12 Jan 2017

US trails other developed countries in access to health care

Esther Galen

A major focus of political debate in the United States as 2017 begins is what will happen to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the legislation restructuring the US health care system enacted in 2010, which took effect in 2014.
While Republicans denounce Obamacare as a total failure, and Democrats defend it as a progressive, all be it limited, success, the entire discussion revolves around an unstated assumption: that US health care is the “best in the world,” requiring only minor adjustments in a system based on the profit drive of privately owned corporations that sell health insurance, drugs and medical equipment, and operate hospitals and other facilities.
A recent survey shows that this consensus in favor of the for-profit medical system in the United States is based on a lie. The Commonwealth Fund questioned adults in 11 countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It found the US ranked at the bottom in access to and affordability of health care.
Compared to the 10 other “high-income” countries, the survey found: “Adults in the U.S. are more likely to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress.”
There are numerous indicators of the failure of the U.S. for-profit healthcare system:
· One-third of US adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or did not fill a prescription because of costs.
· Fifteen percent said they worried about having enough money for nutritious food and 16 percent struggled to afford their rent or mortgage.
· Half of US adults struggled to get health care on the weekends and evenings without going to an emergency department.
· Fourteen percent of chronically ill U.S. adults said they did not get the support they needed from health care providers to manage their conditions.
While the ten other countries outside the US offer universal insurance coverage, their health care services have faced cutbacks in recent years. In Britain, for example, dozens of hospitals, Accident and Emergency units, maternity units, mental health units, children’s heart units and GP surgeries have been downgraded or shut down, despite popular opposition. However, even after cuts, the countries surveyed have better cost protection and a larger safety net than the US, giving more people the ability to get medical care.
The Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people with private health insurance, but only by so redefining the meaning of “insurance.” People are said to be “insured” when they are enrolled in policies that require enormous out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles, which means they cannot afford to use medical services and if they do, may go bankrupt. In the jargon of the industry, they are “underinsured.” In fact, 31 million Americans were underinsured in 2014 .
Obama and the Democrats based their health care reform bill on the tendencies already prevailing in the private insurance market. In the US, more and more employees getting group health insurance through their employer and individuals buying insurance through a “marketplace” or an “exchange” are only being offered high-deductible health plans (HDHP).
A health plan with a deductible means that other than certain preventive services, the plan holder must pay for all medical care until the deductible is met. So people with high-deductible plans are hit hard paying for medical services before the health plan starts to pay. Even when the health plan starts to pay, a person still must pay a copayment for health care services that could be as much as 40 percent of the cost.
A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that the average annual out-of-pocket costs per patient rose almost 230 percent between 2006 and 2015. A survey of employers found employee deductibles increased 67 percent from 2010 to 2015. In the last year for which figures are available, for example, workers’ wages increased a mere 1.9 percent between April 2014 and April 2015, whereas out-of-pocket medical expenses went up 9 percent.
Kaiser reported that 43 percent of insured patients said they delayed or skipped physician-recommended tests or treatment because of high associated costs. When patients put off medical care, they are more likely to end up in a hospital Emergency Room. About 80 percent of emergency physicians said they are treating insured patients who have sacrificed or delayed medical care due to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs, co-insurance or high deductibles. This represented a 10 percent increase during the first six months of 2016.
The American College of Physicians noted: “Evidence shows that cost sharing, particularly deductibles, may cause patients to forgo or delay care, including medically necessary services. The effects are particularly pronounced among those with low incomes and the very sick. In the private insurance market, cost sharing typically is used as a blunt instrument, without regard for an individual’s income or health status ... higher cost sharing is associated with adverse health outcomes among vulnerable populations, including individuals with a low income, poor health or chronic illness, or those who are elderly.”
In the individual market, almost 90 percent of enrollees in Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces are in a high deductible health plan. A HDHP is one where the deductible is at least $1,300 for self-only coverage or $2,600 for family coverage. So if your 2017 ACA plan has a $1,500 deductible and you find out in January you need a CT scan that costs $1,500, you would be responsible for paying the full amount. It’s easy to see why someone would put off such a test.
The increasingly poor health of people in the US is the result of a health care system based on increasing the profits of the health care stakeholders. The health insurance companies have set up models of patient treatment to maximize their profits and with lucrative benefits for doctors and hospitals.
The modus operandi in health care, which underlies patient treatment, is called value-based health care, in which the business model and the care model become increasingly intertwined. The ACA includes provisions that promote this trend in Medicare, the federally funding health insurance system for the elderly and disabled.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and private health insurance companies are moving from a purely fee-for-service payment system to payment models that reward health care providers based on the quality and cost of care provided. CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services began implementing value-based programs in 2001, billing them as “Quality Initiatives.”
Through these various doctor and hospital programs, the insurance industry and CMS regulate patient care. They decide what services health care providers will be paid for (and what they will not be paid for), how much money providers have to save and how much they will be reimbursed for patient care—and their “incentive” payment if they cut costs.
One of the tenets of this model is to declare patients to be “health care consumers” who must be held responsible for the financial management of their own care. They must shop around to find the least expensive care or be able to afford the best care. One idea being floated by large employers, for example, is to set a fixed dollar amount they will pay for common but expensive procedures. For hip replacement, they could limit payment to $5,000. Since the best doctors and hospitals charge more, only the wealthy could get the best care.
The stakeholders involved with creating Obamacare—health insurance companies, the Department of Health and Human Services, hospitals, physician groups, drug companies and employers—all will be involved in what comes next. The structures and systems are already in place to make sure the stakeholders benefit and population suffers, unable to get good quality, affordable care.

