Connect with us

Economy

Effects Of India’s Move To Increase Tariffs Of Palm Oil From Malaysia

Published

on

On 28th September 2019, in a speech in United Nations General Assembly speech, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad said that India had “invaded and occupied” Kashmir by scrapping off Article 370 of Indian Constitution.[1] In retaliation, Indian Govt. threatened to ban, or impose high tariffs on, palm oil trade with Malaysia.[2]

Through this paper, the researcher attempts to show how a single political statement can influence the trade relations between countries and in turn their economies.

The researcher has undertaken the research on the assumption that Indian Govt. will highly increase the import tariffs on import of palmoil from Malaysia. In this paper, researcher analyses the impact on Indian and Malaysian economy under two conditions –

-Indian traders continue to purchase from Malaysia despite an increase in palm oil tariffs.

-Indian traders shift to other countries for purchasing palm oil.

It is important to know that for the fiscal year ending 31st March 2019, Malaysia’s imported from India goods worth $6.4 billion, while exported to India goods worth $10.8 billion.[3] Thus, Malaysia is in trade surplus with India of $4.4 billion. This is because India imports high-priced goods such as petroleum and palm oil at a large scale while India exports commodities such as sugar, wheat, rice, meat, etc.[4]In 2018, India imported palm oil worth $5.5 billion of which $1.3 billion was imported from Malaysia. This trade between the two countries constitutes 0.05% of India’s GDP and 0.41% of Malaysia’s GDP (GDP of Malaysia is $314bn while that of India is $2.5tn.).

A major limitation of the paper is the paucity of scholarly articles on the subject since the incident in question happened in October 2019.Therefore, the researcher has primarily relied upon newspaper articles to substantiate his arguments.

India Continues To Purchase From Malaysia Despite Increase In Tariffs

Indonesia and Malaysia constitute 85% of the total palm oil production, therefore the first response of Indian buyers is to buy palm oil from Indonesia but that may be improbable.[5] The reason being CPOPC (Council of palmoil Producing Countries) which is an organisation and both Malaysia and Indonesia are a part of this and their goal is to fight together against nations that increases tariffs on import of palm oil.[6] This opens a possibility that Indonesia may not sell to India and Indian buyers have to buy from Malaysia for want of alternatives. In this chapter, the researcher will analyse the impact on both the countries when Indonesia refuses to sell to India, whereas in the next chapter, the researcher will look into the impact when Indonesia agrees to sell to India.

Impact On Indian Economy

Due to an increase in import tariffs, it would now be expensive for Indian buyers to buy from Malaysia.This tax would not be borne only by the buyers of palm oil from Malaysia but also by its final consumers in India. The burden of tax increase will almost be equally borne by both consumers and sellers because of in inelastic supply as well as an inelastic demand.

Inelastic supply means that the supply of palm oil is not dependant on price in short run while inelastic demand means the demand of palm oil is not determined by the prices of palm oil in the short run. The elasticity of demand and supply play a major role in determining the prices of the goods and services. For Example- The demand for medicine is inelastic the price doesn’t come in the way of purchasing medicines. Also, the supply of water is inelastic as its availability doesn’t change with the change in prices. It is the elasticity of both demand and supply that determines the price.

The supply is inelastic as the palm oil trees bear fruits after 30 months of planting and continue to do so for next 20-30 years.[7] Therefore, it is not possible to see a change in supply when tariffs are imposed on the import of palmoil. The demand is also inelastic because of no alternate nation to get supplies from and there is lack of availability of economically viable substitutes. On one hectare of land, there is a yield of 3.7 tonnes of palmoil as against just 0.38 tonnes and 0.48 tonnes of soybean and sunflower oil respectively.[8]Though some consider soybean oil to be a substitute, data shows otherwise.

Palm oil and soybean oil are cross-price inelastic.[9]Their cross price elasticity at 0.103 shows that for 1% decrease in demand forpalm oil, there need to be approx. 10% reduction in the price of Soybean oil, thus Soybean oil is not a good substitute in lieu of palmoil.

