Once again, the U.S. faces a test case along racial lines. Will the courts mete out justice in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man who was shot and killed by three white men while jogging in Georgia?

The case is one in a long line of prominent trials with similar racial undertones, highlighting the divide in America’s legal system when it comes to race. Recent cases with mixed and highly charged verdicts include: George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Walter Scott, and Breonna Taylor.

Anna Shen

Tackling the ugly truths about the US legal system from all angles – within law school, legal practices, the judicial system, legislation, and representation — the 100-plus page report contains deep insights on the situation in America.

A few pressing questions in the report: How does cash bail punish the poor and impact society at large? How are law school admissions and standardized tests biased? Why are there so few Black partners in law firms? What about women in law?

Twelve LexisNexis Foundation Rule of Law Fellows from the company’s African Ancestry Network (AAN) produced the report, with a goal of shedding light on the underlying causes of racism in the legal system.

The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Law School Consortium joined forces with LexisNexis to award the fellowships, a commitment to eliminate systemic racism in legal systems and foster diversity and inclusion within the company. It is also an acknowledgement of LexisNexis’ membership in the UN Global Compact.

A few of the topics included:

Cash Bail: Minorities are disproportionately jailed due to an inability to pay bail fees, according to the report. Those held in pretrial detention are presumed innocent but are incarcerated until they “purchase their freedom.” The cash bail system — ineffective as a crime deterrent — also penalizes the poor. Many cannot afford to pay, no matter how small the amount. What if the person held is a single parent who loses their job and then can’t pay their rent? The report proposes alternatives such as a model legislative bill that sets conditions for a detainee’s release, as well as an Equality Bail Fund supported by corporations, non-profits, and other.

Bankruptcy: African Americans are more likely advised to file Chapter 13 than Chapter 7. Chapter 7 discharges debts within six months and requires attorneys’ fees up front. Chapter 13 attorneys’ fees are paid over time, debts are not typically discharged, and can take up to five years to settle. The report discussed providing tools to reduce racial bias in bankruptcy, and educating attorneys to provide effective advice.

Law School Admissions: The legal profession is one of the least diverse fields in America, according to the report. This inequality is due to the dominance of the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), its flawed logic, and the institutional racism that it creates. The report recommends wider selection criteria than the LSAT’s quantitative measures. For example, adding criteria based on leadership, community involvement, and overcoming adversity.

Law Firms: Black lawyers account for slightly over 10 percent of partners at major U.S. law firms, according to the report. Lawyers leave firms due to retention and promotion issues, isolation, lack of guidance, and little professional growth. The report proposes diversity training, championing diverse leaders, and metrics-based approaches to diversity.

Women: Black women attorneys are vastly underrepresented in law firm leadership across the US. How can this be changed? Amplifying their voices, as well as fostering the conditions that help attain partnership can combat underrepresentation.

Access: Consider that less than 6 percent of lawyers are Black, yet they represent over 13 percent of the total U.S. population. Access to a legal education and to the tools needed to become successful in the legal field are different for minorities as for their white counterparts, said the report.

In conclusion, the link between ending systemic racism in the legal system and the mission to advance the rule of law is clear: equal treatment under the law. “When the legal process treats parties unequally in the application of laws, there is an inherent lack of fairness in the system,” said Ian McDougall, President of LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic continues: as more people around the world lose their livelihoods, human trafficking is on the rise. Support services for survivors have been shut, and past gains to combat it have been reversed. Funding has dried up.

D’Souza holds his book: Frog in a Well: Turning Obstacles into Opportunities

Human trafficking survivor Harold D’Souza is no stranger to the perils of modern-day slavery, much of it invisible, right in front of our eyes. In 2003, Harold left his job in India as a marketing manager for a multinational electronics company and was promised a $75,000 job by his trafficker. When he arrived in Ohio, there was no position. What began was an 11-year journey, “pure hell,” as he described it.

He and his wife were forced to work in a restaurant seven days a week for as long as 16 hours a day. His employer took his legal documents and forced him to take a five-figure loan from a bank, keeping the money. For years, they were verbally and physically abused. Harold’s wife was sexually assaulted in front of him. The trafficker hired a hitman to kill Harold. Shockingly, the perpetrator is still free despite evidence against him, as US laws often fall woefully short for prosecution.

The D’Souza’s were one of a few lucky ones to beat the odds; they eventually escaped a harrowing situation and started a new life. It has not been easy to overcome the trauma and scars.

D’Souza committed his life to help victims, founding Eyes Open International, which focuses on combating modern-day slavery. He lectures globally on the topic, was appointed by President Obama to the US Advisory Council on Human Trafficking, and has continued his service under President Trump.

He spoke to Anna Shen about human slavery during the pandemic, his 10-day trip across parts of the US meeting survivors, a biopic film in the works about his life, and more.

Q. What is the current state of affairs with human trafficking in the US?

A. During the COVID-19 pandemic, trafficking has increased. The perpetrators are more aggressive, and law enforcement has so much else on their hands. Local and state governments are overwhelmed. People are more economically unstable; it is easier to fall victim to labor and sex trafficking than ever. I am shocked that even though I tell Indians not to come to the US, they are willing to pay money to an agent. There are so many people manipulating them, charging anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000. People are desperate and will pay.

Q. What happens to a person once they pay a trafficker?

A. Once they leave their home country, only two out of 10 reach the US – eight die on the way, or are caught and deported. Last year, 311 Indians were deported from the Mexican border. The situation is horrific.

A lot of Indians that were already in America also got deported. That is why I am going to India in a few days — to educate people. America is the destination, but India is the source for traffickers. There is a saying in India, “Going to America is like going to heaven.” Nobody is sharing the actual facts about what happens here, that they will end up as modern day slaves.

Q. You just took a 10-day road trip to meet with the survivors of human trafficking. Where did you go? What did you learn?

A. I drove through Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Indianapolis and Chicago. It was eye opening. Victims are more isolated than ever. Due to the pandemic, the organizations that support victims have limited service or none at all. Food pantries and churches are shut down. Because most victims are undocumented, they did not get the stimulus package. Many are suicidal and live in constant fear.

Perpetrators are getting smarter and are one step ahead of law enforcement agencies. Finding new victims is easier: The unemployed are out of the house, looking for any odd jobs or help, so perpetrators driving around can find them more easily and exploit them. Someone unemployed might be standing on a street corner, asking for work or donations and fall prey to a trafficker. There is a statistic that if a girl is out on the street looking for help, within 24 hours she will be picked up and become a victim of sex trafficking.

Q. Your perpetrator never came to justice. What can be done to prevent that in the future?

A. Laws have to be changed, with stiffer penalties. There are very few laws to protect the victims, and very few successful laws to prosecute perpetrators, who also know how to successfully fight their cases. The focus has always been on victims, but that needs to change: When you prosecute one perpetrator you save 100 victims.

Media plays a very big role, as coverage will intimidate perpetrators, especially because they are very affluent and high status. They are intimidated by negative press coverage. Also, victims need to speak out, but this requires tremendous courage.

Q. There is so much focus on the police these days. How should they be trained to help?

A. Right now, law enforcement is overwhelmed with so many issues. However, they need to be trained to recognize trafficking in front of them. At the moment, the governor of Ohio is training police officers to recognize it happening right under their eyes. For example, recently an officer stopped someone for speeding and saw five people in the car. He questioned them where they were going. Something didn’t sound right. It turned out that one passenger in the car was a sex trafficking victim. The police rescued her.

This kind of training needs to be global, and it has to come from the top leadership. Police also need to be “trauma informed,” which means recognizing when they are speaking to a victim who may be in the car with their perpetrator, and may speak in a certain way to the police officer.

Q. Focusing on the human side, can you tell me what you think others should know but never think about?

A. There is so much attention on getting victims free, but going a step further, who is the person underneath all of this? Nobody asks them what their dreams are. Every individual on this planet has dreams, talents. No NGO, counselor or law enforcement agency asks about their dreams – this person once wanted to be a doctor, or an actor. Once society knows they are a victim or survivor, they are stigmatized. So many people won’t say a word about what happened because they are afraid that they won’t move ahead or be able to live a normal life.

I still cry at night and feel I failed and as a grown man. I still ask myself, “What did I do to get in that place?” I still struggle and go to counseling. Trauma has no expiration date. But with God’s blessing, I am still here to tell the story. My focus is on prevention, education, protection and the empowerment of community members, especially vulnerable populations globally.

I know no one can stop me. I will help as many victims to become survivors and thrive as much as possible and no perpetrator will stand in my way. I thank God every day.

This is part of a series of features from across the globe on human trafficking. IPS coverage is supported by the Airways Aviation Group.

The origins of the GSN come from the endeavours of the Joint Declaration of Religious Leaders signed on 2 December 2014. Religious leaders of various faiths, gathered to work together “to defend the dignity and freedom of the human being against the extreme forms of the globalisation of indifference, such us exploitation, forced labour, prostitution, human trafficking” and so forth.

President of Djibouti Ismail Omar Guelleh and President of ERF Manssour Bin Mussallam

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 24 2020 (IPS)

In an increasingly unequal and divided world, what role can education play to achieve sustainable development globally?

How do we unite to achieve inclusive and quality education systems? Can we transform education so that it fosters local solutions, taking into account existing cultural contexts?

These are just some of the questions being addressed January 27-29 during the International Summit on Balanced and Inclusive Education, being held in Djibouti. The summit, sponsored by the Geneva-based Educational Relief Foundation, will bring together some of the world’s most profound thinkers and world leaders on education globally; 300 participants from 35 countries — Heads of State, Ministers of Education, NGOs, academics and civil society representatives.

