Awaken the Leader In You

Awaken the Leader In You: 10 easy steps to developing your leadership skills –

By Sharif Khan

"The miracle power that elevates the few is to be found in their industry, application, and perseverance, under the promptings of a brave determined
spirit." - Mark Twain

 Many motivational experts like to say that leaders are made, not born. I would argue the exact opposite. I believe we are all natural born leaders, but have been deprogrammed along the way. As children, we were natural leaders - curious and humble, always hungry and thirsty for knowledge, with an incredibly vivid imagination; we knew exactly what we wanted, were persistent and determined in getting what we wanted, and had the ability to motivate, inspire, and influence everyone around us to help us in accomplishing our mission. So why is this so difficult to do as adults? What happened?

 As children, over time, we got used to hearing, No, Don't, and Can't. No! Don't do this. Don't do that. You can't do this. You can't do that. No! Many of our parents told us to keep quiet and not disturb the adults by

asking silly questions. This pattern continued into high school with our teachers telling us what we could do and couldn't do and what was possible. Then many of us got hit with the big one institutionalized formal education known as college or university. Unfortunately, the traditional educational system doesn't teach students how to become leaders; it teaches students how to become polite order takers for the corporate world. Instead of learning to become creative, independent, self-reliant, and think for themselves, most people learn how to obey and intelligently follow rules to keep the corporate machine humming.

Developing the Leader in you to live your highest life, then, requires a process of unlearning by self-remembering and self-honoring. Being an effective leader again will require you to be brave and unlock the door to your inner attic, where your childhood dreams lie, going inside to the heart. Based on my over ten years research in the area of human development and leadership, here are ten easy steps you can take to 

awaken the Leader in you and rekindle your passion for greatness.

1. Humility. Leadership starts with humility. To be a highly successful leader, you must first humble yourself like a little child and be willing to serve others. Nobody wants to follow someone who is arrogant. Be humble as a child, always curious, always hungry and thirsty for knowledge. For what is excellence but knowledge plus knowledge plus knowledge – always wanting to better yourself, always improving, always growing.

When you are humble, you become genuinely interested in people because you want to learn from them. And because you want to learn and grow, you will be a far more effective listener, which is the #1 leadership 

communication tool. When people sense you are genuinely interested in them, and listening to them, they will naturally be interested in you and listen to what you have to say.

2. SWOT Yourself. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Although it's a strategic management tool taught at Stanford and Harvard Business Schools and used by large

multinationals, it can just as effectively be used in your own professional development as a leader. This is a useful key to gain access to self-knowledge, self-remembering, and self-honoring. Start by listing all your Strengths including your accomplishments. Then write down all your Weaknesses and what needs to be improved. Make sure to include any doubts, anxieties, fears, and worries that you may have. These are the

demons and dragons guarding the door to your inner attic. By bringing them to conscious awareness you can begin to slay them. Then proceed by listing all the Opportunities you see available to you for using your 

strengths. Finally, write down all the Threats or obstacles that are currently blocking you or that you think you will encounter along the way to achieving your dreams.

3. Follow Your Bliss. Regardless of how busy you are, always take time to do what you love doing. Being an alive and vital person vitalizes others. When you are pursuing your passions, people around you cannot help but feel impassioned by your presence. This will make you a charismatic leader. Whatever it is that you enjoy doing, be it writing, acting, painting, drawing, photography, sports, reading, dancing, networking, or working on entrepreneurial ventures, set aside time every week, ideally two or three hours a day, to pursue these activities. Believe me, you'll find the time. If you were to video tape yourself for a day, you would be shocked to see how much time goes to waste!

4. Dream Big. If you want to be larger than life, you need a dream that's larger than life. Small dreams won't serve you or anyone else. It takes the same amount of time to dream small than it does to dream big. So be

Big and be Bold! Write down your One Biggest Dream. The one that excites you the most. Remember, don't be small and realistic; be bold and unrealistic! Go for the Gold, the Pulitzer, the Nobel, the Oscar, the highest you can possibly achieve in your field. After you ve written down your dream, list every single reason why you CAN achieve your dream instead of worrying about why you can't. 