The extent of the taxes borne by the sellers will reduce the profits and revenue of the businesses. The increase in cost of production will affect most of the FMCG companies, whether big or small, as they use palm oil as a raw material. This can also lead businesses to reduce the no. of workers they employ. As of now, the FMCG sector is 4th largest in our economy and provides jobs to 3 million people and 5% of the total factory employment in the country. Recent government reports have shown that unemployment rate in India is at its four-decade high. It can get aggravated by purchasing palm oil at increased tariffs.[10]

The extent of the taxes borne by the buyers will make the goods costly for them. Palmoil is used in products like soaps, shampoo, ice-cream, detergents, lip-stick, etc and increase in price of these daily-use products will adversely affect the expenditure budget of the households. Therefore household savings will reduce. Also such an increase in price of a bundle of goods may also lead to inflation.

During FY 12 and FY 17, India’s saving rate (the percentage of GDP saved) has been constantly declining and the main reason is the reduction in household savings. During the same time, the share of the households in total investment also dropped. There is a direct correlation between the household savings rate and household investment rate.[11]Thus, a further decrease in household savings due to increase in prices of those products manufactured using palmoil will leave people with less money to save and invest in banks, stock market, mutual funds, etc. it will decrease the investment in India to some extent which in turn leads to less infrastructural development.[12] This will hinder the growth of small and new businesses and will lead to reduced economic growth in India.

In the current scenario, when the Indian economy is badly hit and growth rate is very low, doing something that will increase the cost of production of almost entire FMCG sector which is 4th largest sector in India’s economy will be detrimental to Indian economy.
Indian Traders Shift To Indonesia To Purchase Palm Oil

When Indian govt. increases tariffs on the import of palmoil from Malaysia, it makes such a trade with Malaysia less attractive for the buyers in India. They would thus import from Indonesia as it is the only viable option after Malaysia as both of them together produce 85% of the palmoil production. As regards the CPOPC, there is no formal agreement and there are high chances that Indonesia will sell the oil to India. In this chapter, researcher shall analyse the impact of the same.

Reduced Foreign Exchange Reserves

The impact on the Malaysian economy will be very detrimental as India buys palmoil worth $1.3 billion annually and total exports of Malaysia are only $240 billion. When this trade shifts to Indonesia, it will lead to a reduction in exports and foreign exchange reserves in Malaysia by $1.3 billion.

As of 15th Nov 2019, Foreign Exchange Reserves of Malaysia stands at $103.2 billion.[13] And losing 1.25% of their Foreign Exchange reserves can have serious impacts on the economy in long run. These reserves are used for making payment outside the country and thus is important for payment of imports. Having sufficient reserves also help in preventing a country from external crisis. If Malaysian foreign exchange reserves were to fall, it would reduce its ability to pay for making payment for imports without incurring debt. Also, it would minimize the capacity to mitigate external shocks such as fluctuations in currency rate as selling or buying foreign exchange reserves can change their currency’s value.[14] Foreign Exchange reserves help to maintain international confidence which may take a hit if the reserves level reduces in Malaysia.

Reduced Trade Surplus

With a reduction in exports by $1.3 billion due to India not purchasing palmoil from Malaysia, the Balance of Trade surplus will fall by 5.7% of the 2017 level. The graph in annexure 5 shows the imports and exports of Malaysia from the period between 2007 and 2017.[15]The graphin annexure 6 shows the Balance of Trade in Malaysia.[16] Malaysia is one of a few countries whose balance of trade runs in surplus i.e. exports exceed imports.

A trade surplus is beneficial for an economy as it provides the nation with competitive advantages. Since the country is running in ‘profits’, they produce more which leads to more employment, a reduction in unemployment and generation of more income. This increases the standard of living of the people residing in the country. Also, the country has the capacity to import more. The 5.7% reduction will not be detrimental to the Malaysian economy as it already is enjoying trade surplus but can reduce these perks of being in trade surplus.[17]

Conclusion

The analysis by the researcher shows how a political statement can influence the trade relations among countries and also their economies. In the given case when India threatened Malaysia, it is analysed that the Indian economy will suffer if India purchases from Malaysia due to increase in cost of production and decrease in household savings but if India purchases  from Indonesia, it will prove to be detrimental to Malaysian economy due to reduction in foreign exchange reserves and trade surplus.