A few on the list include the President of Djibouti; as well as Ministers of Education from Djibouti, Yemen, Ethiopia, Guyana, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Maldives and Palau, to name a few.

A major theme of the summit is how the global South will take the lead in developing education systems for the future. In a world of global standardization of education, and a “one-size fits all” approach, many are left behind.

Those present at the conference would say that education systems that must adapt to the contexts of their students, and not the other way around.

What strategies can be implemented to achieve the United Nations’ fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of quality education, the most fundamental human right that is critical to ending extreme poverty? What are the best practices, experiences and collaborations to share?

The summit takes place in a context where the world is facing greater, more urgent global challenges: climate change, geopolitical fragility, and increases of forced mass migrations.

The population of climate refugees is on the rise. Many of the displaced — children — are the world’s most vulnerable and fragile. The issue of refugee education, as well as how to provide it in increasingly multicultural classrooms, is urgent.

The challenges of diversity are great, especially in a world where there are ever greater technological, digital and scientific divides. Transforming education systems — and ensuring they are equitable and inclusive — requires large-scale mobilization of human, technical and financial resources.

Participants at the Summit will take away best practices and lessons learned on successful approaches: how to create inclusive education that considers diverse needs: physical, cognitive, academic, social, cultural, and emotional?

The question is how to design effective systems that consider the local communities (rural, peri-urban areas, conflict zone) and country-specific situations with regard to levels of development, religions, history, and culture.

Sustainable Development Goal 4 : Education Critical to Winding Global Poverty. Credit: Maged Srour / IPS

The event will culminate with the signing of the Universal Declaration of Balanced and Inclusive Education which addresses the urgent need to enact educational reform globally. It calls for the establishment of new multilateral instruments of technical and financial cooperation, as well as support for education systems around the world.

Specifically, the declaration calls for the technical and financial resources to develop relevant curricula and train teachers.

About the Education Relief Foundation:

The Education Relief Foundation (ERF) is a Geneva-based not-for-profit and non-governmental organisation which serves to develop, promote and embed a balanced and inclusive education through policy development, capacity building and civil society engagement, amongst other activities.

For more information:
https://www.multivu.com/players/uk/8649551-education-relief-foundation-system-future/
https://educationrelief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ERF-GlobalGuide.pdf

Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams won the prize for her work to eradicate landmines in 1997. She is pictured here speaking at a youth protest at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates held in Merida, Mexico. Courtesy: Albany J Alvarez/ Nobel Women’s Initiative

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2019 (IPS)

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump continued to float the idea that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize, but that it would never happen because the system was rigged.

Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, who won the prize for her work to eradicate landmines in 1997, would likely agree Trump would never win – but not because the system was rigged, but because under his leadership she said: “We have swung into the dark ages.”

Speaking at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, in the heart of the Yucatan, in Merida, Mexico, she was asked which conflict she was most concerned about, and she replied, “Trump. He is a global crisis in and of himself.”

“He is pulling out of treaties on the climate, recharging the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has, and modernising the weapons arsenal. We don’t need more nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that everything he does is about ruining institutions.

Trump-like behaviour has spread everywhere, she continued. “Around the world, Trump has given voice to xenophobia, hatred, racism and emboldened several leaders like him. In Brazil and Italy, the leaders are the same,” she said.

Williams had much to speak about, including Trump, the state of world peace, why women are critical to the global peace process, and how to engage youth.

In an interview after the Summit, she stopped to give her thoughts — before continuing on to Rome for meetings at the Vatican to discuss killer robots and artificial intelligence, which she is increasingly concerned about because “nobody is talking about them.”

Excerpts from her interview:

Inter Press Service (IPS): You are chairing the Women’s Nobel Initiative (NWI). Why and how did that come about?

Jody Williams (JW): In 2004, Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and I were in Nairobi for an international landmine meeting.  She had started an NGO to protect children from landmines on the border between Iraq and Iran. A handful of Nobel women, in support of women’s rights, met with Nobel Laureate Waangari Maathai.

All six of us decided to use whatever influence we had to shine a spotlight on grassroots women’s organisations working on sustainable peace. We believe that if there is no justice there is no peace, and if there is no equality there is no peace. Women are critical to the peace process globally.

The Nobel Women’s delegation focuses on women because nobody listens to women. We have worked in the Democratic Republic of Congo with women, and at the height of Bangladesh’s Rohingya crisis. We have done a lot in Mexico, especially to protect indigenous land in Ateneco, where, in 2001, government officials wanted to take over, some would say steal, the lands of the farmers of Atenco.

This was to build a new international airport near Mexico City. Forty-seven women were raped, and the men who organised defending the land were imprisoned for four years. Others spent years in hiding. Suddenly, the women found themselves thrust into the role of leadership.

Over the next years, the Nobel Women’s Initiative became involved in supporting the efforts of the women of Atenco by lending our voices to amplify theirs.  It seemed to help. I went to Atenco to show further support on behalf of NWI and other Nobel Laureates supporting their efforts.

At one point the women protested, and with indignation they came – How dare you take our land and imprison our men? They were setting a precedent for “public protest” that this was their land and they wanted to keep it.

Finally, the cases of the 12 men came to the Supreme Court in mid-2010 and at a strategic moment, I was able to return, meet with the Justices themselves and other public officials – and then be there when the court decided to set the twelve political prisoners free. It was unreal. Amazing. Just think about the precedent set by freeing the men, something that underscored the freedom of assembly and all, but for one acquittal.

Later, I was able to go back to Atenco to see the women we’ve supported in their struggle to defend their land and their rights. Also, I got to meet the twelve men.  They are strong, dignified, and proud of their struggle to defend their land and their livelihoods. They even gave me my own machete. It is not a weapon, but more of a symbol, as it something used to slash in the fields.

IPS: Why are women essential to the peace process globally?

JW: I ask — why aren’t women needed? I followed the route of Syrian refugees up through Balkans to Germany – through Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Germany and met with Syrian women who had formed an organisation to push for peace and for reconciliation.

During a press conference, a young man stands up and asks: ‘What is the role of women in the peace process?’ I gave him a death stare. I asked him: ‘What is the role of men?’ He is dumbfounded, fascinated in positive way, as if he was hit by a bolt of lightning. He replied that he had never thought about that way.

If all sectors of society are not involved in peace negotiations, the root causes of the conflict are not addressed. In El Salvador’s peace agreement, three-quarters of it was given to separating combatants and disarming the guerillas and trying to help them with a political party.

There were only a few pages talking about the root causes of the problem. The thought was that once all of this is done, they would try to look at the root. But the problem is that we need to look at those causes now. How do you have a full-blown agreement and get buy-in during the process?

Women — who are trying to hold their families together — have a lot to say about the peace process. Our role as women is everything — community, life, keeping people together. You don’t have to love everyone, but accept they are different, as long as they are not breaking the law.

IPS: How can we solve the climate crisis?

JW: When I think about ways to address solve the climate crisis immediately, it is about redefining security. It is not about having more bombs, but making sure that we continue to exist and live on this planet, and that we stop destroying it every day.

We should be protesting the government’s budgets on the military. If we think about it, trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars are spent building weapons of war. If you are constantly planning for war, then you have to practice and invade somebody.

I am proposing that governments reduce military budgets by 25 percent and put it into a fund to save the planet. If they did reduce, we would have enough money to save the planet and fulfil every one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

We also have to put at the forefront our corporations, whose bottom line is making money and is not worrying about a better planet. We need to raise our voices in companies, tell them that if they do care about what they are doing to destroy the planet, and if they don’t change, we won’t buy their stuff. It takes a community to come together and not buy their stuff. It’s doable. All these elements can change this planet quickly.

We have to work together. No one person changes the world and I don’t care who pretends they do. It takes collaboration and communication about what we are doing to make a difference. Together we can. A small group of people working together can do a lot on this planet.

IPS: What is the role of youth, and especially of young women in creating peace?

JW: Often people will say to me that young people don’t care. But look at Greta Thunberg and the climate strikes. Not all young women, but many, know they have a place. Young people aren’t waiting, they are using their voices to hold adults who messed up everything, to account. Young people are playing a role. I’m proud of them and especially to walk with them and learn more from them.

Nobel Peace Laureate and Former President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos, opens the summit with other Laureates onstage (David Dickstein/Prose & Comms Inc.)

By Anna Shen
MERIDA, Mexico, Sep 23 2019 (IPS)

In a world of increasing fragility and declining resources, can the world foster peace? With a looming climate crisis, is war inevitable? Will nuclear war be the final result? Are women the ultimate peace builders? How do we train and engage youth to promote peace?

These are some of the questions posed during last week’s three-day World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Merida, Mexico which brought together 1,200 youth and 30 Nobel Peace Laureates — individual and organizations — Juan Manuel Santos, Former President of Colombia; F.W. De Klerk, former President of South Africa; Lord David Trimble, Northern Ireland; and Lech Walesa, former President of Poland.

Women continue to claim a larger seat at the Nobel Peace table. In attendance were Rigoberta Menchu Tum for her work promoting the rights of indigenous peoples; Jody Williams, awarded for her work to eradicate landmines; Shirin Ebadi, for the struggle for women and children’s rights; Tawakkol Karman of Yemen; and Leymah Gbowee of Liberia.

A few key takeaways:
Former President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for work with FARC to negotiate peace and end a brutal civil war, noted positive developments at home, but said some segments are taking steps backwards.

