Poultry Company Recalls Cooked Chicken

4,000 Pounds Of Meat May Be Contaminated

(CNN) -- A North Carolina poultry company is recalling approximately 4,000 pounds of cooked chicken breasts that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Friday that the House of Raeford Farms, based in Rose Hill, North Carolina, recalled 18- to 22-pound boxes containing two 9- to 11-pound "boneless oven roasted chicken breasts" per box.

Consumers should look for serial number "P-239A" inside the USDA mark of inspection, along with a product code of "94268" and a package date of "1270" (September 27, 2011). The products were shipped to delicatessens and food service institutions for further processing in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, according to a USDA press release.

The problem was discovered after a customer's laboratory sample of the chicken tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes, according to the USDA statement. Neither the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service nor the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have received any reports of illness due to consumption of these products.

Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. It is rarely found in healthy people. However, it can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. In extreme cases, listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections, especially in people with poor immune systems.

Anyone concerned about being sick should contact a health care provider, the USDA said.

According to the USDA, the best way to avoid listeriosis is to wash your hands with warm, soapy water before and after handling raw meat or poultry. Also wash cutting boards, utensils and dishes with hot, soapy water. Using separate cutting boards for raw meat, poultry, vegetables and egg products also prevents cross-contamination.

Held prisoner by mortgage insurance

Scott Burns, Commentary

The father of three eased into a chair. He is in his late 30s. He works hard at both of his jobs. He and his wife, he said, are very careful about spending. They live without a sign of grandiosity. Both of their cars have more than 100,000 miles on them. The cars are good for more miles, but repairs are becoming more expensive. So are the kids.

The problem, he said, is there just doesn't appear to be any relief. Not now. Maybe never. Like millions of other workers, the income from his main job is not increasing. It is stable, which he thinks is wonderful, but it isn't increasing. The career with regularly increasing salary income that he had hoped for no longer exists.

And what about his other job — the one he works on weekends? It provides some of the money he had hoped would be coming from his main job. It's good work, but it can never grow to replace his main job. It's piecemeal, nothing to count on.

The only way he can see to create some breathing space, some margin for error, is to refinance their house. He handed me some worksheets detailing the estimated costs for mortgage refinance proposals. They would, he said, cut his expenses nearly $400 a month. That's the equivalent of a very healthy raise.

"These would eliminate PMI," he said, referring to primary mortgage insurance. "They would also reduce the interest rate by about 1.5 percentage points. There's just one problem. I'd have to write a big check at the closing — about $25,000. It might as well be a million. I don't have that kind of money."

Very few people do, particularly those with young children.

We've become accustomed to real estate disaster stories — stories of homes in foreclosure, of families forestalling foreclosure, of couples making payments while surrounded by a sea of foreclosures, etc. — but millions more people are like this father of three. They trudge on with less drama. They hope something will change their circumstances. Mortgage refinancing is one of those somethings.

But they are prisoners of PMI and prisoners of their mortgage.

This particular example is in Dallas, an area largely spared from the debacle that has made Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada into disaster areas. Five years ago, he and his wife bought a new home in a Dallas suburb populated by other couples with young children. Their motivation was simple and selfless: They were looking for good schools.

They got in with a 10 percent down payment. Because of the low down payment, the mortgage also required them to pay premiums on a primary mortgage insurance policy.

The idea, then, was that home appreciation would bring their equity to 20 percent in five years or less. Then they would be able to refinance, perhaps to a lower interest rate. They would eliminate the PMI payment at the same time.

It didn't happen.

Now they are prisoners of both. They pay PMI and a bit over 5.5 percent in interest, when new mortgages are available at 4 percent. For them, it seems like a deadweight loss.

And for them, it is. But the dilemma is really about who has income and who doesn't. One household's lunch, it turns out, is another household's dinner.

The mortgage we're talking about is part of a package of securitized mortgages. The mortgage securities, in turn, are owned by a mutual fund that specializes in pools of home mortgages. Someone who depends on interest income, probably a retiree, owns shares of that fund. The retiree has seen the interest he collects drop year after year as those who can refinance do so. At this point, the retiree is wondering how long his savings will last. He is spending principal as well as interest to pay his bills.

If the mortgage were refinanced, it would disappear from the mortgage package. The interest income would decline, as it has been for years. One household would enjoy an increase in spendable income. Another would suffer a decrease in spendable income. Who gets to spend money would change, but the amount of money available to spend would scarcely change.