This is not the first time there has been international trade affected by politics. The government’s intervention in trade is not uncommon despite the growing trends of globalisation. In fact, political factors have a huge impact on such trades. After Pulwama attacks took place, India imposed 200% custom duty on all imports and took off the status of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) from Pakistan. Ideally, India should not have taken that step considering the stance it took in 1991 to open up the economy to the world and imposing such harsh import conditions on one nation is a blatant violation of the same. But considering the history of Indo- Pakistan relationship and to improve your political standing as a daring country, India took that step. It shows us how much international trade is intertwined by politics that is seems almost impossible to be able to separate them.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic

Published

on

business-economy

Synchronicity is an ever present reality for those who have eyes to see.Carl Jung

The Covid pandemic has elicited a number of deficiencies in the current global governance framework, most notably its weaknesses in mustering a coordinated response to the global economic downturn. A global economy is not fully “global” if it is devoid of the capability to conduct coordinated and effective responses to a global economic crisis. What may be needed is a more flexible governance structure in the world economy that is capable of exhibiting greater synchronicity in economic policies across countries and regions. Such a governance structure should accord greater weight to regional integration arrangements and their development institutions at the level of key G20 decisions concerning international economic policy coordination.

The need for greater synchronicity in the global economy arises across several trajectories:

· Greater synchronicity in the anti-crisis response across countries and regions – according to the IMF it is a coordinated response that renders economic stimulus more efficacious in countering the global downturn

· Synchronicity in the withdrawal of stimulus across the largest economies – absent such coordination the timing of policy normalization could be postponed with negative implications for macroeconomic stability

· Greater synchronicity in opening borders, lifting lockdowns and other policy measures related to responding to the pandemic: such synchronicity provides more scope for cross-country and cross-regional value-added chains to boost production

· Greater synchronicity in ensuring a recovery in migration and the movement of people across borders.

Of course such greater synchronicity in economic policy should not undermine the autonomy of national economic policy – it is rather about the capability of national and regional economies to exhibit greater coordination during downturns rather than a progression towards a uniform pattern of economic policy across countries. Synchronicity is not only about policy coordination per se, but also about creating the infrastructure that facilitates such joint actions. This includes the conclusion of digital accords/agreements that raise significantly the potential for economic policy coordination. Another area is the development of physical infrastructure, most notably in the transportation sphere. Such measures serve to improve regional and inter-regional connectivity and provide a firmer foundation for regional economic integration.

The paradox in which the world economy finds itself is that even as the current crisis is leading to fragmentation and isolationism there is a greater need for more policy coordination and synchronicity to overcome the economic downturn. This need for synchronicity may well increase in the future given the widening array of global risks such as risks to cyber-security as well as energy security and climate change. There is also the risk of the depletion of reserves to counter the Covid crisis that has been accompanied by a rise in debt levels across developed and developing economies. Also, the speed of the propagation of crisis impulses (that effectively increases with technological advances and globalization) is not matched by the capability of economic policy coordination and efficiency of anti-crisis policies.

There may be several modes of advancing greater synchronicity across borders in international relations. One possible option is a major superpower using its clout in a largely unipolar setting to facilitate greater policy coordination. Another possibility is for such coordination to be supported by global international institutions such as the UN, the WTO, Bretton Woods institutions, etc. Other options include coordination across the multiplicity of all countries of the global economy as well as across regional integration arrangements and institutions.

Attaining greater synchronicity across countries will necessitate changes in the global governance framework, which currently is characterized by weak multilateral institutions at the top level and a fragmented framework of governance at the level of countries. What may be needed is a greater scope accorded to regional integration arrangements that may facilitate greater coordination of synchronicity at the regional level as well as across regions. The advantage of providing greater weight to the regional institutions in dealing with global economic downturns emanates from their greater efficiency in coordinating an anti-crisis response at the regional level via investment/infrastructure projects as well as macroeconomic policy coordination. Regional development institutions also have a comparative advantage in leveraging regional interdependencies to promote economic recovery.

In conclusion, the global economy has arguably become more fragmented as a result of the Covid pandemic. The multiplicity of country models of dealing with the pandemic, the “vaccine competition”, the breaking up of global value chains and their nationalization and regionalization all point in the direction of greater localization and self-sufficiency. At the same time there is a need from greater synchronicity across countries particularly in the context of the current pandemic crisis. Regional integration arrangements and institutions could serve to facilitate such coordination in economic policy within and across the major regions of the world economy.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Economy

A New Strategy for Ukraine

Published

on

Authors: Anna Bjerde and Novoye Vremia

Four years ago, the World Bank prepared a multi-year strategy to support Ukraine’s development goals. This was a period of recovery from the economic crisis of 2014-2015, when GDP declined by a cumulative 16 percentage points, the banking sector collapsed, and poverty and other measures of insecurity spiked. Indeed, we noted at the time that Ukraine was at a turning point.