5. Vision. Without a vision, we perish. If you can't see yourself winning that award and feel the tears of triumph streaming down your face, it's unlikely you will be able to lead yourself or others to victory. Visualize

what it would be like accomplishing your dream. See it, smell it, taste it, hear it, feel it in your gut. 

6. Perseverance. Victory belongs to those who want it the most and stay in it the longest. Now that you have a dream, make sure you take consistent action every day. I recommend doing at least 5 things every day that will move you closer to your dream.

7. Honor Your Word. Every time you break your word, you lose power. Successful leaders keep their word and their promises. You can accumulate all the toys and riches in the world, but you only have one reputation in life. Your word is gold. Honor it.

8. Get a Mentor. Find yourself a mentor. Preferably someone who has already achieved a high degree of success in your field. Don't be afraid to ask. You've got nothing to lose. Mentors.ca is an excellent mentoring

website and a great resource for finding local mentoring programs. They even have a free personal profile you can fill out in order to potentially find you a suitable mentor. In addition to mentors, take time to study

autobiographies of great leaders that you admire. Learn everything you can from their lives and model some of their successful behaviors.

9. Be Yourself. Use your relationships with mentors and your research on great leaders as models or reference points to work from, but never copy or imitate them like a parrot. Everyone has vastly different leadership styles. History books are filled with leaders who are soft-spoken, introverted, and quiet, all the way to the other extreme of being out-spoken, extroverted, and loud, and everything in between. A quiet and

simple Gandhi or a soft-spoken peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter, who became president of the United States and won a Nobel Peace Prize, have been just as effective world leaders as a loud and flamboyant 

Churchill, or the tough leadership style employed by The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. I admire Hemingway as a writer. But if I copy Hemingway, I'd be a second or third rate Hemingway, at best, instead of a first rate Sharif. Be yourself, your best self, always competing against yourself and bettering yourself, and you will become a first rate YOU instead of a second rate somebody else.

10. Give. Finally, be a giver. Leaders are givers. By giving, you activate a universal law as sound as gravity life gives to the giver, and takes from the taker. The more you give, the more you get. If you want more love, respect, support, and compassion, give love, give respect, give support, and give compassion. Be a mentor to others. Give back to your community. As a leader, the only way to get what you want, is by helping enough people get what they want first. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give."

About the author 

Sharif Khan is a professional speaker and author of, Psychology of the Hero Soul, as seen on www.HeroSoul.com and acclaimed by bestselling authors Les Brown (Live Your Dreams), Mark Victor Hansen (The Chicken Soup for the Soul series), Debbie Ford (The Dark Side of the Light Chasers) and

many others. You can reach him at sharif@herosoul.com or  on the web at

http://www.herosoul.com

Tren Kepemimpinan Bangsa

TREN KEPEMIMPINAN BANGSA

Harus kita akui pada saat ini, belum ada lembaga yang sengaja memikirkan sistematika khusus dan mengimplementasikannya untuk melahirkan seorang pemimpin kecuali TNI (dulu ABRI). Tidak sedikit masyarakat maupun organisasi yang menganggap bahwa kepemimpinan adalah given (pemberian atau anugerah) semata, tidak perlu upaya dan rekayasa. Sang satria piningit (pemimpin) sudah ada dengan sendirinya, terlahir dengan sendirinya. Tinggal ditunggu kemunculannya.

Selain kendala diatas, juga terjadinya dislokasi sosial pada aktivis, angkatan 66 misalnya. Mereka berhasil menggulingkan pemerintahan dan mengangkat Soeharto, yang pada akhirnya turut menikmati hasil pembangunan ekonomi, namun pada akhirnya terjebak tidak dapat menjadi generasi penerus dan penegas pergerakan untuk perubahan.

Keberhasilan Soeharto menggantikan Soekarno ternyata berimbas panjang, terutama karena adanya konflik Gerakan 30 September. Selepas G-30 S PKI sampai dengan saat ini kita dapat melihat bahwa militer menjadi anak emas. Partai politik dan masyarakat berpikir semua kepemimpinan politik dapat disediakan militer (TNI), tidak perlu ada kaderisasi di partai politik. Hal tersebut telihat nyata sampai dengan saat ini, terutama ketika rezim Soeharto, dimana hampir seluruh kepemimpinan di negara ini dikuasai militer, mulai dari kepala kelurahan sampai kepala negara.