Mexican protests continue as consumer prices rise

Rafael Azul

In the face of continuing protests, marches and occupations in Mexico, the ruling class is looking for political and economic alternatives to Peña Nieto as his political partners, the right-wing National Action Party (PAN) and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), distance themselves from the gas subsidy cuts in the face of widespread public opposition.
Wednesday marked the 11th day of protests against what has become known as the gasolinazo, the gasoline price shock decreed by the Peña Nieto administration on December 28.
Protests took place in the Mexican states along the US-Mexico border, including San Luis Potosí, Coahuila, Sinaloa, and Baja California Norte. Mobilizations also took place in the central states of Morelos and Hidalgo and in Mexico City. In Coahuila, truck drivers set up barricades across the Saltillo-Monterrey Highway. To the east, a caravan began in San Luis Potosí for a rally in Mexico City against the next fuel shock scheduled for February.
Roughly 100 protesters rallied at the Sinaloa provincial legislature in the city of Culiacán denouncing the special 15.000 peso (~$US 680) year-end subsidies that legislators had approved for themselves and family members. In the city of Cuernavaca, Morelos State, human rights groups protested against the increases in bus fares related to the gasolinazo.
In Baja California Norte, truckers and community members have blocked the Rosarita Pemex distribution center, which supplies gas stations in Mexicali, along the California border. Some of the people involved report that following the New Year’s Day fuel increase, it is less expensive to purchase gasoline across the border, in Calexico, California than in Mexicali. Except for emergency tanker trucks, the demonstrators are preventing all trucks from entering and leaving the terminal. The protest began on January 3 and is affecting 240 gas stations in Mexicali, the port of San Felipe and the town of San Luis Río Colorado.
Mexico City taxi drivers also attempted to block the Peño Viejo Metro train station in the Iztapalapa industrial suburb. Police intervened and force them to retreat. To the north of Mexico City, In Hidalgo State, small farmers as well as agricultural and urban workers gathered at the Hidalgo legislative building to protest the gasolinazo.
In the vicinity of the small rural town of El Nith, Hidalgo, where demonstrators are blocking the Mexico City to Laredo highway, officials of the Catholic Church attempted to involve themselves in the demonstration. Church officials declared their support for the protests and held a mass at the barricades, which have been up since January 2. This protest was the scene, on January 5, of a violent attack by government forces that resulted in the death of two of young protesters, Fredy Cruz and Alan Giovanni Martínez.
In the midst of these waves of popular protests, the Catholic Church, an institution that in 1988 officially made its peace with the Mexican ruling class and the Mexican state, is intervening on the government’s behalf to detour working class anger. Church leaders are now organizing a protest rally at the national legislature Mexico City “for peace and against the gasolinazo. ”
The “left” bourgeois nationalist Morena movement, led by Andrés Manual López Obrador (AMLO), is staking out a position that is similar to that of the Church. On Wednesday Morena legislators and those of its congressional partner Citizen’s Movement (MC) called for a series of palliative measures to relieve some of the effects of the gasolinazo, such as lowering taxes on transit companies and food stores, in return for not raising fares and prices.
In a January 10 speech, AMLO positioned himself as a presidential candidate for 2018 and called on the legislature to assemble in an emergency budget session to reconsider the gasoline increases and the ones to follow in the context of a revised fiscal budget. His message was delivered as a warning, a way to save the Peña Nieto administration out of this crisis.
Taking a nationalist line, Lopéz Obrador called for the building of more refineries to end Mexico’s dependency on foreign fuels and to create jobs.
President Peña Nieto is increasingly isolated. Both parties that signed the Pact for Mexico in 2013 have distanced themselves from the increase in fuel prices, despite the fact that they voted in favor of the hike in the legislature. PRD congressional leader Sánchez Nájera is calling for the cancellation of the fuel price increases, while PAN leader Rafael Delgadillo of Sonora State hypocritically declared his party’s total opposition to changes in gasoline prices. Delgadillo described Peña Nieto’s claim that the gasolinazo would not be inflationary as “demagogic”, and called on the president to listen to the people. At least one PAN governor has declared that he would not use security forces against the demonstrators.
The Mexican Employers Association, Coparmex, a business organization traditionally aligned with the more nationalist-oriented section of the bourgeoisie and whose members account for about 30 percent of Mexico’s GDP, refused on Monday to sign Peña Nieto’s Economic Pact. Instead it issued The Pact that Mexico Needs ( El Acuerdo que México Necesita ), a plan based on even more draconian austerity measures. Like López Obrador and Morena, Coparmex also proposes the building of more refineries and pipelines, as well as the cancellation of the February gasolinazo. Coparmex proposes that its “ Acuerdo ” be signed this February.
Already the effects of the fuel shock are adding to Mexico’s inflation. The increase in the daily minimum wage from 73 to 80.04 pesos (US $3.80), agreed upon last December, that took effect this New Year’s Day, has lost all its buying power. Under the impact of a price explosion in basic items, such as tortillas, beans and now fuel, adjusted for inflation, the new minimum wage represents a regression in living standards, in the space of one month.

