A sustainable global population -and why we cannot achieve it

Bernard Gillan

In the period 1975 – 2018, world population increased at an average of 83 million per year, and reached 7.6 billion in 2018. The increase in 2017 was the difference between approximately 145 million births and 62 million deaths. Despite population growth, the global average daily food supply per person rose from 2440 kilocalories in 1975 to 2940 kilocalories in 2015 (1). However, over 800 million people are undernourished and 300 million adults are obese.

Cereals are the most important crops for food and feed; globally, 45 percent of the cereal production is consumed by humans, and 35 percent by livestock. The remainder is used for industrial purposes, including ethanol, beer, whisky and vodka. The rise in world cereal production since the 1960s is mainly due to two technological advances. The first was Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis, in which atmospheric nitrogen is fixed as ammonia (containing 82 percent nitrogen) which plants utilize for protein formation. Production of Haber-Bosch ammonia began in 1913, but did not begin to rise rapidly until the 1960s. The second advance was the Green Revolution that began in the mid-1960s, after agronomist Norman Borlaug had bred varieties of dwarf wheat that give higher yields in response to heavier applications of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. The breeding and use of semi-dwarf rice and hybrid maize paralleled that of wheat.

The most striking achievement of chemical agriculture is the maize yield in the U.S., which rose from 2.5 tonnes per hectare (40 bushels per acre) in 1950 to 11.0 tonnes per hectare (175 bushels per acre) in 2016. The global cereal yield rose from 2.81 tonnes per hectare in 1992-96 to 3.91 tonnes in 2012-16 (2). Linear extrapolation of the 1992 – 2016 yield trend (52.3 kg per hectare per year) gives a yield of 5.73 tonnes per hectare in 2050. If the population in 2050 is taken as 9.85 billion (3), and the harvested cereal area remains 718 million hectares (as in 2016), production per person in 2050 would be 420 kg, 10 percent above the 2016 level of 382 kg; the uncertainty is about 10 percent either way. Assuming that the global average cereal yield without using nitrogen fertilizer is 1.6 tonnes per hectare, and that fertilizer increases grain yield by 30 kg per kg nitrogen applied, the global average nitrogen application on cereal crops, 80 kg per hectare in 2015, would be approximately 140 kg per hectare. If the incremental yield-nitrogen ratio rises to 35 by 2050, the nitrogen application would be 120 kg per hectare.

The success of the Green Revolution created three major ecological problems:

1. Globally, about half the applied nitrogen is taken up by the crop plants; the remainder volatilizes in the form of ammonia and nitrous oxide (a powerful greenhouse gas) or leaches to groundwater, resulting in eutrophication (the formation of algae) in rivers, lakes and coastal waters; this creates “dead zones” in which fish cannot live.
2. Applying nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer to crops changes the balance between these nutrients and those needed in small or trace amounts; the latter include calcium, sulphur, magnesium, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, boron and selenium.
3. Approximately 40 percent of global irrigation water is obtained by pumping groundwater from tube wells; this has resulted in the depletion of aquifers and the lowering of groundwater levels, thereby contributing 0.4 mm to the global sea level rise of 3.4 mm per year (4).

As population growth increases the need for fertilizer, it follows that population reduction would ultimately solve the ecological problems. Unfortunately, human nature is such that global population reduction is not feasible. The reasons for this are given in the following.

In 1950, France had a population of 42 million and 20 million hectares of arable land, i.e. 2 persons per arable hectare. The nitrogen fertilizer application on cereals was negligible, and cereal production per person was about 400 kg per year, slightly higher than the present world average. If the ratio of population to arable land were 2 persons per hectare on the world’s 1.6 billion arable hectares, world population would be 3.2 billion. Reducing world population to this size would mean reducing the global average fertility rate (currently 2.5 children per woman) to 1.5 by 2050 and holding it at that level until 2200. The proportion of the population in the 65+ age-group would rise to 35 percent. Such a drastic change in the age distribution would mean raising the pensionable age to 70 years or more.

Adopting and enforcing a population limit for each country would be an insurmountable obstacle, as Charles Galton Darwin pointed out in 1952 (5). To lower the global average to 2 inhabitants per arable hectare, countries such as Canada, Russia, Australia and Argentina would not be required to reduce their populations, but would not be permitted to reach 2 inhabitants per arable hectare; they would be obliged to have a grain surplus for export to countries that need grain imports. China and India would each have to reduce its population to roughly 300 million; the combined population of the two countries would then be 20 percent of the world population instead of the present 35 percent (6). The relative population reductions in Japan and Egypt, which have 30 and 33 inhabitants per arable hectare respectively, would be much greater (6).

The population of China is projected to peak at 1.45 billion around 2030 and decline to one billion by 2100. This is partly a result of the so-called one-child policy launched in 1979 (in reality a 1.5-child policy). It was replaced by a two-child limit in 2016, but the fertility rate remains 1.6. Japan has a population of 126 million and a fertility rate of 1.4; the population is projected to decline to 102 million in 2050 and 60 million in 2100. These projected long-term declines are likely to be halted by pro-natalist policies based on the advice of growth-obsessed economists who believe that population decline results in a shortage of labour. A world population peak of at least 10 billion is almost inevitable, and this would make 70 percent of the world’s population dependent on Haber-Bosch ammonia. This is not sustainable, but there is no solution in sight. As a sustainable population cannot be attained by fertility decline alone, a mortality rise is highly probable. We can only guess when.

Privatisation of Education is dis-empowering the Poor

Manoj Suna

The pillar of a society that ensures the all round development of its members is ” EDUCATION ” . It enlightens the mind from darkness towards the path of right ideology, right concept and also right decisive action. Education has been framing the minds which is the integral instrument to make true person . In old days, the relationship between teacher and student was sacred, bond of knowledge, cohesiveness of intellectuality.

The mentors were imparting holistic education to their disciples selflessly or by levying minimal charges .

