying to buy foreign exchange, so the value of the Real has fallen. The result? The conduit organisations receive the same amount of Reais, but they are worth less. At the other end, they get less Yen for them, because Yen are more expensive. So carry trade is not a profitable business.

Krugman says this is the real threat to the global system, because unfreeing this flow of financing is going to be far, far harder than persuading commercial banks to lend to would-be home owners and small businesses. The sums are many times greater, the business is international and regulation barely exists.

His solution is quick to say: "Policy-makers around the world need to do two things: get credit flowing again and prop up spending."

With major industrial nations posting a drop in GDP, the measure of economic growth, and emerging markets slowing, the fear is a global recession, which means job losses and people falling into poverty.

At least in the conventional model of economics that Krugman and others are following.

This is the scenario where it would be great to hear what the Monetary Reform proposals submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy would contribute. There are other aspects to it, still. Such as what has happened to the insurance that investors have bought in case borrowers default. But this is as much complexity as we need for now, or at least, as much as I can cope with.

In the second article, I'll look again at the Monetary Reform proposal and put forward some others showing how the coherent, policy making approach enabled by the Simultaneous Policy could make a really radical transformation addressing many issues simultaneously.

When is a question not a question?

2008-11-27T14:33:00.005Z

There is a discussion on Simpol's discussion boards about 'provably false GDP figures'. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=70.0

I raised some questions about the analysis. Why was it wrong for certain assumptions to be made in calculating the figures, given there was a certain logic to them? What difference would it make if the figures were calculated differently? That kind of thing. The sort of probing that is needed when examining proposals that could be introduced simultaneously around the world.

My post was forwarded to a discussion group where the issues was first raised and provoked a surprising response, which someone posted back to Simpol's board.

You can read the correspondence there. The point of this blog is not an "I said, then he said" justification.

It is to ask: When is a question not a question?

In the minds of some beholders it seems questions are not questions, but rhetorical point-scoring constructions.

The question: What difference will this make? Is understood to mean: This will make no difference.

Then follows the attack of cynicism. But I would like suggest the cynicism lies with those who see an honest question in this way.

Is it a sign of the times and the paucity of our policy debate that enquiry provokes such a defensive reaction? This is a question we should seriously consider because the whole purpose of the Simultaneous Policy democratic space is to investigate ideas. For that we need to be able to question them and receive considered answers.

Considered answers appreciated.

What should the Simultaneous Policy do? - Youtube film with result of 2008 vote

2008-11-24T18:40:00.001Z

Can we be sensible?

2008-11-22T00:24:00.003Z

There is a succint analysis of why the world is facing a financial crisis from Larry Elliott in The Guardian today. You can read it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/21/us-economy-recession

I posted the response below:

---
What is the sensible response to an economic crisis caused by people being up to their eyes in debt?

One would think it would be for people to spend less and to sort out the finances. Get used to the idea of putting money aside for a rainy day, or, novel idea, actually saving for things before buying them.

And isn't that actually what the masses are doing? Seeing troubled times ahead, people are spending less, thinking of having a more frugal Christmas and putting money by in case they lose their jobs. Getting used to living within our means and valuing what is closer to us, taking local holidays instead of weekend breaks in Prague, etc. will also have positive repurcussions when it comes to the depletion of resources and the carbon-overloaded atmosphere.

Sensible steps, which could mark a shift in how people consume.

Except these are exactly the opposite of what is needed to preserve the global financial system. Our leaders are worried that people aren't taking on yet more debt, so trying to make it as attractive as possible. They are toying with the idea of tax cuts, but worried people may save the money instead of blowing it. Deflation is feared because people may wait before buying in the expectation that prices may fall further.

It is sensible behaviour that our leaders fear.

The question is, can the global financial system be re-engineered so it not only allows for sustainable living, but promotes it?

Or is it our duty to spend and consume more because the system cannot even stand us being satisfied? The economy has to grow year after year after year.

Again, maybe we should trust the masses to answer this question, by putting forward their proposals to the Simultaneous Policy campaign. The recent policy supplement was on the theme of avoiding financial and climate meltdown, which may be a good starting point if you want to get involved in telling our leaders what they need to do. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/10/avoiding-meltdown.html
---

You can add to the sensible, planet-saving action from people, the switch from gas-guzzling SUVs. Ford's sales fell by 53.9% GM is rushing to get out an electric car. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/21/automotive-useconomy

Gordon Brown's global vision

2008-11-10T22:14:00.004Z

This is from Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, speaking today:

"And I believe that in our international co-operation on finance, climate change, terrorism and ending conflict, there is evidence of this new multilateralism at work in the world – fairer, more stable and more prosperous because it is rooted in cooperation and justice.

"And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, together we can seize this moment of profound change to create, for the first time, the age of the truly global society, one where progressive multilateralism, not narrow unilateralism, is the norm."

Well, governments acting simultaneously to address global problems is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy campaign, so if this multilateralism turns into reality that will be a significant step forward. Simultaneous action removes the fear of first-mover disadvantage and should enable more comprehensive responses to be introduced.

Prime Minister Brown also had this to say (see The Guardian report):

"We cannot afford to put climate change into the international pending tray because of the present economic difficulties," he said. "On the contrary, we must use the imperative to act for our future prosperity through the transition to a low carbon economy and reduced oil dependency as a route to creating jobs and economic opportunity for our peoples today."

Which is great. Though if you look at the Prime Ministers past action, then there is less cause for optimism. Critics point to his insitence on pushing ahead with high-carbon capital projects, such as a third runway at Heathrow Airport as a jump-start to the economy.

So the transparency and democratic involvement engendered by the Simultaneous Policy approach is still missing.

Congratulations President Obama

2008-11-05T13:08:00.003Z

And so the 44th President of the United States will be President Barack Obama. A historic day indeed. But what are the lessons I draw for the Simultaneous Policy campaign.

Firstly, it was a tight result. Though the Electoral College result suggests a convincing Obama win, the actual vote, as currently declared is Obama 52.1%, McCain 44.5%. Less than 8 percentage points, which means only 4% of voters needed to switch sides for the opposite result. And less than 70% of electors voted. Hence the focus by both candidates on trying to persuade their supporters to vote.

So if the Simultaneous Policy campaign could mobilize sufficient numbers of those who have given up on conventional politics to support the candidate pledging to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, it could swing elections, even in the US. People did send messages to the candidates to this effect, but not in sufficient numbers this time around to put the campaign on their radar amongst all the other issues.

How is it that the country should be so nearly split down the middle, election after election? Surely it is because both candidates now and historically, position themselves either side of the centre ground. Despite the rhetoric and some key policy differences (ostensibly on Iraq, for instance), there is a lot of common ground. Similarities became even more striking during the campaign. For example, in the last Presidential debate, speaking on energy policy, Obama said he would look at offshore drilling, which had been one of McCain's key points of difference. It was a clever construction, seemingly a concession to those sympathetic to the 'Drill, baby, drill' chanting at the Republican Convention, while being easily abandonded with the comment: "We looked and decided against it."

Or at least those who feared Obama was selling out his climate-change credential will hope.

Once in the White House with oil lobbyists on one side and a public concerned about fuel prices and reluctant to change lifestyles on the other, maybe that drilling will go ahead.

Because Obama finds himself in the same situation as every elected leader. He needs to satisfy his electorate, which has the primary concern of their own well-being. That boils down to their jobs and financial security above all else. So when US companies threaten disinvestment if their agenda is not followed, they have a powerful lever.

While we can be hopeful that President Obama will deliver the change the world needs, we would be wise to continue to build public pressure for it.

The AVAAZ campaign is already gathering signatures for key parts of its own 'global justice' agenda. You can sign on at:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/million_messages_to_obama/

This gives you the opportunity to add your own additional message and I added: "Please pledge to implement, alongside other governments, the Simultaneous Policy - the policies developed and approved by people around the world to address global problems."

What those policies will be will be clearer when the results of the latest annual voting round are released shortly. But the opportunity continues for entering the debate and shaping the policies. You can join the discussion at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

However hopeful we may be about President Obama and his leadership role, policy setting will still take place behind closed doors and international agreements will be reached on the basis of power rather than argument. The Simultaneous Policy makes the process democratic and transparent.

Votes being counted

2008-11-04T23:27:00.002Z

The counting is taking place in the US Presidential election. Simultaneous Policy campaign supporters have been sending messages to the candidates asking them to pledge to implement alongside other governments the people's policies for dealing with global problems. Neither pledged to do so, but that does not stop whoever is elected doing so when in office. The prediction is, of course, that tomorrow we wake to President-elect Barack Obama and John McCain will still be a Senator.

At the same time, counting is taking place in the annual vote on policies for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. Anyone can vote - and even put forward their own proposals - by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter, which is free to do at:
http://www.simpol.org/

Voting also takes place on issues, which may be addressed by one or more policies. Top issues and policies are given more space in campaign materials and public meetings. In last year's voting, climate change was the top issue. You can find the results in the 'policy' pages of the website and on the discussion board, where more details of policies are given and you have the chance to question those backing them. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

These pages will be updated once the 2008 votes have been processed. Unfortunately the processing is not as well resourced as the Presidential race.

Action on climate change could help end recession, says Stern Report author

2008-10-23T12:07:00.004+01:00

There is an article from Nicholas Stern in The Guardian today. He wrote the Stern Review for the UK government on the economics of climate change, arguing there is a financial case for taking necessary action.

His article today argues that a concerted programme of work to transform societies into sustainable, low-carbon ones would also be part of an effective response to the coming global recession which has been sparked by the credit crunch.

Given the UK government has put up £500 billion to save its banking system and has then convinced many other countries to do the same, there may be a chance our leaders will actually act in this visionary way. But don't hold your breath. And Nicholas Stern, being an economist of, I believe, a fairly conventional mindset, sees growth as fundamental to the world's economic system - some of the proposals put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy - on Monetary Reform and Beyond GDP for example, might spark his interest if his attention can be captured.

Anyway, here's the link to the article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/commentanddebate-energy-environment-climate-change

The type of approaches that Professor Stern proposes could perhaps flesh out the Contraction and Convergence proposal submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

For more information on policy proposals and to participate in the 2008 annual vote (running to 1 November) go to:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

Avoiding financial and climate meltdown

2008-10-22T17:15:00.003+01:00

Here's an alert I sent out about the new policy supplement:

Ideas to change the world – Policy supplement to It’s Simpol ! Autumn 2008

Annual voting is currently taking place on policy suggestions put forward by Simultaneous Policy Adopters for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. Voting runs until 1 November 2008.

Space is given in the newsletter to the most popular policies and issues. If you have not already voted, you can do so at:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

The latest policy supplement has the theme: “Avoiding financial and climate meltdown.” You can download it by clicking the following link, or pasting it in your internet browser:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/policyautumn161008.pdf

For all newsletters go to Simpol’s website and click on ‘campaigns’ and ‘newsletters’ at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

Stopping financial meltdown

The policy supplement includes an article from Susan George on the International Clearing Union, first developed by Professor John Maynard Keynes and proposed for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy by Adopter David Smith. The proposal received 63% approval in the last voting round. Susan George said regarding its inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy that this is: “*one* base from which we can work to make new rules for international commerce.”

Stopping climate meltdown

The top issue in the last round of voting was climate change. Proposed policies such as ‘Contraction and Convergence’ (which received 80% approval) address this directly. Others may have an indirect impact, such as those dealing with disarmament (see the Spring 2008 policy supplement, which has the theme: “Turning Weapons into Windmills”).

A guest article from the ‘One Hundred Months’ campaign is included in the latest policy supplement. This campaign has been launched by a coalition of campaigning organisations and suggests that there are just 100 months (well, now 97 months) to act before the climate tips into cycles that will be far harder to tackle. The article contains various proposals that may be of interest to Adopters to flesh out the action to be included in the Simultaneous Policy.

Joined-up thinking

The great strength of the Simultaneous Policy approach is that it seeks to be a coherent package of policies where action in one area complements that in another. Too often the current approach our leaders take to global policy making means action in one area undermines action in another (consider, for example, recent calls for increased pumping of oil to lower energy prices, which some see as the last thing we should be doing if we are serious about addressing climate change).

Every vote means something – global democracy in action

Policies that do not receive good support in the 2008 voting round will drop out of the process, so take this opportunity to rally support for policies you wish to continue. Here is the voting page once again:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

The policy supplement explains the voting process and lists the policies. It also flags up the forthcoming election of the Policy Committee. Nominations are being sought.

The Policy Committee protects the democratic interests of Adopters and facilitates the policy development process. As the campaign grows in strength it is also tasked with ensuring the process of developing policies keeps pace. You can complete the nomination form after voting or go direct to:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvotethanks.htm

Feel free to pass this email and/or the policy supplement on to others. Once again, you can download the policy supplement at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/policyautumn161008.pdf

Gordon Brown: The global problems we face require global solutions

2008-10-17T21:04:00.007+01:00

The following could be somebody arguing in favour of the Simultaneous Policy approach to addressing global problems, but it is actually UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, writing in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603179.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

---extract begins

The global problems we face require global solutions. At the end of World War II, American and European visionaries built a new international economic order and formed the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and a world trade body. They acted because they knew that peace and prosperity were indivisible. They knew that for prosperity to be sustained, it had to be shared. Such was the impact of what they did for their day and age that Secretary of State Dean Acheson spoke of being "present at the creation."

Today, the same sort of visionary internationalism is needed to resolve the crises and challenges of a different age. And the greatest of global challenges demands of us the boldest of global cooperation.

The old postwar international financial institutions are out of date. They have to be rebuilt for a wholly new era in which there is global, not national, competition and open, not closed, economies. International flows of capital are so big they can overwhelm individual governments. And trust, the most precious asset of all, has been eroded.

---extract ends

Gordon Brown talks of reforming the Bretton Wood institutions.

This is also one of the themes of the latest policy supplement to the It's Simpol ! newsletter, now available on Simpol's website, which includes a reprint of an article by Susan George on the International Clearing Union, one of the policy suggestions that gained good support in the 2007 annual round of voting. Susan George told me that she sees this as one of the possibilities that should be considered for the Simultaneous Policy.

The policy supplement can be downloaded by clicking:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/policyautumn161008.pdf

You can vote for in support of the International Clearing Union in the 2008 vote. Policies gaining more than 50% support remain in the process. Those with top votes are given greater space in the newsletter and at public meetings.

Also take a look at other policy suggestions and please give my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority an 'A'. If you don't want to give it an 'A', please let me know why. For more on that and information on the voting process, see:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/10/vote-world-tnc-regulation.html

Gordon Brown concludes: "There are no Britain-only or Europe-only or America-only solutions to today's problems. We are all in this together, and we can only resolve this crisis together. Over the past week, we have shown that with political will it is possible to agree on a global multibillion-dollar package to recapitalize our banks across many continents. In the next few weeks, we need to show the same resolve and spirit of cooperation to create the rules for our new global economy."

And not just the global economy. The Simultaneous Policy seeks to be a coherent set of policies to address global problems. As I've noted previously a piece-meal approach to addressing problems, means perceived solutions in one area may exacerbate problems in another. But once you start to look for cross-cutting solutions the possibilities for synchronicity abound.

And not just Europe and America. People from every continent can sign up as Simultaneous Policy Adopters and have their say and their vote.

Promoting your proposal during the 2008 Simultaneous Policy voting round

2008-10-15T15:48:00.002+01:00

It would be good to hear how people are encouraging friends, colleagues and members of networks etc. to support their policies in the current Simultaneous Policy voting round.

My personal proposal relates to holding corporations to account. I have written about the vote on my blog about this and posted links to that in groups on facebook etc. There are various newspaper websites and other discussion boards where I am posting information too. I’m a member of a Corporate Social Responsibility yahoo group that has nearly 500 members, most involved in organisations working on this issue. So I’ve sent the message included below.

I’d very much welcome suggestions from others about how to promote policies to increase the number of people voting and the number of Adopters.

---Message to campaign yahoo group

I would like to encourage readers of this list to consider supporting my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, which is participating in the annual Simultaneous Policy vote. More details at:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/10/vote-world-tnc-regulation.html

My proposal arises from experience monitoring the baby food industry and seeing the difficulty of enforcing international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Where national measures are not working to hold corporations to account, I believe there needs to be a safeguard at the international level. The UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are failing to provide this.

I propose an authority that would investigate complaints, including those generated by public petition, and, if it finds a case to answer, would bring this before a reformed International Criminal Court or other body. I also propose that the authority would require corporations above a certain size and global reach to register as 'globally incorporated companies' whereby they would be required to submit reports, not just on financial performance, but to a specified standard against existing human rights and environmental norms. A name director would be responsible for the reports, as with financial reports and legal action could be taken over false reporting and breaches of norms. I have explored this ideas in some detail in a chapter in the book: "Global obligations for the right to food" as a member of a task force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition (details with the above link).

To gain further publicity for these ideas and as a parallel route for implementation, I have submitted the proposal for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. This could be described as the people's plan for addressing global problems. Anyone can put forward proposals and vote by registering as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter - which is free and can be done at the time of voting. Adopters are asked to give a preference to candidates in elections who pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, or to call on their preferred candidate to make this pledge. Simultaneous implementation removes the fear of first-mover disadvantage. Politicians around the world are signing the pledge as a way to move the world from destructive competition between nations to constructive cooperation. I see action on transnational corporations as a necessary part of the package as business leaders too often play countries off against other, by threatening to disinvest if their agenda is not followed. This is not an alternative to pursuing other strategies, but a parallel strategy that allows us to develop the policies in a transparent and democratic way and to implement what is needed, not just what will be tolerated by vested interests.

There are other policies in the voting round that are worth exploring. Those gaining sufficient support proceed in the policy development process. Those with top votes, gain space in the campaign newsletter and public meetings. If you don't want to give my proposal an 'A' vote, please let me know why!

You can vote at:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

For further information on the campaign, see my personal blog at:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/

Feel free to pass this email on to others.

Best wishes,

Mike Brady
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/

Welcome to the simultaneous age

2008-10-11T03:05:00.003+01:00

It seems our leaders are learning the importance of simultaneous action to address global problems. As the Guardian reports today on an emergency meeting by leaders of the group of 7 leading industrialized nations, whose financial systems are collapsing with global implications:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/11/banking-globaleconomy

---extract begins
With little sign that country-by-country plans have helped to kick-start lending, the G7 believes immediate action is vital to avoid a major slump. The past four weeks have seen the biggest cut in growth forecasts in living memory, and the IMF has warned that the world economy is "on the cusp" of recession.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, said: "If international cooperation is to mean anything, it means governments have to move on from simply agreeing a general approach, and doing something to resolve the problems we are facing today."

---extract ends

It is interesting to see how the rescue plan has been summarised as neatly as policy suggestions put forward for discussion amongst Simultaneous Policy Adopters:

---quote from Guardian begins

The five-point plan

· Pledge to save key banks from collapse

· Action to free-up credit and money markets by providing ample amounts of liquidity from central banks

· Support for the part-nationalisation of banks and other institutions by the taxpayer purchase of shares

· Stronger deposit protection schemes to reassure savers their money is safe

· Force banks to disclose the true state of their losses

---quotes ends

The Simultaneous Policy aims to address problems that require a global approach, either because of their scale, or because governments feat that taking unilateral action will put them at a financial disadvantage.

