British and European food recall processes still too lengthy and costly

There was a 16 per cent increase (an additional 40 incidents) in food recall and notification occurrences across Europe during the fourth quarter of 2014, compared to the same period in 2013.

Food recall processes can be costly and lengthy for globalised supply chains. The United Kingdom and Europe need effective product recall capability to reduce recall costs and improving timeliness. Such improvements cannot be achieved with general food law alone.

Common, cloud-based, standards recently developed and adopted in North America and Australasia could help increase recall speeds and decrease costs.

Read the full article at TIFSIP Food Safety & Hygiene Analysis.

Email me at alastair.t.marke@gmail.com

Traceability in food chains badly needs a ‘common’ digital platform

Following the “horse-gate” scandal that rocked Europe in 2013, we have just seen another “radiation-gate” incident emerging in Japan and Taiwan last week. Taiwan seized 283 Japanese food products with counterfeit Chinese-language labels, possibly altered in Japan, originally from radiation-stricken Fukushima areas, and ordered them taken off the shelves in local supermarkets. This kind of food fraud incidents on both hemispheres suggests that existing regulations governing food labelling and routine inspection to ensure provenance and traceability, no matter how strict they are, have their own limitations. To avoid food fraudsters turning multi-country food chains into a massive scam that severely undermines consumers’ trust, a preventive measure to consider is the roll-out of a ‘common’ digital platform monitoring all stages of food production and supply chain visibility. 

Climate pledges of China and the US just ‘show-hand’ of carefully calibrated numbers

Rising global temperatures may have already molten frozen soil and caused methane gas to erupt from underground. More giant craters have appeared in Siberian permafrost in Russia – a country that believes it would somewhat benefit from climate change! More climate unknown unknowns like this would become known and fearful even before our state leaders make meaningful pledges. On 12 November 2014, at the APEC Summit, many hailed the US-China climate agreement as something “highly significant” and “adding impetus” into the Paris negotiations later this year, but will it be the case? The US-China emissions-cutting pledges have not changed much my views on the likely COP21 outcome when I was commenting the EU’s 2030 package  last year. It is because neither the US’ nor China’s pledges are ambitious enough while India refuses to follow their lead, worse still, these so called “pledges” are not always the same thing by its name.

EU 2030 targets a ‘good’ step forward, but Brussels premature to get overly narcissistic

On 23 October, member states sealed a deal that commits the EU two binding targets: (1) To cut carbon emissions by at least 40% at 1990’s level; (2) To drive renewables in its energy mix up to at least 27%; and  a non-binding target to curb its energy use by at least 27% by 2030. The EU 2030 package is hailed as a ‘good’ step forward, but not yet a ‘great’ step towards the UN climate negotiations in Paris (COP 21) next year. Amid late night applause of state leaders at Brussels, French President François Hollande said the deal would “send a clear message to big polluters such as China and the United States…to agree on a global legally binding agreement.” His remark could be a motion of debate.

Climate-Resilient Agriculture and Food Security: New Network Capabilities to Solve Global Problems

The digital revolution is creating new capabilities to solve an old problem. Four case studies of global solution networks—two networking platforms, a standards network and a knowledge network—demonstrate how an emerging problem-solving approach can fundamentally transform global food governance.

Download my white paper here.

A third party - Global Food Safety Resource Centre - has given a review of this policy paper. Read it here.

EU’s energy security is about self-help, not seek-out

Amid escalating tension with Russia over Ukraine, Brussels centres on shale gas and non-Russian gas imports in its new energy security strategy unveiled in May this year. However, I cast great doubt that either the crisis is being used as a pretext to re-carbonise Europe’s energy sector, or the strategy document deplorably reflects how Brussels still pits emissions target and energy security goals against each other but favouring the latter. In the green and digital age, the key to accomplishing both missions, which should not be mutually exclusive, is empowering the people to empower themselves – proliferating “community-owned renewable energy schemes” in the EU, rather than revisiting the outmoded, high-carbon formula to secure energy supplies.

Stimulating green growth through donor-business partnerships in developing countries

This scoping report discusses different models of partnership between donors and businesses to promote green growth, and presents a number of examples of different kinds of approaches that have been adopted.