So, the disciples were trained all sorts of essential aspects of life , skills not merely for professions or earning rather enabling them to challenge the difficulties of life. As a result, the parents of disciples were well convinced about the doctrines, methodologies of mentors who were really shaping the right minds of their disciples . The doctrines comprised of both corporal as well as intellectual training.

The above ancient academic scenario was found during the periods of kings , emperors. Later on, it took a drastic change with the flow of time. Many schools, colleges & universities were set up to impart various courses namely vocational, legal, medical, agriculture, engineering etc to aim at making the students job ready.

After the independence of India, Union government brought certain policies on education , set up commissions , formulated programs for educational awareness among rural masses , removal of illiteracy etc for educational transformation in the entire country.

The educational system was designed in such a way so that poor parents could send their children to schools , aspire for higher education in colleges and universities . Initially, the standard of education was satisfactory. The government run institutions were affordable for most citizens. It was even free for poor students. This was the time when the faculties, students were sincere to their respective duties. As a teacher, he/she had to be honest in his duty & tried his best to provide quality teaching . The students could highly benefit from the government institutions. The government schools produced millions of doctors ,engineers, bureaucrats, politicians, writers for building the nation. There was no concept of special coaching , tuition or handy notes available in market these days. Notwithstanding , the educators were strict disciplinarians and concerned with all round developments of pupils. This opened the door for all communities to gain education as it’s mentioned in the constitution that guarantees equality of opportunity, right to education to all its citizens.

Article 021A declares right to education. Here, the concerned article makes it mandatory for all states to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of 6 to 14 years. It has bestowed an opportunity for poor , marginalized children who dreamt of schooling . However, the system in government schools has deteriorated. It merely keeps its promise of providing education but not quality education. It has been felt essential to bring it to the notice of public. The issue emerged the day when the schools, colleges, universities were mushroomed with privatisation .

Today, there is a scenery of exponential growth of private institutions ranging from nursery to post graduate level which are owned by capitalists , businessmen who have colored the educational system with the identity of commercialization . There’s agitation in some corners of particular cities to ban private institutions. We live in a country where rich is getting richer but poor is getting poorer day by day. So, this luxurious, well furnished , full of amenities are seen in the schools, colleges which are privatized & mainly established in urban areas where high income groups can invest without a bit of hesitancy for their children .

But nobody is concerned with the miserable situation of the poor. Can a student dream of such school when he strives for two meals a day? Can the parents send their children to such schools   who devote their labour & time only for  two square meals a day? Here, the question arises – why there’s educational discrimination between private & government schools ? We know that quality education isn’t imparted in government school but the teachers are paid high remuneration. It’s peculiar that a teacher working in government school earns handsome salary but sends his own children to private school because he’s well aware that only the private schools can meet his educational expectations. Only the people of high income groups such as jobholders, businessmen can give their children better education as it requires huge amount of money whereas a common man fails to satisfy the desires of his own kids. He surrenders his debt-ridden life in servitude to landlords .

It’s miserable, pathetic that the education sector take such steps .There is the dream of education for poor children. They’ll lag behind all kinds of competitions. The government of India should frame such educational policies which should be equal for all irrespective of caste, colour, creed, sex, place of birth, economical status etc. The mushrooming of private institutions must be curbed & rebuild all government institutions that must be accessible to all. Egalitarian educational set up must be maintained by the government in the country. Let not the flavour of education be enjoyed by a handful of people .

It’s high time for intellectuals, educationists, social activists to wake up. Let all the children of this nation be provided education of equal standard & quality . Discrimination in educational set up should be removed. If the above tasks can be accomplished in due time, then there will be a dawn of a healthy, transparent, equal, sustainable educational system across the nation.

Argentine workers and students march against “hunger budget”

Rafael Azul 

In the early hours of Thursday morning, following an 18-hour debate that unfolded amid violent clashes outside the national legislature, the lower house of Argentina’s Congress approved a draconian austerity budget that will slash public spending by US$10 billion. The vote was 138 in favor to 103 against.

The austerity budget had been demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), together with other attacks on jobs and social benefits, as the price for a rescue operation for the heavily indebted Argentine government. The IMF has pledged US$57 billion over three years to balance government finances, with the lion’s share of the funding going into the coffers of Argentine and international finance capital.

On Wednesday, October 25, tens of thousands marched on the national legislature carrying banners repudiating President Maurico Macri’s proposed austerity budget and the IMF. Striking teachers, health care workers, workers from Buenos Aires’ industrial suburbs and students denounced the measure as “the hunger budget” and joined the protest march, opposing the proposed measure and demanding a wage re-opener to break through the government-imposed 15 percent increase (according to one estimate, prices are set to rise over 40 percent this year) and the dollarization of the economy.

On Tuesday, protesters began congregating in the vicinity of Argentina’s national congress building in anticipation of the debate and vote on the budget.

The Evita Movement (Peronist), The People’s Economic Federation (CTEP, Peronist), the Fighting Class Movement (Stalinist-Maoist), and The Darío Santillán Popular Front (left populist), plus groups representing the unemployed and other community organizations set up soup kitchens for the overnight vigil in response to Wednesday’s debate in the lower house on the so-called Public Accounts Adjustment.

As the congressional debate began on Wednesday, angry demonstrators clashed against police barricades that had been erected in anticipation of the mass demonstration. Following the pattern established last December against pension reform protesters, the Buenos Aires police responded with brutal and indiscriminate acts of repression, using rubber bullets and sending clouds of tear gas into the legislative chamber itself. Dozens were injured, and 30 demonstrators were arrested.

The Peronist labor bureaucracy, the CTA and CGT, which five days earlier had cynically organized a mass Catholic mass in the Buenos Aires suburb of Luján, dedicated to the workers and pensioners, largely ignored the protest.

In order to meet IMF-imposed goals, the budget slashes education spending by 16 percent, public works by 30 percent, labor education by 40 percent and transportation by 30 percent (with the elimination of transportation subsidies), while fully servicing the Argentine debt to Wall Street. Interest on Argentine dollar debt represents 20 percent of the budget, after accounting for the effects of inflation.