Unlike the G7 meetings, policy discussions take place openly and transparently and everybody has the right to participate and put forward their own solutions. At the present state of development of the democratic process, annual voting rounds amongst those who have registered with the campaign - which is free to do and can be done when voting - are held to guage levels of support. Those without support drop out of the process (though they can be resubmitted in the same or revised form) and those with significant support are given space in Simpol's publications and policy fora for further development of the ideas.

Politicians are called on to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, which an increasing number are doing. As the number of government pledges nears the stage when implementation can be triggered, the package of policies will be finalised and put out to all citizens around the world.

Commenting yesterday on a coordinated move by central banks to cut interest rates simultaneously, John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy campaign, noted in an email 'Welcome to the simultaneous age' to Simpol's email discussion group that, aside from the discussion of the value of this approach: "the Financial Times today reports, such action was "unprecedented" and a "historic piece of co-ordination". Interestingly, although they weren't in on the plan, the FT reports that The People's Bank of China "moved almost simultaneously" when it also cut its rate.... This kind of coordination is indeed unprecendented and I hope it marks the beginning of people and governments properly waking up to the fact that in a globalised world, global and simultaneous action is the way forward. So folks, welcome to the simultaneous age!"

Voting on policies submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy is currently open and runs till the beginning of November. See:

http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

Vote to hold transnational corporations to account

2008-10-07T00:28:00.001+01:00

Vote for the world you want to see.

The annual vote on policies put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy has just opened. This is a package of policies proposed, developed and approved by people around the world to address global problems. Politicians are called on by campaign supporters (known as Simultaneous Policy Adopters) to pledge to implement the policies alongside other governments.

You are invited to vote on the suggestions that have been put forward. Those gaining more than 50% approval remain in the process. If you are not an Adopter you can check a box to register as you do so. There is no cost. You are indicating that in future elections you will either give a preference to candidates who make the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy or will call on your preferred candidate - should you have one - to make the pledge.

You can find the voting page at:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

I have put forward the proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory (TNC) Authority, which has been discussed on this group before. There is a summary of the proposal on the voting page with a link to further information in the discussion forum. Please take a look and give this an 'A' vote to continue in the process. If you don't think it warrants an 'A' please let me know so I can explain more about why I think this proposal warrants inclusion!

The World TNC Authority is to provide protection when national regulatory systems do not work to protect citizens and the environment. Initially it will work to enforce the standards that have already been agreed in conventions by governments, which TNC's claim to respect (for example, through their undertakings to the United Nations Global Compact), but in practice many do not. The Authority will accept reports of breaches from appropriate authorities or public petition and, if it finds there is a case to answer, will bring a prosecution before a reformed International Criminal Court. The Court will be empowered to levy fines based on annual turnover on the corporation.

As governments are sometimes lax at enforcing standards on their own corporations to gain a competitive advantage over governments that do, the Court may allow other governments to levy punitive tariffs to recoup income lost due to the unfair competition.

As a third element, the proposal calls the bluff of corporations involved in the UN Global Compact, which produce thick reports boasting of their compliance. These reports will have to be produced to specified standards with a named director legally responsible for their accuracy, in the same way a Financial Director is responsible for accounts. Corporations above a certain turnover or geographical reach will be required to register as 'globally incorporated companies' requiring submission of these legally-binding reports.

Please do support this suggestion by giving it an 'A' vote at:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

There are other great proposals to view and vote on, so please be prepared to spend a little time looking them over. This is global democracy in action. For more on the voting process see:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=66.0

After voting there is the chance to stand for election to the Policy Committee that oversees the policy development process and to send a message to the candidates in the US Presidential election, calling on one or more of them to make the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

Former MI6 agent ran Nestlé spy operation

2008-08-29T17:52:00.000+01:00

Swiss campaigners posted the following message on my Baby Milk Action blog and will be adding updates to the 'Nestlé's Actions' website. Nestlé's actions speak louder than its words. See:
http://www.nestlsa.org/

For more on the spy story and how this impacted on Baby Milk Action see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-spies.html

---Posted comment begins

NESTLE INFILTRATES AN NGO IN SWITZERLAND

On 12 June 2008, the very serious Swiss investigative reporters tv revealed that Nestlé paid Securitas,one of Switzerland's largest security firms, to plant a woman in a group of attac switzerland (my group) from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004. We were making conference and editing a book about Nestlé.

As a co-author she had complete access to the group's documentation and to all Attac's email contacts around the world, including information on union members in Colombia fighting for workers-rights in Nestle plants. Such information is potentially dangerous in the wrong hands; in the past people have been killed just for being active organizers especially in Colombia. Her regular reports and memos (physical descriptions, (political orientations, job.) about us and our activities, contacts were handed over to Nestlé, especially to the head of security of Nestle. The infiltrator met him at least one time. The name of the head of security of Nestlé is John Hedley, who in the past was working in the British secret services, the MI6.

We had a first audience in tribunal last week.

More of 150 newspapers (in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and France) have been writing papers on the matter.
http://www.suisse.attac.org/fr

Too many people drawing on the Earth's resources

2008-08-25T21:37:00.005+01:00

I wrote recently of how Brazil's population growth has fallen to the point that it will shortly stabilize at a level that is sustainable, even if the amount of land required to sustain each person increases to Swiss levels. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/sustainable-populations.html

In a subsequent conversation on the George Monbiot email list, someone commented that such land-use calculations are based on using non-renewable resources such as petrochemicals (for fertilizers and transporting food). We can perhaps add to this the tapping of ancient ground water, so-called fossil aquifers, where the water is not replenished by fresh rainfall. An example is comes from the North China Plain as described here:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquifer_depletion

---extract begins
Falling water tables are already adversely affecting harvests in some countries, including China, the world’s largest grain producer. A groundwater survey released in Beijing in August 2001 revealed that the water table under the North China Plain, which produces over half of that country’s wheat and a third of its corn, is falling faster than earlier reported. Overpumping has largely depleted the shallow aquifer, forcing well drillers to turn to the region’s deep fossil aquifer, which is not replenishable.
---extract ends

Which means the problem of increasing food production to meet the world's growing population has not been solved, it has been deferred.

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich, now Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University, wrote the book 'The Population Bomb'. He was interviewed recently by Public Radio International, and reminded that forty years ago he wrote that the battle to feed all of humanity is already lost.

He responded: "Forty years ago and perfectly correct. We still have about a billion people who don't get enough food to function properly."

Asked about whether a population that is predicted to grow by 2.5 billion by 2050 can be sustained, he replied:

---extract begins
First of all, 2.5 billion is 500 million people more than were on the planet when I was born in 1932. So we're adding more than existed when I was born.

Second, the next two and a half billion are going to be a lot more expensive to take care of environmentally than the previous 2.5 billion because people are smart, they farm the best lands first. You know you can't get oil by sticking a pointed stick in the ground in Pennsylvania anymore. You got to drill down a couple of miles. And water has to be transported long distances.

And I think anybody who reads the newspapers and can count, can see that we're in deep trouble just from the numbers of people versus the resources that are available. Ask them in Atlanta, where they're running out of water. Ask them in Southern California, where climate change is helping huge fires to devastate areas. I was just in Brazil, and the Pantanal swamp area was burning and the Cerrado, the savannah areas south of the Amazon, were burning in record bouts. So, you know, you just have to look around to see what's happening.
---extract ends

He suggested the predicted population of 9.7 billion would overstretch the world's carrying capacity unless we drastically change the way we live:

"Certainly in anything like today's lifestyle. You know if you try to move to a battery—what my colleague calls a battery-chicken type of world, in which everyone has the absolute minimum to keep them alive—it might be possible."

However, we are certainly not moving in this rather bleak direction. A new report from the United Nations Environment Programme, called Global Environmental Outlook, tries to be optimistic and praise some action that has been taken, but overall, it suggests, the indicators are all moving in the wrong direction.

The report suggests that the human population has needed more than one Earth to sustain it for more than twenty years.

The green line on the graph below represents living on the limit of what is available on the Earth. Unfortunately, the real demands of the population are the climbing pink line.

Click on the image to see it larger. The full report can be downloaded from:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

As everyone knows, living beyond your means is storing up problems. Here's how the UN report puts it:

---extract begins
The unsustainability of the way the Earth’s natural resources are being used is increasingly evident.

As a result of the growing competition and demand for global resources, the world’s population has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available.

An example of ecological overshoot is seen in attempts to increase food production that result in increased levels of environmental degradation, such as deforestation of marginal lands, including wetlands, upper watersheds and protected areas that have been converted to farmlands.

According to the 2005 Footprint of Nations report, humanity’s footprint is 21.9 ha/person, while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person, with the ultimate result
that there is net environmental degradation and loss.
---extract ends

Remember, this is with the Earth's current population and current consumption patterns.

Ehrlich suggests the crisis - or rather crises from which we do not recover - may not be far away:

"We're facing a crisis in which the way in which many of us live will not be possible for the vast majority of people—sometime in the relatively near future. Hopefully after I'm dead, but maybe not."

Some people, for example some posters on the Monbiot group, suggest that the best we can do as individuals and local communities, is to prepare for a coming collapse that will result in billions being wiped from the Earth's population.

I see pursuing the Simultaneous Policy approach - and doing whatever else we can to transform our relationship with the world - as being a worthwhile parallel strategy to even this survivalist view.

As Ehrlich concludes:

---extract begins
What other choice do we have but to try and change so that if we haven't reached the tipping point, we don't reach it, because the tipping point is going to be miserable and an awful lot of people will die and lifestyles will change very, very dramatically, and so we don't want to do that so you know, I can't be incredibly optimistic about what we're going to do.

What we can say is that societies can change very rapidly when the time is ripe. Look for instance how rapidly the Soviet Union disappeared when none of us expected it to. When I was a kid, lynchings were common in the south of the United States. They aren't any more. In other words, things can change very rapidly.

We don't fully understand why but when the time is ripe, they change and I think that your chore and mine is to try to ripen the time.
---extract ends

It seems to me the time could be not riper. If you haven't signed up in support of the Simultaneous Policy campaign, why not do so right now at:
http://www.simpol.org/

Take a look at proposals others have put forward for the transformation to a sustainable, cooperative world in the discussion forum and feel free to put forward you own at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

It is a reality of life on this planet that any successful species fills its niche and its population overshoots before falling back to a sustainable level, perhaps with modified behaviour.

We can look on the overuse of the world's resources and the resulting degradation as a sign that we are heading for a very nasty end. Or we could take the view that we are in the amazingly fortunate position of being provided with an overdraft by the Earth which can see us through a short period of living beyond our means. Like any sensible family, instead of burning through the overdraft with no thought for the future, we should be using it as an investment to transform the way we live so no further loan is necessary and we can repay that we have taken.

Certainly not easy. Certainly urgent.

The Amazon Fund could be incorporated into an emissions taxation scheme

2008-08-11T23:33:00.003+01:00

An idea I've floated here a few times in postings on climate change is that instead of putting faith in emissions trading schemes, which do not provide sufficient incentive for development of technologies such as carbon capture, emissions could simply be taxed. They are an external cost borne by the rest of the planet, when the cost should be borne by the polluter.

Taxes could be ring-fenced (or hypothecated, to use the jargon) for spending on measures to address climate change. One contender could be the Amazon fund created at the end of July by Brazil. See The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11885784

Countries can certainly gain kudos from contributing to the fund even now, as Norway is doing, but not as a way to excuse further pollution. That seems to be the motivation for a recent fund in support of the Congo Basin Forest. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-congo-basin.html

As Aubrey Meyer, of the Global Commons Institute, explained at one of Simpol's policy fora, without action to contract greenhouse gas emissions pretty quickly, carbon sinks such as the Amazon could become carbon sources, as a drier forest experiences fires that release carbon. His proposal for a 'contraction and convergence' approach to emissions is on of the best supported in annual voting amongst Simultaneous Policy Adopters, so far. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Sustainable populations and joined-up thinking

2008-08-07T22:08:00.006+01:00

What I like about the Simultaneous Policy approach is that it promotes up joined-up thinking, in a way that current global policy making does not, as evidenced by our leaders efforts to tackle climate change, while increasing oil production or refusing to listen to the concerns of farmers in developing countries at the World Trade Organisation, while there is evidence that forcing open developing country markets has impoverished farmers and increased food insecurity in some countries (see past blogs).

Since starting this blog and thinking in a little more depth of the possibilities of the Simultaneous policy, there seem to be a multiplicity of ways that different global problems can be tackled in a coherent way.

Sustainability, population growth and protecting the right to food came together for me this week, re-reading Michael Latham's chapter in Global Obligations for the Right to Food about tackling the curse of worms, measles and malaria. Professor Latham recommends governments to take a Resolution to the World Health Assembly calling for a strategic program for tackling these three illnesses. This could be worth proposing for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

Here's how some issues were joining up for me this week. I read that in Brazil, the birth rate has fallen to 1.8 children per woman, a level similar to that in industrialized countries. This level was not anticipated by the Brazilian National Institute of Geography and Statistics until 2043. The rapid drop is attributed to urbanization, where more children cost more money, in contrast to the countryside where historically more children have been seen as more hands to tend the land. But the rate has fallen in rural areas as quickly as in cities, attributed to the success in promoting family planning and the rising living standards experienced, or aspired to.

The expectation is that Brazilian's population will stabilise around 290 million inhabitants in 2050. The population if growth was at the rate of 1991, would be 377 million. With the rate of 1970, it would be 623 million.

If the average Brazilian was to increase their demand on the land to 4.1 hectares per person (the same as in Switzerland), then a population of 220 million could be supported. With present consumption levels, Brazil could support 384 millions. This is based on a study by the World Wide Fund for nature. All the above statistics are drawn from Brazil's news weekly, Veja, whose 30 July issue led with the cover story: "Where are all the babies?"

So achieving a sustainable population is within easy reach for Brazil, somewhere around the 220 - 290 million mark.

Sometimes in my work campaigning against the aggressive marketing of baby foods, practices which contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies in conditions of poverty and compromises development elsewhere, I come across people who suggest that it is better that babies are dying in poor countries to limit population growth. Really. That's how some people think.

But the fact is that populations stabilise when parents have the expectation their babies will survive and outlive them. It is in conditions with high infant and young child mortality that birth rates tend to be higher. Rising standards of living also reduce birth rates as people are both more educated and raising children is more expensive. Parents choose to focus resources on a fewer number.

In the interests of sustainability for the global human population - and our lives on this planet are inextricably linked - reducing childhood mortality rates and raising standards of living benefits us all.

Michael Latham, like the rest of us who contributed chapters to Global Obligations for the Right to Food, makes the case that governments have obligations under existing human rights conventions to take collective action to deliver and protect the right to food. Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding is part of the measures he highlights for improving child short and long-term health.

He also argues that relieving hunger encompasses relieving malnutrition and that is achieved not only by providing more food, but ending endemic parasites and illnesses that compromise nutrition.

I don't want to reiterate everything that is in his chapter - you really should buy the book - but the three principal concerns (worms, measles and malaria) are embarrassingly cheap to address. Embarrassing, because governments with the resources are failing to do so. They are not only failing in their human rights and moral obligations, they are, in some respects, costing themselves unnecessary expenditure.

Worms, parasites in the intestines that may affect organs such as the lungs, infect probably 2 billion people. Cambodia's de-worming programme cost US$ 0.06 per child.

There are about 50 million cases of measles every year, with about 1 million deaths. Immunization can have significant impact. "Six southern African countries that recorded 60,000 measles cases in 1996 reduced this to 117 cases in 2000". While national governments should be taking this action, where they cannot, the support of the international community is vital, argues Professor Latham, and will save them money if a concerted global campaign wipes out measles.

He writes: "It cost the United States US$ 124 million a year to keep itself free of smallpox for the twenty-five years prior to when smallpox was eradicated in 1978. Thus the US$32 million that the United States invested in the global Smallpox Eradication Program was recouped in about three months once smallpox vaccinations could be discontinued."

It is estimated that there are 1200 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in 1.5 million deaths annually. Impregnated bed nets are seen as an effective way to greatly reduce this toll. A net costs typically just US$ 3, but many people in poor countries cannot afford them. Malaria is so widespread that its impact is far greater than that counted in deaths. Lost schools days, days off work and unmet potential are also a blight.

Governments have signed up to the human rights instruments, that include the right to health as well as the right to food, and the Millenium Development Goals, but are failing to meet the obligations that arise from these.

A joined up approach would suggest serious and concerted effort to tackle worms, measles and malaria is a worthy candidate for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as it will not only address the injustice of people on our planet suffering from preventable illness, but will help reduce costs for all people and lead to lower mortality rates and smaller families and towards sustainable populations.

Join the discussion in the Simpol Forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter to vote on suggestions and put forward your own. Call on your political representatives to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

Clean coal may not exist in reality, but it is being used to divert climate change action all the same

2008-08-05T23:54:00.003+01:00

It is a contradiction in terms to speak of 'clean coal' argue campaigners gathering to try to shut down one of the UK's largest coal-fired power stations, at Kingsnorth in Kent. The aim is to highlight plans to re-build the plant as part of the government's energy strategy.

One of those joining the 'climate camp' protest is George Monbiot, who writing in The Guardian today recalls:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange

'Last year Al Gore remarked: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."'

Well, in the UK young and old are doing just that at Kingsnorth.

Also in The Guardian, is an article by David Porter, Chief Executive of the Association of Electricity Producers. He defends 'clean coal' in his article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange1

---extract begins
Some campaigners criticise the use of the word "clean" in relation to coal. It might be very confident, but it indicates the direction of travel. It stands for highly efficient technologies, so less coal has to be burnt for the same electricity output, causing fewer emissions. In the long term, the industry wants to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a technology which would allow 90% of emissions or more to be captured and stored underground. However, CCS is expensive and unproven, and we need the government to support the development and demonstration of CCS.
---extract ends

The industry's claim is that 90% of emissions would be prevented from entering the atmosphere using this unproven technology, that has not yet been developed nor demonstrated. The industry expects the government (ie taxpayers) to foot the bill.