It's a big zero-sum game — except it doesn't feel like a game.

Scott Burns is a nationally syndicated columnist who has been writing about personal finance since 1977. He also is the author or co-author of four books and the principal of a Plano-based investment advisory firm. Send questions to business@statesman.com.

Just Another Goldman Sachs Take Over

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

On November 25, two days after a failed German government bond auction in which Germany was unable to sell 35 per cent of its offerings of 10-year bonds, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Germany might retreat from its demands that the private banks that hold the troubled sovereign debt from Greece, Italy, and Spain must accept part of the cost of their bailout by writing off some of the debt. The private banks want to avoid any losses, either by forcing the Greek, Italian, and Spanish governments to make good on the bonds by imposing extreme austerity on their citizens, or by having the European Central Bank print euros with which to buy the sovereign debt from the private banks. Printing money to make good on debt is contrary to the ECB’s charter and especially frightens Germans, because of the Weimar experience with hyperinflation.

Obviously, the German government got the message from the orchestrated failed bond auction. As I wrote at the time, there is no reason for Germany, with its relatively low debt to GDP ratio compared to the troubled countries, not to be able to sell its bonds.  If Germany’s creditworthiness is in doubt, how can Germany be expected to bail out other countries?  Evidence that Germany’s failed bond auction was orchestrated is provided by troubled Italy’s successful bond auction two days later.

Strange, isn’t it. Italy, the largest EU country that requires a bailout of its debt, can still sell its bonds, but Germany, which requires no bailout and which is expected to bear a disproportionate cost of Italy’s, Greece’s and Spain’s bailout, could not sell its bonds.

In my opinion, the failed German bond auction was orchestrated by the US Treasury, by the European Central Bank and EU authorities, and by the private banks that own the troubled sovereign debt.

My opinion is based on the following facts. Goldman Sachs and US banks have guaranteed perhaps one trillion dollars or more of European sovereign debt by selling swaps or insurance against which they have not reserved. The fees the US banks received for guaranteeing the values of European sovereign debt instruments simply went into profits and executive bonuses. This, of course, is what ruined the American insurance giant, AIG, leading to the TARP bailout at US taxpayers’ expense and Goldman Sachs’ enormous profits.

If any of the European sovereign debt fails, US financial institutions that issued swaps or unfunded guarantees against the debt are on the hook for large sums that they do not have. The reputation of the US financial system probably could not survive its default on the swaps it has issued. Therefore, the failure of European sovereign debt would renew the financial crisis in the US, requiring a new round of bailouts and/or a new round of Federal Reserve “quantitative easing,” that is, the printing of money in order to make good on irresponsible financial instruments, the issue of which enriched a tiny number of executives.

Certainly, President Obama does not want to go into an election year facing this prospect of high profile US financial failure.  So, without any doubt, the US Treasury wants Germany out of the way of a European bailout.

The private French, German, and Dutch banks, which appear to hold most of the troubled sovereign debt, don’t want any losses. Either their balance sheets, already ruined by Wall Street’s fraudulent derivatives, cannot stand further losses or they fear the drop in their share prices from lowered earnings due to write-downs of bad sovereign debts.  In other words, for these banks big money is involved, which provides an enormous incentive to get the German government out of the way of their profit statements.

The European Central Bank does not like being a lesser entity than the US Federal Reserve and the UK’s Bank of England. The ECB wants the power to be able to undertake “quantitative easing” on its own. The ECB is frustrated by the restrictions put on its powers by the conditions that Germany required in order to give up its own currency and the German central bank’s control over the country’s money supply. The EU authorities want more “unity,” by which is meant less sovereignty of the member countries of the EU. Germany, being the most powerful member of the EU, is in the way of the power that the EU authorities desire to wield.

Thus, the Germans bond auction failure, an orchestrated event to punish Germany and to warn the German government not to obstruct “unity” or loss of individual country sovereignty.

Germany, which has been browbeat since its defeat in World War II, has been made constitutionally incapable of strong leadership. Any sign of German leadership is quickly quelled by dredging up remembrances of the Third Reich. As a consequence, Germany has been pushed into an European Union that intends to destroy the political sovereignty of the member governments, just as Abe Lincoln destroyed the sovereignty of the American states.