This budget places debt servicing ahead of the needs of working-class families and youth. It is the only budget item that has been increased.

Payments on the debt amount to 26 times what is budgeted for housing programs, 16 times the science and technology budget, 11 times the amount for social assistance, 5 times the allocations for health and transportation, 3 times more than for education and culture and twice the social security budget.

Taking inflation into account, infrastructure investments will be slashed by 77 percent, kindergartens by 68 percent, school technology programs by 69 percent, teaching scholarships by 60 percent, teacher training by 39 percent and student scholarships by 35 percent.

The budget sets itself a goal of a zero-budget deficit in 2019 and anticipates two years of negative economic growth.

While the Argentine Senate has yet to vote on this measure, the government of President Macri wanted it at least partially approved prior to a meeting with the IMF that took place on Friday, the day after the lower-house vote. With that vote in hand, the IMF approved the immediate release of US$5.4 billion, less than half the US$13.6 billion that Macri had hoped for.

The mass outpouring of anger against the austerity policies of the Macri administration signals the eruption of a social explosion across Argentina that goes beyond the repudiation of the debt to Wall Street, much like the social explosion of 2001 and 2002. But that explosion, which resulted in the fall of a succession of governments in just a few weeks, ultimately left the ruling class in charge.

What is now required is that the working class be armed with an internationalist socialist program to reorganize society. As a first step in Argentina, it must break with the Peronist parties and trade unions, as well as the nationalist programs of the pseudo-left, and build an independent movement, linking up with workers across the Americas.

Pakistan caught up in intensifying US-China rivalry

Pradeep Ramayake

In response to the turn by Pakistan’s newly-elected government to an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), China has cautioned against the loan, saying it could affect economic cooperation between Islamabad and Beijing.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing in Beijing last week: “China wants an ‘objective and professional’ evaluation of the loans. The measures to be worked out by the IMF should not affect the China-Pakistan relations,” he warned.

Prime Minister Imran Khan announced on October 10 that Pakistan’s government had to borrow from the IMF since the country’s foreign reserves had fallen last month to $US8.4 billion. Khan said he would also be seeking financial help from “friendly countries,” by which he meant China and Saudi Arabia.

Amid a worsening balance-of-payments crisis, the Pakistan government desperately needs an estimated $12 billion and is looking toward China for further financial assistance. It is under pressure from the US, however, to distance itself from China and wind back projects associated with the massive proposed China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo effectively warned the Khan government in late July that any IMF loan would be contingent on lessening Pakistan’s economic dependence on China. “Make no mistake: we will be watching what the IMF does. There is no rationale for IMF tax dollars—and associated with that, American dollars that are part of the IMF funding—for those to go to bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself.”

The US has added to the pressure by demanding that Pakistan do more to suppress militias that use its border areas to mount attacks on US-led occupation forces and government targets inside Afghanistan. Last month the Trump administration cut off $300 million in military aid to Islamabad.

The CPEC is a crucial component of China’s infrastructure strategy—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—which is aimed at linking Eurasian landmass and countering US efforts to strategically isolate and encircle it. Washington is mounting an offensive against BRI on all fronts, including in the media with a growing drumbeat in the US and international media accusing China or luring countries into “debt traps.”

The CPEC includes the development of road, rail and pipeline links between the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea and western China. For Beijing, such a corridor would secure China’s links to Africa and the oil-rich Middle East and strengthen its ability to resist a US naval blockade of China’s vital shipping routes through South East Asia in the event of conflict.

Facing pressure from the US, the Pakistan government is seeking to “remodel” the terms of the CPEC to lessen the financial burden and focus the project on economic rather than strategic issues. In preparing for his first visit to China as Pakistan’s premier next month, Khan is insisting that the emphasis of the CPEC shift from infrastructure to agriculture, job creation and foreign investment.

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry told the media: “Earlier, the CPEC was only aimed at construction of motorways and highways, but now the prime minister decided that it will be used to support the agriculture sector, create more jobs and attract other foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to invest in the country.”

Earlier this month, Sheikh Rashid, the railways minister, said the cost of the rail projects in Pakistan as part of the CPEC had been brought down, but had to be further reduced. The main rail project is a major upgrade to the major line stretching 1,872 kilometres from Karachi in the south to Peshawar in the north of the country.

“We have brought down railways projects’ cost to $6.2 billion from $8.2 billion. It’s my wish to further bring it down to $4.2 billion,” Rashid said. “I am the biggest supporter of CPEC, but I also want that the railways have minimum burden.”

China is committed to pressing ahead with the CPEC, which entails nearly $60 billion in infrastructure funds. Speaking to Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi during UN sessions last month, China’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, hailed his country’s “all weather” partnership with Pakistan.

While not naming the US, Wang pointedly warned that “any conspiracies attempting to incite disharmony or interfere in China-Pakistan relations will not prevail.” He declared that China and Pakistan should continue to make “all-out” efforts to promote the economic corridor, expand trade and reduce poverty.

China is also seeking to strengthen ties with Pakistan on other fronts. In mid-September, at a meeting with Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chinese President Xi Jinping said: “Pakistan is our time-tested iron friendship and the Pakistan army has a pivotal role towards this lasting relationship.” He praised the Pakistani armed forces and declared: “China shall continue to support Pakistan as a strategic partner.”

Just days before Bajwa’s visit to China, Commerce Minister Abdul Razak Dawood had suggested that the government might suspend CPEC projects for a year. Facing pressure from Washington and Beijing, Pakistan is engaged in a desperate balancing act as it confronts a deepening economic and social crisis at home.

Pakistan is not the only country seeking to modify its BRI projects. Malaysia has suspended or cancelled $26 billion in Chinese-funded projects, while Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal. Undoubtedly, the US and its allies are applying pressure behind the scenes in a bid to undermine China’s plans.

Pakistan is also seeking funds elsewhere. Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry has announced that Islamabad and Saudi Arabia have signed three major investment deals involving CPEC projects, including a new oil refinery at the deep-sea port of Gwadar.