However, he remained steadfast in his commitment to peace: “For each terrorist blinded by hate, there are millions of youth that wish to preserve it. We are not here to say everything is fine, but we are here to leave our mark for peace.”

Discussing the social and economic dimensions of peace, Nobel Laureate Jody Williams railed on the world’s grotesque amounts of income disparity, and called for a total restructuring of the world’s socioeconomic systems.

While many citizens move to massive cities — megalopolises — to access employment, education and health care, they end up encountering racism. “How do we move forward on the common good?” she asked, noting that in America alone, 57 percent of the US disposable budget is spent on the military and weapons, while only 6 percent goes to health and education.

Nobel Laureate Lord David Trimble of Northern Ireland expressed concern over several regions in the world where conflicts continue, such as the Mideast, where there are proxy wars, as well as Iran’s moves to become a hegemonic state.

Photographic reproduction of the Nobel Peace Medal. Credit: UN Photo/John Isaac

There are dangers in the South China sea, and threats of a US-China trade war – all of it having a ripple effect, with a potential to greatly impact business and other activities.

Things are getting worse on the democracy front, according to Trimble. “It is not going as well as we would like,” he said, referring to the elections last week in Russia, where the state coerced and manufactured results, producing outcomes that were presented as democratic, but were far from it.

Highlighting the danger of technology controlled in the hands of a few mega corporations, Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarti called for democratization of tech, and added that, the world has globalized everything, but that it needed to “globalize the compassion that exists in all of us.”

Bernice King, CEO of the King Center, and the youngest daughter of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, challenged all those who came to the summit. “ All of you have a passion to see positive change in our world. We all want peace but it has to be intentional on a daily basis,” she said. Her practical advice? Peace builders need to find an accountability partner to support them when frustrated or depressed.

King offered a message of hope: just like her father: “The only way our world is going to change, is that we have it in our hearts to be love, compassion, strength, nurturing and kindness,” she said, adding that Martin Luther King said that the children of darkness were much more determined than the children of light.

In a panel on nuclear disarmament, Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute, and UN Representative of the Permanent Secretariat of the World Summits of Nobel Peace Laureates, posed the question: “Is it legal to annihilate the future?” Because with the power of today’s nuclear weapons, they are a quick end,” he said.

Humanity has come very close to another nuclear war but has been unbelievably lucky, according to Dr. Ira Helfand, co-chair of the Physician’s for Social Responsibility’s nuclear weapons abolition committee.

“Sooner or later our luck will run out. It is no longer a question of when there will be a nuclear war, not if there will be one,” he said, adding that youth today did not understand the enormity of the threat – greater in power and numbers. Put simply, today’s nuclear weapons can annihilate the planet in short order.

In a nod to youth’s achievements, Mohamad Al Jounde was awarded the Turner Social Change Prize, and local student Saskia Niño de Rivera was given the Leave Your Mark for Peace Award.

During closing ceremonies, delegates stated that human rights are non-negotiable. The final document, the Merida Declaration states that: “As long as basic freedoms are violated and gross corruption, violence, extreme poverty, inequality, racism, modern-day slavery and trafficking of persons, discrimination, and discrimination phobias exist, there can be no true peace. We proclaim that true peace is inseparable from the achievement of true justice.”

To learn more and watch archived panel discussions, please visit the Facebook group at World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. Also, The World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates.

Employees of Africa’s Talking, a platform for software developers, working at their desks in Nairobi, Kenya on February 13, 2018. Credit: Dominic Chavez/International Finance Corporation

By Anna Shen
NEW YORK, Nov 19 2018 (IPS)

Global poverty is undoubtedly the most critical economic and moral challenge of the 21st century. While economists debate how to raise up the world’s poorest – the more than 800 million people living on less than US$1.25 a day.– entrepreneurs are spurring innovation and growth in emerging markets.

However, to truly enable economic activity, governments must work diligently with entrepreneurs and the venture capital class to build ecosystems.

What is most exciting is a spate of new companies outside of the obvious BRIC countries in diverse geographies – from the Philippines to Peru, to Hangzhou to Lagos – that are unleashing home grown innovation, creating efficiencies and solving local problems.

Many of the start-ups are tackling challenges felt most keenly among the poor: access to health care, education, finance and markets among them.

The Center for American Entrepreneurship reports that venture capital (VC) — the funding source for many of the world’s start-up companies — hit an all-time high of USD$171 billion in 2017. In the past three years, start-ups in Beijing have raised $72.8 billion, almost as much as those in San Francisco ($81.8 billion).

Talent is everywhere, and it is hungry. California’s Silicon Valley has Facebook, Google, and Apple. But unicorns are elsewhere: China has Didi and Xiaomi, India has Hike, and Nigeria has Jumia.

Finally, even Silicon Valley is taking note. Headlines such as the New York Times proclaim: “Silicon Valley is Over, Says Silicon Valley,” or Forbes: “Is Silicon Valley Losing Its Luster?” Venture capitalists usually refuse to consider companies outside the Bay area. As one VC proclaimed, “If I can’t ride my bike to meet the founders, I won’t invest,” speaking to the Valley’s freewheeling hippy-esque culture.

Anna Shen

At Bloomberg’s New Economy Forum in Singapore earlier this month, the talk was that Asian cities are now top challengers for domination by US venture capital firms. In a report “The Rise of the Global Startup City” by the Center for American Entrepreneurship, authors Ian Hathaway and Richard Florida state that: “The geography of start-up activity and venture capital investment is undergoing a rapid and profound period of globalization.”

The idea that successful start-ups must launch and scale in Silicon Valley — or in another major U.S. city — no longer holds true.” Increasingly, the world’s entrepreneurs can stay home to raise capital for their companies.

Most importantly is the profound contribution of local high-tech sectors on economic activity. For every single high-tech job created in the U.S. and Europe, 4.3 other jobs are created, said Hathaway.

While numbers in emerging markets are more difficult to come by, he noted: “I can only imagine that the impacts are far greater because the there is much more runway to grow.” New tech start-ups spur competition, productivity, and create jobs. Entrepreneurs launch new products, adopt cutting-edge technology and open new markets. The result: sustainable economic development.

“There are huge efficiency gains as the digitalization of the global economy has a huge impact in developing markets,” said Nikunj Jinsi, Global Head of the International Finance Corporation’s $1BN venture capital fund, which includes investments in health, education, transportation, and energy. He noted that in China IFC invested in the “Uber for trucks,” which consolidated a fractured industry that accounts for 15 to 20 percent of China’s GDP. The exponential effect is tremendous.

People often don’t focus on the multiplier effects of start-ups. “In Silicon Valley it’s called the PayPal effect – when companies succeed, they spin out dozens, even hundreds of entrepreneurs who know now how it is done. It is a flywheel of economic growth,” said Christopher M. Schroeder, co-founder of venture firm Next Billion Ventures.

In emerging markets, much of the capital is concentrated within a few families. But VC is an interesting way of injecting new capital into industries because it rewards entrepreneurs. It has a huge role to play in emerging markets because access to capital is limited and access to capital that will take risks is even more so.

“For GDP to grow in emerging markets, small business needs to grow and technology is a way to do this,” said Paul Santos, Managing Partner of cross-border firm Wavemaker Partners, which invests in early stage start-ups in Southeast Asia.

The role of the public sector cannot be underestimated. “Governments must stimulate and build ecosystems and enabling environments, and this includes mentorship. They can do a lot, and provide tailored solutions,” said IFC’s Jinsi.

Entrepreneurs can go only so far without government intervention and support in the forms of incubators, accelerators, rule of law and other legal and support structures that encourage entrepreneurship. Risk taking must be nurtured, along with education.

Starting a company is challenging in any market, but for emerging markets there is often no community, and failure and experimentation are frowned upon, not celebrated. Funding is much more difficult to come by.

Governments are launching new initiatives to spur innovation. In Lebanon, the government allocated $400 million to support local venture capital funds. Similar initiatives are happening in Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Startup India, a campaign that aims to promote promising companies. From Africa to Asia to Latin America, governments are pitching in.

However, if governments do not do enough in a concerted manner to build ecosystems that empower entrepreneurs to create companies, jobs and opportunities for poor people in the developing world, the world will see greater conflict, as millions in the world live in fragility and conflict, and have no hope of creating a better life.

These jobs are critical to seeing fulfilment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially of Goal #8, which is decent work and economic growth. Speed and skill are key.

Excerpt:

Globally, women are grossly underrepresented in scientific research and development (R&D). Credit: Bigstock

By Anna Shen
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug 3 2017 (IPS)

Gender inequality is the greatest moral and social issue of our time — and the world’s most critical economic challenge. If half of the global population cannot fulfill their human potential, the world’s economic growth will falter.

Anna Shen

We are being robbed as we speak: if women fully participated in formal economic activity, it would add $12 trillion to the world’s coffers, according to the McKinsey Global Institute.

Drill down to specific industries – the tech sector – and globally, women face the most profound imbalances. At risk are the immense contributions to innovation that women around the world could make — if simply given the chance.

We are now in what The World Economic Forum calls the “4th Industrial Revolution,” an era built on technology that fuses digital, physical and biological worlds. It is imperative that women contribute to the planet’s sweeping transformation.

Imagine if women participated fully and their intellects, talents, and skills were fully used. Think of the products developed, technologies created, companies funded, and discoveries found. What answers would women find for the world’s most pressing problems?