Who will rule the New Europe?  Obviously, the private European banks and Goldman Sachs.

The new president of the European Central Bank is Mario Draghi. This person was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of Goldman Sachs’ Management Committee. Draghi was also Italian Executive Director of the World Bank, Governor of the Bank of Italy, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, a member of the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements, and a member of the boards of governors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank, and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board.

Obviously, Draghi is going to protect the power of bankers.

Italy’s new prime minister, who was appointed not elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers. Mario Monti was appointed to the European Commission, one of the governing organizations of the EU. Monti is European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a US organization that advances American hegemony over the world. Monti is a member of the Bilderberg group and a founding member of the Spinelli group, an organization created in September 2010 to facilitate integration within the EU.

Just as an unelected banker was installed as prime minister of Italy, an unelected banker was installed as prime minister of Greece. Obviously, they are intended to produce the bankers’ solution to the sovereign debt crisis.

Greece’s new appointed prime minister, Lucas Papademos, was Governor of the Bank of Greece. From 2002-2010. He was Vice President of the European Central Bank. He, also, is a member of America’s Trilateral Commission.

Jacques Delors, a founder of the European Union, promised the British Trade Union Congress in 1988 that the European Commission would require governments to introduce pro-labor legislation. Instead, we find the banker-controlled European Commission demanding that European labor bail out the private banks by accepting lower pay, fewer social services, and a later retirement.

The European Union, just like everything else, is merely another scheme to concentrate wealth in a few hands at the expense of European citizens, who are destined, like Americans, to be the serfs of the 21st century.

Canada could pay into IMF Europe fund, Flaherty says

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Ottawa would be open to paying into a bailout fund for Europe administered by the International Monetary Fund — as long as it was supported by the other G20 countries.

"There's some sense around the world that if at the end of the day we have to provide some help somehow, that we would not turn a blind eye to it because of the world consequences of the collapse of the eurozone," Flaherty said Thursday on CBC-TV's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.

"If at the end of the day all of the other G20 countries were going to provide more resources to the IMF, and let the IMF deal with part of the situation in Europe, then I think there would be support for that overall, because of the fear, quite frankly, around the world of a global economic crisis."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had previously said the federal government was unwilling to use Canadian funds to bail out European countries troubled by the ongoing debt crisis, saying that Europe had sufficient resources to cope while the IMF should be focused on developing countries.

Flaherty also stipulated Thursday that EU countries must "commit most of the resources" to a shore up the eurozone's financial system.

"And they haven't done that yet," he said, despite the fact that the eurozone is "on the brink of a very serious crisis."

G20 leaders met in France last month, where they pledged to rebalance the global economy and boost resources available to the IMF. But they delivered few details on how the group of countries might help resolve the debt crisis.

Italy and Spain have been at the centre of concerns in recent months as their borrowing costs have risen. Those two are considered too big to bail out with the current eurozone bailout funds, in contrast to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, which have all sought outside financial help. Italy, for example, has some 1.9 trillion euros in outstanding debt.

To help steady the eurozone's financial system, the European Central Bank has loaned 489 billion euros to 523 banks over the past three years — the largest infusion of credit to European banks in the 13-year history of the shared euro currency.

The ECB is trying to make sure that banks have enough ready cash so they can keep on lending to businesses. Otherwise, a credit crunch could choke off growth and spread the debt crisis to the wider economy through the banks.

To deal with the crisis, Flaherty said that EU countries "need to build a firewall around the contagious banks."

In addition, he said the IMF should "go in and make sure that those countries that need to balance their budgets [and] get over their huge debt problems are properly supervised, so that the world can be assured that they're actually doing it.

Told to end 3G pacts today, operators move TDSA

NEW DELHI, DEC. 23: 

The Department of Telecom has asked Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea Cellular to terminate roaming arrangements by 3 p.m. on Saturday.

Notices have also been sent to Tata Teleservices and Aircel but the two have already scrapped their agreement. This comes after the department took a decision that the roaming pacts were illegal.

“It has been concluded that provision of the services by you, which are presently available by virtue of 3G spectrum in 2.1 Ghz band only, to your customers through intra service area roaming arrangement is not permissible,” the DoT notice to the operators stated.

Bharti Airtel said that the order was arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice. The operator also questioned DoT's motive in issuing the 24-hour deadline on Friday evening after the courts closed for the weekend.

“It is painful to note how the action by DoT has been delayed till Friday evening fully knowing that any legal recourse needs court working days. To add to our and customers' dismay compliance is being forced within 24 hours without stating why this haste!,” Airtel said in a statement. The three operators have moved the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal seeking a stay order. Industry sources said that the tribunal may hold a special session on Saturday to hear the appeal.

The operators said that even if they agree to terminate the pact it will take time because to pull back a strategic deployment like intra-circle roaming, expert intervention is required as multiple aspects of CRM, network and IT are at play. More importantly customers have to be informed and their financial commitment towards the service has to be protected, as per the regulation.

“We are shocked at the arbitrary decision taken by the Department of Telecom (DoT) to issue instructions to stop intra circle roaming for 3G services. This is despite DoT having clarified on the matter prior to the 3G spectrum auction in 2010,” Airtel said.

The operators said the DoT decision sends a wrong signal to the entire business community looking for a stable and transparent policy regime.

US boosted by jobless 

figures fall

Fewer Americans than expected sought unemployment benefits and consumer confidence climbed last week, boosting the world's largest economy heading into 2012.

Unemployment claims fell by 4,000 to 364,000 last week, the lowest level since April 2008, Labor Department figures showed yesterday.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index improved to minus 45 last week from a reading of minus 49.9 the prior week, marking the biggest seven-day gain since January.

A decline in job losses and the cheapest petrol prices since February are helping revive retail sales during the busiest shopping season of the year.

A stronger consumer, whose spending accounts for 70% of the economy, raises the odds the US can ride out the debt crisis in Europe or failure by Congress to extend tax cuts.

"Spending has looked pretty good so far, and continued job and income growth will help maintain that," said Samuel Coffin, an economist at UBS Securities in New York.

Stocks rose on the improving jobs outlook, sending the Standard -amp; Poor's 500 Index higher for a third day.

Treasury securities (bonds) also advanced, sending the yield on the benchmark 10-year note down to 1.96% from 1.97% at the close to trade the previous day.

"This is great news," Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at hedge fund High Frequency Economics.

"One unexpectedly low number can easily be a fluke. Two are interesting. Three are telling us something real is happening in the labour market."

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/us-boosted-by-jobless-figures-fall-16094754.html#ixzz1hOQTPsIR

Miners, banks trim weekly loss for stocks

Australian shares recovered most of yesterday's loss but still ended down for a third consecutive week, the longest losing streak since late September.

At the close on Friday, the benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was up 49.6 points, or 1.2 per cent, at 4,140.4, while the broader All Ordinaries index had gained 49.9 points, also 1.2 per cent, to 4,192.1.

For the week, the ASX200 share index was off 0.5 per cent while the All Ordinaries fell 0.6 per cent.

Among the major sectors, materials rose 1.6 per cent, while financials gained 1.3 per cent and energy stocks added 1.2 per cent.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Wall Street and European markets rallied overnight after the number of jobless claims in the US fell to the lowest level since April 2008, in a further sign the world’s largest economy is returning to health.

Australian shares also gained on news that US consumer confidence beat expectations to reach a six-month high, as data indicated that the country’s economy should have grown by more than three per cent in the last quarter of the year.

Bell Potter senior adviser Stuart Smith said he expected more positive momentum in the market toward the end of the year as hopes for economic recovery grow.

‘‘I expect a new wave of confidence in the new year.’’

Friday’s trading day was shortened, ahead of the Christmas weekend and the market will next open on December 28.

Leading the market higher were shares in Gloucester Coal, which added 21.6 per cent to $8.55 after the company said it had entered into a merger proposal with China owned Yancoal Australia to create a newly listed company on the Australian market.

Miners and industrial stocks led the whole market higher, with both sectors adding 1.6 per cent as rising commodity prices helped push shares higher.

BHP Billiton rose 50 cents, or 1.4 per cent, to $35.15 while Rio Tinto added $1.19, or two per cent, to reach $61.84.

Financials were also strong performers, adding 1.3 per cent in the wake of a strong push higher by their global peers.

‘‘You won’t be able to find banking stocks this good anywhere else in the world, there’s no comparison,’’ Mr Smith said.

All of the big four banks were up, with Commonwealth Bank adding one per cent to $49.81, ANZ increasing 1.5 per cent to $20.85, National Australia Bank rising 1.3 per cent at $23.70 and Westpac climbing 0.9 per cent to $20.54.

Even the embattled retail sector managed to post gains after a week of profit downgrades from several big names.

But analysts remained less optimistic on prospects for the sector, with several downgrading their assessments of major retailers.

David Jones was the only retailer that was lower on Friday, losing 0.8 per cent to $2.43, while Myer added 0.5 per cent to $1.99.

Market turnover was below the monthly average, at one billion shares with a value of $4.3 billion as 18 shares rose for every one that fell.

Kickoff done to build $28.3-million Montreal soccer centre

PATRICIA WILLIAMS

staff writer

Ground is expected to be broken by the end of next year on a new indoor soccer centre at the Saint-Michel Environmental Complex in Montreal, one of the city’s largest parks.

The winning concept for the $28.3 million project was submitted by a joint venture of Montreal-based Saucier + Perrotte and Hughes Condon Marler Architects of Vancouver. The City of Montreal is targeting LEED Gold for the centre, to be constructed on the site of the former Miron limestone quarry. The design concept incorporates best practices in sustainable development.

The facility will include one full-size soccer pitch that can be subdivided into smaller surfaces, locker rooms, a fitness and physiotherapy room, and event, restaurant and family rest areas.

The new indoor soccer centre will include one full-sized soccer pitch that can be subdivided into smaller surfaces.

The city said the roof will call to mind a mineral stratum “eloquently heralding the structure as seen from Avenue Papineau.

“The volumes of the building will rise like a series of luminous crystals among the trees in the wooded embankment bordering the avenue, lending a human scale to the project to observers in the residential neighbourhood on the other side of Papineau and inviting citizens to explore the park.”

The centre will also house the offices of the Association regionale de soccer Montreal Concordia.

In an interview, Saucier + Perrotte partner Gilles Saucier said a key element is the relationship of the centre to the “extraordinary” park. Former landfill sites progressively are being developed into parkland.

“The building works as much as a pavilion as a sports facility,” Saucier said.

He said attention will need to be paid “to all kinds of small details” in order to achieve LEED Gold. That includes orientation of the building as well as choice of materials.

A general contractor will be retained to construct the facility. The project team includes mechanical-electrical consulting engineers Bouthillette Parizeau and structural engineers Nicolet, Chartrand, Knoll. Landscape architects are Williams, Asselin, Ackaoui & Associates Inc.

Saucier + Perrotte and Hughes Condon Marler have collaborated previously on projects in both Quebec and British Columbia. The firms won an Award of Excellence in Canadian Architect magazine’s 2011 awards for the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences/Centre for Drug Research and Development building in Vancouver.

“It’s a very successful joint venture,” Saucier said. “We like to work together.”

The city of Montreal is investing $15.6 million in the new indoor soccer centre while the governments of Canada and Quebec are contributing another $12.7 million through the Building Canada Fund-Quebec.

The winning design was chosen in an architectural competition supported by the Montreal UNESCO city of design program, an initiative of the Ville de Montreal bureau du design and the UNESCO chair in landscape and environmental design at the Universite de Montreal.

Montreal mayor Gerald Tremblay said the long-awaited project will provide Montrealers with access to a sports centre “that is not only functional but boasts a modern design meeting the highest standards of quality.”

Buenos Aires only accepts one outcome of talks: “turning Falklands into an Argentine colony”

Following the article published in “The Independent” dated 22nd December 2011, entitled “Time to talk about the Falklands”, the people of the Falkland Islands would like to make the following response.

The Mercosur statement banning legitimate Falkland Islands flagged vessels from using their ports came as no surprise to the people of the Falkland Islands. We have seen Argentina pressuring their neighbours into lending verbal support to various pronouncements, all of which are aimed at putting us under pressure and disrupting our way of life. We are well aware of their wish to force us to discuss the sovereignty of the Islands from which they would only accept one outcome, turning our home and country into a colony of Argentina.

We are very appreciative of the strong support from the UK for our right to self determination under the UN Charter. We are equally disappointed that countries in the region with which we've had a long and mutually beneficial relationship seem ready to join Argentina in ignoring this right. As a people we have the right to determine our own future, and we have made a choice – to maintain our relationship with Britain. It is this right, and this choice that we have made, that is being ignored.

In an ideal world, of course disputes should be settled by talking. Unfortunately the only talks of interest to Argentina are those which have only one possible outcome; namely the hand over of the Falkland Islands against the clearly expressed wishes of their people.

Braskem to focus on local projects in 2012 -Brazil

Brazilian petrochemical company Braskem (NYSE: BAK) will next year focus investments on Brazil, according to CEO Carlos Fadigas.

The firm plans spend around US$5bn on new productive capacities in the country, Fadigas told local paper Valor Econômico.

Projects include a naphtha-based polypropylene (PP) plant at Camaçari; a second ethanol-based polyethylene (PE) plant, the company's first green PP unit; and continued work on the Comperj petrochemical complex in Rio de Janeiro.

"Our strategy will not be different than in the current year, but our priority will be Brazil," Fadigas said.

However, the executive added that the company is still eyeing opportunities in the US. The acquisition of PP assets in the US in 2010 and 2011, "has consolidated our leadership in PP, so we can now look at business in the PE area."

In Brazil, Braskem expects to invest a total of around US$4bn in petrochemical plants at Comperj, the report said.

The firm is also still considering the size of the stake it may acquire in thePetroquimicaSuape polyester and PET resin project currently being built in the northeast of the country by federal energy company Petrobras(NYSE PBR).

Utility Monitoring and Control Systems (UMCS)

General Information

Document Type:	MOD
Posted Date:	Nov 21, 2011
Category:	Installation of Equipment
Set Aside:	N/A

Contracting Office Address

USACE HNC, Huntsville, P. O. Box 1600, Huntsville, AL 35807-4301

Description

This sources sought notice is issued solely for market research and planning purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation. The U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Alabama (CEHNC) intends to solicit and award multiple indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for its Utility Monitoring and Control Systems (UMCS) for Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning Systems to include chiller/boiler systems installation and/or integration, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems, and other Automated Control Systems including fire alarm and life safety, utilities (electric/gas/water) metering and electronic security systems worldwide. Work requirements will be defined in specific Task Order Performance Work Statements (PWS) under a basic contract PWS. Services will include, but not be limited to development of engineering plans for equipment installation; providing hardware and software; system testing and check-out; facility modification and minor construction required to support equipment installation; providing security and force protection measures; interfacing with and installing new data transmission equipment; determining compatibility of new equipment with existing systems; preparing system and component documentation; providing operation and maintenance manuals; providing UMCS and Electronic Security System training; warranting systems; maintaining and servicing systems; operating and monitoring systems; preparing after action and other reports; and providing as-built installation drawings. Additional information about the UMCS program is available at http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/umcs/index.aspx and http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/pao/PAO_Fact_Sheets/UMCS.pdf The Government is performing market research in order to determine the sources available that possess the capability to execute the kind of work identified above prior to issuing a request for proposal (RFP). It is the Governments objective to provide maximum practicable opportunities under this anticipated acquisition to small business concerns. Firms may complete and submit Capability Statements to aid the Government in assessing available sources to perform this work. The Capability Statement form is available at the "Additional documentation" link below. Capability statements must be submitted no later than 5:00 PM Central Time on 16 Dec 2011. Responses will not be returned nor will be considered by the Government as offers. Instead, responses to this notice will only be used to determine capability/availability of sources and serve as a supplementary market research tool to determine the competitive pools (unrestricted and/or restricted under FAR Part 19). Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this request for information. Submit Capability Statements via email to paul.c.daugherty@usace.army.mil with subject line: "UMCS Capability Statement for [firm name]". Because the government is seeking wide participation and has not yet chosen a NAICS code for this acquisition, this sources sought is being issued under the following reference numbers and NAICS codes. Industry is invited to recommend or comment on the selection of the appropriate NAICS code. Only respond to one of these notices and only submit one capability statement. Do not submit duplicate statements. W912DY12R0012 - NAICS 334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use W912DY12R0013 - NAICS 334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables W912DY12R0014 - NAICS 334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals W912DY12R0015 - NAICS 541512 Computer Systems Design Services A draft Performance Work Statement is provided

Original Point of Contact

POC Paul Daugherty, 256-895-1697

Place of Performance

Address:
USACE HNC, Huntsville P. O. Box 1600, Huntsville AL
35807-4301,
Link: FBO.gov Permalink

Woolies is tops

Andrew McNulty

Thursday, 15 Dec 2011

Based on the rise of about 2% in the JSE all share index (Alsi) at the end of November, the JSE is among the world’s best-performing stock markets this year.