India: Crises in Command?

Murli Menon



The controversial nature of the new Indian army chief’s appointment and the corruption scandal involving a former air chief has brought the Indian military leadership in the media spotlight once again. In India, traditionally, military leadership has got a short shrift. The lack of a strategic culture in India, evident from the lack of understanding of military matters by the civilian hierarchy, is a possible reason for this. The gradual “corporatisation” of the Indian armed forces is another possible contributory factor, where corporate mismanagement has undermined time-proven military leadership skills. India and its defence establishment need to revisit their own military leadership culture and identify weaknesses. A more copious media debate and agitation by the cognoscenti is required before policy changes could possibly be brought about in this regard.

Military leadership offers different sets of challenges than its civilian variant. Over the years, some civilian leaders have to tried to imbibe certain aspects of military leadership but with very little success. Attempts by the military to “civilianise” or “corporatise” its leadership ethos may have more dangerous implications as it could have a direct impact on national security.

A military leader needs to lead men into battle. In the absence of war, the armed forces tend to lose their leadership perspective, and consequently, their fighting edge. This seems to be the case with the Indian armed forces, as these days, they are employed essentially only for counter-insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict Operations. The challenges are even more profound when a military establishment must keep itself battle ready even in times of comparative “peace” or “no peace, no war” situations. This is when basic tenets of military leadership cannot be allowed to be glossed over.

The biggest problem for a peace-time military is what has been described as the “ticket-punching” phenomenon. Every military service lays down norms to enable its officer cadre to have a smooth transition from its tactical to operational and strategic levels of leadership. Nevertheless, some officers choose to “ticket-punch” their way through the established hierarchical shaft, either avoiding the more challenging assignments altogether by opting for “low threat” assignments or by opting for other ornamental staff jobs. These “easier” assignments also tend to offer inflated report statuses numerically, allowing the concerned ticket-punchers to steal a march over their other colleagues who may have exposed themselves to operationally much more challenging and riskier assignments. The promotion criteria in all services, therefore, ought to be based on a military leader’s successful transition across the mandatory field and staff assignments across all levels – tactical, operational and strategic – of war, and not any other extraneous considerations.
 
Another factor that assists "ticket-punchers" in gaining an unfair advantage is the ill-thought out changes in personnel policies, at times provoked by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Staff/Operations criteria attempt proposed by the Army – and undone by the MoD – and the wanton reduction some years ago of “discretionary weightage” drastically from 25 per cent to 5 per cent (precluding the scope for objectively compensating a deserving candidate during promotion for higher ranks in the Air Force) are two such cases in point.

If the Establishment sends across the message of appointing only an “operationally sound” officer as the chief of any of the services, most travails regarding inept senior level military leadership would be overcome. Even with such merit-imbued promotional criteria in place, it is possible that a senior military functionary, including a chief, could get compromised in some scam. Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi’s alleged involvement in the AgustaWestland chopper scam is one such example. These types of situations need to be addressed through reforms such as Intelligence Bureau vetting, subordinate reportage in confidential reports, and increased transparency in the equipment procurement processes. What is currently playing out with Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi is a different matter altogether. He appears to be the fall guy for big political entities. With a proactive judiciary, it is only a matter of time before the truth prevails.