Keep in mind women’s inventions to date: Marie Curie, winner of two Nobel Prizes, who discovered radioactivity, radium and polonium; Grace Hopper, who designed Harvard’s Mark I computer; and
Ann Tsukamoto, who isolated stem cells, a promising discovery that could lead to a cure for cancer.

Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves.

Globally, women are grossly underrepresented in scientific research and development (R&D). Catalyst, a global nonprofit that works to accelerate women’s workplace inclusion, reports that worldwide, females account for less than 29 percent of those employed in R&D. In America, which prides itself as possessing the worlds’ most advanced tech companies, women hold less than 25 percent of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

When women actually do work in the tech sector, retention is an issue; negative work experiences and a lack of support spur women to depart at alarming rates. Almost one-third of women in science, technology and engineering in the U.S. intend to leave their jobs within a year; it is worse in other parts of the world, as women in Brazil (22 percent) and India (20 percent) plan to quit during the same time period.

If one narrowly looks at the business case for gender, the argument is undeniable. Put simply, women boost the bottom line and add invaluable perspectives. According to a Morgan Stanley report that polled 108 tech firms, companies with a highly gender-diverse workforce grew 5.4 percent more revenue-wise per year.

Board representation matters too. Companies in every sector, not just tech, perform 5 percent better when they have just one woman on the board, according to Credit Suisse, which examined 3,000 companies. The Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that out of 22,000 firms surveyed globally in tech and other, 60 percent had no female board members. Norway, Latvia, Slovenia, and Bulgaria had only 20 percent female representation in board members and senior executives.

In developing countries, gender parity could enable greater self-sufficiency. Consider the recent visit of Google CEO Sundar Pichai to Nigeria and the promise that the company will train 10 million Nigerians in the next five years, ushering them into the digital economy, a lofty goal that would open more Africans to the global marketplace. What if half – five million — of the newly trained tech workers were women?

Dr. Unoma Okorafor, founder of the Nigerian-based foundation Working to Advance African Women (WAAW), is working across eight countries to increase the pipeline of females in tech. She believes that fostering gender parity is critical to poverty alleviation and Africa’s rapid development. “Technology can empower women who are currently working in agriculture or at home. Many entrepreneurs are women, however, they are excluded from the formal system,” she said.

Could a burgeoning tech sector wean these countries off foreign aid? If countries could train workers to think for themselves, Africa could change the narrative from aid to trade. “We could empower Africans to innovate for themselves,” said Okorafor, adding that this is part of the goal of attracting women to careers in STEM.

The problem is in training and retaining women leaders globally, but discrimination exists in the funding mechanism – venture capital (VC) — used to birth companies. In California’s Silicon Valley, where many of the world’s largest tech companies launched – Uber, Airbnb, Google, Facebook – women face obstacles in VC; in fact, women-led companies comprised less than 5 percent of all VC deals in 2016. Only 7 percent of partners at the leading 100 VC firms are women.

This summer’s avalanche of sexual harassment scandals at Uber and several prominent American venture capital firms have made global front-page news.

Unfortunately, for women in other countries, the story is also the same. In late July, the board of Kenyan software company Ushahidi fired Daudi Were, executive director, after an investigation of sexual harassment by a former employee. She published details online, recounting the disturbing impact of his actions. Eleven other women experienced similar incidents.

Access to capital is unmistakably powerful. Trish Costello, founder of Portfolia, a crowdfunding website that aims to create a new class of women investors, said that, “The goal is to design spaces that work for women in terms of investment vehicles. Men say that there are no female VCs and that is why there is a leaky pipeline, but that is not true.”

Ruchira Shukla, regional lead for South Asia for the venture capital arm of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), gave hopeful news: “The number of women entrepreneurs in the tech space is rising. These women will serve as role models,” adding that she is heartened by the women entrepreneurs she is seeing, especially as the IFC invested in a fund for female founders.

Recent discussions to raise women up are encouraging. Is it lip service? Across the tech industry, it is still a man’s world. It’s up to all of us – men and women – to change the rules. Innovation and the world’s future are at stake.

Excerpt:

Jigar Shah likes math. It inspires him. After all, crunching numbers allowed him to convince wary investors of the money-making potential of solar energy, allowing him to ignite an industry that was crippled by roadblocks.

At that time, 10 years ago, he says, profit-hungry investors simply did not understand the extraordinary economic returns of green energy. But Shah knew there was a different way forward."We don’t have a hard time believing the opportunity exists, but some have a tough time believing these technologies will be deployed.” -- Jigar Shah

He is widely credited in green circles as breaking through the obstacles that blocked traditional financing of solar technology, unleashing an avalanche of activity in that sector. Later, as CEO of Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, he planted the seeds for success of other green technologies.

And now he has graduated to running his own green fund, Clean Feet Investors, which seeks to provide significant returns from socially responsible investments in small to medium-sized renewable energy projects.

With Shah’s newly released book, titled “Creating Climate Wealth: Unlocking the Impact Economy,” he aims for no less than launching a new revolution and bringing the whole world along with him. His goal is to show that humans can fend off climate change with green technology and green jobs.

The formula is straightforward: “We can get to 10 trillion dollars and reverse climate change; we need 100,000 businesses that already exist to get to 100 million in sales each. If we do that between now and 2020, we can stave off the worst impacts of climate change,” he told IPS.

Courtesy of Jigar Shah.

Shah’s proclamation is bold – he looks at climate change as the biggest financial prospect in mankind’s lifetime. In fact, he says it is the largest wealth creation opportunity on the planet. With his book, he wants to make people understand how mainstream capital can create a green revolution.

The book is a “how-to” guide, a basic primer that might be called a “Mainstream Capital for Dummies book,” he told IPS.

Shah wants to make the funding side of green more simple for laymen to understand, something he accomplished, as the book is readable and written at an eighth grade reading level.

The book is not an academic exercise, it is Shah’s personal narrative on his role in creating climate wealth, and how one person – with a great deal of help – can bring mainstream capital into industries, such as solar power. Shah adds that it is a book about his “lessons and screw-ups” and how his wisdom could be used and replicated.

Shah draws upon his experience as CEO and Founder of Sun Edison, where he figured out how to take solar technology, which had been around for years, and put it into the mainstream with proper funding. After all, the solar panel was invented in 1973 and had not changed much since then. His main contribution was convincing major financial institutions such as Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan to invest in the technology.

“They did not do so as a favour to me, they did it because it was in their best interest,” he told IPS. “We had a chicken and egg problem, but we were able to overcome it.”

Of course, the bigger opportunity now, he said, is to understand the “pain points” or obstacles, he said, adding: “We don’t have a hard time believing the opportunity exists, but some have a tough time believing these technologies will be deployed.”

Shah notes that today, the world spends 2.4 trillion dollars more for oil than it did in 1999, while at the same time household incomes have not gone up when accounting for inflation. This is a strong enough argument for alternative energy; in addition, people have to cut outside of their budget.

“People are in a lot of pain now, and solutions are desired for the consumer,” he said. He mentioned vehicle efficiency as a potential area of investment.

The book discusses potential opportunities and how to translate them into wealth. The key is in deploying mature technologies and releasing products into the market. There are cost-effective technologies that are ready to scale that are enormously profitable, he notes.

Shah says that now, financial institutions have extra liquidity and want to put extra funds to work.

“It is true that in the U.S., there is no lack of money,” he said, adding that if you are a baby boomer, perhaps as you age, you are transitioning into lower risk investments. There is an opportunity for greater returns – for example, by investing in solar technology, which has a five to eight percent return.

Watching the colossal destruction of Typhoon Haiyan over the past month, Columbia University Professor Graciela Chichilnisky knows one thing for sure: climate change will likely result in more of these massive storms, threatening the very existence of humanity.

As one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change and creator of the carbon market enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol emissions treaty, Chichilnisky also knows this is nothing new.“What we need is to close the carbon cycle, which means whatever we put up, we bring it down.” -- Graciela Chichilnisky

“What the world needs now is solutions,” she told IPS. “If we can create the right institutions now we can solve energy and climate issues. For the first time, with the release of the official IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report, there is one very important paragraph: there are potential solutions, and the IPCC report talks about carbon negative technology.”

Chichilnisky, a world-class economist and mathematician, has also searched for the answers, published in much of her academic work that consists of 14 books and 250 articles in leading academic journals.

Despite overwhelming evidence detailing the costs of inaction, the outlook is increasingly dire: a recent U.N. climate change report forecasts a profound decline in the world’s food supply, increases in violent conflicts, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and disease.

Courtesy of Graciela Chichilnisky.

Three of the diplomats who led the U.N. global warming talks have said that future climate treaties will not prevent the world from overheating. Two weeks of climate talks in Warsaw last month produced dismal progress.

Despite these obstacles, Chichilnisky remains tenacious. Jigar Shah, former CEO of Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room, notes her lifelong efforts. “Graciela is a tour de force,” he told IPS. “She has been working on climate change for the better part of her life and has figured out how to inspire people with her messages. She can include that in her legacy.”

Indeed, Chichilnisky helped put the issue on the map from the very beginning, something recognised by the international community. She is seen as a key player in creating an international climate change framework as the Argentine-born U.S. lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Today, Chichilnisky is most concerned with finding ways to avoid, or at least ameliorate, the catastrophic impact climate change will have on humanity and the planet. She believes there is a way forward.

The goal of recent U.N. negotiations has been to keep warming below two degrees C by the year 2020. This may be possible using markets and technology, Chichilnisky says.