Four years later, despite daunting internal and external challenges, including an ongoing pandemic, Ukraine is a stronger country. It has proved more resilient to unpredictable challenges and is better positioned to achieve its long-term development vision. This increased capacity is first and foremost the result of the determination of the Ukrainian people.

The World Bank is proud to have joined the international community in supporting Ukraine during this period. I am here in Kyiv this week to launch a new program of assistance. In doing this, we look back to what worked and how to apply those lessons going forward. In Ukraine—as in many countries—the chief lesson is that development assistance is most effective when it supports policies and projects which the government and citizens really want.

This doesn’t mean only easy or even non-controversial measures; rather, it means we engage closely with government authorities, business, local leaders, and civil society to understand where policy reforms may be most effective in removing obstacles to growth and human development and where specific projects can be most successful in delivering social services, particularly to the poorest.

Looking back over the past four years in Ukraine, a few examples stand out. First, agricultural land reform. For the past two decades, Ukraine was one of the few countries in the world where farmers were not free to sell their land.

The prohibition on allowing farmers to leverage their most valuable asset contributed to underinvestment in one of Ukraine’s most important sources of growth, hurt individual landowners, led to high levels of rural unemployment and poverty, and undermined the country’s long-term competitiveness.

The determination by the President and the actions by the government to open the market on July 1 required courage. This was not an easy decision. Powerful and well-connected interests benefited from the status quo; but it was the right one for Ukrainian citizens.

A second area where we have been closely involved is governance, both with respect to public institutions and the rule of law, as well as the corporate governance of state-owned banks and enterprises. Poll after poll in Ukraine going back more than a decade revealed that strengthening public institutions and creating a level playing field for business was a top priority.

World Bank technical assistance and policy financing have supported measures to restore liability for illicit enrichment of public officials, to strengthen existing anticorruption agencies such as NABU and NACP, and to create new institutions, including the independent High-Anticorruption Court.

We are also working with government to ensure the integrity of state-owned enterprises. Our support to the government’s unbundling of Naftogaz is a good example; assistance in establishing supervisory boards in state-owned banks is another. We hope our early dialogue on modernizing the operations of Ukrzaliznytsia will be equally beneficial.

As we begin preparation of a new strategy, the issues which have guided our ongoing work—strengthening markets, stabilizing Ukraine’s fiscal and financial accounts; and providing inclusive social services more efficiently—remain as pressing today as they were in 2017. Indeed, the progress which has been achieved needs to continue to be supported as they frequently come under assault from powerful interests.

At the same time, recent years have highlighted emerging challenges where we hope to deepen and expand our engagement. First, COVID-19 has underscored the importance of our long partnership in health reform and strengthening social protection programs.

The changes to the provision of health care in Ukraine over recent years has helped mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and will continue to make Ukrainians healthier. Government efforts to better target social spending to the poor has also made a difference. We look forward to continuing our support in both areas, including over the near term through further support to purchase COVID-19 vaccines.

Looking ahead, the challenge confronting us all is climate change. Here again, our dialogue with the government has positioned us to help, including to achieve Ukraine’s ambitious commitment to reduce carbon emissions. During President Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington in early September we discussed operations to strengthen the electricity sector; a program to transition from coal power to renewables; municipal energy efficiency investments; and how to tap into Ukraine’s unique capacity to produce and store hydrogen energy. This is a bold agenda, but one that can be realized.

I have been gratified by my visit to Kyiv to see first-hand what has been achieved in recent years. I look forward to our partnership with Ukraine to help realize this courageous vision of the future.

Originally published in Ukrainian language in Novoye Vremia, via World Bank

Continue Reading

Economy

Russia, China and EU are pushing towards de-dollarization: Will India follow?

Published

on

Authors: Divyanshu Jindal and Mahek Bhanu Marwaha*

The USD (United States Dollar) has been the world’s dominant currency since the conclusion of the second world war. Dollar has also been the most sought reserve currency for decades, which means it is held by central banks across the globe in significant quantities. Dollar is also primarily used in cross-border transactions by nations and businesses. Without a doubt, US dollar’s dominance is a major reason for the US’ influence over public and private entities operating around the world. This unique position not only makes US the leader in the financial and monetary system, but also provides incomparable leverage when it comes to coercive ability to shape decisions taken by governments, businesses, and institutions.