The requirement, therefore, is to ensure that military leadership does not get compromised in terms of dilution of mandatory qualitative criteria for any promotion, particularly the ones to starred ranks. This would remove any possible controversy if a person with better operational credentials supersedes lesser endowed peers. Military leadership has to be nurtured over time. Performance in wars may not always be a practical criterion, given that the entire military leadership is now from a “post-war” era as they were commissioned post-1971, the system should look for other norms. It is still possible that these criteria could be ignored leading to the wrong person being elevated to the top job. India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parikkar is quite right when he says that seniority alone cannot be a criterion for promotion. This is where the Indian military needs doctrinal precepts to support its personnel policies, preventing tinkering of norms without objective analyses. India also needs to put in place institutional quadrennial defence reviews like they have in the US – to undertake reformations in the Indian military’s operational, administrative and support infrastructure and procedures.

11 Jan 2017

United Nations Youth Champions Initiative for Young Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: India (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi), Ethiopia, Pakistan (Karachi), and the United States (Louisiana and Mississippi).
About the Award:  The Youth Champions Initiative (YCI) invests in visionary young champions who lead the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) movement now and for the next generation. Following a competitive selection process, YCI will select 18 visionary young people working in Packard Foundation priority geographies – India (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi), Ethiopia, Pakistan (Karachi), and the United States (Louisiana and Mississippi).
Type: Training
Eligibility: Youth Champions Initiative invests in powerful young leaders ages 18-30 who are leading the sexual and reproductive health and rights movement in Ethiopia, India, Pakistan and the United States.  Eligible candidates must meet the following selection criteria:
  1. Young persons between the ages of 18-29
  2. Residents of: • Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and New Delhi, India • Ethiopia • Pakistan • Louisiana and Mississippi, USA
  3. Personal dedication to improving sexual and reproductive health and rights
  4. Commitment to social change and experience in one or more of the following areas: youth development, education, sexual and reproductive health and rights, innovation and/or related fields
  5. Support of the applicant’s host organization and ability to participate in a workshop in Los Altos, California, USA in early May of 2017.
  6. Proficient in oral and written English
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: This is a Funded program
How to Apply: For more information read the YCI Fact Sheet, and to apply fill out the application formSubmission deadline is Sunday, January 15, 2017.
Award Provider: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and Public Health Institute
Important Notes: For more information, please visit www.youthchampionsinitiative.org and contact Youth Champions Initiative Program Coordinator Claudia Romeu at clromeu@riseuptogether.org, with a copy to Program Manager Josie Ramos at jramos@riseuptogether.org.

Switch Africa Green (SAG) – SEED Awards 2017 for African Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 8th March, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa and Uganda
About the Award: The award of the SEED Awards for Entrepreneurship in Sustainable Development is an annual awards program designed to find companies eco- inclusive phase the most promising start-up, innovative and locally conducted in developing countries and emerging economies.
Up to fifteen SAG-SEED Awards are funded by the Africa Green SWITCH project implemented by UNEP with the help of the European Union. South African prices will be co-financed by the Flemish government.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: The SAG-SEED Awards 2017 is open to companies that:
  • demonstrate entrepreneurship and innovation;
  • provide benefits to the economic, social and environmental level;
  • have the aim of becoming financially viable and have the potential to achieve this;
  • form a partnership with different stakeholders;
  • are managed or managed locally;
  • possess a strong potential for growth or replication;
  • are in the development stage;
  • match the geographic criteria and categories described above.
Value of Program: Each award winner will receive a consulting package:
  • Capacity building: individualized counseling on the development of financial business plan and plan, including a business planning workshop for three days and three months in support of a local expert advisor.
  • Tools: access to online self-help tools such as: do a market analysis, develop a funding strategy, develop a mapping of partners and other stakeholder, developing contracts or agreements of understanding with partners etc. .
  • Visibility: SAG-SEED winners are presented at national and regional level through a high-level awards ceremony as well as internationally through marketing and promotional activities of SEED as our website our blog and our social networks.
  • Networking: SEED facilitates connections with valuable contacts to help organizations, such as donors, policy makers and other companies such as SEED SEED Alumni and Partners and Associates.
How to Apply: You can submit your application online on the SEED website www.seed.uno or download the application form and send it by e-mail at seedawards2017@seed.uno .
Award Provider: SEED