One compelling instrument uses a carbon neutral technology, which became the cornerstone of a company called Global Thermostat, which she founded with Dr. Peter Eisenberger, who also founded the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

The company got a loan from Goldman Sachs, and six years ago, the technology caught the eye of Edgar Bronfman Jr., former CEO of Warner Music and Seagram. He is the lead investor in Global Thermostat, and later became executive chairman.

Bronfman told IPS that Chichilnisky brings a combination of vision, intelligence, determination and gravitas to the table.

“She is prepared to see things that not everyone can. I think the fact that she is a woman that has succeeded in her career means she is more determined and resourceful than most people,” he said.

“The work in the Kyoto Protocol lends credibility to Global Thermostat, which may seem to be too good to be true at first,” he added.

The company’s technology, which is targeted at power plants, refineries and other industries, captures and stores carbon dioxide emissions. Bronfman likens it to a “giant dehumidifier”.

“What we need is to take carbon down from air to close the carbon cycle, which means whatever we put up, we bring it down,” Chichilnisky said.

In short, the catastrophic risks of climate change require a fundamental transformation in the production and use of energy. The challenge is to increase the world’s energy supplies while also reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, she said.

The company has commercial deals with several of the biggest players in the market, including Corning. Some of its products feed CO2 to algae that turn it into clean fuel. There are two plants in Silicon Valley, California and one in the U.S. state of Alabama.

Chichilnisky insists the receding goal of staving off a two-degree C increase in temperature remains possible, especially with the use of proper technology. Most importantly, by showing the effectiveness of technology in combating the problem, she hopes to raise the political stakes.

“Right now, most politicians do not understand what is at stake. Few people understand that you can reduce carbon in a way that helps the economy. If you can reduce carbon and create jobs, then politically it would become possible. It will happen,” she said.

What is really needed is a war on all fronts, with everyone participating, she said. “It is an effort like going to the moon – it’s a global effort. Can we do it yes? Do people know how to do it – no,” she said, adding that: “We are in this all together. For the first time in history we are facing a problem that is sink or swim.”

The carbon market is 250 billion dollars a year in the European Union and has gone live on four continents. The market changes the numerical value of all energy, and with it clean energy becomes more profitable, which causes a shift in global energy markets.

“If you make money out of cleaning the atmosphere, improvements will happen. The carbon market provides for an improvement to happen. The market values a clean atmosphere at one trillion dollars a year,” she said.

By Anna Shen
NEW YORK, Oct 4 2013 (IPS)

When author Deni Béchard discovered bonobos shared almost 99 percent of human DNA, and based their relationships on cooperation and collaboration, he knew he had to write about them.

Courtesy of Deni Béchard

He was fascinated to learn that as a flagship species, bonobos are the only great ape that do not kill their own. More importantly, he wanted to understand how one innovative NGO could use them as a symbol for larger issues in conservation, and knew that saving them from extinction was of extraordinary importance.

In his just-published book, Empty Hands, Open Arms: The Race to Save Bonobos in the Congo and Make Conservation Go Viral (Milkweed Editions, 2013), he draws from a rich palette of profoundly committed Congolese conservationists who have lived through war and lost everything they cared about. Against great odds, with few resources, they continue to commit themselves to saving these great apes.

Béchard also chronicles the determined and heroic efforts of the Bonobo Conservation Initiative, an NGO that works directly with Congolese communities, while tackling the root causes of poverty and unemployment that lead to the hunting of bonobos in the first place.

One of his goals is to show how the choices of our leaders and our consumer appetites have affected that country. He does so, but also tells very human stories of the culture and history of the Congo, painting a vivid picture of the place and its people.

His book tour kicks off this week.

Excerpts from his conversation with Anna Shen follow.

Q: How did learning about bonobos change your vision of humanity?

A: As humans, we have a hard time seeing the boundaries of our culture or conceiving of the ways that we might radically change. Meeting bonobos – especially the famous bonobo Kanzi in the Iowa Primate Learning Sanctuary – who can understand English and communicate with humans through the use of lexigrams, made me understand how dynamically great apes can change with their environments and with their cultures. Kanzi illustrates the power of culture to alter many of the traits that we associate with a species.

On a more dramatic level, the matriarchal and largely nonviolent structure of bonobo society, and the evolutionary circumstances that may have created it led me to consider the degree to which humans are a product of our environment. An abundance of resources and the resulting relative absence of competition may have allowed bonobos to develop more stable, peaceful societies in which all young are cherished.

Human societies have such a wealth of resources that no children should be privileged over others, and I have considered how quickly our culture would change if our priority were to use our resources for the benefit of the young – for their education, health care, and environmental well-being.

After a few generations of investing our national wealth into our young, what would we look like as a race? I think we would seem dramatically different. It’s essential for us to remember how much control we actually have over our environment and culture, the ways that we can use it to actively change our race for the better, and the speed at which we would see results.

Q: What are the similarities and differences between bonobos and humans?

A: Bonobos share many of the same traits as humans: empathy, imagination, loyalty, grief, hope, and love. The only difference between us, as far as I can tell – not having integrated into their society – is that their experience of life appears much more unmitigated.

Humans tend to bury their experiences in meaning; we tell ourselves stories, romanticising and dramatising, or trying desperately to give our loves and struggles – the narratives of our lives – greater significance. Learning about bonobos stripped a lot of that away and reminded me of the degree to which we are great apes, in a long evolutionary lineage, and that often, by trying to overload our lives with meaning, we lose touch with the simple animal impulses that drive us – impulses that are no less real or beautiful for being animal.

If anything, as the primatologist Frans de Waal suggests, what we see as our highest ethical values is encoded in our biology.

Q: What are a few of the approaches to conservation that might make it “go viral”?

A: What makes a conservation system self-replicating or “viral” is adapting it as closely as possible to the culture and conditions where it is being implemented. The organisation I was writing about for Empty Hands, Open Arms¸ the Bonobo Conservation Initiative, has its staff meet with various different social groups in a future protected area.

They get a sense of how local leaders view the forests and wildlife and possible conservation projects, as well as how the various members of the communities do. When it comes to time to set up projects, BCI’s staff supports a leader who is from the area that will become a reserve, someone who understands the values of the people, and they frame conservation in terms of the spiritual traditions of the communities.

The end result is that the people feel a deep sense of ownership for projects. Their successes are celebrated, and the conservationists who come from outside often defer to their knowledge. The local people so thoroughly embrace conservation that neighboring communities see the benefits and begin surveying endangered wildlife in their own regions and setting up their own protected zones with relatively little support from outsiders.

Q: Are you optimistic about the future of conservation in Africa?

A: I see cases for both optimism and pessimism. I meet more and more people from countries worldwide who care about their environment and the preservation of their natural wealth, and I think that if we can shift to a more intimate, integrative model of conservation, seeing people as the solution and not the problem, then we have the potential to do a great deal of good.

At the moment, the arrogance of those with the planetary wealth is one of the major stumbling blocks, as the West has little respect for the knowledge, vision, and passion of impoverished people in developing countries. Our sense of entitlement, and especially our sense of exceptionalism lead us to behave in racist ways and to act without learning how we can most effectively take action.

But this is gradually changing, and I think that we are learning to listen more than we used to.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sep 11 2013 (IPS)

Newly arrived from London, Robert Swan is facing a promise he made to famed marine researcher and conservationist Jacques Cousteau decades ago.

Robert Swan in Antarctica. Courtesy of the explorer.

Cousteau asked him to preserve the Antarctic, as the “last great wilderness on earth”, from likely drilling and mining that could begin in 2041, which is the year the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty will be up for review and possible amendment.  If the treaty is altered, one of the most pristine parts of the world would likely be forever changed.

Swan plans to draw attention to this issue through what he calls his “last great exploration”. At age 60, he plans to walk once more to the South Pole, and to do so surviving on renewable energy only.

Swan is no stranger to a tough challenge. In the 1980s he was the first person to walk the North and South Poles. Swan has dedicated his life to drawing attention to climate change, and now he hopes to raise even more awareness through his latest expedition.

His first stop was at the American Renewable Energy Day conference in Colorado, where he addressed renewable energy leaders such as Ted Turner and T. Boone Pickens. Now he is on to the United Nations, where he will speak at TEDx UN Plaza on Sep. 16.

Below are excerpts from his conversation with Anna Shen.

Q. Can you tell me what Jacques Cousteau asked you to do, and about your upcoming expedition?

A.  Jacques Cousteau asked me to preserve Antarctica. His 50-year mission was to preserve a place, and then use renewable energy to save it. And to save it is to think about making it not worthwhile for companies to go to Antarctica to explore it.

The real story here is about the last great exploration. I walked to both poles and saw all these things about climate change before the world began to wake up to them. The last great exploration is to survive on earth.

We need to look at how we are going to power our planet. If we don’t there will be no world to explore. We are undertaking an expedition in two years time that is a really big challenge, and we will survive in Antarctica on renewable energy, which nobody has done before. We are willing to go back and put renewable energy to the ultimate test. We will not survive on earth unless we start relying on clean energy.  Decisions today are threatening the future of life on earth.

This is a story that begins with walking to the poles to experience the issues -walking across ice caps that are melting, having our faces burnt off due to a hole in the ozone 25 years ago. What was our response to that? We could join Greenpeace and become activists and they do an excellent job. But what could we do that was different?

We could work with industry and business because everyone makes choices about how to spend money.  But let’s inspire people too, especially youth, with social media and our Facebook page.

Q. How does your mission on creating awareness on renewable energy relate to developing countries?

A. When I walked the poles 22 years ago, the whole issue of energy was not in the front of people’s minds. People were not engaged in thinking about energy. Also, energy use in China and India was not ramped up.