The government, however, is relying on the European Emissions Trading Scheme to solve the problem by making it more attractive to industry to pay for the technology than to have to buy carbon credits. Back to George Monbiot, who looks at the sums:

---extract begins
Last month the House of Commons environmental audit committee examined this proposition and found that it was nonsense. It cited studies by the UK Energy Research Centre and Climate Change Capital which estimate that capturing carbon from existing coal plants will cost €90-155 (£71-£122) per tonne of CO2. Yet the government predicts that the likely price of carbon between 2013 to 2020 will be around €39 (£31) per tonne. Even E.ON believes that it won't rise above €50. "The gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS," the committee finds, "is enormous." The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, confessed to MPs: "I hope that the strengthening of carbon markets ... will bring forward a sufficiently good price for carbon that it will provide some of the financial incentive for CCS. Will it be enough? I do not know."
---extract ends

It will be cheaper for companies to pay someone else to cut their emissions than to stop polluting themselves. Indeed, if they paid for people in the Congo to not cut down trees, they would make massive savings, as the offsets are costing just £3 per tonne of CO2:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-congo-basin.html

The industry is being a little disingenuous when it talks of 'clean coal' therefore. Carbon capture does not yet exist, no-one is wanting to pay to develop, let alone install, the technology and the economic mechanism intended to prompt investment actually discourages it. The Cornerhouse has produced a series of briefings and papers looking in depth at emissions trading:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/carbon-trading-critiques.html

Taxing emissions or otherwise limiting them would actually incentivise cutting output. Taxes could be applied to funds for protecting the great forests all the same, if joined up thinking was demonstrated:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/protecting-amazon.html

There are different ways to focus the debate. Joining the carbon camp is one way. Sending a message to the Prime Minister calling for an end to coal powered fire stations is another. The iCount website makes this easy. The One Hundred Months campaign has tried to inject urgency with its claim that we are that far from the climate change tipping point when it will be too late. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/onehundredmonths.html

Supporting alternatives to emissions trading (or defending that system if you really think it will work) with the Simultaneous Policy campaign is another approach. You can see the ideas under discussion and find out how to put forward your own in the policy forum. An increasing number of politicians around the world have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other countries. Why not sign up as an Adopter and ask your elected representatives to make the pledge if you have not done so already?

While it is certain time is running out (even if not exactly one hundred months), it is also certain that the industry will use all the arguments, influence and resources it can muster to protect profits. We, the people, need to take the lead, whether through protest or through withdrawing support from politicians who refuse to back the Simultaneous Policy. Or both.

US Presidential candidates converge as the economy becomes the lead issue

2008-08-04T23:59:00.002+01:00

As the two lead candidates in the US Presidential election campaign struggle to forge a decisive lead (Obama is slightly in front at present), the reality of the compromises to get elected start to show themselves, just as the Simultaneous Policy campaign analysis suggests.

It is the economy, stupid. Regardless of climate change and dependence on the finite resource of oil (which many say is now past its peak), Obama has joined John McCain in suggesting that high oil prices be tackled with increased oil availability, from selling strategic reserves onto the market to contemplating drilling of reserves off the coast of California, previously thought to be too environmentally risky. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barackobama.uselections2008

The problem is that an opinion poll "released on Thursday showed that petrol prices were the main election issue."

Obama is tempering his support for increased oil flows as a necessary evil to get support for a broader package built on renewables, but the change in his rhetoric is being seen as a reversal of policy, canny footwork to get elected.

Tough decisions are difficult to sell in the heated environment of an election campaign. Particularly when the US economy is stalling and the 7-year-long attempt to lever open developing country markets has just failed at the World Trade Organisation.

Politicians - and voters - operate in the real world of competition between nations and the threat of jobs and investment moving overseas.

The Simultaneous Policy offers a parallel market in ideas for tackling global problems, wherein US voters can reclaim their sovereignty from business and financial markets in deciding how their country is governed and how to make a transition to a more cooperative world.

Ideas being debated can be found in Simpol's discssion forum. Anyone can put forward their own proposals by signing up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopters on Simpol's website.

Voters can call on the candidates to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, using this form:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

While the lead candidates may inevitably converge on policies dictated by competition between nations for the shorter term, they can also demonstrate, by making the Simultaneous Policy pledge, that they will respect the sovereign right of the people to decide the policies necessary to ensure our survival on this planet and its long-term, sustainable future.

Will the world end with a whimper? You decide.

2008-08-01T12:42:00.005+01:00

The clock is ticking. There are 100 months left from today until the Earth's climate reaches a tipping point where the greenhouse gases we humans have put into the atmosphere will provoke changes that will be beyond our power to undo, even if we stopped polluting. The only solution is to scale back emissions to sustainable levels before the tipping point is reached.

If you think this is the scaremongering strategy of a campaign group, then you are correct. One hundred months is a shocking and precise deadline to wake people up. But the calculation is a conservative one and is based on the very deep understanding of feedback systems influencing the climate built up over decades. Andrew Simms, of the alliance behind the campaign, explains more in today's Guardian at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

Here is an extract:

---extract from the Andrew Simms article
For once it seems justified to repeat TS Eliot's famous lines: "This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."

But does it have to be this way? Must we curdle in our complacency and allow our cynicism about politicians to give them an easy ride as they fail to act in our, the national and the planet's best interest? There is now a different clock to watch than the one on the office wall. Contrary to being a counsel of despair, it tells us that everything we do from now matters. And, possibly more so than at any other time in recent history.

---extract ends

Grasping at bogus claims that temperature increases are due to the sun and all planets are getting hotter (they are not) or seeing climate change as an Illuminati plot for introducing a fascist global state are some of the obstacles to action I've written about here recently.

A more mainstream obstacle is the fear that action will harm the economy. Hence instead of taking the type of action proposed in the Guardian article, the UK Prime Minister has been advocating increased oil production to try to bring down fuel prices.

This is how the world ends.

There are clear, thought through, evidence-based actions we can take as individuals, governments and the global community. We need to press ahead and support campaigns like One Hundred Months. Visit their site to sign up for monthly updates:
http://www.onehundredmonths.org/

Also check out the iCount website, which has a current action against the building of coal-fired power stations in the UK. We need investment in renewables. We need changes in lifestyle. In the longer term there are proposals for solar power stations in North African deserts that could meet all of Europe's energy needs.

The solutions exist - all that is missing is the will to act.

In parallel to these campaign actions, you can sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter and use your vote and voice in the development of a coherent set of policies for addressing climate change, trade injustice, unsustainablity and other problems requiring a global response. Call on your politicians to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. You can send a message to the US Presidential candidates using this form:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Will the world end with a whimper? You decide.

Climate change : what's happening to planetary temperatures in the rest of the solar system?

2008-07-31T17:39:00.006+01:00

The claim that other planets in the solar system are showing temperature increases came up on the Simpol Forum discussion board. This was one of the issues discussed at the recent meeting in Second Life on climate change. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/second-life.html

When I queried the claim on the discussion board, I was directed to this link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Search the internet and you find plenty of blogs saying planets from Mars to Pluto (sadly no longer a planet) are showing temperature increases. But dig a little further for evidence and the idea that climate change is a natural phenomena caused by changes with the sun is quickly shown to be incorrect.

The evidence is still overwhelmingly that we are experiencing human-caused climate change and that we could enter a runaway situation if action is not taken. Action such as achieving implementation of proposals like Contraction and Convergence through the Simultaneous Policy campaign. If you have not done so already, then sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter today. If you believe that no action is necessary, also sign up so you can vote against the proposals.

My post to the forum below also refers to David Icke, who suggests that the call for action on climate change is an Illuminati plot.

---Post to forum
The National Geographic article is based on three years of observation of Mars. It strikes me as odd that this should be used to try to suggest all planets are warming at the same time as dismissing (as David Icke does) the vast amount of written and natural data showing the climatic history of the Earth and the impact that human activity has had since the industrial revolution. Nothing like this type of data exists for other planets and it would be difficult to obtain it, when on Earth we are talking of temperature changes of a few degrees and on the outer planets the fluctuations would surely be far less, if due to solar activity. While there are not SUV's on Mars and Pluto, neither are there meteorology stations, nor has there been ice-core analysis, tree ring analysis etc. etc.

There are plenty of blogs saying that Pluto is increasing in temperature. However, it is worth looking a bit deeper into where this data comes from as this website does:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

An extract: "Pluto's warming consists of two observations 14 years apart noting a difference in atmospheric thickness which implies warming - scientists are unable to explain why yet. But considering Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years, this says nothing about climate change. It's like saying Earth is warming when comparing winter to summer. Plus Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth."

It would also have an impact on Uranus, which is closer to the sun than Pluto, but there is evidence suggesting that the temperature on Uranus is falling (citation on the above site).

The speaker at the recent climate change discussion in Second Life says that NASA has said there is no evidence, though there are records of the activity of the sun itself, which is surely a more reliable guide and one that is far easier to observe, and that evidence disproves the theory it is solar activity that is to blame (he was Al Gore-trained, though, and David Icke says Al Gore is part of the inner circle). See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/second-life.html

Also from the above website (which links to the supporting source material): "The whole theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider solar output hasn't risen over the past 30 years (when warming has been highest) according to direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years."

Theories are there to explain the world and need to change when they are found to be wanting, rather than ignore or dismiss the evidence. If a theory cannot accommodate it - and the evidence is something that can be replicated - then the theory has to change.

It seems to me that David Icke goes beyond what evidence demonstrates in his theory of reptilian shape changers driving human history through secret societies and there is much wrong with his analysis (as the above shows regarding his climate change conspiracy theory).

UK House of Lords says rule of law must come second in bribery case

2008-07-30T23:43:00.002+01:00

Nearly two years ago the UK's Serious Fraud Office dropped a criminal investigation into the British arms company, BAE systems, which was accused of running a £ 60 million slush fund to Saudi officials who had authorised a £42 billion arms deal. The Attorney General was Lord Goldsmith. The BBC at the time reported that a further arms deal was under threat, with the possibility Saudi Arabia would buy planes from France rather than the UK if it continued to be embarrassed by the investigation. In addition, the BBC reported:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6181949.stm

---extract from BBC report of 15 December 2006
Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security.
---extract ends

You could look on £60 million in 'commissions' as a small price to pay to secure British jobs, or you could look on it as the corrupting influence of the arms trade. What is certain, is that the rich club of nations, the OECD, which is for a rules-based system of trade, has a treaty against bribary which the UK has signed. It said after the investigation was dropped that it would take "appropriate action" against the UK. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6275199.stm

At that time, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats commented: "The next time British ministers go into Africa and take to task the governments of developing countries on the ground that they are not dealing sufficiently harshly with corruption they will get this decision thrown back in their faces."

However, there were British citizens who thought the government should be held to account and they won a case at the High Court, which ruled the Serious Fraud Office was wrong to halt the investigation. That ruling has now been overturned by the House of Lords. Here is the press release from the campaigners:

---Cornerhouse/CAAT press release 30 July 2008
Serious Fraud Office WIN appeal in BAE-Saudi case as public outrage continues.

The House of Lords, the UK's highest court, has this morning OVERTURNED the High Court's ruling of April 2008 that the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully when, acting on government advice, he terminated in December 2006 a corruption investigation into BAE Systems' arms deals with Saudi Arabia after lobbying by BAE and a threat from Saudi Arabia to withdraw diplomatic and intelligence co-operation.

The High Court ruling was in response to a judicial review brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House.

Today, the law lords described the threat made by Saudi Arabia as 'ugly and obviously unwelcome'.

Baroness Hale said that she would have liked to have been able to say that it was wrong to stop the investigation as it was 'extremely distasteful that an independent public official should feel himself obliged to give way to threats of any sort.'

But she felt she had to agree that the SFO Director's decision was lawful because of the breadth of the Director's discretion.

In response to the Lords' judgments, Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said:

''Now we know where we are. Under UK law, a supposedly independent prosecutor can do nothing to resist a threat made by someone abroad if the UK government claims that the threat endangers national security.

''The unscrupulous who have friends in high places overseas willing to make such threats now have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card -- and there is nothing the public can do to hold the government to account if it abuses its national security powers. Parliament needs urgently to plug this gaping hole in the law and in the constitutional checks and balances dealing with national security.

''With the law as it is, a government can simply invoke 'national security' to drive a coach and horses through international anti-bribery legislation, as the UK government has done, to stop corruption investigations.''

Symon Hill of CAAT said:

''BAE and the government will be quickly disappointed if they think that this ruling will bring an end to public criticism. Throughout this case we have been overwhelmed with support from people in all walks of life.

''There has been a sharp rise in opposition to BAE's influence in the corridors of power. Fewer people are now taken in by exaggerated claims about British jobs dependent on Saudi arms deals. The government has been judged in the court of public opinion. The public know that Britain will be a better place when BAE is no longer calling the shots.''

The law lords judgment confirms that the UK is in flagrant breach of its duty to implement and give force to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

In practice, the UK Government now has a green light to use an undefined and broad concept of 'national security' to cover themselves when taking potentially unlawful decisions.

The SFO, BAE and the Government might think that, with today's judgments from the law lords, it's now all over. Far from it! The real challenges have only just begun.

Both CAAT and The Corner House are calling on all those who are alarmed at the gaping holes in the law revealed by the House of Lords' judgments today to join us in:

--Pressing for changes to the law to ensure that our prosecutors can remain independent and are empowered to resist threats from abroad.

--Ensuring that national security advice can be scrutinised by the courts and by parliament so that the Government cannot arbitrarily invoke national security - without effective checks and balances - to trump the rule of law.

--Opposing the clauses in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill that would prevent a judicial review like ours from ever being taken in the future and that would give the Government 'carte blanche' to invoke national security to stop a fraud investigation or criminal prosecution without effective checks and balances.

--Insisting that the Government fulfil its international obligations to cooperate with requests for assistance from the US and Swiss authorities in their investigations into BAE's dealings with Saudi Arabia.

--Pressing the OECD to clarify the circumstances under which national security concerns can legitimately be invoked to exempt signatories from fulfilling their obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

--Pressing the Serious Fraud Office to re-open its investigation into BAE's dealings with Saudi Arabia given that circumstances have changed since the investigation was dropped in December 2006. Much of the information that Saudi Arabia was apparently concerned to keep out of the public domain is now public knowledge.

--Exposing the preferential access of arms companies, such as BAE, to the Government, and campaigning to end public subsidies to the arms industry.

CAAT and The Corner House are obviously disappointed -- but we're not despondent! The judicial review process has increased public awareness of corruption, arms trade, national security and the rule of law; it has now clarified the law; and key documents have been released into the public domain that would not otherwise have seen the light of day.

As we reflect further on the implications of today's judgments, we'll keep you posted . . .

Many thanks for all your support and best wishes from all at The Corner House

CornerHouse/CAAT statement in response to House of Lords judgments:
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=562186

Opinions of the Lords of Appeal:
http://www.controlbae.org/jr/Lords_judgment.pdf

WTO and the danger of compartalised thinking

2008-07-29T23:22:00.003+01:00

The World Trade Organisation negotiations have collapsed after China and India took the view that no deal was better than a bad deal and the US wouldn't budge. It was billed as the 'development round', where issues such as rich countries dumping cut price goods on developing countries while shutting those countries out of their own markets were to be addressed. But, in the view of the developing countries - most of whom were shut out of the Green Room where negotiations took place - the rich world was more intent on gaining further access to their markets.

The Guardian reports:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/wto.india

---extract begins
The US trade representative, Susan Schwab, said it was "unconscionable" that developing countries were insisting on shielding their farmers. "In the face of the food price crisis, it's ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food."

Kamal Nath, India's trade minister, said he was representing the position of all the G33 members, who were "concerned about the livelihood of poor and subsistence farmers", and said he hoped the talks could eventually be revived.
---extract ends

Demonstrators in India were against a deal on opening their country to food imports. Developing countries have good reason to be wary. Case studies have shown what sometimes happens when developing countries are forced to open their markets. In Haiti tariffs on rice were cut from 50% to 3% and Christian Aid reports that Haiti has gone from being self-sufficient in food to using 80 per cent of its export earnings to pay for food imports. Rice production has fallen by almost half, and three-quarters of the rice consumed comes from the US. See The Guardian via:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/cambodia-haiti-food-security.html

That countries put their own best interests first - even if these means avoiding their human rights obligations - is not surprising. But governments are accused of following the demands of lobbyists rather than the greater good of their citizens as a whole, let alone the wider world.

The Simultaneous Policy approach has two great advantages over the 7 years of negotiations that failed this week.

Firstly, it encourages joined up thinking. Why is international trade - the movement of goods around the world - being discussed separately to climate change? A system that included the cost of pollution would encourage local production, processing and consumption, while items that need to be transported (such as agricultural goods from tropical countries) would still be economic - and sustainable - to transport.

Secondly, it encourages people around the world to participate in the policy development process. Certainly US farmers - and agrobusiness - who are subsidised to export their soya, cotton, corn and rice below cost price are likely to oppose measures that could have a negative impact on them. Those affected are welcome to sign up as Simultaneous Policy Adopters to make their case, but it has to be made transparently and it is for other Adopters to decide whether to accept their alternative suggestions or not. It provides a way for US citizens as a whole to reclaim their sovereignty. Farmers in India and Haiti have equal right to put forward their proposals.

For discussions that are already underway see the Simultaneous Policy Forum.

Conspiracy theories

2008-07-25T23:46:00.001+01:00

A work-in-progress policy proposal on Simpol's discussion forum resulted in me listening to David Icke's Illuminati conspiracy theory in his tour-de-force address to a public meeting at a recent by-election in the UK.

Personally I think the pursuit and entrenchment of power is transparent enough without having to see secret societies behind everything. It struck me listening to the talk that if the Illuminati was behind the first and second world wars and dictated the outcomes then why did they not make Hitler the victor if their long-term plan is the creation of a global fascist state in which we are all enslaved? No doubt there is an answer, perhaps one involving the shape-shifting reptiles who are behind all human history according to Mr. Icke, though he didn't mention that theory in his address.

That is not to say that conspiracies do not exist. Just in the past two days we have seen the junk food industry's strategy for avoiding controls on its practices unfolding a little more. Rather than tackling obesity by taking action to improve food quality and stop marketing to children, the government has decided to pursue an advertising campaign encouraging us to exercise more, funded to the tune of more than £ 200 million by Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Mars, Nestle and Tesco.

Monitoring the activities of Nestlé, particularly with regard to its baby milk pushing, is something that occupies much of my time. Rather than abiding by World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby food, Nestlé uses strategies of denials and deception to try to continue with business as usual, despite the impact this has in terms of contributing to needless death and suffering of infants denied the protection provided by breastfeeding. Nestlé often opens its cheque book to gain access and influence. It has also apparently admitted to sending someone to spy on a Swiss campaign group. The spy infiltrated the group for a year when it was researching the company for a book launched at an event where I was a guest speaker. Finding my emails to the group may well have been sent directly to Nestlé does not really come as a shock. A multi-billion pound businesses that puts its own profits before the health and well being of babies is unlikely to have qualms about using underhand tactics.

In the past Nestlé has hosted international meetings bringing together the Chief Executives of corporations with members of United Nations organisations. Mr. Brabeck once told leaders of developing countries he was addressing on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce that : "Business...should not be lumped with the many single-issue NGOs, but be accepted as an interlocutor of a different stature, as the engineers of wealth."

The self-serving hegemony of business leaders are doing what the system demands of them and they try to manipulate the system to benefit themselves. Perhaps that is simply the nature of power and the solution is to have checks and balances. Certainly these are limited in their effectiveness at present. That is why we need to pursue strategies such as creating the World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, which I have put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy and explored in greater depth in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food'.

What drives Nestlé is, I think, a little more obvious than Mr. Icke's view. It is greed. Mr. Brabeck promised shareholders 5 - 6% annual growth and at the last shareholder meeting I attended it was clear that the majority of shareholders did not much care what had to be done to achieve it, as they booed anyone who dared question the board of directors business practices.