NUFFIC TMT Tailor-Made Training Programme 2017 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 1st March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Eligible NFP Countries (see list below)
To be taken at (country): The country of the requesting organisation, in a neighbouring country, or in a combination of these locations. If the added value is explicitly explained and motivated, training may take place in the Netherlands
About the Award: The Tailor-Made Training programme (TMT) is a specific type of study programme funded within the Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP). A tailor-made training course is designed to meet specific needs of a requesting organisation. The Tailor-made Training programme is specifically meant to enhance the overall functioning of an organisation by training a selected group of its staff members. An organisation facing certain constraints in achieving its goals can by means of a tailor-made training course (partly) eliminate these constraints.
The programme is open to a broad range of organisations in NFP countries, from education institutions, research institutes and ministries to NGOs and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The participants of the training course are meant to be employees of the requesting organisation. Members of an association, or employees of member organisations of a federation, for example, do not qualify
The Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP), funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the budget for development cooperation, are designed to promote capacity building within organizations in 51 (previously 62) countries by providing training and education to mid-career staff.
Offered Since: Not stated
Type: Entrepreneurship Training and Funding
Eligibility: There is a set of criteria for requesting organisationsthe Dutch provider and the training itself. Below is an overview of the eligibility criteria. Criteria for the requesting organisations:
  • is based in one of the countries on the NFP country list valid at the time of application;
  • is not:
    • a large industrial, commercial, international or multinational organisation, which can be assumed to have sufficient resources of its own to finance staff training;
    • a bilateral donor organisation or a multilateral donor organisation;
    • an international NGO;
    • benefiting from a NICHE project.
  • the field in which it operates is relevant to the sustainable development of the country the organisation is located;
  • is requesting training for its own staff.
Criteria for the Dutch provider
  • is registered with the Netherlands Chamber of Commerce and has its headquarters or a branch within the Netherlands;
  • is directly responsible for the preparation and management of the tailor-made training course, and not acting as an intermediary;
  • is experienced and able to show that the organisation has the capacity needed to manage an activity on the scale of the tailor-made training course for which the proposal is being submitted;
  • is financially sound to ensure continuity throughout the tailor-made training course.
Criteria for the tailor-made training course Set-up of the training course:
  • It is a group training;
  • the programme does not support activities such as seminar attendances and conference visits; The requesting organisation is an organisation which submits a proposal for a tailor-made training course. A TMT will be carried out by a provider from The Netherlands. This Dutch organisation is acting on its own or is leading a consortium to provide a particular service for a particular price. The consortium partners may be registered in another country than the Netherlands.
  • the programme does not support the purchase of hardware;
  • the subject is relevant to the needs identified within the requesting organisation.
Selection Criteria: Embassies may opt for an ‘open call’, so that all interested organisations in the country can apply. Or, they may opt for a ‘closed call’ and invite a number of organisations in the country to participate. In this case, non-invited organisations cannot submit a joint proposal. EP-Nuffic recommends all interested organisations to contact the relevant embassy before starting to prepare a joint proposal.
Afterwards, EP-Nuffic assesses and takes into account the recommendations of the embassy.
Eligible proposals will be based on the following priorities:
  • Country classification (category 1 or 2)
  • Sub-SaharaAfrica
  • Preference for the food security sector
  • Strongest recommendation by embassy/consulate
Number of Trainees: 
  • minimum number of participants is six persons;
  • maximum number of participants is 20 persons;
Value of Training:
  • The maximum NFP subsidy for an application is 200,000 euros. The maximum subsidy for a joint proposal is 75,000 euros. Co-funding is not required for this call, although it will be considered positively in the assessment.
  • Co-funding of at least 2,500 euros by the requesting organisation or a sponsor in the NFP country will give the application/joint proposal an advantage in the assessment.
Duration of Training: 2-3 weeks
Eligible African Countries: Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Cape Verde, Uganda, Mali, Zambia, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Egypt, Namibia
Other Developing Countries outside Africa? Afghanistan, Eritrea, Nicaragua, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, Autonomous Palestinian Territories, Peru, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Philippines, Bhutan, Honduras, Bolivia, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Iran, Suriname, Jordan, Cambodia, Thailand, Kosovo, Colombia, Macedonia, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Yemen, Cuba, Moldova, Mongolia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nepal
How to Apply: Proposals have to be submitted to the embassy or consulate of the Netherlands for your country. To ensure timely processing of proposals, embassies may deviate from the EP-Nuffic deadline and apply their own, earlier deadline. Therefore, organisations need to consult the website of the embassy or consulate for the applicable application procedures, criteria and deadlines.
Award Provider: Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP)
Important Notes: Embassies and consulates use earlier deadlines than 1 November, as theyhave to process the joint proposals before forwarding them to EP-Nuffic.