Kecenderungan partai politik untuk tidak menyediakan kader pemimpin dari partainya terbawa sampai dengan saat ini. Mereka cenderung berpikir bagaimana menghadapi, meraih dan melanggengkan kekuasaan semata tanpa disertai dengan penyiapan pemimpin bangsa kedepan, ditambah dengan belum dioptimalkannya potensi anak muda dalam partai politik bersangkutan.

Apabila kita lihat pada alur sejarah kepemimpinan bangsa ini, sebelum kebangkitan nasional pemimpin pada umumnya muncul dari kalangan agama atau budaya (darah biru). Pada tahun 1900-an, mulai muncul trend baru kepemimpinan di bangsa kita, dimana pemuda yang mengenyam pendidikan pada masa itu, sekitar 20-30 tahun berikutnya muncul sebagai pimpinan nasional, seperti Soekarno, Hatta, Sjahrir, dsb. Ketika Indonesia merdeka, maka usaha mempertahankan kemerdekaan adalah aktivitas utama. Sehingga aktivitas militer menjadi core atau inti bagi bangsa ini. Anak muda yang terekrut melalui jalur militer pada tahun-tahun ini setelah 20-30 tahun, keberanian mengantar mereka pada jalur utama kepemimpinan nasional, ditambah dengan munculnya peristiwa Gerakan 30 September yang sudah disinggung diawal. Kecenderungan ini bukanlah suatu hal yang aneh disuatu negara yang baru merdeka, militer menjadi dominan.

Pada masa 60-an, bahkan sampai dengan belasan dan puluhan tahun kedepan, kepemimpinan militer menjadi langgeng karena tidak ada akomodasi terhadap demokrasi. Masa 70-an, kecenderungan berubah dengan munculnya pergerakan pemuda terutama kalangan intelektual. Namun gerakan intelektual pada masa ini dinilai berbeda apabila dibandingkan dengan pada masa-masa awal yakni tahun 1900-an. Pada masa 70-an dinilai lebih kecil karakter intelektualitas gerakannya, karena yang lebih dominan ialah gerakan politik praktisnya.

Memasuki era 90-an, ketika demokratisasi mulai muncul, maka peluang kader pemimpin pun terbuka. Liberalisasi politik membuka peluang bagi pemuda aktif dalam kancah politik nasional. Mereka inilah yang muncul sebagai pemimpin gerakan nasional beberapa waktu belakangan ini. Pada era ini, aktifis mahasiswa tahun 60, 70, 80-an mengisi lembaga-lembaga politik negara dari mulai legislatif sampai eksekutif di berbagai tingkatan.

Lantas bagaimana saat ini dan kedepan ? Kecenderungan utama yang sangat memengaruhi pada saat ini dan kedepan ialah pasar. Pasar begitu mewarnai kehidupan masyarakat dan menyebabkan semua aktifitas menjadi bersifat transaksi komersial. Maka dengan kondisi seperti itu, pemimpin kedepan ialah mereka yang saat ini berada di sektor private, memiliki basis intelektual dan juga aktivis. Kedepan kaum muda dari kalangan sektor private ini akan semakin dominan lantaran tidak adanya pengaturan antar wilayah ekonomi, pasar dan politik.

Periode Kemudaan			Periode Maturitas
				Periode Kemudaan			Periode Maturitas
						Periode Kemudaan			Periode Maturitas
									Periode Kemudaan			Periode Maturitas
1900	1910	1920	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020	2030

Berikut skema pola/alur kepemimpinan bangsa kita :

Penjelasan :

Warna jingga menunjukkan periode kaum intelek berpendidikan pada tahun 1900-an, dimana pada periode kemudaan mengenyam pendidikan, periode maturitas (dewasa) menjadi pimpinan nasional.

Warna hijau menunjukkan periode militer, pada masa kemudaan direkrut menjadi militer dan menjadi pimpinan nasional sampai 2000-an.