If the company was held accountable and fined a proportion of its turnover, rather than the trifling sums that have been levied against it, then behavour would change because shareholders - and insurers - would demand it in their own best interest.

Proposals for solar power stations are a good sign, but we need a framework for action

2008-07-23T23:07:00.005+01:00

There is an exciting sign of things to come if the world really is to move to address climate change. The European Union's Institute for Energy is backing proposals for a massive solar power project (ie the size of Wales) in North African deserts. Massive sums will have to be found for the distribution system, but there is the potential for Europe to meet all its energy needs from this project, according to this report in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

There are some provisos as to whether the political will for action will be forthcoming. The key one is, of course, economic. According to the Guardian article, an investment of Euros 450 billion is required for a distribution system to provide 100 GW by 2050. There is the potential for solar systems to provide energy more cheaply than other methods. Renewable energy is becoming even more feasible as oil prices rise, and they will inevitability rise further as increased demand for energy chases finite oil resources, which are widely believed to be past their peak already.

But it is not quite as rosy as it may appear - and reminds me of some sandwiches I bought once when catching the train to London from Cambridge (more on those in a moment). The rising oil price is having another effect. In Brazil it is now becoming economically viable to tap oil reserves that lie below many kilometres of rock off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Yesterday the Secretary for Economic Development for Rio de Janeiro State said the country must capitalise on the high price of oil. In the US the cost of oil is prompting ever louder calls for reserves off the coast of California and Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico to be tapped.

Supply and demand increasing the price of oil is clearly not going to address the problem of carbon emissions or peak oil if it leads to an increase in oil production. As another example, Gordon Brown recently appealed to Middle Eastern countries to increase oil production to help meet demand and damp down prices. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/gordon-brown-in-saudi-arabia.html

Ideas under discussion within the Simultaneous Policy democratic process offer better solutions. Contraction & Convergence envisions a reduction of emissions to sustainable levels, with equitable distribution of the right to emit. The Oil Depletion Protocol proposes a managed weaning off of oil. It seems that whatever approach is taken, there is merit in taxing carbon emissions rather than trading them as trading does not necessarily provide an incentive to develop new, cleaner technologies.

Which brings me to my sandwiches, bought at Cambridge train station. They were organic, packaged with cardboard from recycled sources and the transparent film was made from cellulose and so 100% bio-degradeable. They were perhaps the most sustainable sandwiches I have ever bought. There are some that argue that we should rely on consumers favouring such products to change business practices. They argue that instead of imposing regulations, companies should be encouraged - and rewarded - for showing Corporate Social Responsibility, in other words, doing the right thing voluntarily. They would point to my sandwiches as an example of this working.

I see the lesson of the sandwiches differently. This product was the only one that had gone the sustainable route. If, however, there was a requirement that manufacturers of goods had to use recyclable or bio-degradable components wherever possible and take responsibility for processing any that are not (a so-called circular economy rather than a linear economy - see this clip on Youtube), then sustainable products would be the norm, rather than the exception. We need to be moving in this direction as, by definition, the world cannot survive unsustainably for ever.

Another example more directly linked to climate change, comes from my previous life as an electronic engineer. I worked on a computer-controlled diesel engine. The motivation for this research and development project was new European Union regulations on emissions which could not be met with conventional mechanical pumps. Greater control of the engine was required to improve efficiency and so reduce emissions. The main pump manufacturers were competing to produce the best solution and win orders from car manufacturers.

The Simultaneous Policy aims to provide the framework to prompt the innovation and other changes required to address global problems. Present mechanisms of commodity trading ramping up prices and emissions trading offsetting emissions may not quite do it when it comes to climate change and peak oil. We need the coherent set of policies being developed through the Simultaneous Policy campaigns democratic and transparent process (you can join in with proposals and cast your vote by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter on the official websites). The implementation strategy means that powerful vested interests that currently divert and undermine political effort are side-stepped.

The news on solar power stations is a sign that there is a way through the transition to a sustainable economy. We just need to provide the framework to make things like this happen. Play your part by signing up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter.

Shut out of the WTO Green Room

2008-07-22T23:59:00.004+01:00

The open letter below from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) proves the point that current methods of global policy making are not based on winning the argument, but on abusing power. At the current discussions on the so-called development round of the WTO, the rich nations are arm-twisting poorer countries to open their markets to transnational corporations, while offering lesser access to their own markets.

In previous meetings the developing country block was organised and united enough to say that no deal is better than a poor deal, and the same may happen again. Yet the world is in need of a better regulated system of trade as the credit crunch, out of control oil prices and rising food prices are all blamed in part on predatory speculation. As I wrote yesterday, policies persued by WTO, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are also implicated in the food crisis. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/cambodia-haiti-food-security.html

But can we expect anything different? Nations compete with each other and protect their own best interests, particularly their economies. Those with power use it. While President Morales is calling for a different agenda to be followed, there are those who argue that Bolivia should instead concentrate on becoming more effective at competing. Brazil - which has many natural advantages over Bolivia - is achieving both increases in standards of living and reduction in inequality by embracing globalization. President Lula, one-time trade union activist, dropped his radical policies to get elected. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/brazil-success-lula-light.html

The Simultaneous Policy campaign is bringing people together around the world to discuss the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems. You can join in by signing up as an SP Adopter on the Simpol websites. You can see policy suggestions already under discussion in the Simpol Forum. The campaign offers the chance of a coherent set of policies, for example, where climate change, sustainability and trade justice are addressed together, instead of being at odds with each other. This is one big plus, and is founded on the belief that simultaneous implementation of these policies will break through the destructive competition between nations.

Our leaders at present are forced into many decisions (or lack of them) because they are told by business leaders that investment and jobs will otherwise leave the country. Countries are played off against each other to offer the most attractive location for companies to operate and to host their headquarters. Hence, the type of behaviour at WTO described by President Morales.

John Bunzl has described the policy development process as a parallel market in ideas. There is the market where countries compete for investment and global justice campaigners are limited to winning what concessions they can. And there is the Simultaneous Policy market where we can discuss the policies that are really necessary. He has described this in an analogy of kids fighting over sandwiches, which you can read here:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/sp-analogy.html

President Morales has suggestions for alternative policies. If Adopters want to support them within the Simultaneous Policy campaign then they are welcome to put them forward. But they will need to be defended. To survive voting rounds to be included in the final policy package, the argument must be won on its merits.

---Letter from Evo Morales, reproduced on many sites, including:
http://www.art-us.org/node/360

Letter from Evo Morales to the WTO

On the WTO's round of negotiations

International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty. We recognize the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration. Doha World Trade Organization Ministerial Declaration, November 14, 2001

With these words began the WTO round of negotiations seven years ago. In reality, are economic development, the alleviation of poverty, the needs of all our peoples, the increased opportunities for developing countries at the center of the current negotiations at the WTO?

First I must say that if it were so, all 153 member countries and in particular, the wide majority of developing countries should be the main actors in the WTO negotiations. But what we are seeing is that a handful of 35 countries are invited by the Director-General to informal meetings so that they advance significantly in the negotiations and prepare the agreements of this WTO "Development Round".

The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.

The agricultural subsidies in the North, which mainly go to agricultural and food companies in the US and Europe, will not only continue but will actually increase, as demonstrated by the 2008 Farm Bill [1] in the United States. The developing countries will lower tariffs on their agricultural products while the real subsidies [2] applied by the US or the EU to their agricultural products will not decline.

As for industrial products in the WTO negotiations, developing countries are being asked to cut their tariffs by 40% to 60% while developed countries will, on average, cut their tariffs by 25% to 33%.

For countries like Bolivia the erosion of trade preferences due to the overall lowering of tariffs will have negative effects on the competitiveness of our exports.

The recognition of asymmetries, and the real and effective special and differential treatment in favor of developing countries is limited and obstructed when implemented by developed countries.

In the negotiations, there is a push towards the liberalization of new services sectors by countries when we should be definitely excluding basic services in education, health, water, energy and telecommunications from the text of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services. These services are human rights that cannot be objects of private commercial relations and of liberalization rules that lead to privatization.

The deregulation and privatization of financial services, among others, are the cause of the current global financial crisis. Further liberalization of services will not bring about more development, but greater probabilities for a crisis and speculation on vital matters such as food.

The intellectual property regime established by the WTO has most of all benefited transnational corporations that monopolize patents, thus making medicines and other vital products more expensive, promoting the privatization and commercialization of life itself, as evidenced by the various patents on plants, animals and even human genes.

The poorest countries will be the main losers. The economic projections of a potential WTO agreement, carried out even by the World Bank, [3] indicate that the cumulative costs of the loss in employment, the restrictions to national policymaking and the loss in tariff revenues will be greater than the "gains" from the "Development Round".

After seven years, the WTO round is anchored in the past and out of date with the most important phenomena we are currently living: the food crisis, the energy crisis, climate change and the elimination of cultural diversity. The world is being led to believe that an agreement is needed to resolve the global agenda and this agreement does not correspond to that reality. Its bases are not appropriate to resist this new global agenda.

Studies by the FAO point out that with the current forces of agricultural production it is possible to feed 12 billion human beings, in other words, almost more than double the current world population. However, there is a food crisis because production is not geared towards the well-being of humans but towards the market, speculation and profitability of the big producers and marketers of food. To deal with the food crisis, it is necessary to strengthen family, peasant and community agriculture. Developing countries have to recover the right to regulate [4] our imports and exports to guarantee our populations' food supply. We have to end consumerism, waste and luxuries. In the poorest part of the planet, millions of human beings die of hunger every year. In the richest part of the planet, millions of dollars are spent to combat obesity. We consume in excess, waste natural resources and we produce the waste that pollutes Mother Earth.

Countries should prioritize the consumption of what we produce locally. A product that travels half around the world to reach its destiny can be cheaper than other that is produced domestically, but, if we take into account the environmental costs of transporting that merchandise, the energy consumption and the quantity of carbon emissions that it generates, then we can reach the conclusion that it is healthier for the planet and for humanity to prioritize the consumption of what is produced locally.

Foreign trade must be a complement to local production. In no way can we favor foreign markets at the expense of national production.

Capitalism wants to make us all uniform so that we turn into mere consumers. For the North there is only one development model, theirs. The uniform models of economic development are accompanied by processes of generalized acculturation to impose on us one single culture, one single fashion, one single way of thinking and of seeing things. To destroy a culture, to threaten the identity of a people, is the greatest damage that can be done to humanity.

The respect and the peaceful and harmonic complementarity of the various cultures and economies is essential to save the planet, humanity and life.

For this to be in fact, a round of negotiations about development and anchored in the present and future of humanity and the planet it should:

Guarantee the participation of developing countries in all WTO meetings, thus ending exclusive meetings in the "green room". [5]

Implement true asymmetric negotiations in favor of developing countries in which the developed countries make effective concessions.

Respect the interests of developing countries without limiting their capacity to define and implement national policies in agriculture, industry and services.

Effectively reduce the protectionist measures and subsidies of developed countries. [6]

Insure that the right of developing countries to protect their infant industries, for as long as necessary, in the same manner that industrialized countries did in the past.

Guarantee the right of developing countries to regulate and define their policies in the services sector, explicitly excluding basic services from the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the WTO.

Limit the monopolies of large corporations on intellectual property, foster the transfer of technology and prohibit the patenting of all forms of life.

Guarantee the countries' food sovereignty, eliminating any limitation to the ability of the States to regulate food exports and imports.

Adopt measures that contribute to limit consumerism, the wasting of natural resources, the elimination of greenhouse gases and the creation of waste that harms Mother Earth.

In the 21^st century, a "Development round" can no longer be about "free trade", but it rather has to promote a kind of trade that contributes to the equilibrium between countries, regions and mother nature, establishing indicators that allow for an evaluation and correction of trade rules in terms of sustainable development.

We, the governments, have an enormous responsibility with our peoples. Agreements such as the ones in the WTO have to be widely known and debated by all citizens and not only by ministers, businessmen and "experts". We, the peoples of the world, have to stop being passive victims of these negotiations and turn into main actors of our present and future.

Evo Morales Ayma

Presidente of Bolivia

[1]The 2008 Farm Bill was approved on May 22 by the US Congress. It authorizes spending that includes subsidies to agriculture of up to 307 billion dollars in 5 years. Of these, there will be approximately 208 billion dollars that can be spent on food programs.

[2] The current text in Agriculture proposes the reduction of US subsidies by a range between 13 and 16.4 billion dollars per year. However, the real subsidies that will actually apply to the US are of approximately 7 billion dollars per year. On the other hand, the European Union is offering in the WTO negotiations the reform it carried out in 2003 to its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), without proposing further opening.

[3] Developing countries have little to gain in the WTO Round: the projected gains are of 0.2% for these countries, the reduction in world poverty is of 2.5 million (less than 1% of the world's poor) and the losses due to forgone tariff revenues will be of at least 63 billion dollars. (Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe, "Market and Welfare Implications of Doha Reform Scenarios," in Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Anderson and Martin, World Bank in Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations" by Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, RIS Policy Brief #36).

[4] This regulation must include the right to implement taxes on exports, to lower tariffs to favor imports, ban exports, subsidize domestic production, establish price bands, and in short, any measure that, given each developing country's reality, better suits the purpose of guaranteeing the population's food supply.

[5] The green room meetings is the name of the informal negotiation meetings at the WTO in which a group of 35 countries selected by the Director-General participates.

[6] A real cut in agricultural subsidies in the US would have to reduce them to less than 7 billion dollars per year.

Existing global policy making has undermined food security in Cambodia and Haiti

2008-07-21T17:30:00.005+01:00

Free market structural adjustment strategies forced on Cambodia and Haiti are in the news as the World Trade Organisation meets and discussion of agricultural subsidies and protectionism are taking place. Indian farmers staged a protest last week for agriculture to be excluded from the WTO agreement. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/indian-farmers-protest.html

Before anything else, the fact that many in Cambodia, Haiti and India have slipped into food insecurity as a result of globalization of food markets and, to greater or lesser degrees, the policies pursued by WTO should dispel one criticism of the Simultaneous Policy campaign. There is nothing outlandish about suggesting there should be global policies to address global problems. Global policies are already in existence and are being developed at meetings such as that of WTO.

What the Simultaneous Policy strategy provides is transparency and the involvement of those who are affected, some to the point of starving to death, by such policies.

In an article on current WTO discussions in The Observer, Heather Stewart, recalls the structural adjustment policies forced on Haiti by the World Bank and IMF. Import tarifs on rice were cut from 50% to 3%. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/20/globaleconomy.wto1

Indigneous farmers could not compete with imported rice and so stopped farming, resulting in lost production and lost income. The result : "In a recent report, Christian Aid found that Haiti has gone from being self-sufficient in food to using 80 per cent of its export earnings to pay for food imports. Rice production has fallen by almost half, and three-quarters of the rice consumed comes from the US."

With food prices soaring on world markets, people have been taking to the streets to protest that they cannot feed their families.

Cambodia also had policies forced upon it by the World Bank and IMF. Again it was capable of feeding its population. Cambodia still produces more rice than it needs, but it has opened its borders and exports much of the rice to Vietnam and Thailand, where it is processed and sold back. Now slotted into the world market, rice prices have increased three-fold in two years, as Alex Renton explains, also in The Observer.

It is surely a cruel shock of the reality of free trade. Children are being taken out of school by parents who need their help to bring in enough money to buy enough rice and other food to survive.

If Cambodian rice processing had been modernised then the value-added part of the process would have remained in country. But, Alex Renton, writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/20/food.cambodia

---extract from Observer article
"Mr Yang [of the influential farmers' assistance and education organisation Cedac] moans that, despite all the investment put into the country by the World Bank and other international institutions, no one thought to build up the rice-processing industry, or even increase storage capacity. 'I don't understand why we can't invest in these facilities: it makes profit for the farmers, for the country and provides jobs.'

The truth of course is that, as their ideology dictates, the expert western economists prevented the Cambodian government from making such public investments. These things should be left to the private sector and free trade, they said. The problem is, though, that these mechanisms seem to have left Cambodia in the lurch where it matters most - providing the security of adequate, affordable food for its people.

---extract ends

These cases show a lack of joined-up thinking on food security. I wrote recently of how existing human rights norms can be used to argue that international organisations such as the World Bank and IMF should ensure they do not undermine the right to food, as covered extensively in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food', available via this blog. See:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/food-prices-rights.html

In their chapter in this book on 'International Legal Dimensions of the Right to Food', Federica Donati and Margret Vidar, address International Financial Insitutions specifically in one section. They state, in part:

---extract from 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food'

Some studies claim that impoverished countries still face an unacceptably high and rising number of conditions in order to gain access to World Bank and IMF development finance. On average, poor countries face as many as sixty-seven conditions per World Bank loan. Many of the conditions relate to privatization reforms. It could be argued that this is not in line with the essential role of international cooperation in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to food as provided for by the ICESCR (International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and interpreted by the CESCR (Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

General Comment 2 [of the Committee] holds that even when structural adjustment programes are unavoidable and when they entail austerity measures that affect economic opportunities and social entitlements, endeavors to protect the most basic economic, social and cultural rights become more, rather than less, urgent. In this regard the CESCR made it clear that the relevant United Nations agencies should make a particular effort to ensure that such protection is, to the maximum extent possible, built into programs and policies designed to promote structural adjustment. The General Assembly resolution discussed above [see full text] also singles out the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in its call on International Governmental Organisations to respect and support the realization of the right to food.

---extract ends

This book and the arguments it presents, are part of the effort to encourage broader respect for existing human rights norms, including by International Governmental Organisations.

Within discussion of the policy content of the Simultaneous Policy, there are already proposals for reforming international financial institutions. It may well be relevant to include within the terms of reference of the reformed institutions a requirement to act in accordance with human rights norms.

Protecting water resources - lessons from a Brazilian success

2008-07-18T23:35:00.001+01:00

A few years ago I worked with Brazilian water campaigners trying to stop Nestlé from exploiting water in São Lourenço, an historic spa town. Nestlé's operation broke federal laws regarding demineralisation of a precious resource, which formed the basis of tourism in the town. Nestlé had sunk two boreholes and was pumping volumes of water that was affecting the springs used for treating various ailments. Subsidence was also reported in the water park, where chapel-like buildings were built over the springs, some a century old.

It took ten years of campaigning to force Nestlé to stop pumping and to gain some level of compensation for the town, in the form of renovation of the park.

A key element of the campaign, was the civil public action brought by citizens. They collected petition signatures and presented these to the public prosecutor who, under Brazilian law, had to investigate to see if there was a case to answer. He concluded that there was and took Nestlé to court for a variety of irregularities. Nestlé's was ordered to stop pumping immediately. This was over-turned just days later by a higher court that ruled that Nestlé could continue pumping while the case was heard. Campaigners received the backing of members of Congress, where a hearing was held that took evidence from officials veryifying that laws had been broken. A legal opinion was commissioned from a federal prosecutor, who not only supported these views, but called for an investigation of possible corruption as Nestlé had not been required to stop pumping by the authorities responsible for mineral water resources.