This week, Prime Minister Khan ignored the uproar over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to attend the showcase Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh and was promised at least $6 billion in financial support. The US, no doubt, backs the loan from one of its key allies in the Middle East as a means of lessening Pakistan’s economic dependence on China.

As the Trump administration intensifies its confrontation with China, countries like Pakistan are finding it increasingly difficult to balance their relations with Washington and Beijing. This intense manoeuvring is another indication of sharpening geo-political tensions and the rising dangers of war.

Saudi airstrike kills 21 civilians in Yemen

Jacob Crosse 

A United Nations (UN) report released on Thursday confirmed that at least 21 Yemeni civilians were killed and 11 more injured in an October 24 airstrike carried out by Saudi-led coalition forces. The latest civilian target destroyed by Washington’s despotic ally was a vegetable packaging facility, located in the town of Bayt el-Faqih, located approximately 43 miles southwest of Hodeidah. The dead and injured consisted of workers, farmers and children.

According to a Yemen health ministry source, as reported to the Middle East Eye, about half of the fatalities were instant. The remaining deaths were a result of rescuers being unable to reach medical facilities in a timely manner. What should be a one-hour drive from Bayt el-Faqih to Hodeidah now takes over six hours to accomplish as the warring factions have set up checkpoints and roadblocks along the contested highway.

Houthi rebels were not seen in the area, nor was any military equipment found in the aftermath of the slaughter. The Associated Press and Al-Jazeera have confirmed via an unreleased video that charred human remains were scattered throughout the facility and marketplace. This is third airstrike launched by the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) in the last week that has resulted in civilian casualties. The RSAF is well equipped and supplied by Western imperialism, featuring US manufactured Boeing F-15 Eagles and the British Aerospace (BAE) Panavia Typhoons.

On Saturday October 20, RSAF jets bombed Zayed Street in Hodeidah, killing a civilian and injuring four others. Prior to the massacre in Bayt el-Faqih on Wednesday, Saudi jets pummeled a motorcyclist in a residential section of Hodeidah, killing 3, including a child, and wounding 6 more, according to Middle East Eye.

The town of Bayt el-Faqih, and the market surrounding it were regarded by civilians as a “safe” place to prepare fruits and vegetables away from the besieged port city of Hodeidah. Saudi-led strikes have decimated Yemen's infrastructure, reducing water treatment plants and sanitation facilities in the area to rubble. Because of this, workers and farmers have been obligated to travel to the vegetable plant, washing their crops, before making the dangerous journey to the besieged Red Sea port markets.

In response to these latest war crimes, the reliably ineffectual UN, has, once again, called for an investigation into the Saudi air strikes. It is has been established fact since the beginning of the war, that the US and UK have supplied the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with over 12 billion dollars in aircraft and ordinance and vital intelligence in coordinating “appropriate” targets for Saudi warplanes. If no “targets” are immediately available, US Air Force KC-135’s are prepared to refuel Saudi bombers, keeping them in sky, ensuring their deadly payload is delivered.

In a January 2016 report, filed by a UN panel to the Security Council, this targeting has included, “...civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law, including camps for internally displaced persons and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian infrastructure, such as the airport in Sana'a, the port in Hodeidah and domestic transit routes."

Echoing the UN’s commitment to injustice, Colonel Turki al-Malki, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition stated the Bayt el-Faqih bombing will be, “fully investigated...using an internationally approved process.”

The last time the coalition investigated itself was after Saudi jets savagely bombed a school bus in August, killing 51 people, including 40 children. That investigation concluded the bus, was not a “legitimate military target,” and that those “responsible should be held accountable.” (Emphasis added)

These terror bombings, in addition to the US/Saudi naval blockade of Hodeidah, has placed Yemen on the brink of starvation. Over 70 percent of the country’s imports once passed through the Red Sea ports. Now, due to the blockade, 14 million people—over half of the country’s population—faces famine if the war continues through the rest of the year. UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock warned this week that, “there is a clear and present danger of an imminent and great big famine engulfing Yemen.”

In addition to severe food and water insecurity, Yemen’s currency, the rial, has plunged in value while inflation has nearly doubled from 24.7 percent in 2017 to an estimated 41.8 percent in 2018. The collapse of Yemen’s economy has exacerbated social conditions for what was already the poorest country in the Middle East. According to a World Bank report, as of September 2018, 52 percent of the population subsists on less than $1.90 a day, while 81 percent make due with less than $3.20.

Compounding the effects of food shortages and a collapsing economy, Yemen is also suffering the largest cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million suspected cases in 2017. According to the World Health Organization, 30 percent of the cholera cases in Yemen are in children under 5 years old. A 170 percent increase in cholera cases was reported by hospitals run by Save The Children between June and August 2018.

The latest gruesome Saudi airstrikes portend more suffering for the civilian population in Yemen, especially in Hodeidah. A ground offensive by Saudi/UAE forces is being prepared, as anonymous Yemen government officials, loyal to Saudi Arabia, reported that tanks and armored personnel carriers from the United Arab Emirates had arrived in the country on Wednesday.

Suddenly discovering US involvement in Yemen along with other US State Department socialists in the aftermath of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi hit squad in Turkey, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, took to the op-ed section of the New York Times on Wednesday, calling for an “end to the carnage.” Cynically, Sanders declared the war “unconstitutional,” as Congress had not authorized its prosecution. The reason why Sanders did not bring this urgent constitutional crisis to the public’s attention when President Backed Obama facilitated and backed the Saudi-led war at its outset in 2015 was left unstated.