I am working in India on renewable energy projects; if we don’t get India and China using clean renewable energy with one billion people [each], we will have a problem. However, I have been dealing for 15 years with countries like India and China, which are far more important to get right than the USA; there are more people in Bombay than in California – there are 30 million people in one city in India.

Q. Thinking about renewable energy is great in theory, but who are the leaders in producing this technology?

A. The U.S. is the most advanced in this area and has the most money. It is brilliant at technology. If somebody has a good idea in America, there is a good chance to make it happen.

Steve Jobs started in a garage in Berkeley. If you have a fantastic idea, you can get it going, and get the financial support to make the technology happen. That is because people are willing to invest; banks and infrastructure support it to make it happen.

Somebody in China or India may have a great idea but then there is not the financial backing to make it happen. They can’t finance it; that is why America has its advantage, and these big people realise that there is money to be made, and a market.

Q. What is missing in the international debate on renewable energy?

A. Science is telling us that we should be doing certain things, but people are not responding to it globally because people are not listening. People are stuck. There are lots of nations out there that are developing and they want what we want, what we have in the West. The international community needs to be much clearer on directions forward. The USA can help the international community by showing better leadership.

A nation like India produces 1.0 to 1.5 tonnes of carbon per person, but in the U.S. the number is 22 tonnes. The people of India say, “How can we make changes when they produce 22 and we produce one? Why can’t we do what we are doing?” The U.S. needs to show personal leadership, that we are making changes, or else the rest of the world won’t take it seriously. Europe also needs to show leadership.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
NEW YORK, Sep 3 2013 (IPS)

Africa and Pakistan are now battling outbreaks of polio, threatening the extraordinary progress the world has made in fighting the almost-extinct disease. In the Horn of Africa, there are now 121 reported polio cases. Last year, there were 223 worldwide.

Siddharth Chatterjee has served as the chief diplomat, head of strategic partnerships and international relations at the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the world’s largest humanitarian network, since June 2011.

Photo Courtesy of Siddharth Chatterjee.

In his previous work with UNICEF, Chatterjee was on the front lines of polio eradication campaigns in South Sudan, Darfur and Somalia, and remains passionate about the eradication of polio and the advancement of child rights.

Excerpts from his conversation with Anna Shen follow.

Q: Considering all the attention given to fighting polio, what are the causes of these outbreaks now?

A: When the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was launched in 1988, the poliovirus was in 125 countries, paralysing or killing 1,000 people a day. Today, polio cases have been reduced by 99 percent with only 223 cases reported worldwide in 2012.

The GPEI Independent Monitoring Board recently remarked that, ‘Poliovirus has been knocked down but it is certainly not knocked out.’

Outbreaks happen when large populations of children are not immunised. This can happen for a couple of reasons, including operational quality of campaigns, but most often because insecurity, like the recent violence in Pakistan, or mobile populations make children inaccessible.

Ultimately, to stop this outbreak, we need to hammer the virus continuously with vaccines and repeated rounds of immunisation, and find ways of accessing the hard to reach and insecure areas.

Q: What is the biggest obstacle to the eradication of polio and how do you overcome it?

A: Myths and misinformation, high illiteracy, extreme poverty, weak health systems, insecurity and poor infrastructure represent real challenges to vaccination efforts and the overall expansion of access to health care.

I saw this firsthand in 2005 when I was working with UNICEF in Somalia. After two years without a case, polio returned and paralysed 228 children. Herculean efforts were made to ramp up social mobilisation, intensive and wide-scale response activities, overcoming huge security and logistical challenges and massive funding helped in stopping the spread.

Through the Somali Red Crescent we were able to access some of the most insecure areas.

Government leadership, trusted national institutions, social mobilisation, engagement and negotiating with all parties is key to any successful campaign. This was my experience in Darfur too. In insecure areas we have to talk to everyone, each party regardless of their political or ideological position is a stakeholder and we have to get everyone aligned around one central theme-children and their wellbeing.

Q: Why is the focus on polio alone, and what is the international community doing to stop other vaccine-preventable diseases?

A: The world has made an enormous amount of progress against a whole range of vaccine-preventable diseases over the past few years. The GAVI Alliance – a public-private partnership focused on increasing access to vaccines in low-income countries – has contributed to the immunisation of more than 370 million children since 2000. Dr. Seth Berkley, the CEO of GAVI, is leading the charge to ensure a quarter of a billion children are vaccinated by 2015.

The greatest legacy of the polio eradication movement might very well be the foundation for stronger health systems it creates along the way. The polio programme is already finding and reaching previously inaccessible children with the polio vaccine and combining these efforts with other health care resources.

We’re building a system that can increase access not only to vaccines, but to other medicines, bed nets for malaria prevention, clean water, access to proper sanitation, hygiene promotion, improved nutrition, reproductive health services, etc.

Q: Has the international community done enough?

A: The international community has been awesome, and frankly without their support we would not have got this far in our fight against polio.

At the end of April 2013, I was at the Global Vaccine Summit in Abu Dhabi. Leaders attending this meeting signaled their confidence in GPEI’s Strategic Plan. Together, they committed four billion dollars, close to three quarters of the plan’s 5.5-billion-dollar cost over the next six years.

Led by Mr. Bill Gates, chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, along with Rotary International, UK, U.S., Australia, and EU among others, joined to renew their commitment to end polio forever. We saw new partners like the Islamic Development Bank join the fight against polio.

Q: What is the end game that will complete polio eradication and how can the IFRC help?

A: After decades of foreign aid, national investments and philanthropic giving that has produced an impressive record of results, we need a decisive win.

The GPEI’s Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan 2013–2018, launched earlier this year, sets out a clear framework to not only interrupt the transmission of wild poliovirus, but to introduce a dose of inactivated polio vaccine – or IPV – into routine immunisation programmes globally to simultaneously eliminate the risk vaccine-derived poliovirus.

IFRC reach spans the global to the local. With 187 National Societies, and nearly 100 million staff, volunteers and members, I believe every child can be reached by the Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies. Our volunteers speak the language, live in these communities, engage with community leaders. Our National Societies are trusted at the grassroots, everywhere.

Q: The GPEI Update of Partners’ Report describes you as one of the global influentials and you have been writing a lot about polio eradication. What about this issue compels you the most?

A: I have seen distraught mothers crying inconsolably after their children contracted polio. Many were paralysed and many died. It is really heartbreaking. I have also seen many young people who survived were crippled for life, helpless and their lives a living hell.

And for me, it’s personal: I survived polio and I was very lucky. In fact, many thousands of children in India contracted polio in the not-so-distant past and were forced into lives of infirmity and despondency because of poverty, ignorance, and poor access to health services.

I would certainly want to see this disease eradicated forever. This would be the greatest gift we can give to all children in the world.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 2011 (IPS)

Fresh from a midnight arrival from Intuit’s headquarters in California’s Silicon Valley, Jean-Christophe Bas has just participated in the launch of a campaign to promote global inclusion, under the auspices of the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (AOC) and the U.N. Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and in advance of the World Day for Cultural Diversity on May 21.

Jean-Christophe Bas Credit: UN Photo

A long roster of global companies are involved – Cisco, Yahoo, McAfee, American Airlines, Kellogg’s, Intuit, Marriott – along with hundreds of civil society organisations.

The head of AOC’s strategic development and partnerships, Bas spoke to IPS correspondent Anna Shen about the private sector’s involvement, why this is only just the beginning of what he sees as an enormous global movement, and his vision for this Day to become as big as Earth Day.

Q: Why are these partnerships key to the success of inclusion? A: Such multi-stakeholder partnerships are very important; living and communicating together across cultural differences is not always simple. The corporate sector has extensive experience in dealing with cultural diversity, at the workforce level and in the market where they operate. As business has gone global over the past few decades, its role in spreading values has gained importance.

This year, World Diversity Day will be celebrated with a huge mobilisation of people from around the world. This is the beginning of a long journey and it will expand year after year, with more and more people expressing publicly that they care for diversity, that they are willing to be engaged and involved and responsible. This will also hopefully contribute to a public debate on how to live together in our complex and diverse modern societies.

Our goal is to reach out and engage people directly, on the same model as Earth Day did. When it began, people had no idea what could be done for climate change. The movement started with the basic switch off the light, or turn off the tap when brushing teeth. The goal is to create an “Earth Day” for diversity inclusion and make people aware they can contribute a difference. “Do one thing for diversity and inclusion” is the name of our Facebook page, which I urge everyone to join.

Q: What is the importance of this campaign? A: It is important to raise awareness about cultural differences, beliefs, values, and religions, so that there is a move in people’s attitude from fear to curiosity, understanding and cooperation. The goal of this campaign is to create a world constituency that cares for diversity, and people who know and support diversity and consider it is an asset for our societies.

We live in a complicated world in transition. The notions of values, identity, beliefs and cultures are really in flux, and there is a growing kind of fear or concern with the differences.

We have moved from a very ideological world – the east and west – to a world where the defining factor – and often, the dividing factor – is identity. We live in a world where it is increasingly difficult to deal with diversity, and we observe that a growing number of conflicts are rooted in cultural tensions.

In 2009, the Heidelberg Institute reported that out of 108 conflicts around the world, 143 were rooted in tension from cultural differences. This is becoming a very important issue – if you take the migration flows globally, a major trend, there are 250 million migrants globally. When added together, this group would comprise the fifth largest populous country in the world.

This is profoundly changing the nature and the pattern of our societies. For example, 40 percent of the population of Victoria, in Australia, is foreign born.