Warna merah menunjukkan periode aktivis, pada masa kemudaan terekrut pada organisasi massa dan politik, pada periode maturitas kepemimpinan nasional sebagai seorang aktivis.

Warna biru muda menunjukkan periode sektor privat, periode kemudaan dalam dunia bisnis ditunjang dengan pendidikan dan keaktifannya dalam organisasi, dalam masa maturitas kepemimpinan nasional sebagai seorang pengusaha

Diolah dari Kompas

Zoellick to the Rescue ?

Zoellick to the Rescue?

Kenneth Rogoff

Will newly anointed World Bank President Robert Zoellick be able to get the organization back on its feet after the catastrophic failed presidency of Paul Wolfowitz? Although hardly a megawatt star of the Bob Rubin category, he certainly brings some positive attributes to the job.

First, as a key player in bringing China into the World Trade Organization, Zoellick is a proven internationalist in an American administration where internationalists have sometimes seemed like an endangered species. Second, he is a firm believer in the power of markets and free trade, which have clearly done far more to alleviate poverty over the past half-century than any aid program. Third, he seems to have been a consistent behind-the-scenes supporter of the Bank, whereas many of his Bush administration colleagues would be just as happy to see it shut down and its Washington headquarters turned into private condominiums and offices. So presumably he has a constructive vision for the Bank’s future.

But Zoellick is not without his weaknesses. First and foremost, his appointment extends the embarrassingly outmoded practice of always installing an American in the job. With the Bank tirelessly preaching the merits of good governance, its failure to adopt democratic principles undercuts its own legitimacy. The claim that the World Bank needs an American president to ensure that the US keeps donating money is ridiculous. The annual cost of the US contribution to the World Bank, even taking into account off-the-books loan guarantees, is relatively minor. Any number of developing countries, from China to India to Brazil , could easily step up if the US foolishly stepped down.

Zoellick’s background as a lawyer hardly makes him perfect for the job, either. The World Bank presidency is not about negotiating treaties, as Zoellick did when he was US Trade Representative. The Bank’s most important role in development today is as a “knowledge bank” that helps aggregate, distill, and disseminate best practices from around the world. In this respect, the Bank’s technical assistance to governments is very similar to what private consultants offer to companies.

Moreover, many of the World Bank president’s most important decisions involve economics in an essential way. Wrong economic decisions, such as in the 1970’s, when Robert McNamara pushed grandiose, but environmentally devastating, infrastructure projects, have haunted the Bank for decades.

The biggest question mark, though, is whether Zoellick will be able to hit the ground running and implement desperately needed reforms. Reform number one, of course, is to ensure that the next World Bank President is not an American. Rodrigo de Rato, Zoellick’s counterpart at the European-dominated International Monetary Fund, has already suggested that his successor should be chosen in a more inclusive process. The World Bank should be ashamed that its president has not yet offered a similar proposal.

Second, Zoellick should ask why the Bank spends only 2.5% of its budget on the “knowledge bank” research function that it trumpets so proudly in its external relations materials, while it spends three times that amount on maintaining its executive board.

Third, Zoellick should use his formidable negotiating skills to cajole rich countries into greatly increasing the grant component of World Bank aid. The idea that a big government-guarante ed global bank is needed to fill holes in private capital markets is laughable nowadays. True, the Bank’s poorest clients have little access to private capital markets. By and large, however, the poorest countries need grants, not loans that they still won’t be able to pay in 20 years.

As the Bank switches from loans to grants, it can use some of its massive retained earnings to endow its “knowledge bank” function and related technical advice. But all this knowledge shouldn’t be free. A lot of technical advice falls on deaf ears, with countries listening only long enough to get their hands on Bank money. Instead of merely pushing its agenda, the Bank should start charging for its technical advice on a graduated scale so that more of its engagements are client-driven.

Last but not least, the Bank needs to play a much bigger role in environmental issues and, in general, in promoting good international citizenship by both rich and poor countries. (Some of us have been proposing this for almost two decades.)