One Young World Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 21st November 2018 1:00pm GMT

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Facebook is the world’s largest social network and connects over 2 billion people monthly. As part of its mission to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together, it connects people on the platform with over 70 million businesses. Facebook not only helps businesses get discovered and find customers, but also helps people develop meaningful connections to products and causes. To better support cause-driven businesses, Facebook has partnered with One Young World for the second year in a row to launch the 2018 – 2019 Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award.
In line with Facebook’s mission, the Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award will present a prize to 10 non-profit or for-profit entrepreneurs with advertising credits and Facebook mentors who will share digital marketing expertise.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:

• One Young World Delegates and Ambassadors exclusively. Ambassadors can apply as individuals or teams in groups (up to 5 individuals).
• Those who operate businesses or a non-profit charity that address a major social and/or economic issue in their region and empowers their community.
• • The Participant and each team member (if any) must lead or be employed by a non-profit charity or a for-profit business legal entity, which is registered and/or formed under applicable laws in their jurisdiction
• Ambassadors must live and operate enterprises within Facebook’s 5 regions: Latin America (LATAM), Europe (EUR), the Middle East and Africa (MEA), North America (NA), and Asia Pacific (APAC).
• Government officials, political figures and businesses politically affiliated (all as determined by Facebook and One Young World in its sole discretion) are not eligible to participate in the Contest.
• You are not eligible to participate in this Contest if you are a national or legal resident of those countries in which the United States has embargoed goods (including, without limitation, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria).

Selection Criteria: Candidates of the Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award will be assessed based on:

• Probability of increased impact following ad credit investment – 40%
• Evidence of social impact – 30%
• Innovation/originality – 30%

Number of Awards: There will be 10 regional Awards: 2 from LATAM, 2 from North America, 2 from Europe, 2 from MEA and 2 from APAC.

Value of Award: Each regional winner will receive:

• A regional mentor
• A marketing consultant
• USD$5,000 in ad credits

​Out of the 10 regional Award recipient, 1 Grand Prize Awardee will be selected to receive an additional USD$50,000 in ad credits and an additional mentor.

Apply Here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

World Food Programme (WFP) Internship in Innovation & Change Management 2019 (Funded to Rome, Italy)

Application Deadline: 4th November 2018

VA reference no:  100132

Eligible Countries: International (Female applicants and qualified applicants from developing countries are especially encouraged to apply.  WFP has zero tolerance for discrimination and does not discriminate on the basis of HIV/AIDS status)

To be taken at (country): Rome, Italy

About the Award: The mission of WFP is to end global hunger. Every day, WFP works worldwide to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry and that the poorest and most vulnerable, particularly women and children, can access the nutritious food they need.
In emergencies, WFP gets food to where it is needed, saving the lives of victims of war, civil conflict and natural disasters. After an emergency, WFP uses food to help communities rebuild their shattered lives. Present in nearly 80 countries, the organization has the global footprint, deep field presence and local knowledge and relationships necessary to provide access to nutritious food and contribute to the lasting solutions, especially in many of the world’s most remote and fragile areas.

Type: Internship

Eligibility:

• Currently enrolled and have attended University courses in the last 12 months inclusive of having completed at least two years of undergraduate studies or have recently graduated in the last 6 months with a BA or MA and attended courses in the past 12 months;
• Proficiency in Windows, MS Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, Outlook);
• Fluent in written and spoken English.

Desirable competence: The candidate would ideally be a high-performing and motivated student, a communicative and cooperative team player with strong problem solving skills. Prior relevant work experience is a plus.

• Candidates who bear any of the following relations to WFP staff members are not eligible to apply: sons, daughters, brothers or sisters.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Interns receive a monthly stipend from WFP up to the maximum amount of US$1000 per month depending on the duty station of assignment.
• WFP is not responsible for living expenses, arrangements for accommodation, necessary visas and related costs.
• WFP will reimburse travel ticket for candidates who are nationals of developing countries and are pursuing their studies in their home country.
• WFP will recognize candidates’ educational credentials from recognised institutions that have been certified by competent international or national authorities such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or Ministries of Education.

Duration of Programme: 6 months

How to Apply: Apply in Link below

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

EMMIR African-European Masters Scholarship+Internship in Migration Studies 2019/2021

Application Deadline: 20th December, 2018

Eligible Countries: African and EU countries

To be taken at (country): Graduates will be awarded a joint degree by the seven EMMIR partner universities:

• Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany
• Ahfad University for Women in Omdurman, Sudan
• Mbarara University of Science & Technology, Uganda
• University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia
• University of South Bohemia in ÄŒeské BudÄ›jovice, Czech Republic
• University of Stavanger, Norway
• University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa (from 2017)

About the Award: European Master in Migration and Intercultural Relations (EMMIR) is the first African-European Erasmus Mundus Master Course in Migration Studies. EMMIR is jointly run by three African and four European universities, facilitated by a wider network of partners. Various associate organsiations on the regional, national and international level provide significant assistance for student internships and graduate’s employment.

EMMIR is a unique study programme focusing on migration through an intercultural approach. It provides profound theoretical skills in migration studies combined with field work in Europe and Africa. It is designed as a multidisciplinary programme that addresses important contemporary issues in an emerging field of study.

EMMIR includes study periods in both Europe and Africa. Students’ mobility is understood as a key to mutual understanding of different views and cultures of migration and movement and will sharpen intercultural sensitivity.

Offered Since: 2011

Type: Masters

Selection Process: The quality of the programme is constantly evaluated by an international board of experts.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Full participation fees, stipends plus travel expenses.

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: EMMIR uses the management platform eConsort to facilitate the application process. Only after registering with your name, email address you will be able to access the online application form.

Please follow this link to register for application.

The application form must be completed online by filling in all the indicated boxes in the link above.

Upon submission, you will receive a summary of all your application details automatically generated by the application system. This confirmation has to be printed out, dated and signed, and attached to your applications package including all the documentation required. Please note that your application package has to arrive at the EMMIR Coordinator within the given deadline. In other words: The application process is only completed once the paper version of your application has arrived at the University of Oldenburg.

It is important to go through the Application Requirements before applying

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: European Commission

Undoing Patriarchy

Seth Sandronsky

Patriarchy is male supremacy over women. The Me Too movement fighting sexual assault and harassment is a modern battle against this centuries-long phenomenon. In Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women (PM Press 2018), Silvia Federici connects patriarchy to the rise of a cash society, or capitalism, in western Europe between the 15th and 18^th century, a process proceeding in the so-called developing world of the Global South now.”