Peace Revolution International Youth Fellowship (Funded) 2017 – Thailand

Application Deadlines:
  • 25th February 2017: Last date to apply online
  • 8th April 2017: Last date to complete at least 42 days of the online Self-Development program including 2 Special Ops
To be taken at (country): Thailand
About the Program: Do you want to give a try to meditation and start a true change from within? Your training starts with the 42 Days online self-development program (See link below for details) on our interactive platform providing you the basic theory and practice; develop the tool for inner peace and learn about the concept of PIPO – Inner Peace + Outer Peace = Sustainable world peace. Through the Online Special OPS you have the means to share true peace to friends, family and school at large.
The fellowship (after the 42-day online self-development program) offers a 14 days of intensive training program providing participants with deeper insight in the relationship between inner peace and sustainable world peace and enhancing their ability to create peace within their family, professional and social environment.
In addition to the intense meditation practice, participants will gain knowledge of various theoretical approaches that include:
  • Conflict resolution and the role of the basic human self-disciplines
  • The role of our habits in our daily life and how to improve; the 5 Rooms of life
  • The factors that determine our perception to think, act and speak; relation between body and mind
  • Leadership: Eight pillars for a stable peaceful society
  • Thai-Buddhist Studies
Type: Training/Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Candidates should be at least 20 years old at the time of submitting the application.
  • Candidates must have completed 42 days of the English version of the online self-development program. Note that in order to submit the application form, candidates do not need to have completed the online self-development program. Deadline to finish the program is 18th April 2017
  • Candidates must have completed at least 2 Special Ops, which are
  • 1 OFFLINE (with 5 or more participants) and
  • 1 ONLINE (with 10 or more participants) OR 1 LIVE (with 15 or more participants).
  • Candidates need to submit a PIPO Proposal (included in the application form).
  • Candidates have good proficiency in written and spoken English language.
  • Candidates should be optimistic, be open-minded, show leadership potential, and have a genuine interest in peace.
  • Candidates must finish all the above requirements (the self-development program as well as the online Special Ops) before the eligibility deadline of a 8th April 2017
Selection Process: After completion of the 42 days of the online self-development program, and the 2 Special OPS required, World Peace Initiative Foundation selection committee will make an interview appointment based on candidate’s performance, available funds as well as group combination in the fellowship. There is no need to write a request for an interview.
Value of Program: The fellowship covers
  • Free Local Transportation
  • Free Catering & Accommodation
  • Meditation Sessions and Lectures
  • Yoga Classes
  • Interactive Workshops
  • Free Meditation Retreat Fee
  • Partial Airfare Support for Applicants Meeting the Criteria
    • All residents from countries from this list here
    • PR+ (Applicants that participated in any of our regional fellowships)
    • Applicants who belong to a PIPO club
Duration of Program: 3rd – 16th June 2017
How to Apply: Before you apply via the Program Webpage link (below) it is important to go through the eligibility requirements.
Award Provider: Peace Revolution

Road Map to Professional Success for Engineers not Taught in School – Online Course

Enrolment: Starts on February 21, 2017
Timeline: 4 weeks @ 2-3 hours per week
Skill Level: Introductory
Course of Study: Business & Management for Engineers| Course Platform: Edx.org
Created by: IEEE
Cost: Free
About the Course
Congratulations! You’re an engineer, and now you’re ready to take the corporate world by storm. But in order to succeed in your career, you’ll need more than just great technical skills. You’ll need to be able to promote your ideas, share them with others, and work with a wide variety of people. Stuff You Don’t Learn in Engineering School is designed to give engineers entering the corporate world the soft skills they’ll need to succeed — in business, and in life.
Filled with insightful, practical advice addressing vital skill areas and helpful tips you can apply immediately to any situation, this course will help you take charge of your career and achieve the success for which you’ve worked so hard.
What you’ll learn
Step by step, you’ll learn important skills like
  • Setting priorities;
  • Managing or working in a team;
  • Being more effective at meetings;
  • Speaking in front of a group;
  • Negotiating personal or business issues;
  • And just having more fun in the process!
Eligibility requirement
For engineers and engineering students
Certificate offered? Yes
How to Enrol