The campaign came to Europe and I played a part, in my position with Baby Milk Action, in bringing it to the attention of UK development organisations (who backed a public meeting on the topic, with Franklin Fredrick from the Brazilian campaign). I also worked with the BBC radio, which made a programme on the case. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

Campaigners did well in publicising the case in Nestlé's home country of Switzerland and, when questioned, the then Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé (who continues as Chairman), would give encouraging signs that they were in the process of complying with the law, only for further challenges to be made by the company in Brazil.

Finally the company gave in to pressure and, no doubt mindful that it was likely to lose the court case, settled out of court, agreeing to stop pumping or face punitive fines. It has now stopped.

Nestlé claims that it did nothing wrong and says it commissioned an independent audit that confirmed it was in compliance with the law. When I contacted the auditors, Bureau Veritas, and brought to their attention some of the illegalities, they commented: "our work did not constitute a legal audit as such, nor did it include a review of the on-going civil action."

Here is an image from the environmental impact assessment, commissioned retrospectively by Nestlé, which shows its bottling plant was built in the red of area of high risk to the aquifer.

This case was one of those informing my chapter on holding corporations accountable in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' - available to order on this blog - and the proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/world-tnc-regulatory-authority.html

I particularly like the idea of a citizens' petition, which was instrumental in resolving the case of Nestlé in Brazil, though this took far too long. If national measures are ineffective, I propose that citizens be permitted to bring such as petition to the World TNC Authority to prompt an investigation. If it is found that there is a case to answer, this would go forward to the prosecutor of a reformed International Criminal Court or other specially-created court.

Around the world, communities are battling to protect their water resources. A couple of significant campaigns are being run by the Polaris Institute and Action for Corporate Accountability. Feel free to add comments with other resources.

Simpol-UK has held policy fora on protecting the right to water, for example at the European Social Forum in London in 2004. A past newsletter includes an article from Franklin Fredrick of the Brazilian campaign.

This can be downloaded from the 'campaigns' section of:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

Or directly from:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/simpolautumn04.pdf

Indian farmers protest about proposed WTO agreement

2008-07-17T23:56:00.002+01:00

I wrote recently about the need for UN bodies, international organisations and governments in their foreign policy to consider their human rights obligations. In the article I addressed the right to food in particular. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/food-prices-rights.html

The following news item from campaigners in India has arrived in my email in box showing how people there are concerned about the impact of World Trade Organisation on their food security.

--Message from Devinder Sharma who organised the meeting described

Points from the Press Note:

Farmers and rural women of Karnataka, in solidarity with various farmers organizations of India, resolve that the latest drafts on Agriculture and Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) that were released on the 10th of July, 2008 in Geneva, are an orchestrated attempt to open up the Indian markets for highly subsidized cheaper imports. Importing food is importing unemployment and poverty that will destroy livelihoods and the country's food self-sufficiency.

What is being offered to us at WTO by way of special products (SP) and Special Safeguard Measures (SSM) is only a smokescreen and offers no real protection to Indian agriculture and fisheries.

The Agreement on Agriculture is designed to ensure that subsidized products from the developed countries are dumped into India. In the absence of quantitative restrictions since 2001, farmers across the country have been exposed to price volatility, decreased incomes and, in many cases, driven to commit suicide. This is a calculated move to push farmers out of farming and replaced by corporations as has been the approach in the USA and European Union.

In this context and given the above concerns, we demand that the Government should reject the two drafts, as they fail to take India's minimum concerns on-board.

Agriculture and Food should be left out of WTO.

We urge political parties, civil society organizations, academics, etc. to stand up and join hands with us to resist this anti-farmer agreement. We also request our state governments to take up this matter with the Centre on an urgent basis so that the interest of farmers and nation is protected.

http://www.dsharma.net/
---quote ends

World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority

2008-07-16T23:43:00.000+01:00

I have submitted a proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

Anyone who has signed up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter (which is free and easy to do on the Simpol websites) can submit a policy for consideration by other Adopters. Proposals can be sent to the email discussion groups or added to a work in progress section of the Simpol Forum. Seconders are needed for the proposal to forward further. When the necessary number have been gained, and the text finalised, the summary will be published in the It's Simpol ! newsletter and included in annual voting rounds. Proposals gaining significant levels of support remain in the process. Those that don't drop out, but can be re-submitted following the same process, ideally taking on board any objections that have been raised.

Here is the proposal that I have submitted, having gained seconders. It will go forward into the next voting round. You can leave comments on the discussion board dedicated to this proposal if you are an Adopter (or want to sign up). Otherwise leave comments and questions here. My chapter in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' (available to order here), contains case studies and background to this and other proposals for holding corporations to account.

---
Title: World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority

Proposer: Mike Brady

Seconders: John Bunzl, Peter Challen, Bill Clarke, Graham Edwards, Doug Everingham, Gerard O’Donovan, Morgan Gallagher, Linda Gamlin, Brian Jenkins, Dawn Johnson, Chaitanya Kalevar, Brendan Maher, Caroline Mitchinson Lawther, Ruth Moss, Jill Phillips, Jilna Shah, Shilpa Shah, Jonathan Ward, Brian Wills, Valerie Yule

Can your suggested policy be implemented by a country acting alone?: No. The fear of competitive disadvantage is fundamental to the reluctance of governments regulating transnational corporations.

Summary: This new body will be responsible for ensuring that transnational corporations abide by existing human rights, environmental, labour and other relevant agreements. It will accept reports of breaches from appropriate authorities or public petition and, if it finds there is a case to answer, will bring a prosecution before the International Criminal Court. The Court will be empowered to levy fines based on annual turnover on the corporation and to award governments the right to levy punitive tariffs on the home government of the corporation for seeking an unfair competitive advantage by failing to enforce the agreements. Corporations with a turnover and geographic coverage above set minimums will be required to register as 'globally incorporated companies' and submit annual independently-audited reports of their performance against standards already agreed to in the UN Global Compact for assessment.

Further information:

As summarised above there are several elements to the proposals.

Formation of the World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.

This is analogous to national regulatory authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading or Trading Standards officers that exist in the UK to ensure businesses abide by legislation.

It is to be an autonomous body with a protected budget from the UN and a mandate to carry out investigations at the request of third parties and on its own initiative. It is also to be proactive in seeking evidence that transnational corporations are abiding by internationally-agreed standards.

A central philosophy to the formation of the Authority is that it is to take as its starting point existing agreed international instruments in the areas of protection of human rights, the environment, labour conditions and other relevant areas.

Authority's role in investigating complaints against corporations

The Authority will accept allegations of malpractice by any corporation or business whatever its type or size from:

- governments
- registered non-governmental organisations
- public petition

The public petition system will be analogous to the 'civil public action' used in countries such as Brazil. If a community has a grievance against a business then it can petition the Authority by collecting signatures of people in the affected area or areas. The threshold for triggering an investigation by the Authority will need to be set.

The Authority will then appoint an investigator tasked with determining:

- if there is a case to answer
- if national measures in the affected country and the home country of the corporation provide a satisfactory means of complaint and redress
- if national measures, where available, have been used
- whether governments have failed in their responsibility to hold the corporation to account

If there is a case to answer and there is a failure at national level the investigator can pass a file to a prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, which will have its mandate extended to accept these reports and to hear cases involving transnational corporations as well as governments. If the case is being dealt with satisfactorily at national level in a reasonable time scale then the case will be monitored, but action not necessarily taken by the authority.

Authority's role in auditing company activities

The Authority will require corporations above a set turnover and global coverage to register as 'globally incorporated companies' and submit annual independently-audited reports on their performance, both financial and against the internationally-agreed standards (this is inspired by a similar proposal from the European Parliament for a European Incorporated Company - which has been blocked by the European Commission).

The initial requirements will be in line with the 10 points of the existing UN Global Compact, a voluntary system which invites companies to submit reports. The Global Compact is fundamentally flawed, however, as it does not require audited reports to be submitted, does not audit the reports itself and does not have a complaints or monitoring mechanism.

The Authority will have the power to investigate reports submitted and a designated member of the board of the corporation will be legally responsible for ensuring they are accurate, in the same way that is is common practice for the Financial Director to be legally responsible for financial reports.

The Authority will be empowered to levy fines itself if reports are not submitted on time and to provide a file of evidence to prosecutors of the International Criminal Court if:

- reports are not truthful or complete
- there is evidence of breaches of the agreed standards

Role of the International Criminal Court

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court will act like a barrister briefed by the investigators of the Authority.

Corporations will be prosecuted for breaches for redress for the affected community and for punitive fines, which are to be based on company turnover (there are examples of existing sanctions at EU and national level following this approach).

Governments will to be prosecuted for seeking unfair competitive advantage by failing to enforce the agreed standards on corporations. The onus will be on the home government of the corporation to enforce the regulations. The government of the country where the offence took place may also be prosecuted, but it should be recognised that the power of such governments is sometimes limited because of the power of corporations and their home nations.

The International Criminal Court may require governments to pay redress for the affected community and punitive fines. It may also or alternatively award other governments the right to levy punitive tariffs on exports from the guilty country to recoup lost income due to the unfair trading practice. This is similar to the enforcement mechanism used by the World Trade Organisation and found to be effective in forcing governments to change trading policies judged to be illegal under WTO agreements.

Note on the background to this proposal:

This policy suggestion arises from public meetings held by the Cambridge SP Adopters' Group (CAMSPAG) since 2002, on a variety of topics such as 'Making all trade Fair Trade' and 'Holding corporations accountable'. These meetings had input from experts in these areas. One meeting looked at the specific case of Coca Cola's alleged trade union busting activities in Colombia as a case study. Policy discussion papers were produced as a result of these meetings, which have been made available in the policy zone of the Simpol-UK site, a way open to all SPAG's for sharing the results of their discussions. Simpol-UK held a policy forum at the House of Commons on the same topic with the Coordinator of CAMSPAG and an expert from the campaign to hold Nestlé to account over its environmentally damaging water bottling activities in São Lourenço, Brazil. This was written up in the It's Simpol ! newsletter.

The discussion has also been informed by proposals made by George Monbiot in his book 'The Age of Consent' for an International Fair Trade Organisation to replace the World Trade Organisation.

The proposals for a world regulatory authority and the creation of 'globally incorporated companies' appear in a chapter in the book entitled: "Global obligations for the right to food" published in January 2008 which can be ordered from this site.

This book arises from a project led by Professor George Kent of the University of Hawaii to be presented to the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition. The book argues that the global community of nation states has a responsibility under existing human rights instruments to act collectively to ensure the right to food. The chapter on transnational corporations by the proposer of this policy suggestion, argues that current forms of regulations by individual governments and voluntary agreements (specifically the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) are failing to provide the protection necessary. The UN once had an office for Transational Corporations, which proposed binding regulations and was wound up for daring to do so. The Special Representative on Transnational Corporations, John Ruggie, who reported to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 made some constructive suggestions regarding regulations, but recognised there are substantial obstacles to such an approach. He concluded:

"The permissive conditions for business-related human rights abuses today are created by a misalignment between economic forces and governance capacity. Only a realignment can fix the problem. In principle, public authorities set the rules within which business operates. But at the national level some governments simply may be unable to take effective action, whether or not the will to do so is present. And in the international arena states themselves compete for access to markets and investments, thus collective action problems may restrict or impede their serving as the international community’s “public authority.” The most vulnerable people and communities pay the heaviest price for these governance gaps."

There is, therefore, pressing need for the suggested policy to be supported within SP and eventually implemented.

Food prices, biofuels and joined-up thinking

2008-07-10T17:31:00.004+01:00

The Simultaneous Policy campaign aims to achieve joined-up thinking about global problems. But it is not alone in trying to achieve this. The book, Global Obligations for the Right to Food, to which I contributed a chapter, argues that governments have an obligation under existing human rights agreements to act cooperatively and that these obligations should be reflected in decisions taken at the international level.

There is a lot of depth to the argument in the book. Various chapters explore how these obligations manifest themselves in particular areas, such as regulating transnational corporations, protecting breastfeeding, enacting programmes against parasitic infections and more. Here I want to briefly discuss some of the background argument for action and explore its implications for current increases in food prices that have forced an additional 100 million people into hunger. It has been suggested that a large proportion of the price increases - and consequent hunger - can be traced to increased demands for biofuels and incentives from governments for farmers to grow these rather than food. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/biofuels.usa

As explained by Fedrica Donati and Margret Vidar in their chapter 'International Legal Dimensions of the Right to Food', the human right to food is contained in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food has explained this right in the following terms :

--- quote begins
The right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unobstructed access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free from anxiety.
--- quote ends

I imagine anyone reading this would want to live under such conditions themselves, but may balk at the thought that there is some kind of obligation to ensure all people enjoy the same right, particularly when there are so many hungry in the world.

So what does it mean in practical terms? Donati and Vidar quote from Article 2 of the ICESCR:

--- quote begins
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
--- quote ends

This is an obligation to the people within the state to realize the rights and to do so as a matter of urgency. Some actions - or more likely stopping of certain actions - can be taken immediately. The reference to 'available resources' is not intended as a justification for inaction, but as a requirement to apply those resources that are available.

The book as a whole argues that these obligations are not only for people within the state, however, they apply to the government's impact, or possible impact, on people in the rest of the world. For example, through the decisions that governments make as members of international organizations. This principle has been largely ignored to date as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank etc. have not seen it necessary to consider whether their deliberations are in compliance with human rights norms. But if they are not, the states that control them are in breach of their commitments.

These commitments should be considered as governments address climate change, peak oil and the current increase in food prices. If a course of action impinges on the right to food, then it puts governments in breach of their human rights obligations.

As the editor, Professor George Kent, remarks in his introduction, world hunger could be ended tomorrow by providing everyone with sandwiches (of sufficient nutritional quality of course). But that is not the intention of governments having obligations to realize the right to food. In most societies the majority of people will be able to take responsibility for their own food and that is how it should be. Communities, states, international organisations and the community of nations only need to become involved when there are failures at a lower level.

The chapter explores in greater depth the nature of the obligations with reference to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Right to Food Guidelines. Basically states have obligations to respect, protect and facilitate.

Quoting from Donati and Vidar: "The obligation to respect the right to adequate food requires state parties not to take any measures that result in reducing existing access to food.... The obligation to respect the right to food is effectively a negative obligation, as it entails limits on the exercise of state power that might threaten people's existing access to food."

Arguably pursuit of biofuels in the way that has occurred shows a failure to respect the right to food. Here is where joined-up thinking must be exercised. If policy makers were mindful of this obligation then planning would ensure no negative impact on the right to food.

Interestingly, Brazil claims that its programme of producing ethanol from sugar cane does not impinge on the right to food because it is not using land that would otherwise be used for agriculture. Indeed, it suggests that opening land to sugar cane production actually makes it possible to plant food crops in a rotation.

I have seen a defence of biofuels derived from corn, that argues that protein that is effectively a waste product of the biofuel process can be used as animal feed. If this is indeed the case, then consideration of the right to food would explore this possibility and programmes would be developed that are effective in providing food as well as fuel.

It may be the case, however, that biofuels will impinge on the right to food even then, in which case alternatives should be developed.

The chapter goes on: "The obligation to protect the right to food requires measures by the state to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. This obligation means that the government must pass and enforce laws to prevent powerful people or organizations from violating the right to food."

My chapter, which I'll discuss another time, examines in depth practical ways in which this can be done.

Thirdly: "The obligation to fulfill is a positive obligation, requiring direct action, through appropriate policies and programs to fulfill the right to food of those who are not able to realize it for themselves."

The obligation to 'fulfill' is subdivided into 'facilitate' and to 'provide'. On 'facilitate' : "the ICESCR gives some guidance, as it specifies production, harvesting, conservation, processing, retailing, and consumption of food. Further examples could include land reform and other measures to improve access to natural resources... measures to improve employment prospects, through training, equipment and credit in rural and urban areas are also facilitating measures."

Some countries have responded to food price increases by placing price controls on food (eg Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela). Brazil has taken the route of making lines of credit available to agrobusiness and smallholder farmers with the aim of increasing harvests and taking some heat out of speculation.

The obligation to 'provide' is the end stop. If people simply do not have the food they need, then there is an obligation to provide it. The international aspect of this obligation is well recognised when it comes to natural disasters, where the global community is quick to pledge assistance. Though as Rolf Künnemann and Sandra Ratjen explore in a chapter on Extraterritorial Obligations, the most effective action to realize the right to food may be to provide financial support to relief efforts for procurement of food in the surrounding area. Too often assistance is used as a way to off load surpluses and break into markets.

Having an obligation to provide food if all else fails, should act as a stimulus for realizing the right to food through other routes. Joined-up thinking is a far better approach than having to try to put failures right through direct intervention at the time when people are starving.

These obligations already exist under human rights norms having force into international law. This system is not yet functioning effectively, which is something that the Simultaneous Policy could perhaps address.

Quotas are everywhere in the free market - so why not for coffee?

2008-07-09T20:55:00.005+01:00

I wrote yesterday about the crisis facing the global coffee market and the day before about child slavery in the cocoa industry. How to deal with these issues is something that may be relevant for the Simultaneous Policy.

There are efforts to address the coffee crisis, with a new International Coffee Agreement currently being ratified by governments that have signed up to it in principle. One thing the agreement does not talk about is using a quota system to better match supply and demand. Over supply, something exacerbated by companies such as Nestlé encouraging farmers in Vietnam and China to enter the market, keeps prices so low they are sometimes below the cost of production.

Quotas are not liked by business. Nestlé alternative suggestion is that consumers should drink more coffee. But when you think about it, we are surrounded by markets that run with quotas to make them more effective.

Quotas have a whiff of central planning about them, which is perhaps why they may promote a negative reaction. The example of the former Soviet Union, with shortages and appalling environmental impacts, is not a good advertisement for that. There were problems with quotas for coffee in the past and the Common Agriculture Policy pursued by the European Union has proved difficult to update to correct its failings.

But we see quotas in many other places. In 2000 the UK government conducted an auction for part of the electromagnetic spectrum in the form of licences for G3 mobile telephone services. The available spectrum was split into 5 packets to be licensed separately. In part there was a technical limit on how the frequency ranges could be split, but there was also a desire to open the market, which was currently dominated by four companies. The 5th licence was reserved for new operators, who could also bid on the others. There were 13 bidders trying for licenses at the outset. In such a market, there cannot be a free for all. There needs to be a quota set. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/727831.stm

There is a similar situation with slots at airports. There are physical limits on how many aircraft can be processed taking off and landing. There may also be political factors, such as the amount of noise that surrounding residents can be expected to put up with, which may further reduce slots. Slots become highly sought after. Indeed, it was suggested recently that airlines in Brazil were keen to take over Varig, which went into administration, because of the value of its slots as much as for its other assets. These could perhaps be seen as the buying side of the equation. Companies wanting access to a scarce resource to be able to do business, be it electromagnetic spectrum or space at the airport.