Why speak of witch-hunts in 2018? Federici’s themes are straightforward in her two-part book of essays. One theme is the process of peasant removal, or enclosing of the common lands in Europe, that disrupts the social status of men and women. What Europeans did to Africans and indigenous Americans in the so-called “new world” undergirded that old country pattern of conquest and theft that created poverty, immiserating women. Then the patriarchal state criminalized them. It was and is a one-two punch. Federici continues. In Africa and India now, for instance, such land dispossession is underway to benefit transnational corporations.

Communal property relations end violently. With-hunts and homicides are symptoms of this dislocation. Whether it is by the bullet or fire, dehumanizing women as witches is a violent process. Federici shows how the language, replete with the patriarchal-structures of male-centered religious demonology, facilitates the maiming and murdering of independent females.

Federici unpacks male demonizing of women as witches those who resist the rise of a money economy whereby people’s labor becomes a commodity to buy and sell in the marketplace, to produce commodities with prices. These communal societies were and are women-centered in part because they are the gender nurturing and reproducing the future generation.

Theme two is the increasing power of males over the bodies of women. This relationship encompasses women’s sexuality and birth capacity.

The witch-hunts, seen in legal codes of European nations 500 years ago, targeted in part women who struggled to maintain ties to food, land and work that capitalist social relations broke. Historian Peter Linebaugh has written extensively on that period in Europe that Federici cites.

She also sheds useful light on women’s status in the face of a rising tide of capitalist social relations in the book’s seventh and longest essay, tying processes in some African nations under World Bank structural adjustment policies that upend communalism. That violent change produces alienated and frightened males. They are ripe for scapegoating women who labor to maintain their former social status, e.g., folk healers and midwives. Observantly, Federici compares their discrediting as witches to the red-baiting of the Cold War era in which communists were the alleged enemies of the common good for whom no punishment was too severe.

Federici connects past witch-hunting to feminicide. A case in point is the unsolved murders of northern Mexican girls and women in Ciudad Juárez over the border from El Paso, Texas over the past 26 years. She
contextualizes this homicidal trend to whites lynching blacks in front of approving Caucasian crowds stateside. In this case, the more public and brutal the killings, the more such male violence against so-called
witches “is taking forms once seen only in times of war,” she writes in a penultimate essay examining global and historical views of women and capitalist globalization. The killings of women called witches in Africa and India, and female resistance to that mayhem, take up the last part of the book.

The final essay clarifies the whys and wherefores of economic globalization and male attacks on women. They pay for trying to hold on to old ways of living and working as capitalist institutions like the World Bank (behind the scenes to local people) push policies of land robbery. Think the mining of coltan (vital to digital devices) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the mass murders of its women. Especially in harm’s way, in Africa now and Europe of the past, are older women past child-bearing age. They are keepers of folk wisdom, for example, demonized as witches with no right to live under the rules of an economy based on people creating profits for capital.

Undoing patriarchy is a gargantuan process. Honesty about gender relations in the context of global capitalism is key, Federici argues, to creating the new world of equity and sustainability between and among people of all genders. Federici’s new book is a necessary resource for that social change.

UK: May fends off challenge by hard-Brexiteers

Robert Stevens 

UK Prime Minister Theresa May met with backbench Conservative MPs Wednesday evening, gathered by the influential 1922 Committee.

The days leading up to the meeting had a febrile atmosphere, with rumours that May faced an imminent leadership challenge led by hard-Brexit MPs. Sources suggested that the chair of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady, had already received the required 48 letters from MPs to declare a leadership challenge.

The weekend papers noted the incendiary language being used by some hardline Brexiteers, with the Sunday Times speculating May had possibly just 72 hours left in Downing Street. One unnamed MP said that May was entering the “killing zone,” with another saying that the knife “would be stuck in her front and twisted. She’ll be dead soon.”

Instead, May not only survived the Wednesday’s meeting, but accounts also said that she was warmly greeted and met with what the Financial Times called “thunderous applause” as MPs accepted her “heartfelt” plea that they back her soft-Brexit plan to exit the European Union (EU). Michael Fabricant MP described the meeting as a “love-in. ... It wasn’t Daniella in the lions’ den, it was a petting zoo.”

“She lives to fight possibly until the next election [set for 2022],” the pro-Brexit MP added.

According to the Guardian, May only faced “a handful of awkward questions from Brexiters including Nadine Dorries, Sir Edward Leigh and Philip Davies, but loyalists said she won over the room. ...”

That May, who supported Remain in the 2016 referendum and who has been constantly forced to make concessions to her pro-Brexit wing for the last two years, was able to seize the day in this way reflects a pronounced shift in ruling circles, who cannot countenance a hard Brexit.

With just over five months until the UK is formally set to exit the EU, the well-funded Remain campaign organised a show of force in London last Saturday, with a rally supported by hundreds of thousands. This was accompanied by warnings that investment levels have fallen for four in five businesses in fear of the consequences of a hard-Brexit. Jaguar Land Rover temporarily closed operations in Solihull for several weeks affecting 9,000 workers’ jobs. CEO Ralf Speth warned that major job losses were inevitable if firms lost access to the EU Single Market and Customs Union. The most exposed industries would have “no way to survive a hard Brexit.”

The financial sector and services industries also face devastation. Around 40 percent of UK exports to the EU are accounted for in trade in services, including financial services and the legal profession. London’s economy is 92 percent based on service industries.

The import of this was recognised even by ardent Brexiteer columnist Christopher Booker, who commented in the Daily Telegraph this week that at the outset of Brexit, politicians “were simply unaware of how much of our national activity had become so closely intermeshed with that of the EU and thus legally dependent on its rules. The consequences for many of our most successful industries may thus be devastating: from chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial services, aviation and our ports to Formula One motor racing: even our ability to move racehorses freely between Britain, Ireland and France.”

May told the 1922 Committee meeting that the Brexit deal was near completion, with two main issues outstanding.