Of course, Zoellick could just attempt to fill the role symbolically and do little or nothing, as some of his predecessors have done. Or, less likely, he could embrace some megalomaniacal and over-reaching vision of government intervention, as others have tried. In any case, let’s wish him luck. The world needs the World Bank a lot more than it needs another condominium.

** Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and was formerly chief economist at the IMF.

Questionsfor Robert Zoellick

Questions for Robert Zoellick

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Paul Wolfowitz’s resignation from the World Bank solved one problem, but brought another to light. When Wolfowitz’s name was first mentioned as a candidate to lead the world’s premier development bank, the idea that the architect of America ’s failure in Iraq would be so rewarded was met by incredulity. But President George W. Bush had, from the beginning of his administration, sought to undermine multilateral institutions and agreements. Wolfowitz’s nomination seemed to be part of that effort.

Should Bush, a lame duck president with little support at home and less abroad, now be allowed to appoint the next World Bank president? Bush has already demonstrated his lack of judgment. Why give him another chance?

The arguments against the “old boy” system – by which the United States appoints the head of the World Bank and Europe the head of the IMF – are especially compelling today How effective can the Bank be in promoting good governance and fighting corruption if its president is chosen in a process that demonstrates flaws in its own governance? How credible will an anti-corruption message be when delivered by an appointee of what is considered one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in US history?

Interestingly, as several heads of US Congressional committees have pointed out, it is in America’s interest for the Bank to be led by the most qualified person, selected in an open and transparent process, regardless of nationality, gender, or race. This requires a change in how its president is chosen, and, at Congressional hearings on the World Bank – the first in 13 years – I, like everyone who testified, called for this key reform.

Presidential appointments to senior posts in America ’s government are subject to open hearings. Regardless of whether the old boy system is preserved – but especially if it is – the Bank’s Board should likewise conduct open hearings on Bush’s nominee to succeed Wolfowitz. Here are some of the questions – with some hints at right and wrong answers – that it should ask any proposed candidate for the Bank’s presidency, including Bush’s nominee, Robert Zoellick:

Do you believe that the president of the World Bank should put the interests of developing countries first? Will you press for Europe and America to eliminate their agricultural subsidies? Will you advocate a development round that emphasizes liberalization of labor markets more than capital markets, elimination of non-tariff barriers that keep developing countries’ goods out of advanced industrial countries, and abolition of so-called “escalating tariffs,” which impede development? Will you be open to research even when that research shows that policies of the advanced industrial countries may, at least in some circumstances, not be in the interests of developing countries?

During James Wolfensohn’s presidency of the Bank, there was a change in philosophy. We encouraged research-based policies, even when that research was critical of policies being pushed by certain advanced industrial countries and by some in the Bank. When our research showed that certain policies (like agricultural subsidies) were hurting developing countries, we publicized the findings, helping to redefine the debate.

Will you support the initiative of developing countries to have a development- oriented intellectual property regime?

What separates developing countries from developed countries is not only the gap in resources, but also a gap in knowledge. The Bank should be viewed, in part, as a Knowledge Bank, and it should advocate reforms that enhance developing countries’ access to knowledge. Access to generic medicines is essential if developing countries, with their limited budgets, are to improve the health of the poor. TRIPs, the intellectual property provisions of the Uruguay round, were designed to reduce access to generic medicines – and they succeeded. But as bad as TRIPs are, the bilateral trade agreements that Bush has been pushing are worse. Any candidate claiming to represent the interests of developing countries must distance himself from these policies.

Will you work to redefine the criteria by which countries get access to funds?

Today, money goes to countries that are neither most in need nor can most effectively use it. Complying with current orthodoxies – for example, on privatization and liberalization – can earn you points on “good governance,” and thus increase aid allocations—even when they reduce true aid effectiveness.

Do you think countries that are corrupt should be cut off from funding? If so, will do you so in a consistent way? If not, how should the Bank respond? Will you support a comprehensive anti-corruption agenda, including closing down secret bank accounts?

One of the flaws of Wolfowitz’s anti-corruption agenda that expansion or continuation of aid for countries favored by the Bush administration, like Iraq or Pakistan, was pushed, regardless of how corrupt they were, while there was little tolerance elsewhere. Problems with Uzbekistan were overlooked – until it fell out of favor with the US .