In many countries taxi services are regulated, which is more the sellers side of the equation. Taxi drivers want a license to be able to offer their service. The number of taxis that are licensed is often limited. Too many taxis would result in none being occupied as optimally as it could be, meaning empty vehicles on the roads and low incomes for drivers, possibly with consequent social effects. Too few taxis and those who want one might be disappointed or the charges may become extortionate (though it often seems to be the case that the rates taxis can charge are also fixed). There are other considerations, such as the need for the number of taxis and charges to be attractive to encourage people to leave their cars behind, while still making bus journeys more attractive still (as they cause less congestion and pollution). So a quota system is set with the aim of satisfying the sellers (the drivers) and the buyers (would-be passengers). Licensing can also be used to provide quality control (by requiring drivers to show knowledge of the city) and security (as passengers know the stranger whose car they enter is on a register). There can be failings to the system. It is in drivers interest to keep the number of licenses small. But with local control over numbers, there should be democratic recourse for passengers to change the situation.

Another situation where quotas are commonplace and accepted, though also often controversial, is with planning permission. In the UK, town and city councils put limits on the number of supermarkets that can open. Possibly this may be due to a physical limit on available land, but is more likely due to political factors, such as wanting to limit car journies to out-of-town sites and to maintain commerce in town centres, which are more communal, and protect local shops, which may be the only choice for the elderly, infirm and those with limited transport options. Consideration of a planning application from a supermarket chain can raise strong feelings, both for and against. A responsive local democracy will aim to resolve the conflicting demands in a transparent way.

There are no doubt many other examples of where quotas are an accepted part of the market in which businesses operate. There are also, of course, many cases where quotas are unnecessary and a free market operates successfully (though free markets are often still regulated in other ways to protect consumers and ensure fair competition).

So considering a quota system for certain resources, such as coffee, where oversupply puts many farmers into an insecure position, is not so extreme after all.

The International Coffee Agreement is currently being ratified. Will it solve the coffee crisis?

2008-07-08T12:33:00.003+01:00

I wrote yesterday about the on-going crisis in cocoa farming. Transnational corporations have not delivered on their undertakings to end child slavery in their supply chains. Low prices, which fuel exploitation, are exacerbated by corporations encouraging new producers to enter the market at any sign of price increases. It has been proposed that there should be an international secretariat to oversee cocoa supply management. This may be an appropriate issue to be addressed in the Simultaneous Policy. On the other hand, those who believe that a free market should set prices without any controls are welcome to put forward alternative views and vote accordingly. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/chocolate-crisis.html

Cocoa is not the only food commodity in crisis. Coffee is another that has been the subject of much study and campaigning. A few years ago, Oxfam launched a report called Mugged: Poverty in Your Coffee Cup and a campaign aimed at improving the position of coffee farmers. Amongst its recommendations was that the oligarchy of coffee processors source an increasing percentage of their coffee from Fair Trade certified producers. One of them, Nestlé, made a public relations splash of its launch of a Fairtrade-marked coffee, though drew much criticism for using it to cover up its negative impact on coffee farmers, particularly as the number of farmers involved represented just 0.1% of those dependent on the company. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html

Oxfam also called for a Commodity Management Initiative, with proposed outcomes including: "Producer and consumer country governments establishing mechanisms to correct the imbalance in supply and demand to ensure reasonable prices to producers. Farmers should be adequately represented in such schemes."

In its latest update, Oxfam is claiming some progress through a new International Coffee Agreement, signed in September 2007. The agreement can be downloaded from the site of the International Coffee Organisation. See:
http://dev.ico.org/

These developments should make it clear that in calling for policies to address global problems, the Simultaneous Policy campaign is not being outlandish. Such policies are being developed as we speak, with varying degrees of democratic accountability and transparency. The SP campaign does not necessarily have to include new proposals. Adopters can be forward existing measures for discussion and approval through the democratic process. Significantly, however, it is the people who are in charge of this process, not vested interests who play countries off against each other.

The International Coffee Agreement has, like many international agreements and conventions, a similarity with the Simultaneous Policy in that it is due to come into force when a trigger level of governments party to it have ratified it. Given that this may not happen, the Agreement is to come into force provisionally on 25 September 2008. If the trigger level isn't reached by 25 September 2009, its provisional nature may be extended, those governments that have ratified it can decide it comes into force amongst themselves, or it will fall. The International Coffee Organisation is tracking the state of ratification.

One thing the Agreement does not talk about it setting quotas. Rather Articles 36 states:

---extracts
ARTICLE 36
Sustainable coffee sector

Members shall give due consideration to the sustainable management of coffee resources and processing, bearing in mind the principles and objectives on sustainable development contained in Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and those adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002.
---

'Giving due consideration' to sustainable development is a formulation which could be satified by a note in the minutes of a meeting, rather than having a tangible impact.

Quotas, or some other form of market control trying to meet supply and demand more closely, are disliked by business interests as market distortions. Yet it is also a market distortion for Nestlé to encourage farmers in Vietnam and China to enter into coffee production, so further exacerbating supply. It is also a market distortion when the oligarchy of coffee processors has the power to compel farmers to accept below the cost of production when competition for buyers is particularly great.

Tarif barriers on processed coffee is another market distortion and one recognised in the International Coffee Agreement, which states in Article 37:

---extract
ARTICLE 37
Standard of living and working conditions

Members recognize the need of developing countries to broaden the base of their economies through, inter alia, industrialization and the export of manufactured products, including the processing of coffee and the export of processed coffee, as referred to in sub-paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) of paragraph (1) of Article 2 [definitions of different types of processed coffee]. In this connection, Members should avoid the adoption of governmental measures which could cause disruption to the coffee sector of other Members.
---

What this means in practical terms is a little unclear. On the one hand it recognizes that export countries can keep more of the value-added phase in their countries by industrializing and exporting processed coffee, but on the other hand this should not cause disruption to other Members. If processing becomes more local to production, would this not be to the detriment of processing in industrialized countries?

That the issue of trade barriers is being addressed, show how global problems such as the poverty of coffee farmers cut across other issues. In the context of the Simultaneous Policy, there could be further linkage, with the true cost of transport being factored in through, for example, a tax on carbon emissions.

The International Coffee Agreement is limited to coffee. It involves importing and exporting governments and international organisations as Members and is to have a Private Sector Consultative Board consisting of growers, exporters, importers and roasters.

The Simultaneous Policy enables a bigger picture view in other regards. The coffee crisis impacts on other issues such as food security, poverty, the environment and involvement in the drugs trade (an attractive cash crop when coffee prices collapse). These are issues that the world has to deal with or suffer the consequencies. A cross-cutting and joined up response where vested interests are not in the driving seat should produce better solutions.

The book Global Obligations for the Right to Food (order on the right) suggests governments should be giving consideration to food security in any case when developing global governance procedures, which is what the International Coffee Agreement is. The analysis of existing human rights instruments by Professor George Kent in the opening chapter of the book contains the following :

"Generally if you have the capacity to protect someone from great harm or you can deliver great benefits and you can do that at small cost or risk to yourself, then you are obligated to do so."

Governments have yet to be convinced of this argument, but we, as individuals, may do so and SP provides the mechanism.

To increase the incomes of coffee farmers, the impact on consumers will be minimal as the percentage of a the price of a cup of coffee that goes to farmers is very small. In the Oxfam report the breakdown suggests that a farmer receives just US$ 0.14 for supplying the coffee for a bag of soluble coffee costing US$ 26.40. If SP Adopters were asked to accept a regime which would more fairly distribute the rewards through the supply chain, affecting the final price slightly or not at all, and were being asked to do so by Adopters along that chain, then an seemingly unresolvable problem could be resolved.

Under the present system, it is the unremitting driving down of costs by those who hold power in the supply chain that results in such inequality in the sharing of rewards.

There were problems last time a quota system was tried, with free-riders producing poor quality coffee and the way some governments divided up licences. These should be learned from in designing whatever system more effectively matches supply and demand. Experts in this field are very welcome to submit proposals for consideration by other SP Adopters. See the Simpol websites for information on how to do so.

Chocolate, child slavery and the Simultaneous Policy

2008-07-07T23:23:00.002+01:00

There is a problem of child slavery in the cocoa supply chain. Most of the world's cocoa comes from Ivory Coast and Ghana. According to the International Labour Rights Forum (ILRF), which has just launched a new report:

---
The US Department of State has estimated that more than 109,000 children in Cote d’Ivoire’s cocoa industry work under “the worst forms of child labor,” and that some 10,000 or more are victims of human trafficking or enslavement. These child workers labor for long, punishing hours, using dangerous tools and facing frequent exposure to dangerous pesticides as they travel great distances in the grueling heat. Those who labor as slaves must also suffer frequent beatings and other cruel treatment.
---

Two US Senators introduced a plan to end child slavery in the supply chain within 5 years and called on chocolate companies to sign up to it, which they did. But little happened and the deadline of the so-called Harkin-Engel Protocol was extended. Now the ILRF has analysed what companies are doing in its new briefing, available at:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552

Instead of abiding by the protocol, the companies, including some of the world's largest transnational food corporations such as Kraft, Cargill, Nestle and Mars, have embarked on their own 'certification' schemes which they have used in public relations campaigns to claim progress is being made. While there may be some merit in the pursuing voluntary action, ILRF points out the shortcomings of operating outside a regulatory framework or independent certification system:

---Extract from ILRF report
In the US consumer market, the public deals with a vast array of certifications ranging from product quality specifications (Grade A eggs or syrup, octane 87 gasoline) to specifications of ethical or environmental standards (organic-certified produce, FSC-certified wood, dolphin-safe tuna). All certification systems have a number of characteristics in common:

• there is a set of standards that must be met in order to achieve the certification (whether it is octane rating or criteria for ‘dolphin-safe’ fishing)

• there is a process for verifying that a product, service, or person has met those standards (often by an independent monitoring organization)

• there is a certification mark logo or seal that identifies the standards and the verification that have been fulfilled

• there is a system for auditing to ensure that the certification mark is being used properly and that the product or service or individual continues to meet the standards over time (often by a completely independent oversight body, such as USDA’s oversight of the National Organics Program).

The industry “certification concept” is missing all these pieces. There is no set of clear standards with related compliance criteria to ensure that these standards are being met, and in the absence of clear standards, naturally no process to verify that producers are meeting those standards.
---extract ends

The report points out that child slavery arises through systematic failings of the cocoa market. Farmers exist on the edge of poverty, prompting exploitation. While processors claim they are helping to increase productivity and profits, ILRF suggests that where this has happened the greater workload of farmers to achieve the yields has not received a proportionate increase in income. In other words, it is the companies that benefit, not the farmer.

The industry has also been seeking to promote production in new countries as prices rise in Ivory Coast. Increased production means lower prices and increased pressure for cutting corners, such as child labour and forced labour.

The ILRF report states:

---extract begins
While ILRF are not experts on the issues of sensible and farmer-friendly commodity policy, we support the recommendations put forth in a paper issued by the Reseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA) and cited in part here:

• Cocoa Supply Management: The low price of cocoa on the global market is a major factor in the use of child labor. The global supply should be subject to a management agreement.

• Establish an International Secretariat: An international arrangement, based in West Africa, to control the global supply is needed and ECOWAS (along with Indonesia, Brazil and Cameroon) would be well-placed to lead supply management efforts as 63% of the world’s cocoa is produced in West Africa.

• Introduce Production Controls: In order to avoid issues like smuggling and overflowing of buffer stocks, a new cocoa agreement should include production controls to ensure a effective management system. Quotas will be determined by the international secretariat and each country will have a five year period to adjust their production levels.

• Raise Farm-Gate Prices: A small raise in farm-gate prices for cocoa would ensure more stability in the market and increase the ability of farmers to invest in sustainable farming methods as well as worker wages. This is an important stop in curbing child labor. The costs would be negligible for buyers.

• Combine with Conservation Programs: With a higher and more stable price, farmers can invest more labor and money in shaded growing systems, forest conservation and replanting and tree crop diversification which are more ecologically sustainable.

• Establish Diversification Zones: Supply premiums and credit to farmers to diversify their crops. This will be an important part of ensuring cocoa-producing countries’ food sovereignty and their ability to respond to domestic food needs.
---extract ends

Commodity agreements are disliked by industry, as much as independent monitoring systems. It is argued they distort markets and create cartels. Yet in highly consolidated industries, such as cocoa (and coffee), the processors wield great power. Trade barriers make it difficult for developing countries to sell processed goods into developed countries as these are subject to higher tariffs. In other words, there is not a free market, there is a market where the rules are fixed to benefit the powerful.

Whether commodity agreements are something to be resurected within the Simultaneous Policy, and if so, how they would work, is something Adopters may well wish to discuss. The fact is that current trading systems are failing those at the start of the supply chain, creating problems which the rest of the world has then to try to resolve. Current efforts, whether by governments, voluntary organisations or business interests, are not having a verifiable effect, despite the claims made to placate critics.

ILRF has recommendations for companies, governments and international agencies. We can also take individual action as consumers, in seeking chocolate that is certified as Fair Trade and on calling for companies to abide by the protocol to which they pledged support in 2001.

As a parallel strategy we can consider whether SP has a role to play. Signing up as an SP Adopter through the Simpol website is the way to have a voice and a vote in the policy development process and to make implementation a reality.

Global action needed on food security

2008-07-04T17:45:00.005+01:00

It is in the media today that the World Bank has an unpublished assessment of the impact of biofuels on the price of food. According to the Guardian, the report suggests biofuels have forced up food prices by 75%. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

The Guardian also states:

---extract

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

---extract ends

The fact is that if you are rich you can have your biofuels and eat your food too. But if you are poor, you may end up having neither.

Clearly this is an issue requiring global action. It also shows how cross-cutting global problems are. The Simultaneous Policy approach, by its very nature, envisions a coherent package of solutions, addressing the issues that SP Adopters deem to be important with the policies they have proposed, discussed, developed and approved (to join in, simply go to Simpol's website to sign up, which is free).

But what should be the global policies when it comes to food security? There are some proposals in the book :'Global Obligations for the Right to Food'. I have written a chapter for this drawing on my experience on infant feeding issues. You can order a copy through Baby Milk Action's secure on-line Virtual Shop by clicking the button on the right.

My chapter is about holding corporations accountable with relation to the right to food and the analysis informs the policy proposal I have submitted for inclusion in SP for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.

I'll write about that another time. Here I want to quote something from Professor George Kent, the editor of the book:

---
There have been many global summits and declarations on food and agriculture. However, the dominant view always has been that the problems must be addressed by national governments, with little more than an advisory role for the global community. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Agriculture has taken steps towards addressing agriculture issues from a global perspective, but without giving adequate attention to trade's implications for food security. These initiatives have not fully grasped the need for new institutional arrangements for the global governance of food and agriculture.

Global problems have been neglected partly because of the unspoken premise that national governments are the only legitimate actors. This preoccupation with the action at the nation-state level has been due, in part, to the system of international relations that has been in place since the middle of the seventeenth century, a system founded on the principle of state sovereignty. As a result, there is little institutional capacity for decision making and action at the global level. While it makes some sense, in legal terms, for states to be the primary authorities for policy making, this may not match the realities in which the problems take form. Global warming for example, clearly is a global problem, and not one that can sensibly be addressed on a nation-by-nation basis.
---extract ends

The book was produced by a Task Force of the Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics, and Human Rights of the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition and has a chapter of recommendations that are well worth investigating by any Adopters or anyone else concerned about food security.

Now we are seeing the confluence of climate change and food security with food price inflation, it becomes clearer still there needs to be a global solution.

But are our leaders empowered to deliver it? What can we expect from the forthcoming summit? No doubt maneuvering to protect economic interests which will be as effective in addressing the food crisis as past meetings have been ineffective in addressing climate change.

Camaigners are on the case to push for a joined up approach from our leaders and there will be action we can take to support them. The Guardian states:

---extract
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
---extract ends

The Simultaneous Policy campaign surely has to address the issue of food security and can be supported as a parallel strategy. By linking people around the world, it can develop solutions that puts their interests first, not those of industry lobbyists. A coherent package of proposals, to be implemented simultaneous with the backing of the people of the world can deliver the solutions we need. But time is pressing. The number of Adopters and politicians pledging to implement SP needs to be growing at a faster rate. Which means you signing up today.

We can all call on our leaders to pledge to implement SP alongside other governments. This is a key time to do so in the US, with the Presidential election underway. US citizens can reassert their sovereignty by sending a message to the candidates. Other Adopters can support them by also sending a message. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html

It's Simpol ! Spring 2008 and People-Centred Global Governance

2008-07-03T23:35:00.001+01:00

Here's an alert I've just received from Simpol about the latest newsletter:

---
Dear Adopter of the Simultaneous Policy (SP),

It's Simpol! - Spring 2008 issue now out!

The latest issue of It's Simpol! has been published and can be freely downloaded now from http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/Newsletters.htm

Apart from topical news items, this and all future issues is accompanied by a Policy Bulletin covering the policies you've put forward for inclusion in SP and how everyone can get involved. This has the theme of ‘Turning weapons into windmills’ and includes guest articles on disarmament and peace proposals put forward by Adopters and how these can link to the issue of climate change.

While writing, the Editor of It's Simpol!, Diana Trimble, makes the following appeal:

Calling all writers and cartoonists!

We're actively seeking contributions from Adopters for the next Newsletter, so if you have an idea for something you want to share, please get in touch with the editor by writing to dtrimble@simpol.org

Got something you'd love to get off your chest? Perhaps your letter could be the next Rant of the Month!

International and bilingual contributions especially desired!

U.S. Presidential Election - Special campaign action!

All Adopters, not just U.S. ones, should check out Simpol's U.S. Presidential "Vote USA" site at http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html which is designed for everyone to get the Simpol message across to Obama, McCain and other candidates. With the election finely balanced, supporting SP could make all the difference. This is a real opportunity to make a globally important impact, so get your friends - especially American ones - to sign up!

People-Centred Global Governance - Newly updated version now online

A newly updated version of the book, People-Centred Global Governance - Making it Happen!, is now available for free download from Simpol's global website.

Endorsements:

"A systemic and ingenious strategy for applying people power in all countries to encourage their politicians toward ‘win-win global solutions’.”

Hazel Henderson
Author, Building a Win-Win World and Planetary Citizenship

“Simultaneous Policy (SP) is an evolutionary imperative in a competitive world that now demands new forms of co-operation in order to address global issues that cannot be resolved by one nation alone. In this new book John Bunzl analyses some key aspects of governance and sets SP in the context of transformative evolutionary change in our economic and political systems. The book is a timely contribution to continuing debates about structures and processes of global governance, showing exactly why our current international institutions are not fit for purpose.”

David Lorimer
Editor, Network, the magazine of the Scientific & Medical Network

“In an age when our problems are global and national governance structures are weakened and inadequate, it is absolutely necessary to think about the shape of effective global governance. This cannot be simply national government "writ large" for that would also enlarge the problems and inefficiencies of national governance. It must be a holistic and evolutionary governance system, and to the articulation of the essential features of such a system John Bunzl's book makes a major contribution. Highly recommended reading for everyone concerned with our collective future on this small and largely mismanaged planet.”