The most important is the post-Brexit border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which will remain an EU member. May is demanding the EU drop its proposal for a Northern Ireland-only “backstop” keeping it in a customs arrangement with the EU indefinitely if a future trade deal between the EU and UK cannot be finalised. May’s alternative, based on pressure from the Democratic Unionist Party whose 10 MPs give her a majority in Parliament, is for a time-limited UK-wide customs backstop. The other issue is on extending the transition period in which Britain stays within the single market and the customs union beyond the end of 2020, as is currently planned.

Negotiations with the EU continue based on a deal being finalised by December at the latest, so the EU’s national governments can sanction it. On Wednesday, European Council President Donald Tusk told MEPs, “Since Prime Minister May mentioned the idea of extending the transition period, let me repeat that if the UK decided that such an extension would be helpful to reach a deal, I am sure that the leaders would be ready to consider it positively.”

A striking confirmation of the determination in ruling circles to clear all obstacles to a soft-Brexit is provided by the previously vociferously pro-Brexit Daily Mail. Following the departure of its editor Paul Dacre, the Mail has steadily moved towards support for May’s positions. Just 18 months ago, the Mail denounced judges who ruled that Parliament had to have a final say on any Brexit deal and advised May to “crush” any “saboteur” MPs who opposed a hard-Brexit. However, on Tuesday, it published a leader describing Tory MPs who were undermining May as “Saboteurs endangering our nation.” The Mail was “well aware of the shortcomings of the Chequers plan. But the truth is that it’s the only plan on the table—and Mrs May is the only person who can drive it forward.”

As well as keeping May in place, getting a deal negotiated by May through Parliament requires a shift in line in the Labour Party under leader Jeremy Corbyn. On Monday, the Times, owned by the Brexit-supporting Rupert Murdoch, published an editorial titled “Labour’s obfuscation over Brexit adds to the sense of national crisis.”

It noted that Corbyn’s absence from the Remain march, “one of the biggest demonstrations in recent times was symptomatic of Labour’s absence from the broader Brexit debate.”

It noted that Labour’s setting of “six tests by which it will judge any deal that the prime minister brings back from Brussels” are “based upon various statements made by Mrs. May and her ministers before they triggered Article 50 [starting the process to leave the EU], chosen in the certain knowledge that they cannot be met.”

“In ordinary times, Labour’s policy of deliberate obfuscation would be politically understandable for the main opposition party. But these are not ordinary times,” the newspaper warned Corbyn. “If his efforts to derive party advantage from a moment of national crisis contribute to a terrible Brexit outcome, it won’t be only the 700,000 marchers who will hold Labour partly responsible.”

All the Blairites within the Labour party are opposed to Corbyn’s stated aim of urging May to call a general election if her deal is rejected. Some have been holding out for a second referendum. But the Times is backing a faction said to number between 20 and 45 who are urging support for May’s deal as the only alternative to a no-deal Brexit. This would allow for the extension period of continued regulatory alignment to be used to campaign for a shift to remain.

Among their main concerns is how to achieve their aims without precipitating the election of a Labour government, under conditions in which many workers and youth are seeking fundamental change and supported Corbyn on the basis of his professed opposition to austerity and war.

Tory Brexiteer Andrea Jenkyns stated that some in the hard-Brexit wing backed off from issuing letters of no confidence in May because of “fear of another election and a Corbyn government.”

In its editorial condemning Tory MPs seeking May’s removal, the Mail warned that “if they continue with their wrecking tactics, they could force an election that no one wants and may well usher an unreconstructed Marxist into No. 10, with all the ruinous consequences that would wreak on the nation.”

European Union steps up Internet censorship in the name of opposing “disinformation”

Johannes Stern

The European Union (EU) summit on October 18 resolved to further tighten the censorship of the Internet. It also threatened with sanctions and penalties any party that diverges from the prescribed political line in the 2019 European election campaign. This is the response of European governments to growing opposition to militarism, social cuts and right-wing extremism.

In the summit’s official conclusions, the European Council calls for “measures to combat cyber and cyber-enabled illegal and malicious activities and build strong cybersecurity.” The EU should be empowered to “respond to and deter cyber-attacks through EU restrictive measures.”

These measures are justified not only by the supposed need to ward off hacking attacks, but also to “combat disinformation, including in the context of the upcoming European elections.” For this purpose, the EU Commission has proposed measures that, according to the Council’s conclusions, deserve “rapid examination.” These include “fighting disinformation campaigns,” “tightening the rules on European political party funding” and “operational follow-up by the competent authorities.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel already announced this in her policy statement to the Bundestag on October 17. Among other things, she threatened parties “whose campaigns actively engage in disinformation” with financial sanctions. “Anyone who does not abide by the democratic rules-of-the-game in Europe cannot expect to receive party financing funds from the European Union.”

Neither Merkel nor the European Council elaborated on what they mean by “disinformation campaigns.” However, it is clear what it is all about. The established media, parties, and Internet corporations label all who deviate from the standard line with terms such as “fake news,” “disinformation,” or “cyber-attack.” This is targeted first and foremost against left and progressive websites and organisations.

For example, earlier this month, Facebook deleted numerous popular left-wing accounts—including organisations fighting against war and police violence—in the name of the fight against “fake news.” In Germany, since the entry into force of the so-called Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), tens of thousands of contributions have been deleted using the same justification. For a year and a half, Google has been cooperating closely with German government circles in the censorship of left-wing and progressive websites, most notably the World Socialist Web Site.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than six years after Wikileaks exposed the war crimes of the US government. He faces extradition to the US and a potential death sentence if he leaves the embassy.

In Germany, the latest report by the domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), uses the term “disinformation” to denounce any left-wing opposition to official government policies. “Internationally broadcasted TV, radio and internet channels operate targeted propaganda and disinformation campaigns,” the report claims. The BfV goes on to boasts that “preventative measures” have “contributed to a high level of attention towards possible disinformation and has led to increased protective measures.”