Likewise, the Bush administration opposed the OECD initiative to restrict bank secrecy – until it realized that secret bank accounts help finance terrorists. Since then, it has shown that it can close secret bank accounts, but has chosen to do so only for terrorists.

Do you think the World Bank should do more to encourage countries to adopt core labor standards?

Not only has the Bank not been active in promoting these globally agreed standards, there is a concern that the Bank discourages collective bargaining and protections for workers when it talks about “flexible labor markets” and conditions that are conducive to private investment.

The old boy system of choosing the head of the World Bank must go. It has done enough damage. But if the advanced industrial countries that control the Bank refuse to stand by their principles, at least they should give a nod to greater transparency. The world should know what it is getting. Open hearings would be a step in the right direction.

** Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics. His latest book is Making Globalization Work.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2007. http://www.project- syndicate. org/commentary/ stiglitz88

A Fair Deal on Climate Change

A Fair Deal on Climate Change

Peter Singer

The agreement on climate change reached at Heiligendamm by the G8 leaders merely sets the stage for the real debate to come: how will we divide up the diminishing capacity of the atmosphere to absorb our greenhouse gases?

The G8 leaders agreed to seek “substantial” cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and to give “serious consideration” to the goal of halving such emissions by 2050 – an outcome hailed as a triumph by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet the agreement commits no one to any specific targets, least of all the United States , whose president, George W. Bush, will no longer be in office in 2009, when the tough decisions have to be made.

One could reasonably ask why anyone thinks such a vague agreement is any kind of advance at all. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 189 countries, including the US, China, India, and all the European nations, signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thereby agreeing to stabilize greenhouse gases “at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Fifteen years later, no country has done that. US per capita greenhouse gas emissions, already the highest of any major nation when Bush took office, have continued to rise. In March, a leaked Bush administration report showed that US emissions were expected to rise almost as fast over the next decade as they did during the previous decade. Now we have yet another agreement to do what these same nations said they would do 15 years ago. That’s a triumph?

If Bush or his successor wants to ensure that the next round of talks fails, that will be easy enough. In justifying his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Bush has always referred to the fact that it did not commit China and India to mandatory emission limits. Now, in response to suggestions by Bush and other G8 leaders that the larger developing nations must be part of the solution to climate change, Ma Kai, the head of China ’s National Development and Reform Commission, has said that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets. Likewise, the spokesman of India ’s foreign minister, Navtej Sarna, has said that his country would reject such mandatory restrictions.

Are China and India being unreasonable? Their leaders have consistently pointed out that our current problems are the result of the gases emitted by the industrialized nations over the past century. That is true: most of those gases are still in the atmosphere, and without them the problem would not be nearly as urgent as it now is. China and India claim the right to proceed with industrialization and development as the developed nations did, unhampered by limits on their greenhouse gas emissions.

China , India , and other developing nations, have a point – or rather, three points. First, if we apply the principle “You broke it, you fix it,” then the developed nations have to take responsibility for our “broken” atmosphere, which can no longer absorb more greenhouse gases without the world’s climate changing. Second, even if we wipe the slate clean and forget about who caused the problem, it remains true that the typical US resident is responsible for about six times more greenhouse gas emissions than the typical Chinese, and as much as 18 times more than the average Indian. Third, the richer nations are better able than less well-off nations to absorb the costs of fixing the problem without causing serious harm to their populations.

But it is also true that if China and India continue to increase their output of greenhouse gases, they will eventually undo all the good that would be achieved by deep emissions cuts in the industrialized nations. This year or next, China will overtake the US as the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter – on a national, rather than a per capita basis, of course. In 25 years, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, China’s emissions could be double those of the US , Europe , and Japan combined.

But there is a solution that is both fair and practical:

Establish the total amount of greenhouse gases that we can allow to be emitted without causing the earth’s average temperature to rise more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the point beyond which climate change could become extremely dangerous. Divide that total by the world’s population, thus calculating what each person’s share of the total is. Allocate to each country a greenhouse gas emissions quota equal to the country’s population, multiplied by the per person share. Finally, allow countries that need a higher quota to buy it from those that emit less than their quota. The fairness of giving every person on earth an equal share of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions is difficult to deny. Why should anyone have a greater entitlement than others to use the earth’s atmosphere?