Dr. Ervin Laszlo
Futurist, author and systems theorist. President of Club of Budapest

"John Bunzl convincingly demonstrates that if you want to contribute consciously to the successful advancement of the evolutionary process on this planet, you should support the Simultaneous Policy. The SP is a powerful and practical means of actualizing the next great step in evolution on earth - the formation of a cooperative and sustainable planetary civilization."

John Stewart
Author, Evolution’s Arrow – the direction of evolution and the future of humanity

"This publication presents a unique long term approach to governance and environmental issues. It offers solutions based on the concept of unity in diversity. As such it is bound to produce controversy and debate!"

Diana Schumacher
Former President, The Schumacher Society

Download for free from:
http://www.simpol.org/en/books/Books_FS.htm

Turning Weapons into Windmills

2008-07-02T20:21:00.005+01:00

The Spring 2008 edition of the Simultaneous Policy newsletter has a policy supplement. This lists the policy suggestions that have been submitted and survived the annual rounds of voting so far. There are also some new suggestions (including one of mine which I'll write about another time).

Space is given in the newsletter to issues or policies gaining a high proportion of support in annual voting rounds. In this policy supplement there are a couple of guest articles on the theme of peace and disarmament. As it is the nature of SP to prompt cross-cutting ideas, the issue of climate change is linked in by one of the authors.

The theme of the supplement is: Turning Weapons into Windmills.

Nuclear disarmament received 61% support. The proposal referred people to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) website for further information. For further details and discussion, see the board dedicated to it at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=18.0

The CND site is promoting a proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention, which was launched by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in 2007. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was launched at the same time to promote adoption of the Convention.

Marion Birch of Medact - the UK member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War - writes about the Convention and campaign in the policy supplement. Those who are in favour of the Convention could also promote it to Simultaneous Policy Adopters to add substance to the nuclear disarmament proposal and provide a parallel route for gaining publicity and support. If Adopters vote to keep it in the process then implementation of the Simultaneous Policy could see the Convention introduced more quickly than by other means.

The other proposal given space in the policy supplement is for a 'Defensive Defence Policy', which gained 54% last time around. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=16.0

The proposer, Barbara Panvel, gives an update and references other sources of information, including a briefing called 'Oceans of Work' by Dr Steven Schofield.

She writes:

---
It was good to see Defensive Defence included as a Simultaneous Policy proposal in 2007 and to see that 54% of voters liked the suggestion and hoped it would be developed further - enough to keep it ‘in play’ but far below the front-runner, which was Contraction and Convergence with 80% of the votes.

Dr Steven Schofield also felt that, “Global warming is an emergency far greater than any other we have faced. This is the real war and it is the one we are losing.” He pointed out that sufficient resources to construct a postcarbon economy would be available if major industrial powers co-ordinate a programme of arms conversion on an international scale.
---

The illustration included in the supplement suggests this would make it possible to turn weapons into windmills.

You can download it by clicking:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/spideasspring08.pdf

Whether you agree with these proposals or not, you can join in the policy discussion and voting, sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter on the site of the organisation that promotes the campaign (Simpol).

Listening to Zimbabweans

2008-07-01T15:43:00.005+01:00

Robert Mugabe won the much-criticised Presidential run-off election held last Friday after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai had pulled out of the contest, citing the risk to his supporters. Reports, including from Amnesty International, do indeed suggest killings, violence and intimidation of opposition party workers and general warnings that people should vote for Robert Mugabe or face the consequencies.

Calling himself President, Robert Mugabe has attended the African Union meeting in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt. Despite appeals from Western countries, Zimbabwe is not on the agenda, according to the Zimbabwean paper, The Herald, which reports today:

---quote begins
Although speakers at the opening did mention Zimbabwe, their comments were not hostile but encouraged dialogue between the major political parties in the country.

At his swearing-in ceremony in Harare on Sunday just before he flew here, Cde Mugabe said Government was prepared for dialogue with the opposition MDC-T, but only if it came into the talks with its own agenda and not a Western-foisted stance.

AU chairman President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania said while the people of Zimbabwe should be congratulated on the just-ended election, the country needed assistance to move ahead because it was facing serious challenges.

The economic malaise bedevelling Zimbabwe has been a result of the British, American and European Union-imposed illegal sanctions that the West are threatening to deepen following Cde Mugabe’s landslide victory over their favoured MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

In his speech, AU Commission chairman Mr Jean Ping said Africa must help Zimbabwe’s parties to work together in the interest of their country to overcome the present challenges.
---quote ends

Which just goes to show that the official view from Zimbabwe is very different to that portrayed in the West. The lack of overt criticism of the electoral violence by most other heads of state has drawn comment in the Western media, such as The Guardian, which suggests that some other leaders cannot defend the democratic rights of Zimbabweans when their own democratic credentials do not stand scrutiny. There is a suggestion that some, such as South Africa's leader, Thabo Mbeki, are reluctant to criticise Robert Mugabe, because of his support during the apartheid era and his role as a freedom fighter.

Perhaps for some, who may see democracy as something to be exploited rather than be subject to, Mugabe's strong hand in retaining power is also something to be respected.

Comments on The Guardian news story included some saying, basically, 'leave them to it', either with the suggestion Africans are best placed to resolve their own problems or a more dismissive 'they don't deserve our aid' view. I was prompted to post the following comment:

---

mbe2, your comment that we should leave Africa and withdraw aid prompts two thoughts. Firstly, the net transfer of wealth is not from rich countries to poor in the form of aid, but from poor countries to rich in the form of resources and, despite much debt cancellation, loan repayments. Industrialised countries trade with Africa, usually on poor terms for the African nations, and, for key resources such as oil, bringing chaos (there was a report from Christian Aid a few years ago examining how countries with oil suffered for their riches rather than gained).

Secondly, we are part of a common humanity. Which is why people campaign for debt relief, fairer terms of trade and increased aid in the industrialised world and for democracy and better governance in African countries.

Instead of abandoning Africa, I think it is far better to strengthen links directly with the people of Africa, in contrast to their leaders, to hear their views both on their national situation and on how they would like global problems to be addressed.

The leaders at the African Union meeting are representative of African leaders, but not necessarily of African citizens.

The Simultaneous Policy campaign aims to bring people together around the world to share their views on global issues and discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented. An African has as much right to participate in that process as a European, an Asian, people from the Americas, the Pacific, the Middle East etc.

---

Now, there are Simultaneous Policy Adopters already in Africa - they participate in some of the on-line discussions. But there needs to be far wider involvement if a representative view of the people is to be heard within the campaign. It would also be illuminating and refreshing to hear the views of Zimbabweans on the election without the filter of Western media.

The Herald provides one view: President Mugabe as legitimate defender of the interests of Zimbabweans.

You can hear Robert Mugabe's spokesman, George Charamba, in a video clip on the BBC website at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7483060.stm

You can read a report from the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, a coalition of 38 Non-Governmental Organisations, which seem to be mainly religious groups, women's groups and lawyers. According to information on its site: "ZESN has been observing all elections in Zimbabwe since 2000. For the first time in eight years, due to the late invitation to observe today’s election and a huge reduction in the number of ZESN observers (from 15 433 to 500) by the Minister of Justice as well as the harassment and intimidation of its observers, the Network was unable to field short-term accredited observers to observe the presidential run-off election."

All the same, its report documents violence and intimidation. See:
http://www.zesn.org.zw/publications/publication_217.doc

---Extract
In most rural areas and some high density urban areas like Mbare and Sunningdale queues were observed amidst reports that people were being forced to go and vote. In Masvingo North, at Matova, St Stanislaus and Mahoto polling stations observers reported that youth militia and traditional leaders were writing down names of all those who were going to the polls as they entered the polling stations and were again asking voters to provide the traditional leaders with serial numbers of their ballot papers as they left after casting their vote. The same pattern was also noted in Esigodini, Chitungwiza, Zengeza and Mufakose where voters were being asked to provide suspected members of ZANU PF with their serial numbers after voting. In Zengeza, a known ZANU PF losing candidate in the harmonised elections addressed voters at her house before they cast their votes ordering them to record serial numbers of their ballots and surrender them to her. In Mazowe Central at Howard polling station, suspected ZANU PF members were recording the names of voters in a register. This was taking place from a distance of about 300m from the polling station.
---extract ends

There are more such details in the report.

I have looked for blogs from Zimbabwe citizens and haven't been able to find much so far (feel free to post links and comments here). One Zimbabwe site does have a forum, where Zimbabweans have posted comments. See:
http://www.zimbabwe.8m.com/forum.html

Should any Zimbabweans find my blog, please do comment. Looking beyond the election, please do give your views on how to address global problems through the Simultaneous Policy campaign by signing up as an SP Adopter (links on the right) and visiting the discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

The Oil Depletion Protocol in the UK media - but no mention of SP

2008-06-30T17:10:00.000+01:00

Michael Meacher MP, former UK Environment Minister, has written on a national newspaper website yesterday about peak oil and, in particular, the Rimini Protocol (or Oil Depletion Protocol), which received 69% support from Simultaneous Policy campaign supporters (SP Adopters) in the last annual voting round.

Sadly Mr. Meacher does not mention the Simultaneous Policy as a way to achieve action on peak oil. I have posted a comment to the website referring to the past support for the Rimini Protocol within SP and encouraging people to investigate the campaign.

The more people that can post similar messages, the more likely visitors to the site will see them and investigate.

The article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/29/oil.oilandgascompanies

Mr. Meacher's article includes the following:

“The most direct means of constraining world demand would be the proposed Rimini protocol, which prescribes that oil-importing countries cut their imports to match the world depletion rate (ie annual production as a percentage of remaining global reserves) now running at about 2% a year. Of course, the fundamental political problem remains that the most powerful oil-hungry countries will not agree. If not Kyoto, why Rimini?”

To send a letter to the Editor of The Guardian, email letters@guardian.co.uk (with full contact details):

Here is my effort:

“Michael Meacher MP, former Environment Minister, highlights the Rimini Protocol for addressing depletion of oil reserves, but raises the difficulty of oil-hungry countries being persuaded to support this strategy for weaning us off oil, which will also help in addressing climate change. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign is succeeding in persuading a growing number of politicians to pledge to implement, alongside other governments, policies to effectively address global problems. Simultaneous implementation removes the fear that unilateral action will harm competition and so the national economy. The Rimini Protocol gained 69% support in the last annual round of voting. SP is not an alternative to other forms of advocacy, but has the potential to achieve far more. By registering with the campaign, participating and voting in policy discussions and/or calling on politicians to make the SP pledge, everyone can help the transformation to people-led cooperation between nations.”

Mike Brady
Coordinator Cambridge SP Adopters Group
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

The Simpol forum talkboard on the Oil Depletion Protocol is at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

How SP creates a parallel market in political ideas to resolve global problems

2008-06-27T18:04:00.003+01:00

Here is an email from John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, posted to Simpol's yahoo group (see links in the side panel).

He describes how politics currently operates in the context of competition between nations, where each government is bound to protect its own economic interests, lest it lose investment and jobs (and then in a democracy lose power), and so international progress on global problems is generally too little, too late. A parallel market of possible policies is allowed by the SP approach.

Here's John's analogy:

---
The idea of a "parallel market" is the essence of the Simultaneous Policy approach and in my first book I used the analogy of group of 4 or 5 boys fighting over a packet of sandwiches to describe it.

If they all simply carry on fighting they are stuck "in the current market", as it were, and the sandwiches will be destroyed to everyone's detriment (as will we and our planet if we carry on competing destructively!) Staying stuck in the current market thus spells inevitable disaster. But if one of the boys, while still continuing to fight, speaks up and proposes that he'll stop fighting if all the other boys stop too (i.e. simultaneously), then that boy has, effectively, created a parallel market. As the boys continue to slug it out in the "current market" (as they must in order to protect their positions) they are all also invited to participate in the "parallel market" and can thus negotiate for peace and a beneficial sharing of the BLTs (even while they continue to fight).

So if agreement can be reached in the parallel market, its implementation automatically brings peace to the current market - and the two markets become one (but a new, higher, more encompassing and more conscious one).

So that's what the Simultaneous Policy is: a parallel market allowing us to bring peace to the current market.
---quote ends

Take action to save Zimbabwe - and seek an end to all dictators

2008-06-26T13:42:00.004+01:00

This is an alert from a campaign to 'Save Zimbabwe from Mugabe'. You are asked to sign a petition, which will be publicised in the press in Southern Africa. The petition states:

"Petition to Thabo Mbeki and other leaders of Southern Africa:

"We call on you to hold an emergency meeting of Southern African leaders, to work by all means necessary for a legitimate Zimbabwean government that reflects the will of its people, and to decisively isolate those who stand in the way of a peaceful, democratic future for Zimbabwe."

Click here to sign up.

I travelled to Zimbabwe when I worked as a volunteer in nearby Malawi in the 1990s. At that time Zimbabwe was seen as a much more developed African nation. Certainly the far better infrastructure and shopping opportunities were striking. Development indices such as child survival and life expectancy showed the country was doing better than many in these regards too. Now the situation has changed dramatically as President Mugabe tries to hang on to power for power's sake.

Other governments are always reluctant to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, lest the same should happen to them.

The route being proposed by a growing number of nations for Zimbabwe is to refuse to recognise Robert Mugabe as the legitimate President of the country as he lost the first round of the Presidential election and the run-off election cannot be free and fair due to state-sponsored violence.

It struck me long ago with Iraq, when it was suffering under the sanctions regime which led to the deaths of many thousands of children, that such a route could have been followed. UNICEF suggested 500,000 children would not have died if health improvements prior to the sanctions regime had continued. See:
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

---extract from UNICEF press release
Ms. Bellamy [UNICEF Executive Director] noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
---

UNICEF called for better targeted sanctions and a more health conscious approach from the Iraqi regime, which used the resources it gained through the 'oil for food' programme as a political weapon of internal control.

Some argued that the 'oil for food' programme actually worsened the situation as it gave Saddam Hussein's regime great power through how it distributed the resources. During this period the north of Iraq was semi-autonomous, with a no-fly zone enforced by the US and UK. The elected authority there succeeded in reducing under-5 mortality rates from 90 deaths/1,000 live births in the period 1989-1994 to 72 deaths/1,000 live births in the period 1994-1999.

An argument for military intervention was that it would put an end to the unnecessary death toll brought about by the sanctions approach. How to evaluate whether the deaths, suffering and terror resulting from the invasion is better or worse is a difficult one.

Those in favour of military intervention asked what was the alternative. An alternative could have been to have stopped recognising Saddam Hussein and his government and instead dealt solely with the authorities in the semi-autonomous regions and a government in exile. The fact that the Iraqi government was repeatedly infringing on the no-fly zones demonstrates there would have been some level of conflict in any case in trying to isolate the government, but there may have been the possibility of strengthening more legitimate authorities.

The difficulty is, of course, that the government, whether legitimate or not, holds the levers of power. They have armed forces and police forces. They control who enters the country, unless geography and the political will of other nations undermines this. Pragmatism may suggest they have to be recognised and dealt with. An unwillingness of other governments to set a precedence where their own legitimacy may be questioned is also perhaps fundamental.

If Mugabe continues to call himself President and to govern, it will be interesting to see how the international communities refusal to recognise him will manifest itself. Perhaps a strategy for dealing with rogue regimes without necessarily going to war can be developed.

These questions come down to the willingness of nation states to act, either individually or collectively. The United Nations can provide legitimacy and strengthen alliances, but, as an institution, is limited in its ability to act.

George Monbiot argued in his book 'Age of Consent' for a democratised UN. The following extract is from his summary at:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/06/01/the-age-of-consent/

---Quote begins

Let us start with the United Nations. In principle, it’s a good idea. In practice, it helps the strong to bully the weak, for three reasons. The first is that the permanent members of the Security Council have been granted absolute power. The second is that it is riddled with rotten boroughs: the tiny nations have the same vote as the very large ones. This is grossly unfair – every Tuvaluan, for example, is worth 100,000 Indians - and it also means that the strong nations have a powerful incentive to kick the small ones around. The third is that the dictatorships have the same voting rights as the democracies, and none of the attendant governments have any obligation to refer to their people before voting.

It seems to me that the answer here is not to junk the UN, but to democratise it. The first step is surely to scrap the Security Council and vest its powers in the UN General Assembly. The second is to weight the votes of the member states according to their country’s size and their degree of democratisation. Democracy rankings are already being developed by groups such as Democratic Audit. But we should begin to develop our own. Among the criteria we should investigate are the nation’s degree of economic democracy (the distribution of wealth) and the extent of public consultation before global voting takes place.

This weighting of votes has the double benefit of democratising global governance and encouraging national democratisation, as the quickest means by which a nation can enhance its power at the global level. It also means that the nations with the biggest votes – the largest and most democratic – are the hardest to bully and blackmail: vote-buying, in other words, becomes much more difficult.

---quote ends

There does seem to be a lot of merit in these proposals, which have not yet been submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. Any Adopter may do so. In the case of Zimbabwe, the country's vote at a UN under this system would be radically cut if Robert Mugabe continues as President after Friday 27 June, having both symoblic and practical impact.

Monbiot also promotes an elected World Parliament, something governments, and many citizens, react to with horror as it undermines their sovereignty.

The Simultaneous Policy campaign is not about world government, it is about world governance, meaning rules-based systems to transform the competition between nations to constructive cooperation. That is not to say that the World Parliament proposal cannot be put forward for the consideration of Adopters (it has not been at the time of writing). It will be for Adopters to debate and vote.

The world has not yet worked out an effective way to deal with leaders who operate in their own interests rather than those of their people. The simple fact that the Simultaneous Policy campaign works by bringing people together to decide policies for addressing global problems and calls on leaders to implement those, may in itself play an important role in empowerment.

Climate change discussion in Second Life

2008-06-25T20:55:00.005+01:00

I went to a meeting in Second Life, the on-line virtual world, a couple of weeks ago.

The Greenpeace group had a guest speaker who is an expert on climate change.

Second Life is great for international meetings. You can listen to and talk to speakers. The audience can chat to each other using text while the presentation is going on without detracting from it. You can show information on screens. You can play audio and film clips.

If you are so inclined you can dress up your avitar and explore, meeting people from across the planet in the process. If so, you will see how, when given a brand new world to populate, it fills with hustlers in pursuit of money and sex. And Star Trek fans.

This was the announcement for the more elevated event:

---
Group Notice From: PlanetThoughts Raymaker

Peter Sinclair, one of the early Al Gore-trained presenters, will give the latest on climate change Sat. June 7 at 9am SLT, including a unique how-to on answering the skeptics -- really enlightening slides with valuable details on the science.

Since January 2007, he has made this presentation to thousands of citizens throughout Michigan. He is a life long resident of Michigan, a graduate of the University of Michigan, and a long time advocate of environmental awareness in the Great Lakes area.
---

Here's a screenshot of the meeting:

Amongst the chat during the initial presentation were some of the climate change deniers common arguments, which were either addressed in the talk or in subsequent discussion.

One response I found particularly interesting was the suggestion that climate change is happening throughout the solar system and it is not just on Earth temperatures are increasing. The implication is that it is changes in the sun that is responsible.