MILEAD Empowerment and Leadership Fellowship for Young African Women 2017

Application Deadline: 15th March 2017 (Wed)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible African Countries: All African countries
To be taken at (country):  Ghana, Candidate’s home country.
Accepted Subject Areas: Leadership development
About Scholarship:The MILEAD Fellows Program is a long-term leadership development program designed to identify, develop and promote emerging young African female leaders to attain and thrive in leadership in their communities and Africa as a whole. The program targets dynamic young women interested in developing transformational leadership skills that help them address issues facing women and girls across communities in Africa. The MILEAD Program equips Fellows with the world class knowledge, skills, values and networks they need to succeed as 21st century women leaders.
Offered Since: 2004
By what Criteria is Selection Made? The MILEAD Fellowship will be awarded to outstanding young women who have exhibited leadership potential in their community, organization, and/or profession.
Who is eligible to apply? To be eligible for the one-year program, an applicant must:
  • be African, living on the continent or in the Diaspora;
  • agree to participate in all required activities related to MILEAD – including a three-week residential Summer Institute in Ghana;
  • commit to a community change project
  • be between 19 – 25 years of age.
Number of Awards: The MILEAD Fellowship will be awarded to 25 outstanding young women
What are the benefits? The MILEAD Program equips Fellows with the world class knowledge, skills, values and networks they need to succeed as 21st century women leaders.
Duration of Fellowship: One year
How to Apply: Specific requirements of the program and related dates are outlined in the application package. Please review program and application guidelines carefully, before completing your application.
Completed application forms must be submitted along with a CV and two recommendation lettersAll applications and supporting documents must be submitted via email.
  1. Download Application Pack/Form
  2. Download Recommendation Form
Sponsors: Moremi Initiative for Women’s Leadership in Africa (Moremi Initiative)
Important Notes: Please note that this one year program is not a full-time fellowship. Selected candidates may remain full time students or work full time for the program duration, except during the 3–week summer institute. The 3-week summer institute is an intensive and full-time residential program and all fellows will be required to attend. The rest of the program involves community-based, online and other distance activities.

Ticking Carbon Clock Warns We Have One Year To Avert Climate Catastrophe

Nika Knight


Our window of time to act on climate may be shrinking even faster than previously thought.
We may only have one year remaining before we lock in 1.5ºC of warming—the ideal goal outlined in the Paris climate agreement—after which we’ll see catastrophic and irreversible climate shifts, many experts have warned.
That’s according to the ticking carbon budget clock created by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). The clock’s countdown now shows that only one year is left in the world’s carbon budget before the planet heats up more than 1.5º over pre-industrial temperatures.
The current carbon budget countdown, as of January 10, 2017. (Screenshot: MCC)The current carbon budget countdown, as of January 10, 2017. (Screenshot: MCC)
That’s under the most pessimistic calculations. According to the most optimistic prediction, we have four years to kick our carbon habit and avert 1.5º of warming.
And to limit warming to 2ºC—the limit agreed upon in the Paris climate accord—we have nine years to act under the most pessimistic scenario, and 23 years to act under the most optimistic.
“So far, there is no track record for reducing emissions globally,” explained Fabian Löhe, spokesperson for MCC, in an email to Common Dreams. “Instead, greenhouse gas emissions have been rising at a faster pace during the last decade than previously—despite growing awareness and political action across the globe. Once we have exhausted the carbon budget, every ton of CO2 that is released by cars, buildings, or industrial plants would need to be compensated for during the 21st century by removing the CO2 from the atmosphere again. Generating such ‘negative emissions’ is even more challenging and we do not know today at which scale we might be able to do that.”
(Climate activists and environmentalists have also long warned of the potential negative consequences of geoengineering and other carbon capture schemes, as Common Dreams has reported.)
“Hence, the clock shows that time is running out: it is not enough to act sometime in the future, but it is necessary to implement more ambitious climate policies already in the very short-term,” Löhe added.
“Take all of the most difficult features of individual pathways to 2ºC—like fast and ambitious climate action in all countries of the world, the full availability of all required emissions reduction and carbon removal technologies, as well as aggressive energy demand reductions across the globe—the feasibility of which were so heatedly debated prior to Paris,” Löhe said. “This gives you an idea of the challenge associated with the more ambitious 1.5°C goal.”

