Сотрудничество в обеспечении продовольственной безопасности АТР
Article considers theoretical prerequisites of creation of optimum hierarchical structure of system of monitoring of crucial parameters of food safety of Russia on the basis of application of the theory of indistinct sets.
This paper investigates the problem of food security as the basis for the stability of economic development on the example of North Africa. According to the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization for the 1991-2014 the impact of various economic and financial factors, such as international trade, rural development, the state of the financial system, and others. on the potential for food security is examines based panel cointegration model. The proposed in the work methodology can be extended to any region of Africa to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies to fight hunger and poverty.
Using network approach, we propose a new method of identifying key food exporters based on the long-range (LRIC) and short-range interaction indices (SRIC). These indices allow to detect several groups of economies with direct as well as indirect influence on the routes of different levels in the food network.
In this chapter is analised a contemporary role of the global food problem for the world economy. In this work the term ‘global food problem’ means unprecedented rise of world food price in the late XX – early XXI century, which make starve poor people in most countries.
The article reviews the progress of G20-B20 engagement since Toronto to St. Petersburg with the objective to identify which mechanisms and areas of cooperation are most effective to ensure continuity of the B20 efforts on the key priorities, the B20 influence on the G20 decision-making and the G20 compliance with commitments related to the B20 priorities. With this objective in mind the study is focused on two dimensions. The first dimension is B20 recommendations influence on G20 deliberation, direction setting and decision making on the basis of analysis of how the B20 specific recommendations are reflected in the G20 documents. The second dimension is B20 influence on G20 delivery on the pledges made, which is assessed by monitoring the G20 compliance with the B20 related commitments.
The authors assess the average level of the B20 recommendations reflection in the G20 documents as considerable, however its dynamics across presidencies is mixed. The average level of G20 members’ compliance on the B20 related commitments is lower than the G20 average score for compliance with general non B20 focused commitments. It can be explained by a shorter monitoring period and by the fact that the B20 related commitments are more specific. Key areas where cooperation can be most effective (financial regulation, employment, investments, trade) have been identified. Key factors of success have been revealed. The analysis shows that a high level of B20 recommendations’ inclusion into the G20 documents and actions does not guarantee subsequent implementation of the commitments made. The B20 should ensure continuity on their priority recommendations in the dialogue with the G20 and engage in the follow up process by more actively participating in the G20 agreed initiatives and projects at the national and global levels.
Progress on the B20 related commitment should be reviewed and made public for each summit. It can help to increase the level of effectiveness of B20 and G20 engagement.
Full report "From Toronto to Saint Petersburg: Assessing G20-B20 Engagement Effectiveness" is available at http://www.hse.ru/en/org/hse/iori/news/86843927.html
G20-B20 Dialogue should be instrumental in enhancing G20 efficiency by both responding to the business interests and concerns and engaging private sector in generating growth and jobs. B20 (G20 Business Summit) was first initiated by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) on the eve of the Toronto summit in June 2010. To date five B20 meetings, including the one in Toronto, have been organized each putting forward recommendations for G20 leaders: in Seoul in November 2010, in Cannes in November 2011, in Los Cabos in June 2012 and in St Petersburg in 2013.
Investment made into the dialogue by both business and governments warrants an independent unbiased and rigorous analysis of what has been achieved and what lessons should be learnt. This chapter reviews progress of G20-B20 engagement to identify achievement and challenges.
On May 18-19, 2012, at the presidential retreat in Camp David in Maryland, U.S. president Barack Obama hosted the 38th annual G8 summit. The leaders discussed global economic growth, development, and peace and security. After less than 24 hours of face-to-face time among the leaders, they issued communiqué of only five pages. However, Camp David was a significant success. The leaders came together to effectively address the most pressing issues of the day while setting the direction for the summits that were to follow, including the summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Chicago, the G20 in Los Cabos, Mexico, and the Rio+20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. That success was propelled by several causes. The first is the set of strong global shocks were particularly relevant to a number of items on the agenda. This included the newest installment of the euro-crisis, spikes in oil and food prices, and the escalating violence in Syria. The second is the failure of the other major international institutions to address these challenges. The third is the club’s dedication to the promotion of democracy and its significance on issues such as the democratic transition in the Middle East and North Africa. The fourth is the high relative capabilities of G8 members, fuelled by the strength of the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the British pound. The fifth is the domestic political control, capital, continuity, competence and commitment of the leaders in attendance. Camp David saw several G8 leaders returning for their sixth or seventh summit and leaders with a secure majority mandate and control of their legislative houses at home. Finally, the constricted participation at the remote and secluded Camp David Summit, a unique and original advantage of the G8 summit style, allowed for more spontaneous conversation and interpersonal bonds. Together, these interconnected causes brought the G8 back, as a broader, bigger, bolder centre of effective global governance.