Peter Sinclair commented how on the one hand doubters of climate change question the science that suggests average temperatures on Earth are increasing, yet on the other hand seem certain that temperatures on Mars and other planets are going up.

In fact there is no evidence of increased output from the sun or of the temperatures on other planets increasing in the timescales being seen on Earth.

What we do have plenty of evidence about are the temperature changes on Earth, their relationship with carbon in the atmosphere and the fact that carbon levels are leading the temperature rises seen since the industrial revolution.

There was a whole lot more in the presentation and discussion, which I believe will appear on the associated website, which is:
http://www.planetthoughts.org/

From time to time there are similar events organised by Second Life SP Adopters' Group. See:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/

Does Brazil's success under 'Lula light' mean the financiers were right?

2008-06-24T08:23:00.008+01:00

When Luis Inácio Lula da Silva stood for election to the Presidency of Brazil in 2001 he faced a classic financial market attack, as predicted by John Bunzl in his book The Simultaneous Policy, published that same year.

Lula, as he is popularly known, had stood in the past on a radical left wing platform including policies such as renegotiating loans to the International Monetary Fund. He had lost three times before, twice to Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) who had introduced Thatcherite privatizations and participated in Tony Blair's 'Third Way' international get togethers.

But free-market economics failed to deliver social cohesion in a country with a massive gulf between rich and poor which fuels a virtual state of civil war in the major cities where drugs gangs rule most of the slum areas or favellas. Lula was riding high in the opinion polls again José Serra, FHC's designated successor.

Bankers and investors weighed in, risk rating Brazil on a par with Angola and Nigera. Angola: swinging between civil war and anarchy. Nigeria: rampant corruption. Brazil: Lula, a left-winger, looked like he might win. The Brazilian Real fell against the dollar as investment dried up and currency fled the country. Interest rates climbed and inflation began to follow. There was talk that Brazil would go the way of Argentina that was in crisis after the link between the peso and dollar had been broken and had slid to 30% of its previous value.

Lula met financiers from São Paulo to New York, pledging that he had not only dropped his earlier policy of renegotiating Brazil’s foreign debt, but would follow FHC’s spending plans for the first year of his government. He announced as his running mate, José Alencar, a millionaire business man, in an alliance with the Liberal Party.

He was billed as ‘Lula light’ in the media, a less threatening version of the old Lula.

With the economic fears of the electorate laid to rest, he won convincingly for his promise to tackle the inequalities in Brazilian society, which have left over 30% of the population below the poverty line and crime soaring. In Rio de Janeiro, where police raids on drug gangs in the favellas prompt the hijacking and burning of buses in the city centre, the vote for Lula was 79% in the run-off against Serra.

Lula won a second term despite his party being embroiled in a scandal where public contracts had fed massive payments to many members of Congress who had joined his ruling alliance. A few were thrown out of Congress by their peers, more by the electorate. Whether the law will catch up with those involved still remains to be seen.

Lula's flagship programme has been 'Fome Zero' or 'Zero Hunger'. It was billed as support for small-scale family agriculture. After his victory it was controversially hi-jacked by Nestlé (which I monitor closely as part of my job), which used it to distribute processed food, including powdered milk, while advertising its support heavily. National and international protests resulted. The programme transformed into 'Bolsa Familia' or family income support, with families receiving payments to put them above the poverty line on the condition they vaccinate children and put them through school.

Lula's handling of the economy has been lauded (though the architect of his policy, Antonio Palocci, fell in another corruption scandal harking back to his time as a small-town mayor). Brazil's risk rating on the credit market has fallen to the point where in 2008 it was listed as an investment-grade country by Standard and Poor. As the International Herald Tribune reported in April this is: "signaling that Brazil is now officially recognized as a safe place for investors to park money." Brazil's annual growth is above 5% while other developed economies wobble on the brink of recession. The money is flowing and easy credit is fuelling a consumer boom. Coupled with discovery of new oil fields, Brazil, long billed as the country of the future, feels like it is arriving.

The impact on the poor has been documented in a report released today by the Institute for Research in Applied Economcs. The three poorest percentiles have seen their income rise up to 5 times that of the richest, reducing inequalities. The BBC in São Paulo reports those with monthly incomes in the bands R$ 206 (about US$100) , R$ 378 e R$ 422 have seen incomes increase by 21,96%, 29,91% and 15,79% between 2002 and 2008. For comparisson the three most rich (with average income of R$ 1.159, R$ 1.797 e R$ 4.853) have seen gains of 2,3%, 2,1% and 2,6%. The inequality ratio has fallen from 0.543 to 0.505.

While criminality remains so problematic that the army has been sent into some of the favellas in Rio, economic activity is booming, with small businesses flourishing (and, as an aside, Nestlé is once again targeting the poorest with a range of what it calls 'Popularly Priced Products' - again including its milk powder).

Gains are threatened by oil and food price rises. However, Brazil is protected as its domestic energy is almost entirely hydo-electric (and energy use was shocked into an efficiency overhaul in 2001 when there was a sudden realisation that the water levels were too low to sustain the country) and it has its own oil supplies for transport, making it virtually self sufficient. Brazil also has had, for decades, many cars running on alcohol from sugar cane plantations and is developing its bio-diesel production.

While much of the world is blaming the use of land for bio-diesel for increases in food prices, Brazil has much land still under-utilised - even without encroaching on the Amazon and other sensitive ecosystems. This week, Lula said he would not be following the examples of Argentina, Bolivia and Mexico, which have put a freeze on food prices and obstacles to exports (see the Folha de São Paulo). He is leaving the market to set prices while promising to make massive amounts of credit available to boost the next harvest by 5%. The sum of R$65 billion (about US$32 billion) is being made available to agrobusiness and R$13 billion to family farms (see the Folha de São Paulo).

Even the political class is recovering its reputation in Brazil, with the Senate recently refusing to renew an unpopular tax on bank account movements and currently engaged in simplifying the entire tax system.

As for renegotiating the loans with the International Monetary Fund, Lula paid them off early in 2005, along with those owing to the Paris Club of donors, saving a fortune in interest payments. He is reported in Brazzilmag: "We are making this payment because we want to show the world and the market that we are in charge. When we do things we might make mistakes or we might get things right, but we decide."

Brazil's government, through a great deal of luck as well as judgement, has played within the rules of the financial markets and is, at present, on a winning streak. There may be problems for the future in the making: consumer debt at home and the credit crunch in its export markets, peak oil and food price inflation. But no doubt the financiers look to Brazil as vindication and contrast it with other Latin American countries following very different paths.

So is a global financial system that punishes those who do not follow its decrees working? Should other countries simply follow Brazil's example?

Or are reforms already put forward for inclusion in the Simulteanous Policy necessary, such as the Tobin Tax on financial speculation and an International Clearing Union to replace the International Monetary Fund? Are those calling for a complete overhaul of how money is created correct to promote their Monetary Reform proposal? Is a country's health measured too narrowly by GDP as those proposing Beyond GDP measures suggest?

Within the Simultaneous Policy campaign those defending present global governance systems, such as the International Monetary Fund, have as much right to participate in proposing, discussing, developing and approving policies as anyone else. Join the debate and cast your vote by signing up as an SP Adopter at:
http://www.simpol.org/

Gordon Brown in Saudi Arabia and in a political bind

2008-06-23T18:07:00.011+01:00

There is a good analysis of the bind the UK Prime Minister is in when trying to form policy to cope with climage change and rising oil prices. It comes in an Observer article by Andrew Rawnsley entitled: "Don't rely on the boys with the black stuff, Mr Brown" and concerns Gordon Brown's attempt to get Middle East oil producers to pump more oil.

'Voters' say they want action on climate change, but call for contrary action when their own financial interests are at stake.

Another good opportunity to flag up the need for the Simultaneous Policy campaign. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/22/greenpolitics.gordonbrown

This is the comment I left:

---
This is a good analysis and we have to hope that politicians can lead the debate and explain why a low-carbon economy is better than pumping more oil to keep the price down.

I do take slight issue with this comment, however: "The culprit is easy to identify. I blame the voters. When they told pollsters that the environment was high in their concerns, the politicians made it high in theirs. With the economy sagging and the cost of essentials rising, the understandable response of voters is to tell the opinion pollsters that they are now less bothered about the planet and much more agitated about taxation and inflation."

It is true as far as it goes. But we need to go further. The reason why the government tried to backtrack on its commitments to the European Emissions Trading Scheme was pressure from business interests, which threatened that investment and jobs would move overseas if UK targets were too demanding. That would harm the economy and lose votes. So such pressure works and will continue to work.

Unless the voters can regain their democratic rights. A way to do so - as well as demonstrating and writing to MPs - is to support the Simultaneous Policy campaign, which brings people together around the world to discuss and agree the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems and calls on politicians to pledge to implement them alongside other governments. Simultaneous implementation breaks the power of vested interests. Politicians from all major parties in Parliament are already signing up. The more voters that support the Simultaneous Policy, the more MPs that will pledge to implement it and the sooner that will become government policy, moving us closer to implementation.

It's not an alternative to other action, but can potentially take us far further, such as to implementation of the 'Contraction and Convergence' approach to climate change which is gaining support in the annual Simultaneous Policy voting rounds.
---

This meeting takes place as a new opinon poll in the UK suggests that there is still a lot of confusion about climate change, with 60% incorrectly believing "many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change."

The information sharing role of the SP campaign has a role to play here. Amongst SP Adopters (anyone can sign up for no charge), in the last annual voting round 80% put climate change as the top global problem they want to see addressed.

The need for its strategy of putting people in charge of leading politicians is demonstrated by the lack of confidence those polled put in their leaders. According to The Guardian:

"More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes."

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

There is a lot of action taking place at more local level, sometimes motivated by the lack of it at national level, as with New Mexico's solar panel fields and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

As The Guardian reports: "Although 25 states have approved their own RPS, a national standard has stalled in the face of resistance from traditional coal-powered utilities and their allies in Congress."

These innovations show that contraction of carbon emissions is possible. The introduction of a global strategy of Contraction and Convergence would serve as a motor for further innovation and provide a global market for the technology, so bringing down prices.

Technology isn't the whole answer, but those in early with refining technology are likely to see great benefits.

How to send a quick message to the US Presidential election candidates

2008-06-20T02:54:00.001+01:00

"In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."
Benjamin Franklin

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs."
Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday I asked which of the candidates for President of the United States of America will respect the sovereignty of the people. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html

You can send a message to your preferred candidate - or all of them - asking for support for the Simultaneous Policy campaign (read yesterday´s blog if this is new to you).

Here is a quick and easy form you can use:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Select ´all candidates´, John McCain, Barack Obama or enter the name of another (I guess these will be added to the list once they are formally declared). You can change or edit the suggested message which I´ll include here:

---
The United States of America, like all democracies, is founded on the principle that its government represents the interests of we, the people. Yet in the globalized world governments too often put business interests first and foremost, fearing the country could otherwise lose investment and jobs to competing nations. Whether it is trade, climate change, sustainability, conflict, or any other area of global importance, we, the people, want our voices to be heard and respected. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) provides a way, by bringing people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies we wish to see implemented to address global problems. Simultaneous implementation of SP, after approval by the people of my country, will ensure that necessary action is taken and we will not be put at a competitive disadvantage. When I come to vote, I want to know which candidates respect the will of the people and have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. I call on you to make this pledge.
---

You can also fill in a quick form to send a link to the page to a friend. See:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Which candidate for US President will respect the sovereignty of the people?

2008-06-19T23:14:00.003+01:00

If the support for the candidates to be President of the United States of America is as finely balanced between John McCain and Barack Obama as the opinion polls suggest, the situation is perfect for US citizens to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves. The easiest action to take is to send a message to the candidates via the Simpol page at:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

In theory in a democracy the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. But in a globalized world the will of the people is too often neglected.

When formulating policy on addressing global issues, be it climate change, trade, access to resources or anything else at this level, every leader puts the national economy in first place. They are warned by business leaders that too extreme measures could see investment and jobs draining away to other countries. The movement of either fills politicians with genuine fear. These are not idle threats.

In international meeting after international meeting, necessary action is compromised by this economic imperative. Politicians may argue that protecting the national economy is the same as protecting the interests of the people. If this approach had delivered a way of living on the planet that is sustainable and stable, they might have a point. If people were satisfied with the choices offered to them, then perhaps all is fine.

But is the way our leaders are tackling global problems really the way we, the people, want them to be tackled?

The way to answer this question is surely by asking it.

This is what is happening in the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, promoted by Simpol, an international network of national organisations. People around the world are invited to propose, discuss, develop and ultimately approve the policies they would like to see implemented.

There is no charge to take part, simply sign up as an SP Adopter, which also involves calling on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. Everyone is welcome. If you do not like any of the policies already under discussion you can vote against them and put forward alternatives if you wish. Give your views in the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

This process is immensely empoweriing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Simultaneous Policy is to be implemented by all, or sufficient, governments acting together. This changes the context. For example, at present if voters in the US election are asked whether they want the US to open its borders to trade to a greater extent or follow a more protectionist approach, they will answer based on their assessment of what it will mean for their jobs and income, considering competition with other countries. It is a very different question to ask, would you like the international system of trade to operate differently, for their to be different rules?

Proposals for encouraging greater trade - or alternatively encouraging more local production and consumption - would be based on a consensus between Adopters across the world. Policies will be linked to make a coherent package, so, for example, an ending of barriers to trade could be combined with ensuring the pollution and climate change costs of transportation are not ignored, but included in the cost of products. Transnational corporations could be expected to respect minimum standards wherever they operate, making it impossible to cut costs by moving to a country run by a dictatorship that does not protect the rights of its citizens. And so on, as the people decide.

SP aims to solve the big international problems only. It does not include perhaps 95% or more of politics, which is local and national. SP is not a way to enforce policies or ideologies on other countries, but a way to empower people in each country to decide how to address global problems considering their own best interests and in a way that is acceptable to people in other countries.

Although global in its scope and to be implemented by all, or sufficient, countries acting together, the Simultaneous Policy is not one size fits all. Countries are at different starting points, which can be taken into account. It is for SP Adopters to decide.

The Simultaneous Policy approach allows Americans and citizens of every country to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves, a right undermined by powerful vested interests that currently dictate or constrain global policy setting.

Once the content of the Simultaneous Policy is determined by those who choose to take part and sufficient pledges to implement it have been made by governments - prompted by their citizens - voters in each country will be asked to approve it. Implementation will only go ahead with the approval of the people of the country as a whole.

Candidates in the US Presidential election are being asked to make a pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, governments have made the same pledge. It is a statement of intent that indicates to voters whether the candidate believes in the sovereign right of citizens to have their voices heard and respected.

Until there are sufficient governments, the President will have little choice but to operate in competition with other nations, under the threat that jobs and investment will be lost if he upsets business and financial interests, so support for SP will be just one factor voters will look to in deciding how to vote. SP Adopters are asked to encourage their preferred candidate to make the SP pledge. Adopters without a preference can call on all candidates to make the pledge and vote for the one who does.

A Presidential pledge to implement SP alongside other governments will have more than symbolic value. It will bring the world one step closer to implementation of the policies chosen by the people. Politicians in much of the English-speaking world have already signed the SP pledge, including in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as in developing countries such as Brazil, East Timor and India. There are SP Adopters in many more industrialized and developing nations.

In the US Presidential in 2000 a few hundred votes eventually decided who won. With the election this year also finely balanced, the candidate who supports SP could find it propels him into a winning position.

The candidates can make the pledge to implement SP in the knowledge that when implementation is triggered the global policies will have the support of the citizens of the US. It is only on that basis he would be expected to deliver on the pledge.

So the fundamental question is, which of the candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama or others - believes in the sovereign right of US citizens to have their voices heard and respected over those of vested interests?

Find out by sending a message to your preferred candidate or to all candidates calling for support for the Simultaneous Policy by going to:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Global justice - the big picture

UK Election 2010 - who's signed the Simultaneous Policy pledge?

Mbewa Self-Help Project in the news

Campaigning for the Simultaneous Policy - film clips

Film of my Malawi visit

Listening to people in one of the world's poorest nations

Climate change action in Malawi - building from the community level

Simpol and elections: publicity and progress

Euro election press release

The Simultaneous Policy campaign creates networking opportunities

Global governance at the G20: protest on the outside, national self interest on the inside. Where will the solutions we need come from?

Put People First March - London 28 March 2009. 11:00 - 16:00.

We should have acted on climate change yesterday - please do so today

Simpol visionaries

Countdown to the European Union elections 2009

The Amazon rainforest is wobbling on a climate change tipping point

Gordon Brown calls on Obama to join a global crack down on tax havens

Gordon Brown calls for global regulation, but what about democracy and transparency?

World TNC Regulatory Authority article in Jus Semper newsletter (English and Spanish)

President Obama urged to use carbon tax, not carbon trading, to address climate change

Quantitative easing, monetary reform and green credit

A New Year message from John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy campaign

Nuclear disarmament synergies

Reforming the financial markets - part 2

Reforming the financial markets - part 1

When is a question not a question?

What should the Simultaneous Policy do? - Youtube film with result of 2008 vote

Can we be sensible?

Gordon Brown's global vision

Congratulations President Obama

Votes being counted

Action on climate change could help end recession, says Stern Report author

Avoiding financial and climate meltdown

Gordon Brown: The global problems we face require global solutions

Promoting your proposal during the 2008 Simultaneous Policy voting round

Welcome to the simultaneous age

Vote to hold transnational corporations to account

Former MI6 agent ran Nestlé spy operation

Too many people drawing on the Earth's resources

The Amazon Fund could be incorporated into an emissions taxation scheme

Sustainable populations and joined-up thinking

Clean coal may not exist in reality, but it is being used to divert climate change action all the same

US Presidential candidates converge as the economy becomes the lead issue

Will the world end with a whimper? You decide.

Climate change : what's happening to planetary temperatures in the rest of the solar system?

UK House of Lords says rule of law must come second in bribery case

WTO and the danger of compartalised thinking

Conspiracy theories

Proposals for solar power stations are a good sign, but we need a framework for action

Shut out of the WTO Green Room

Letter from Evo Morales to the WTO

Existing global policy making has undermined food security in Cambodia and Haiti

Protecting water resources - lessons from a Brazilian success

Indian farmers protest about proposed WTO agreement

World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority

Food prices, biofuels and joined-up thinking

Quotas are everywhere in the free market - so why not for coffee?

The International Coffee Agreement is currently being ratified. Will it solve the coffee crisis?

Chocolate, child slavery and the Simultaneous Policy

Global action needed on food security

It's Simpol ! Spring 2008 and People-Centred Global Governance

Turning Weapons into Windmills

Listening to Zimbabweans

The Oil Depletion Protocol in the UK media - but no mention of SP

How SP creates a parallel market in political ideas to resolve global problems

Take action to save Zimbabwe - and seek an end to all dictators

Climate change discussion in Second Life

Does Brazil's success under 'Lula light' mean the financiers were right?

Gordon Brown in Saudi Arabia and in a political bind

How to send a quick message to the US Presidential election candidates

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." Thomas Jefferson

Which candidate for US President will respect the sovereignty of the people?

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs."
Thomas Jefferson