Trump and China fears overshadow fragile Australian economy

Mike Head

The New Year has produced warnings in the Australian media about the multiple “risks” in 2017 to the country’s economy, which already experienced an official contraction in the September quarter of 2016. Above all, there are fears in ruling circles that conflict between the US, led by the protectionist Donald Trump, and China, Australian capitalism’s largest export market, could have catastrophic consequences.
Last week’s announcement of a trade surplus of $1.24 billion for November, the first monthly surplus since March 2014, was initially presented as signalling a revival of economic fortunes. The outcome was the result of higher prices for Australian capitalism’s biggest export earners—iron ore and coal—during the second half of 2016.
This turnaround, it was claimed, could prevent the prospect of another quarterly contraction that would officially mark a recession. The Australian reported a “ray of light” for the economy and the Turnbull government. “The stars are finally starting to align for Australia’s trade numbers,” Paul Bloxham, HSBC Australia’s chief economist, told the Guardian .
In reality, the upswing in commodity prices, which had collapsed during the previous 18 months, is likely to be short-lived and unable to overcome the underlying economic deterioration produced by a four-year plunge in corporate investment, both mining and non-mining. In fact, the brief upturn, which is already reversing, underscores the country’s substantial dependence on China.
Prices of coking coal, which is used in steelmaking, rose sharply in the second half of last year, from $US90 a tonne in late June to $308 by early November. But this was based almost entirely on relatively strong Chinese steel demand, largely generated by infrastructure and real estate stimulus packages adopted by Beijing to avert a fall in China’s economic growth rate, as well as coal mining restrictions by the regime.
Over the past five years, China’s growth, which averaged 10 percent per year from 1989 to 2009, has slowed sharply under the impact of the post-2008 global financial crisis. Even to prevent the official rate from dropping below their current target of 6.5 percent, the Beijing authorities again resorted to stimulus measures during 2016, but these led to renewed production gluts and a further blowout in debt.
The country’s combined public and private debt is estimated to have reached 260 percent of gross domestic product by the end of last year, the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world. As a result, Beijing has been forced to pull back its measures, and this has quickly affected global coal and iron ore prices.
In the first week of 2017, coking coal prices fell to near $200 per tonne, extending their drop in the previous six weeks to 35 percent. Iron ore prices, which rose from $54 a tonne to $80 in the second half of last year, were trading at $76 last weekend and are expected to drop further as Beijing continues to restructure its steel industry to cut more than 100 million tonnes a year of steelmaking capacity.
The Australian government’s own commodity forecaster cautioned last week that the price surges would not last for long. “The combination of slowing demand growth from China’s steel sector and increased global supplies are expected to lower export unit values in 2017–18,” Mark Cully, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s chief economist, said.
Even these predictions will be shattered if the Trump administration instigates tariffs and other trade war measures against China, let alone provokes military conflict between the two nuclear powers. Not only would the world economy be thrown into crisis, but Australian capitalism would be particularly devastated.
Writing in the Australian on January 9, finance journalist Stephen Bartholomeusz first noted the likelihood of contracting Chinese demand this year. Then he warned: “The biggest wildcard, however, probably remains the nature and effect of Trump’s trade policies and the extent to which they damage China’s export volumes and economy.”
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s David Taylor also gave voice to this overriding fear. “One big issue to keep an eye out for is China’s trade relationship with the US. If president-elect Donald Trump starts a trade war with Australia’s largest trading partner (imposing tariffs as much as 45 percent on all of the country’s exports), all bets are off.”
One indication of the nervousness in the corporate elite was provided by another ABC business reporter, Michael Janda, who listed 10 “risks” to the Australian economy in 2017. Reflecting the country’s particular vulnerability to a global slump, they included “China slowdown,” “The Trump factor” and “European disintegration.”
At the top of Janda’s list were five “risks” of soaring unemployment. They were “Car industry shutdown,” “Mining investment bust continues,” “Commodity price snap back,” “Property price fall” and “Construction boom peaks.”
Janda explained that on top of the thousands of jobs being eliminated by Ford, General Motors and Toyota in closing all their car plants by the end of 2017, and the completion of the country’s remaining major mining construction projects, there could be a rout in the real estate market, triggered by a glut in apartment construction, which would wipe out an estimated 200,000 jobs.
“With the construction industry accounting for almost 10 percent of employment, not to mention hundreds of thousands of extra jobs in the broader real estate sector, this is another huge economic risk facing Australia this year or next.”
To his list, Janda added the almost certain loss of the country’s AAA credit rating this year. This could help produce another risk—an “Australian banking crisis”—because of the major banks’ high levels of exposure to the debt-fuelled housing market and their heavy reliance on borrowing from international financial markets.
Any rise in interest rates from their current official low of 1.5 percent would exacerbate these dangers, generating mortgage defaults by financially-stressed families. Household debt is now above 175 percent of GDP—one of the highest levels in the world.
The ABC journalist concluded with a “doomsday scenario”: “Imagine, as tens of thousands more jobs are shed from the mining and automotive sectors (as we know will happen), that 200,000 workers start drifting out of residential construction and related industries…
“Most likely this exact scenario won’t happen this year and Australia will keep muddling through with below par economic growth and weak employment and wages outcomes. But the fact that it is even plausible highlights how fragile the nation’s economy has become.”
These warnings reflect two concerns dominating the corporate and media establishment. One is that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government is failing to sufficiently satisfy the demands of the financial elite for an all-out offensive against social spending and working class wages and conditions.
The other fear is that the deteriorating economic situation and rising joblessness will intensify the growing popular discontent and political disaffection produced by years of austerity measures by successive governments and the continual destruction of full-time jobs, which has already pushed hundreds of thousands of workers and youth into lower-paid and insecure employment.