However, this dynamic is undergoing gradual and visible changes with the emergence of China, slowdown in the US economy, European Union’s independent policy assertion, Russia-US detachment, and increasing voices from across the world to create a polycentric world and financial system in which hegemonic capacities can be muted. The world is witnessing de-dollarisation attempts and ambitions, as well as the rise of digital or cryptocurrencies at an increasing pace today.

With Russia, China and EU leading the way in the process of de-dollarisation, it needs to be argued whether India, currently among the most dollarized countries (in invoicing), will take cue from the global trends and push towards de-dollarisation as well.

Why de-dollarisation?

The dominant role of dollar in the global economy provides US disproportionate amount of influence over other economies. As international trade needs a payment and financial system to take place, any nation in position to dictate the terms and policies over these systems can create disturbances in trade between other players in the system. This is how imposition of sanctions work in theory.  

The US has for long used imposition of sanctions as a tool to achieve foreign policy and goals, which entails restricting access to US-led services in payment and financial transaction processing domains.

In recent years, several nations have started opposing the unilateral decisions taken by the US, a trend which accelerated under the former president Donald Trump’s tenure. He withdrew US from the JCPOA deal between Iran and US, aimed at Iran’s compliance with nuclear discipline and non-proliferation. Albeit US withdrawal, other signatories like EU, Russia, and China expressed discontent towards the unilateral stance by the US and stayed committed towards the deal and have desired for continued engagements with Iran in trade and aid.

Similarly, the sanctions imposed on Russia in the aftermath of the Crimean conflict in 2014 did not find the reverberations among allies to the extent that US had wanted. While EU members had switched to INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) which acts as a special-purpose vehicle to facilitate non-USD trade with Iran to avoid US sanctions, EU nations like Germany continue to have deep trade ties with Russia, and  EU remains the largest investor as well the biggest trade partner for Russia, with trade taking place in euros, instead of dollars.

Further, despite the close US-EU relations, EU has started its own de-dollarization push. This became more explicit when earlier this year, EU announced plans to prioritize the euro as an international and reserved currency, in direct competition with dollar.

Trajectories of Russia, China, and EU’s de-dollarisation push

Russia has emerged as the nation with the most vigorous policies oriented towards de-dollarization. In 2019, the then Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had invited Russia’s partners to cooperate towards a mechanism for switching to use of national currencies when it comes to transactions between the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It must be noted that in Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which functions as a Russian-led trade bloc, more than 70 percent of the settlements are happening in national currencies. Further, in recent years, Russia has also switched to settlements in national currencies with India (for arms contracts) and the two traditionally strong defence partners are aiming at exploring technology as means for payment in national currencies.

Russia’s push to detach itself from the US currency can also be seen in the transforming nature of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves where Russia for the first time had more gold reserves than dollars according to the 2018 data (22 percent dollars, 23 percent gold, 33 percent Euros, 12 percent Yuan). As per the statement by Russian Finance Minister in 2021, Russia aims to hold 40 percent euro, 30 percent yuan, 20 percent gold and 5 percent each of Japanese yen and British pound. In comparison, China holds a significant amount of dollar denominated assets as forex reserves (50 to 60 percent) and has the US as its top export market with which trade takes place mostly in US dollars. Moreover, Russia has also led the push by creating its own financial messaging system- SPFS (The System for Transfer of Financial Messages) and a new national electronic payment system – Mir, which has witnessed an exponential rise in its use.

While China-Russia trade significantly depends on euros instead of  their own national currencies (even though use of national currencies is slowly rising), instead of pushing the Chinese national currency Renminbi (RMB), Beijing is aiming towards establishing itself as the first nation to issue a sovereign digital currency, which would help China to engage in cross border payments without depending on the US financial systems. Thus, for China, digital currency seems to be the route towards countering the dollar dominance as well as to increase its own clout by leading the way for an alternate global financial system operating in digital currencies. It needs to be noted here that EU has succeeded in internationalizing the euro and this can be seen in the fact that EU-Russia trade as well as Russia-China trade occurs predominately in euros now.

Will India follow suit?

Indian economy’s dynamic with dollar is different than other major economies in the world today. Unlike China or Russia (or EU and Japan), which hold dollars in significant amounts, India’s reserve is not resulted by an export surplus. While others accumulate dollars from their earnings of trade surplus, India maintains a large forex reserve even though India imports less than it exports. In India’s case, the dollar reserves come through infusion of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI), which reflects the confidence of foreign investors in India’s growth prospects. However, accumulation of dollar reserves through this route (which helps in offsetting the current deficit faced in trade), India remains vulnerable to policy changes by other nations’ monetary policies which are beyond India’s own control. For instance, it has been often highlighted that a tightening of the US monetary policy leads to capital outflows (capital flight) from India, thus impacting India adversely.

New Dehi has resisted a de-dollarization push for long. Back in 2009, when Russia and China had started the push via BRIC mechanism (Brazil, Russia, India, China grouping), it was argued that New Delhi would not like to upset Washington, especially after the historic US-India civil nuclear agreement was signed just a year before in 2008 -for full civil nuclear cooperation between the two nations.

Further, currency convertibility is an important part of global commerce as it opens trade with other countries and allows a government to pay for goods and services in a currency that may not be the buyer’s own. Non-convertible currency creates difficulties for participating in international market as the transactions take longer routes for processing (which in case of dollar transactions, is controlled by US systems).

 Just like Chinese renminbi, Indian rupee is also not yet fully convertible at the exchange markets. While this means that India can control its burden of foreign debt, and inflow of capital for investment purposes in its economy, it also means an uneasy access to capital, less liquidity in financial market, and less business opportunities.

It can be argued that just like the case of China and Russia, India can also look towards having a digital currency in the near future, and some signs for this are already visible. India can also look towards having an increased share of euros and gold in its foreign exchange reserves, a method currently being used by both China and Russia.  

Conclusion

An increasing number of voices are today pointing towards the arrival of the Asian age (or century). With China now being the leading economic power in the world, US economy on a slowdown, and emergence of an increasing polycentric structure in world economy, the dominance of dollar is bound to witness a shake-up. In order for global systems to remain in sync with the transforming economic order, structural changes like control over leading economic organisations (like IMF and World Bank) will become increasingly desirable.

With an increasing number of nations now looking towards digital currencies and considering a change in the mix of their foreign exchange reserves, a general trend is now visible even if it would not mean an end to dollar’s dominance in the immediate future. As the oil and gas trade in international markets also start shifting from dollar, geopolitical balance of power is expected to witness a shift after decades of US dominance.

Major geopolitical players like China, Russia and EU have already started their journey to counter the dominance of dollar, and the strings of US influence on political decisions that come with it. According to Chinese media, Afghanistan’s reconstruction after US-withdrawal can also accelerate the global de-dollarization push as nations like Saudi Arabia might look for establishing funds for assisting Afghanistan in non-dollar currencies. So, conflict areas highlight another avenue where de-dollarization push will find a testing arena in coming times.

India has several options for initiating its de-dollarization process. Starting from Russia-India transactions, trade with Iran, EAEU, BRICS and SCO members in national or digital currencies can also become a reality in near future. Considering India’s present dollar dependence, whether US sees India’s move towards de-dollarisation as a direct challenge to US-India relations, or accepts it as a shift in the global realities, has to be seen.  

*Mahek Bhanu Marwaha is a master’s student in Diplomacy, Law and Business program at the OP Jindal Global University, India. Her research interests revolve around Indian and Chinese foreign policies and trade relations.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

business business
Reports4 hours ago

Action on Trade is Necessary for Businesses to Unlock Net Zero Targets

For businesses to reach their emission targets, the global trading system needs to adapt, and businesses are calling for the...

lebanon beirut lebanon beirut
Development6 hours ago

Lebanon crisis: More international assistance needed urgently

Lebanon’s enduring economic crisis risks reversing decades of gains in people’s wellbeing, the head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.     Speaking from the...

Development8 hours ago

77 million children have spent 18 months out of class

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) says the world is facing an education crisis due to the COVID pandemic, that has left nearly 77...

business-economy business-economy
Economy10 hours ago

Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic

Synchronicity is an ever present reality for those who have eyes to see. –Carl Jung The Covid pandemic has elicited...

Environment12 hours ago

Paris climate deal could go up in smoke without action

Unless wealthy nations commit to tackling emissions now, the world is on a “catastrophic pathway” to 2.7-degrees of heating by...

tropical forest tropical forest
Development14 hours ago

Rising demand for agricultural products adds to competing pressures on tropical forest landscapes

Annual consumption of food and agriculture products rose by 48% between 2001 and 2018 – more than twice the rate...

Southeast Asia16 hours ago

Indonesian G20 presidency promises to put a ‘battle for the soul of Islam’ on the front burner

Indonesian religious affairs minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas set the bar high for President Joko Widodo as well as Nahdlatul Ulama,...

Trending