The paper reviews a series of case studies drawn from developing countries around the world, showcasing different partnerships adopted between business and donors.

Download my report here.

Email me at alastair.t.marke@gmail.com  

Risk Waiver: Closing the protection gap and easing the flow of credit

Lending to UK consumers and businesses has stagnated over the last five years. The credit our businesses and households rely upon to prosper is simply not as available as it needs to be.

Recent polls illustrate that consumer confidence has been running at low levels since the recession and have remained stubbornly low since. This lack of confidence ultimately bears out in consumer spending levels, which are currently still 3.9 per cent down on pre-recession levels. Also, taken as an average, workers are in real terms earning no more than they were ten years ago. Given that consumer spending in total comprises 65 per cent of UK GDP, a relaxation of credit constrains would have a substantial impact on economic growth and household earnings.

Designers to be the ‘angels’ for the world’s poor

‘People, Profit, Planet’, or 3Ps, are the yardsticks by which modern designers draw on their sketchbooks if they design products, services or systems for the sake of sustainable development in which everybody in the (derelict) community shares the benefits of their innovation. In the interest of global well-being, this is arguably the course for the design industry in the new era because its potential to contribute to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals is immense. Be it, regrettably, yet to become a norm for the entire industry because leading voices on sustainable design are lacking, as Seymourpowell’s Chris Sherwin indicates in his recent article. Indeed are such voices really lacking or simply not penetrating enough?

‘Community Energy’ under a siege by London and Brussels

In a seminar on community energy held in Westminster last week, many agreed that the potential for ‘community energy’ in the UK is massive. Some speakers shared their experience in the rigorous battle with finance and planning regulations at the start-up stage of their community-owned energy schemes. Following on from such discussions, we could also ask to what extent ‘community energy’ can be financed in the existing framework set by the commission in Brussels, which has been leading our ‘greenest ever’ government in London by the nose. 

Financing ‘Community Energy’: Why do legal structures and a green bank matter?

Amid the threats of soaring energy prices and global climate change, it gives us every reason to go ahead with ‘Energy Localism’ – community sustainable energy projects – which can stimulate local green growth and motivate a ‘Big Society’. Unless you are lucky enough to have a hidden goldmine in your community, it is often the financiers, not any business angels, who can give an energy project the green light. A legal structure or company model often carries too many implications.

Recast company models to take ‘popular capitalism’ off the ground

Against the ‘predatory capitalism’ that anguishes lots of working people today, co-operatives are a viable business model that puts money back into the people’s pockets. Announced in the Queen’s Speech, the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which aims to remove barriers to British companies and boost economic growth, would be the first step towards realising this. Alongside the introduction of the bill, I would expect a lot from the reviews of tax and regulatory treatment for employee-owned businesses that HM Treasury and BIS will conclude later this year.

In my last blog article, I mentioned ‘social franchising’ can make this happen much sooner. But before it does, we need something that can plug into the ‘normal’ system to gain co-ops a solid footing. The Government in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill could go further with a recast or hybrid company model for easing incorporation and seeking finance.

Driving Britain to ‘popular capitalism’ with social franchising co-operative model

Capitalism has for centuries been our economic doctrine as the ‘best’ system to reward individual efforts and distribute wealth. With now over 90 percent of Britain’s productive assets owned by two square miles in the City and exercerbating income inequality, it is the time to fix the system if we want a fair society for all. This is also the ‘responsible capitalism’ which the Occupy LSX campaigners ask for. Seemingly far away, the panacea for today’s predicament is, in fact, close at hand – the ‘co-operative’ model, or Rochdale Rules dating back to 1840s.

Sustainability & Innovation

In this inaugural edition of the Seymourpowell TV series, Seymourpowell's Head of Sustainability, Chris Sherwin, answers the question: "How will sustainability change our approaches to design and innovation in the future?"

I would welcome everybody who has watched this video to contribute to the online discussions in the Seymourpowell Design and Innovation Network by clicking here.

Email me at winstonkm.mark@googlemail.com

Can localised food systems be a silver bullet for some globalised humanitarian problems?