The stated goal of the BfV, which works closely with the neo-fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD), is the persecution of socialist parties. Thus, its report lists the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) as a “left-wing extremist party.” Justification for the surveillance is not based on violations of law or violent acts, but rather the public advocacy of a socialist programme “directed against the existing state and social order, as a generalised disparagement of ‘capitalism,’ against the EU, against alleged nationalism, imperialism and militarism.”

The SGP will officially announce its participation in the European elections in the coming days. The party recognises the plans of the European Council as a direct threat. Merkel and the other European leaders must disclose the details of their clandestine preparations. What exactly do they mean by “operational follow-up” to be initiated by the “competent authorities”? Will this be similar to those “operations” carried out last week against political opposition parties in France?

On October 16, heavily armed policemen raided the private residence of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the Unsubmissive France (LFI) movement. The police were dressed in bulletproof vests and armed with assault rifles. Fifteen more assault teams broke into the homes of other LFI leaders and occupied the party headquarters. They confiscated material, downloaded data from computers, and unlawfully prevented Mélenchon and other party members from entering their own party headquarters.

Despite its political differences with Mélenchon, the World Socialist Web Site has sharply condemned this attack, calling it an “unmistakable threat to masses of people in France, across Europe and beyond. A decade after the Wall Street crash of 2008, the ruling elites are aware that their grotesque wealth and policies of austerity and war are overwhelmingly unpopular. Weak governments take desperate measures, and they aim to use ruthlessly the police-state powers built up during the ‘war on terror’ against political opposition.”

It is in this context that one has to understand the conclusions of the EU summit. The ruling class is reacting with authoritarian methods to the increase in mass demonstrations and strikes across Europe. Despite fierce conflicts, European governments are joining ranks in suppressing growing popular opposition. The whole document of the European Council reads like a blueprint for the speedy development of a European police state.

The summit agreed to “provide Member States’ law enforcement authorities, Europol and Eurojust with adequate resources.” This will be further strengthened by “partnerships with the private sector” as well as improved cooperation and access to data. Security and law enforcement agencies should thus be able to respond to “new challenges posed by technological developments and the evolving security threat landscape.”

Among other things, a pan-European data system giving police and the law access to the data of millions of people is planned. To this end, the “interoperability of information systems and databases” should be improved, “in particular through a common identity repository.” All “measures needed,” according to the summit, should be given “the highest priority.”

Conflict Research Fellowship of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) 2019

Application Deadline: 6th January 2019 at 11:59pm (EST)

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: The Conflict Research Fellowship (CRF) offers yearlong support for experienced scholars (based at a university or NGO). The CRF is part of the Conflict Research Programme (CRP), a four year, UK Department of International Development funded research program based at the London School of Economics and Political Science that investigates the drivers of violent conflict in five cases: Somalia, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Syria. The program focuses on ways in which the political economy of public authority helps to explain the persistence and spread of violence. Successful fellowship candidates will need to examine how different interventions affect violent conflict and/or the risk of renewed violent conflict; analyze “what works”to counter drivers of conflict; and explore the contextual factors that affect the efficacy of such interventions, including the linkages among international, national, state, and local level dynamics.  Successful candidates will contribute to the overall analysis of conflict through case studies of external interventions in four areas prioritized by the program:

1. Civil society support (including multi-scalar peacemaking and peacebuilding activities, support for reconciliation, and community-level dialogue and mediation)
2. Security and Justice Sector reform (including DDR/RR, stabilization, regional security networks/arenas, transitional, formal and customary justice)
3. Strengthening public authority and legitimacy, including at sub-national levels (the political marketplace, the effects of patronage networks on governance, governance promoting interventions, decentralization and anti-corruption activities)
4. Resource management (including settlement of land and real estate disputes, governance frameworks, and the role of natural resource competition in shaping public authority)

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility:

• Candidates must be postdoctoral scholars, policy analysts, or practitioners based at a university or nongovernmental organization with at least three years of field-based experience since the completion of the PhD (or researchers with equivalent experience who have published one book or two peer-reviewed academic articles).
• Applications will be considered for the following purposes only: funding to support fieldwork, teaching buy-out at your home institution, or a visiting appointment at a US or European university.
• Research projects must focus on the core countries of the CRF: Somalia, South Sudan, DRC, Iraq, or Syria.
• Applicants must also be available to attend a preparatory workshop in New York within the first two months of their fellowship period, and a capstone workshop towards the end of the year-long fellowship.
• At the end of the fellowship period, recipients must produce an original research output that is suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Value and Number of Awards: Up to 7-9 individual grants of a maximum of £17,000 will be awarded.

Duration of Programme: Grants are awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis and are intended to support three months of field-based research, whereas a visiting fellowship can be supported for a maximum of 6 months.

How to Apply: All applications must be uploaded through the online portal.
Do not hesitate to contact program staff at the Social Science Research Council in New York if you have further questions. Program staff may be contacted at uvc@ssrc.org or by telephone at (+1) 718-517-3707.

Requirements

1. Completed Application Form
2. Completed Proposal & Bibliography
3. Two (2) Reference Letters
4. Language evaluation(s) (if required)
5. Updated CV

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

World Bank SDGs & Her 2019 Competition for Women Entrepreneurs (Funded to New York, USA)

Application Deadline: 31st December 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): New York, USA

Type: Contest

Eligibility: To be eligible you must:

• be a woman owner of a business that has been in operation for at least 3 years
• own a micro-enterprise, with at least 1 and no more than 9 employees
• have a loan eligibility of under USD $10,000 or annual sales of under USD $100,000

Selection Criteria: Entries will be screened by a university partner and then judged by an expert panel. Judges will determine the winners based on the impact on the SDGs, vision and purpose, and clarity of the entries.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:The top winners will be recognized in April 2019 at an event on the margins of the 2019 World Bank Group-IMF Spring Meetings in Washington D.C. The stories of the winning women entrepreneur (and many other notable entries) will be shared through partners’ social media and websites.

How to Apply: Applicants complete a short online template, describing their work and linking their initiative/product to 1 or more SDGs.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers:  World Bank Group, Wharton School’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Women