But, in addition to being fair, this scheme also has practical benefits. It would give developing nations a strong incentive to accept mandatory quotas, because if they can keep their per capita emissions low, they will have excess emissions rights to sell to the industrialized nations. The rich countries will benefit, too, because they will be able to choose their preferred mix of reducing emissions and buying up emissions rights from developing nations.

** Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include How Are We to Live? and Writings on an Ethical Life.

G-8 Summit and Climate Change

G-8 Summit and Climate Change

Katherine Sierra

Two years ago, the G8 Summit in Gleneagles , Scotland promised to advance a clean development agenda and mobilize financial support for greener growth in the key emerging market economies. This year’s meeting, in Heiligendamm , Germany , must deliver on that promise.

Since Gleneagles, a critical mass of public support to act decisively on climate change has developed. Some say a tipping point has occurred. The science and the economics of climate change has come closer as a result of the overwhelming scientific evidence in the studies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Sir Nicholas Stern’s Report for the UK government on the costs of action and inaction. Around the world expert officials, the business community, concerned citizens, and responsive governments are coming together to find common solutions to a global problem that may be the single most important issue we face as a global community.

In Heiligendamm, the G-8 leaders, together with representatives of major emerging economies (Brazil, Mexico, China, India, and South Africa, who have a critical stake in energy consumption to continue to generate economic growth), will discuss a comprehensive approach encompassing a set of energy options, from energy efficiency and renewable energy, to clean coal, carbon capture and storage, and carbon sequestration. They also have a chance to advance the use of market mechanisms to do two things: mitigate climate change, and, at the same time, create incentives for expanded use of clean energy.

An important way to achieve both objectives is by expanding carbon markets. Carbon finance is an effective vehicle for channeling funds for climate-friendly investments, including to the developing world. Last year alone the size of the world carbon market tripled to over $30 billion, of which about 20 percent went to projects in the developing world. By one estimate, with a long term, predictable, and equitable post-2012 global regulatory framework for curbing greenhouse gas emissions (when the Kyoto protocol expires), carbon markets could develop exponentially and deliver financial flows to developing countries of anywhere between $20 and $120 billion dollars/year.

The funds are sorely needed. The World Bank calculations show that developing countries need an annual investment of about $165 billion through 2030 just to supply electricity to their people. Of this sum, only about half is readily identifiable. On top of this $80 billion gap, developing countries will need another $30 billion per year to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector alone and get on a low-carbon development path, and $10-40 billion dollars more per year to adapt to the already inevitable impact of climate change .

A G8 commitment to the global carbon market will foster long-term financing beyond 2012. Such carbon finance can also tackle deforestation, which represents about 20% of the global CO2 emissions causing climate change. A forest carbon facility can reward forest conservation as a means of protecting the climate while also preserving ecosystems and generating income for poor communities in developing countries. The World Bank is keen to work with partners to experiment with such a facility for avoided deforestation.

An expanded carbon market can help pay for a transformation to a low carbon economy, but it won’t be enough. Like other new markets, it will take time to mature and reach out to places with weaker market institutions.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that rich countries need to take the lead because only then will the less developed economies follow, and she is right. The United Kingdom recently announced a new £800 million Environmental Transformation Fund International Window. Japan ’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country is ready to look into the possibility of creating a new financial mechanism, with substantial funds for the relatively long- term, to help developing countries halt global warming. These are the types of climate change leadership that the world needs.

Mobilizing large scale financing for clean investments today and over the next 5-10 years is critical because this is when developing countries will essentially “lock-in” carbon emissions for the next 50 years. If we can help them get on a low carbon path, we will have taken a giant step forward in preserving and protecting our planet while enabling them to reduce poverty and offer their citizens a better future. The meeting in Heiligendamm can advance the commitments made at Gleneagles two years ago and bring the world closer to a more sustainable future.