The same phenomenon of societal mixing goes for Europe, the U.S. and other parts of world. Migration is certainly one if not the major trends of the 21st century, and often results in anxiety.

Q: What can the private sector add to this initiative that the U.N. or international organisations cannot? A: The corporate sector has been at the forefront in thinking about diversity, because it is vital to their business. There is obviously a transfer of experience that can be organised by doing public- private partnerships. Most global companies have a chief diversity officer who is usually at a senior management level, whose role it is to promote inclusion and diversity. This could be of interest to governments in terms of public policy with, for example a minister of diversity.

Q: How does a lack of inclusion affect development? A: The lack of inclusion in our societies can harm peace, security and development. Inclusive societies create and unleash the potential of all to contribute to prosperity and stability in development and contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

Q: How can social media help to promote the cause? A: People can feel they can make a difference and share an experience. In that respect our Facebook page, called “Do One Thing for Diversity and Inclusion” constitutes a unique platform. People are sharing what they’ve been doing and learned from other’s experience. The goal is to create a global dynamic of people who share experience and a vision of the world, and discuss the nature of the society in which they want to live.

This world community of cultural diversity supporters will also hopefully advocate for the changes in our education systems needed to prepare the citizen of the 21st century to cope with the challenges of a multicultural society. Today when we are supposed to be in a globally interconnected world, less than two percent of students study abroad. In many countries, the study of foreign languages remains very low.

You cannot understand other cultures if you speak only one language. The same applies for history books, national days and national hymns, which usually don’t create any space for looking at other cultures.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
NEW YORK, Sep 20 2010 (IPS)

Andrew Rasiej hurriedly gets off the phone, explaining that he was talking to Arianna Huffington, founder of uber-website The Huffington Post. She just published a new book, and Rasiej was providing ideas on how to use social media to promote it.

Andrew Rasiej Credit:

It is a typical day for Rasiej, a social entrepreneur and founder of the Personal Democracy Forum (PdF), an annual conference and larger community focused on how technology is changing politics and government. He is a founder of numerous other ventures including Mouse.org, which is focused on 21st century education, and techPresident.com, a website that covers how U.S. President Barack Obama and the federal government is using the Internet.

Rasiej also advises politicians and governments around the world, and for the first time this fall, will take the Personal Democracy Forum to Santiago in November. He also runs the conference in Europe.

Anna Shen recently spoke with Rasiej about e-democracy in Latin America, how e-government can transform the political landscape in the region, and what drives him.

Q: Can you tell me about the conference in Chile? A: This is an inaugural event in Santiago on Nov. 18-19, which seeks to bring together technologists, political leaders, government officials, social innovators, non- governmental organisations and journalists to examine the role that technology is playing in the relationship between citizens and their civic lives, locally, nationally, and across all Latin America.

Q: What are the most important issues in Latin America and how can the use of technology and e-government transform these issues? A: We cannot be too sure yet, but we believe the issues have to do with transparency, accountability, government services, economic development, social and economic justice. Technology transforms these issues because it allows for every person to become an activist and gives every citizen the ability to create their own printing press in the 21st century, and connect with like-minded peers: to organise, debate, investigate, and take action. The power structures of civic society are rapidly changing.

Q: How is political opinion formed? A: Political opinion is formed primarily by people talking to each other, and they do it in the most common of places – by water coolers, at the market, in the office, at the local park. They share their fears, their hopes, their aspirations, their prejudices, and perspectives. Eventually a political consensus is formed, and people go to the polls and vote.

Because of technology, those political conversations are now on steroids, and where it would take six months to share opinions, it now happens instantaneously and at no cost, whether it is using YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or something as simple as email or text messages. Connectivity is amplifying and accelerating political discourse, and changing the power structures of politics.

Q: What about lack of Internet penetration in some of these countries? A: Actually, in Chile they have virtually 100 percent penetration of cell phones. Technology has become cheaper, phones have become more powerful. So access in most countries is not about Internet access, it is about phone access. Access to mobile phones has become more ubiquitous and more powerful.

Q: How does the Personal Democracy Forum conference in Latin America differ from the conferences in Europe or the U.S.? A: We don’t quite know yet as this is an inaugural conference in Chile. But what we try to do first is to spend 90 percent of our time listening and not assuming the U.S. model of the use of technology applies to anything elsewhere the same way.

The discussions during the conference in the U.S., for example, are how to use technology during political races to raise money or embarrass opponents. In Europe the elections are not candidate-based but party-based, so much of the conversations on the elections are much shorter and people are more focused on how to get governments to deliver the services that people are entitled to receive.

We don’t want to presume how people in South America think of technology. However, we know there is a greater disparity between rich and poor, and there are also major differences in economic power between countries. We are all ears at this point. There is a worldwide conversation going on about how technology is changing governance and society. It is carried out from the perspective of each country’s own political systems or technological abilities.

Q: What is considered ideal e-democracy in Latin America? A: As more and more people start using their mobile phones and technology for political organising or discourse, and as a more tech-savvy generation comes of age, there is a potential that the democracy we have known in the 20th century will be supplanted by a 21st century democracy, one that will be able to achieve or get closer to an e-democracy ideal of universal participation and political equity.

Q: What are the challenges of fostering democracy in Latin America? A: The challenges are technological, regulatory, legislative, and mostly generational because the people who are currently running democracies in Latin America learned their skills in an era of telephones and newspapers. They are about to be replaced by a new wired generation that will choose new issues of importance.

They may have to overcome new challenges that have yet to be identified as technology becomes part of everyday life. Essentially, much of Latin America is moving from an agricultural to an information age and skipping the industrial age model entirely, so the issues affecting this shift are related to legislation, sociology and anthropology even more than technology itself.

Q: What can Latin Americans learn from the use of the Internet by U.S. politicians? A: Political leaders must learn it is not enough for them to be facilitators of technology, but that they have to become practitioners themselves. They must utilise the economy of media abundance that new media technology tools and platforms provides and not be sound-byted or edited by the economy of media scarcity that traditional, old media offers.

Q: What are the things that drive you? A: It took me many years to come to understand why I do what I do. The one thing that has been constant is an overwhelming desire to see social and economic justice served. This was instilled in me since I was a child by my Polish parents, who survived World War II as refugees and whose fathers were murdered by orders of Joseph Stalin at the infamous incident of the Katyn Forest massacre.

Information is power and information technologies are creating unique opportunities and challenges that will require new ideas and new ways of thinking. If I can help this process along, then I can say I am fulfilling my life’s work.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, May 24 2010 (IPS)

Since its inception in 2005, the Alliance of Civilisations (AoC) has worked to improve understanding and cooperation across nations, cultures and religions in order to counter the forces that fuel polarisation and extremism.

Jorge Sampaio Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

At the helm is seasoned statesman Jorge Sampaio, who served as president of Portugal from 1996 to 2006. As the AoC high representative, he brings an enormous wealth of experience to the table. During his time in office, Sampaio championed numerous international causes, including HIV/AIDS, human rights and the independence of East Timor. He also served as the U.N. Special Envoy to Stop Tuberculosis.

Next on his agenda is the upcoming AoC conference in Rio de Janeiro on May 27-29, which aims to build bridges across cultures and countries. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is your hope for this year’s Forum? A: My hope? Commitment, partnerships, and dialogue that delivers. A conference that produces a momentum that will last until the Forum in Doha next year.

I hope that this Third Forum will be a rare opportunity where world, political and corporate leaders, mayors, civil society, youth, journalists, foundations, international organisations and religious leaders from all around the world come together, all focused on the theme of contributing to “Bridging Cultures and Building Peace”.

In more concrete terms, the importance of this Forum is that it is the first outside the European area, thus stressing the global scope of the Alliance and its universal outreach. Also, it is the first time for participation from a number of new and important members, such as the U.S. There is relevant representation of African and Latin American regions, not to mention the steady presence of Asian countries.

Third, it is the first time that AoC partners will have the opportunity to take part in a very proactive way in the organisation of a whole working day, which is the Pre-Day Forum, with a parliamentary session organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

Q: The Alliance aims to forge new partnerships. What is one of the most unique relationships you’ve seen under your tenure? A: With no doubt whatsoever, the “Dialogue Café” project, which was announced in Istanbul last year and will be now inaugurated with its two first outlets, in Rio and Lisbon.

“Dialogue Café” is based on a true public-private partnership – between the Alliance of Civilisations, CISCO, the Anna Lindh Foundation, the Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon Municipality, the Museum of Fashion and Design (Portugal), Cândido Mendes University (Rio).

Dialogue Café is a non-profit initiative, which uses leading edge video conferencing technology to enable face-to-face conversations between diverse groups of people from around the world so that they can share experiences, learn from each other and work together to make the world a better place.

Dialogue Cafés are spaces for innovation and creativity – with a particular focus on cross-cultural dialogue, social innovation, civic participation and arts, creativity and culture. These cafés will be connected through a global exchange that links cafés across the world to enable informal conversations as well as more structured multi-city activities such as conferences, concerts and lectures.

Dialogue Café is for individuals and organisations with a social, environmental, educational or cultural mission – such as foundations, civil society organisations, community groups, universities, schools, social enterprises, public sector bodies and agencies. This project is based on a radical but simple idea that people have many things in common and given the opportunity, they will explore their common interests, sparking collaborations and stimulating ideas that address the major issues of today.