Cornucopia with which people in developed countries are endowed since mid-twentieth century results in collective complacency about food security. Along with irresistible commercial advertisements and health consultations, we have been ‘brainwashed’ to believe in the credendum of a globalised, trade-dependent food system and industrial agriculture as the solution to food demands worldwide while derogating local agricultural productions. Our global food system[1]  today is characterised by an unprecedented scale of centralisation, intensification and concentration. Its record-high food yield is supposed to suffice the mouths of six billion and, thus, make optimistic progress towards the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of halving the proportion of undernourished people by 2015.[2] Nonetheless, we are even very far from the World Food Summit (WFS) target aiming to halve the number of hungry people.[3]

Financing ‘energy localism’, how does legal structure matter?

The message from the energy prices summit last October was only “check, switch and insulate”. Why not “generate”? Amid the threats of soaring energy prices and global climate change, it gives us every reason to go ahead with ‘energy localism’ – community sustainable energy projects – which can fuel local green growth. Unless you are lucky enough to have a hidden goldmine in your community, it is often the financiers, not the business angels, who can give an energy project green light.  

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 4)

The road to Qatar and beyond

We are now on a ‘climate mortgage’ to borrow from our future generations. The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1990s was just the ‘deposit’. Kyoto II is an ‘instalment’ long overdue and the Durban deal is only part of it. The lack of quantitative emissions reduction targets year after year means that our ‘mortgage’ now is subject to ‘penalty’ or a higher ‘interest rate’ equivalent to 1-2% of the world’s GDP this year rising to 19% in 2030 (according to the EU’s report – “The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation in EU Coastal Areas”). The Durban deal this year left a lot of questions, including the extent of emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol’s extension period as well as the specific amounts and operation management of the Green Climate Fund, unanswered. There are, hence, numerous uncertainties looming over the carbon market and forest protection financing that are the world’s main drivers to a low-carbon economy.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 3)

What shapes the Durban outcome

In a conference held for 36 hours longer than scheduled, the round-the-clock marathon-style negotiations culminated this agreement which is somewhat amphibolous after a close examination. Interesting is that we can see a ‘swap of roles’ between developed and developing countries in carbon emissions compared with the situation in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was passed. Today, ironically the reasons for developed countries asking developing ones to accept the Durban agreement is exactly what the former US President, George W. Bush, said when he refused to ratify the Protocol in 2001. After all, what are the factors shaping the Durban Package this year?

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 2)

Implications to the world’s transition to low-carbon economy

The economics of climate change or ‘climate economics’ is about how we price the world’s climate and the disasters induced by climate change in order to fit into the mainstream decision-making models. As climate change is attributable to anthropogenic carbon emissions, we have to look for ways to reduce and absorb excessive carbon dioxide on the planet. Before the technology of carbon capture and storage becomes mature, we need to attach a price to the emissions from economic activities through the creation of carbon permits for trading and to our carbon-sinking forests through financial incentives for stopping deforestation such as the UN’s REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programme. The implications of climate deals reached in annual summits to these two ‘commodities’ do matter because they currently form the twin pillars supporting the global transition to low-carbon economy. Let us take a look at forest protection financing and carbon market development.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 1)

In Durban the stunning landscape did not bless the United Nations climate change conference (COP 17) with a beautiful ending but did make again spurning escape for polluters. After an overnight’s wrangle on the very last day of ‘extra time’, it came up with a ‘compromised’ deal which was based upon a proposal by Brazil. The last-minute deal commits the European Union and a few wealthy countries to a second commitment period after the main provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012; all countries to negotiating a new “[global] protocol… or outcome with legal force” effective by 2020; and developed nations to financing the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that helps developing ones with climate change adaptation and is slated to be operational by the same year. Only transitional in nature, it is a solution that seeks to fill the vacuum period before Kyoto II. But given the poor track record of previous summits, would this deal again be another ‘dud cheque’ as are the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap? What are the implications to driving the world to a period of low-carbon growth? A closer look at this deal can tell us how many critical questions remain unanswered. It is indeed a deal studded with uncertainties.