** Katherine Sierra is Vice President for Sustainable Development, The World Bank.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2007. http://www.project- syndicate. org/commentary/ sierra2

Climate Change and Water Security

Climate Change and Water Security

Mikhail Gorbachev and Jean-Michel Severino

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released alarming data on the consequences of global warming in some of the world’s poorest regions. By 2100, one billion to three billion people worldwide are expected to suffer from water scarcity. Global warming will increase evaporation and severely reduce rainfalls – by up to 20% in the Middle East and North Africa – with the amount of water available per person possibly halved by mid-century in these regions.

This sudden scarcity of an element whose symbolic and spiritual importance matches its centrality to human life will cause stress and exacerbate conflicts worldwide. Africa , the Middle East , and Central Asia will be the first to be exposed. The repercussions, however, will be global.

Yet this bleak picture is neither an excuse for apathy nor grounds for pessimism. Conflicts may be inevitable; wars are not. Our ability to prevent “water wars” will depend on our collective capacity to anticipate tensions, and to find the technical and institutional solutions to manage emerging conflicts. The good news is that such solutions exist, and are proving their efficacy everyday.

Dams – provided they are adequately sized and designed – can contribute to human development by fighting climate change and regulating water supply. Yet in a new context of scarcity, upstream infrastructure projects on international rivers may impact water quality or availability for neighboring states, thus causing tensions.

River basin organizations such as that established for the Nile , Niger , or Senegal rivers help facilitate dialogue between states that share hydraulic resources. By developing a joint vision for the development of international waterways, these regional cooperation initiatives work towards common ownership of the resource, thereby reducing the risk that disputes over water use will escalate into violence.

Most international waterways have such frameworks for dialogue, albeit at different stages of development and levels of achievement. If we are to take climate change predictions seriously, the international community should strengthen these initiatives. Where they do not exist, they should be created in partnership with all the countries concerned. Official development assistance can create incentives to cooperate by financing data-collection, providing technical know-how, or, indeed, by conditioning loans on constructive negotiations.

Yet international water conflicts are only one side of the coin. The most violent water wars take place today within rather than among states. A dearth of water fuels ethnic strife, as communities begin to fear for their survival and seek to capture the resource. In Darfur , recurrent drought has poisoned relations between farmers and nomadic herdsmen, and the war we are helplessly witnessing today follows years of escalating conflict. Chad risks falling prey to the same cycle of violence.

It is thus urgent to satisfy populations’ most basic human needs through local development initiatives. Rural hydraulic projects, which ensure access to water for these populations over large stretches of land, can prove to be efficient conflict prevention tools. Secured grazing corridors are being established with the help of modern satellite imagery to orient nomads and their herds to appropriate areas. Such initiatives provide rare opportunities for dialogue and collaboration between rival communities. The key is to anticipate the need for action before tensions escalate to the point of no return.

Water consumption also must be addressed. Agriculture accounts for more than 70% of water use in the world. Agronomical research and technical innovations are crucial to maximizing water efficiency in this sector, and they must be taken much further. But addressing scarcity will inevitably imply revising agricultural practices and policies worldwide to ensure their sustainability.

The development challenge no longer solely consists in bringing agricultural water to deprived areas. As the dramatic shrinkage of the Aral Sea , Lake Chad , and the Dead Sea illustrate, it now requires preserving scarce natural resources and ensuring their equitable distribution among conflicting needs. Responsible use will require adequate economic incentives. In West Africa or the Middle East , Central Asia or India , this, too, can contribute to abating clashes over water.

Given the unprecedented scale of the threat, business as usual is not an option. The Cold War came to a peaceful end thanks to realism, foresight, and strength of will. These three qualities should be put to work if our planet is to be spared major water wars. This global challenge also demands innovation in global governance, which is why we support the creation of a UN Environment Agency, endowed with the legal and financial resources needed to tackle the issues at hand.

Humanity must begin to resolve this water dilemma. Waiting is not part of the solution.

** Mikhail Gorbachev is Chairman of the Board of Green Cross International; Jean-Michel Severino is CEO of the French Development Agency.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2007. http://www.project- syndicate. org/commentary/ gorbachev4