After Rio and Lisbon, the project is to extend the network to a significant number of places around the Mediterranean and to some other big cities around the world. The next stop will be Florence, but I hope that new Cafés will be open very soon in London, Amsterdam, Toronto, Doha, Ramallah, Tel Aviv, Cairo, Istanbul, New York, San Francisco and Seoul.

Q: As the world becomes smaller, how can different societies live together in harmony? A: The world is one, whether you like it or not. So the only way to live together is inter-culturally.

Q: What is the best way to foster mutual respect and peace between cultures and countries? A: I don’t think there are magic wands or formulas that can be applied to achieve these goals. We need to develop a multiplicity of activities and simultaneous action. We need to use all tools available, but also all our will.

Education is key. This includes education on human rights, on citizenship and respect for others, cultural diversity, intercultural understanding, as well as cultural and media literacy. In addition, we need education and dialogue on religions and beliefs.

Cooperation with the media is crucial. It is necessary to prevent the media and the Internet from being used to spread hatred, intolerance and misconception, while safeguarding freedom of opinion and expression.

We also have to address the world’s imbalances, cooperate for more justice, more rights, and more opportunities for all. Otherwise it is difficult to achieve an agenda for peace, security and development, an aspiration shared by all individuals.

Q: What is the most difficult obstacle to creating the conditions for long-term peace? A: Reconciliation in the hearts and minds among former enemies.

Q: The U.S. recently became the 100th country to join the Alliance. How is this significant? A: Having the United States on board is not a zero-sum game. What is at stake is to ensure that all the parties involved benefit sufficiently. I hope that the United States will bring into the community new perspectives, fresh thinking and additional will to turn the goals of the Alliance into results.

Q: How can more positive relationships with the Muslim world be forged? A: By recognising that a prerequisite for fruitful dialogue is that both sides have problems. Denial and victimisation halt action.

Q: What global problem keeps you awake at night, and if you had one wish to put towards this problem, what would it be? A: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My wish: to have Israelis and Palestinians talking about opportunities, sharing common hope for future generations and working together to build a better world for their children.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, May 6 2010 (IPS)

Emerging from a U.N. conference addressing the role that the world’s mayors can play on nuclear issues, Hiroshima’s Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba continues to call for a rapid end to nuclear weapons.

Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba Credit: Courtesy of Mayor's Office

He juggles his roles running a city 65 years after nuclear holocaust, and another as president of Mayors for Peace, which counts almost 4,000 cities around the world.

Akiba spoke to IPS correspondent Anna Shen about Hiroshima’s development, his personal duty on the nuclear issue, and the ongoing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review taking place this month at the U.N.

Q: Hiroshima is completely modern and rebuilt. Can you tell me how the city was formed after the bombing? A: Those who came as part of the occupation army were really good city planners. And the city plan reflects the frontier at the time of urban planning, and for instance they brought Kenzo Tange to create the Peace Park.

But there were historical factors, because the destruction was so complete and many citizens had to continue living, and burial rituals were not followed. So all over the city there were people in a sense walking over corpses and that kind of consideration made city planning more delicate.

For example, there was a flower shop and many people died near there. So there is a memorial there. There are thousands of memorials all over the city. For people to build a beautiful city is to create sacredness.

Q: Can you tell us about the Hibakusha, the surviving victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A: The Hibakusha have to live their pain and suffering when they tell their stories to the outside world. And there are many who cannot tell their stories, as so many who are victims of war and tragedies cannot, and many are lucky enough to have told their stories.

There was one man, Mr. Tanabe, who never told his stories until he became 60 years old, which is the time of renewal of a cycle in Japan. His parents died and his aunt and uncle brought him up. He did not want to cause any emotional trouble to them. How could he bear to go through all those years and have no feelings of retaliation or remorse? All he wanted to do was create a film of the stories of those who used to live in that area and show them what the atom bomb destroyed and how precious those lives were and that it should never happen again.

Q: How do you see your role as a mayor? A: As mayors we have to be the (people’s) voices wherever we can and talk to the government so that they will listen to the voices and when we come to the U.N. to talk so others can understand the experiences.

One thing that proved the point was that two weeks ago, we had the 28th plenary meeting of the InterAction Council, which consists of former heads of states and government. Members came to Hiroshima, including Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia.

After seeing the museum and talking to survivors, they really understood what it means to suffer from nuclear weapons and there was a sense of urgency gained there that compelled them to recommend that all heads of states should come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were so moved by their visits. These are not ordinary people, these are those who are sympathetic and humanitarian statesmen, and coming to Hiroshima gave them this great impact.

I really invite all the heads of nuclear weapons states to come to Hiroshima this year on the 65th anniversary of the bombing.

The role of the mayor is to represent the Hibakusha and to have a nuclear-free world and they would like to see it with their own eyes, so that they can tell the deceased when they get there that, “Your death was not in vain. There is a nuclear-free world.” I feel duty-bound to make their wish come true.

Q: What do you want to see come out of this Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review? A: This is a great opportunity to mobilise world public opinion and to use it for humanity. Several of the opening statements reflected much of what Mayors for Peace has been trying to accomplish.

Excerpt:

By Anna Shen
NEW YORK, Feb 16 2010 (IPS)

Fresh from a whirlwind tour of non-stop meetings at the World Economic Forum in Davos and a U.N .investor summit on climate risk attended by George Soros, Al Gore, and 500 of the world’s most powerful institutional and private investors, Mindy Lubber has a full plate.

Mindy Lubber Credit: Ceres

Running around the globe promoting the cause of Ceres, she calls for corporations and financial communities to address the world’s environmental and social challenges.

A leading nonprofit coalition of investors, environmental groups, and other public interest organisations, Ceres focuses on advancing sustainability and understanding of global climate change in capital markets.

Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of over 80 institutional investors with collective assets of more than eight trillion dollars, who are dedicated to understanding the financial risks of climate change.

Earlier this month, a long-awaited victory: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took a significant step in a 3-to-2 vote calling for companies to reveal the implications of climate change on their firms.

The approved guidelines call for companies to consider the impact of climate change laws and regulations when deciding the type of information to reveal in corporate filings.

While the agency has called for environmental concerns to be disclosed to investors in the past, this is the first time that climate change was formally articulated as a risk by the SEC.

The SEC ruling was a response to investors who said that there was not enough information given by companies on the risks to their profits.

Speaking from her office in Boston, Lubber said that the ruling was many years in the making. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Please explain the significance of the SEC decision to require corporate disclosure on climate change risks and opportunities. A: The SEC ruling affirms that climate change is a material risk that companies need to pay attention to. In many ways nobody was asking for new rules or laws but an affirmation by the SEC.

This is really part of a big picture. For years there was an idea that environment was a boutique issue, and economic issues were the big ones. But now things are becoming different and there is a coming to grips that sustainability issues are economic issues.

For example, think about water shortages. There is not enough water to feed plants, but also to run business systems. We are 6.2 billion people on this planet – we are in a deficit related to our natural resources. We do not have resources for the eventual 9.0 billion people – people with cars and dishwashers. We cannot build a middle class around the world this way.

We have to look at how to build an economy with limited resources. The conversation in total has changed. It is about integrating sustainability into capital markets. How do you make it into reality? One way is to change the way companies do business and the way investors evaluate.

One way to drive that is if there is a material risk, and something has an impact on the strength of a company, then it has to be disclosed in the financial statements. For example, if a product uses uranium but there is a strike of miners in Nicaragua, then the company should know. Legal filings are needed.

Q: What kind of work did it involve to have this adopted? A: More than a dozen investors managing over a trillion dollars in assets requested formal guidance in a 90-page petition filed [with] the SEC in 2007, and supported by supplemental petitions filed in 2008 and 2009. The SEC brought investors who handle four trillion dollars in to see them.

The commissioners were open to engaging people of all opinions. We know that they talked to others who said climate change wasn’t a material risk. They read the petition, and invited us in with other investors and after a year of deliberations they determined this was an issue that investors had a right to understand. They agreed to act on it. It took years of educating and working with investors.

Along with investors’ petitions, in the past year we got real traction rather than deafening silence. We published studies along the way – lengthy 100-page studies – and looked at all the filings at the SEC and not shockingly we found that some companies did or did not look at climate risk. There was a need for consistency.

Q: Why is this decision ground-breaking, and what do you say to critics who have said it is not remarkable? A: It depends on how you look at it. In some ways it is no big deal in that the SEC exists to protect investors. They said that material risks needed to be pointed out and that the world has changed, and there are material risks and companies have to note it.

In some ways it is business as usual, and one should look at the definition of material risks. From another viewpoint, it is at least coming to reckoning that water shortages and trees and natural resources have moved off the balance sheet to on balance sheets.

Q: Have any corporations, prior to the SEC decision, voluntarily disclosed climate-related impacts on their business to investors? A: A lot of companies do, probably 30 to 40 percent. It is not the most radical thing to be involved. Some companies are disclosing it – in the same sector, one company may do it, another one currently may not.

This impacts investors in different ways. For example, if one is an investor in an insurance company that has huge real estate on a shore, investors should know the implications of sea level rise and disruption to real estate.

Clearly, it is up to smart money managers to provide information to investors so they know how to make decisions on data. And they can only make those decisions when they have clear, comparable, consistently disclosed information to use.

Q: What do you see as being the most important result of the new requirements? A: It gives investors appropriate information about risks and protects them. The value is that accurate and timely information creates a smarter investment community. In our experience, the little silly “what gets measured gets managed” is true.

When companies have to measure whether their investment risk is greater from climate change and drought or whether there will be impact on their output, for example if they are an agricultural company, it forces them to account.

Excerpt: