Santosh Kumar Mishra

An Investigation into Financing for Sustainable Development in the Global Partnership

Financing needs for sustainable development are enormous, but small compared to global financial assets. Redirecting a small percentage of these assets toward sustainable development could have an enormous impact. Domestic and external sources, including both public and private flows, have to be mobilized. These should be regarded as complements, not substitutes as each has unique objectives and attributes. Forging a global partnership for financing sustainable development involves a fine balance between economic, social and environmental needs of various stakeholders. The partnership must improve the international allocation of resources for sustainable development across all relevant areas, stakeholders and processes of the post-2015 development agenda while at the same time providing a framework for development cooperation to ensure sufficient financing for sustainable development. In this context, this partnership should put in place collective mechanisms in order to ensure that the rules, institutions, and governance of the “global economic engine” are geared to enable sustainable outcomes as a whole. This paper aims to highlight two major objectives for the partnership for the financing of sustainable development, as well as concrete partnership goals to achieve them:The partnership must ensure coherence and coordination between different policy processes, institutions and stakeholders at the systemic level. Increased cooperation and coordination would promote a more coherent international financial architecture that supports sustainable development.The partnership must help increase the mobilization and improve the allocation of resources for sustainable development across all relevant areas, stakeholders and processes of the post-2015 development agenda while at the same time providing a framework for development cooperation.Furthermore, the paper suggests some concrete goals for partnerships on the mobilization of three sources for financing sustainable development: (a) mobilizing domestic public and private resources for development; (b) mobilizing external private resources; and (c) mobilizing external public resources and improving development cooperation. Secondary data have been used in the paper and methodology of analysis is secondary in nature. The paper concludes that people, as consumers and producers, will need to contribute to mitigation efforts, and people will need to adapt to changing environmental conditions. In this context, efforts to channel funds into technological solutions are critical, but must be complemented by efforts to strengthen the capacity of people to mitigate and adapt to a changing environment. Consequently, the global partnership on sustainable development finance requires donors to invest in health and education, and human capital more broadly, but also to promote special efforts to aid the most vulnerable populations. Important current initiatives in this connection include programs that channel climate and environmental finance to smallholder farmers so that they can increase their resilience and increase agricultural output while at the same time reducing and diversifying climate-related risks. As for ‘adaptation’, it is essential that more attention is given to the integration of demographic, social, economic and environmental data within geographical information systems. This would help to identify vulnerable areas, as well as populations, and encourage more effective policies to decrease vulnerabilities and strengthen resilience. Finally, the global partnership should also encompass and further promote other non-financial modalities for supporting sustainable development. This should include in-kind contributions (human resources as seconded personnel or volunteers; equipment or media related products and services), exchange of skills and best practices, particularly through South-South and triangular partnerships. Peer learning as well as knowledge, experience and technology sharing should result in new development of partnerships.

Development of Sustainable Agriculture in China

Sustainable agricultural development comprises sustainability of agricultural production, sustainability of the rural economy, ecological and environmental sustainability within agricultural systems and sustainability of rural society. Chinas prime aim is to ensure current and future food security. Based on projections of Chinas population, its economy, societal factors and agricultural resources and inputs between 2000 and 2050, total grain supply and demand has been predicted and the state of food security analyzed. Total and per capita demand for grain will increase continuously. Total demand will reach 648 Mt in 2020 and 700 Mt in 2050, while total grain yield of cultivated land will reach 470 Mt in 2010, 585 Mt in 2030 and 656 Mt in 2050. The per capita grain production will be around 360 kg in the period 2000-2030 and reach 470 kg in 2050. When productivities of cultivated land and other agricultural resources are all taken into consideration, Chinas food self-sufficiency ratio will increase from 94.4% in 2000 to 101.3% in 2030, suggesting that China will meet its future demand for food and need for food security. Despite this positive assessment, the countrys sustainable agricultural development has encountered many obstacles. These include:a. agricultural water-use shortage; b. cultivated land loss; c. inappropriate usage of fertilizers and pesticides, and d. environmental degradation.This paper aims to give an insight into opportunities and challenges of sustainable agricultural development in China. It also introduces the concepts and aims of Chinese sustainable agriculture. The paper concludes that the current ecological agricultural development in China is the result of a long-term planning system and the outcome of a number of market principles that have been introduced in the last three decades. It is imperative to move the ideology of ecological agriculture into the political realm and promotes a continuous dialogue between researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

Answering Key Questions Associated with Soil Risk Assessment

Soil is an irreplaceable resource that sustains life on the planet, challenged by food and energy demands of an increasing population. Therefore, soil contamination constitutes a critical issue to be addressed if we are to secure the life quality of present and future generations. Integrated efforts from researchers and policy makers are required to develop sound risk assessment procedures, remediation strategies and sustainable soil management policies. Soil pollution/contamination is caused by the presence of human-made chemicals or other alteration in the natural soil environment. It is typically caused by industrial activity, agricultural chemicals, or improper disposal of waste. The most common chemicals involved are petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Contamination is correlated with the degree of industrialization and intensity of chemical usage. This paper aims to provide answer to a wide range of key questions pertaining to soil contamination and risk assessment. It introduces several innovative approaches for soil remediation and risk assessment. In terms of methodology employed, secondary data (collected from various sources like research reports, government publications, Internet resources, etc.) have been analyzed, using descriptive research methods. In addition, the data utilized in the paper contain examples of: (a) how inter-species sensitivity should be taken into account, and (b) challenges and development needs in regulatory soil risk assessment. The paper concludes that soil pollution is a result of many activities and experiments done by mankind which end up contaminating the soil. Industrial wastes such as harmful gases and chemicals, agricultural pesticides, fertilizers and insecticides are the most common causes of soil pollution.

European Monetary Policy and Future of Global Economic Governance

In the wake of the global financial crisis and the onset of the Euro zone sovereign debt crisis, existing mechanisms of global economic governance have faced strong theoretical, political, and normative challenges from a wide range of actors operating across multiple spheres in the global political economy. Over the last several decades, the sands of global economic governance have been shifting. Emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) have experienced unprecedented growth, and the structure of the global economy has undergone a process of transformation. The global financial crisis not only amplified this process, it also produced new challenges and difficulties. As the effects of the crisis linger, it is evident that the world economic dynamic has evolved. It is also clear that a commensurate shift in the paradigms of global governance has yet to take place. For this reason, questions regarding the future role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Europe, and EMDCs are more important than ever. This paper aims to discuss the monetary policy and future of global economic governance (with focus on contribution of the IMF) and the associated challenges and opportunities for Europe. It touches upon broad range of topics and issue-areas, including “importance of IMF quota reform” and “origin of global financial safety net”, with emphasis for emerging economies and developing countries. Data used in the paper are ‘secondary’ (collected from books, government publications, and Internet sources) and they have been analyzed using “descriptive research method”. The paper concludes that there are a number of central issues related to the evolution of global economic governance, the stability of the financial architecture, the role and reform of the IMF, and the requirements of multilateralism that balances effectiveness, legitimacy and disparate interests. There is need to move the discussion forward in wider circles, in the hope of coming closer to a balanced resolution to longstanding challenges.

Researching into Climate Change Mitigation Strategies: Case Study of the European Union

Climate change and a deteriorating environment is a key challenge to sustainability, bio-diversity, food security and stability across the European region. Pollution, deteriorating soil quality, desertification and poor air quality are threatening the lives and futures of all of the continent’s people. Climate change is one of the all-encompassing global environmental changes likely to have deleterious effects on (a) natural and human systems, (b) economies, and (c) infrastructure. This paper aims to highlight the sustainable economic development strategies as adopted by the European Union (EU). It also discusses strengths and weaknesses of the EU 2020 mechanism from an international perspective. Secondary data have been used in this presentation and nature of analysis is descriptive in nature. The paper concludes that in the future the primary focus of sustainable development and climate change policy research and global agreements in the EU should be the de-carbonization of economic development. Consequently, instead of treating climate stabilization and economic development as separate and equal, the strategy should be to re-integrate the global policy goals.

Stakeholder Approach to Responsible Corporate Governance

The central question posed in this paper will be how to organize board composition in order to ensure responsible corporate governance both from a corporate social responsibility (CSR) and a good governance perspective. Adopting a stakeholder approach to corporate governance, we analyze the arguments given by different theoretical approaches for linking specific board composition with financial performance and CSR, and discuss the empirical research conducted. Despite the inconclusive findings of empirical research, it can be argued that diverse stakeholders on the board will promote CSR activities within the firm, but at the same time will increase board capital (which ultimately may lead to a better financial performance). Finally, the author proposes a model for selecting board members based both on ethical and pragmatic arguments.