Based on the rise of about 2% in the JSE all share index (Alsi) at the end of November, the JSE is among the world’s best-performing stock markets this year.
That applies if markets are measured on their leading indices and in local currencies. Some emerging markets, such as those in Indonesia, the Philippines and Mexico, have performed similarly or better, but most of the developed and emerging markets have fallen.

The JSE’s overall index has a history of producing good absolute and relative returns. But what is the Alsi measuring? Its constituent companies are weighted by market capitalisation. The effect is a high weighting of international companies and exporters.
The 11 largest companies in the index account for about two-thirds of the Alsi’s value (ignoring free-float adjustments), and all of them are globally diversified or are mainly exporters, or both. They include large, quality companies such as BHP Billiton, SABMiller and Anglo American which are listed on larger exchanges and trade globally.
Further down the list are more global companies such as Old Mutual, Bidvest and Aspen. Depending on criteria applied, fewer than half the stocks in the Alsi40 are purely domestic companies that depend mainly on the local economy. The JSE’s high foreign exposure is an attraction for local investors, but it raises the question: how have the larger domestic stocks performed?
The 40 stocks in the accompanying table give a perspective on this. To qualify for inclusion, companies had to earn no more than 10% of their revenues from foreign businesses or exports. That excluded the miners, some financials (Old Mutual and Investec) and industrials such as Imperial, Steinhoff and Netcare.
Sasol was another. In the year to June, Sasol made only half its external turnover and two-thirds of operating profit in SA. Among the banking groups, Standard Bank was excluded. It made 18% of its 2010 total income outside SA.
Property and pyramid companies were omitted but could have been in. Some small caps (Eqstra and Hudaco) were included. Building and construction is an important industry in the local economy but none of the larger stocks in the sector made the list as they have large foreign activities .
The list could be refined but can serve for now as a proxy domestic stocks “index”. The share price performances, predictably, were mixed, ranging from ArcelorMittal’s 24% decline to a 49% gain by top performer Woolworths.
The overall result for the year so far was flat, similar to the Alsi, though that’s based on a simple average of price moves; the stocks are not weighted by market cap or liquidity. Almost half the shares in the table have risen this year by 5% or more and it’s no surprise that most of the best performers are in consumer or related sectors.
Retailers did particularly well. Aside from Woolworths, Mr Price was up 25%, Foschini 19% and Massmart 15%. Pick n Pay was down by about a quarter at the end of September but has recovered most of that. A rerating of the leading food producers’ shares also continued . Tiger Brands is up 26%, and AVI 24%.
Life Healthcare has risen 48% since listing on the JSE in June last year. It was also one of the top performers in the domestic stocks table, with a 37% gain this year. It reported strong growth for the year to September, with revenue up almost 12% and normalised earnings per share rising 28,7%.
Unlike its two main domestic rivals, Netcare and Mediclinic, which have made large foreign acquisitions, Life’s activities are almost entirely in SA. CE Michael Flemming said last month it will continue to focus on domestic growth, expansions and acquisitions. It’s also preparing for growth in emerging markets, particularly India.
Eqstra, the capital equipment company spun off by Imperial, is recovering but still trades at less than half its price of R15,50 at the listing in May 2008.
The weakest performers in the domestic stocks table were in basic industries (ArcelorMittal and Afrox), sectors struggling with overcapacity or slack demand (City Lodge, Sun International and PPC) or industries in transition (Telkom). Some of these have risen sharply from their lows during the year.
PPC’s price has begun to recover . Weak domestic demand for cement, competitive imports and local overcapacity contributed to a 22% slide in the group’s earnings for the year to September.
CE Paul Stuiver said that on historical trends and previous industry cycles, a long-term recovery in SA cement demand was long overdue and latest industry trends indicated further decline was unlikely. PPC is another company aiming to expand in Africa through investments and acquisitions. Management is targeting revenue from elsewhere in Africa at 30%-40% of the group total.
A striking aspect of the domestic stocks table is the high p:e ratings of many of this year’s stronger performers. The average p:e for the list is 15,5, above the Alsi average of 12,9. Retailers and other consumer stocks trade on historical p:es of 16-20, or higher. That indicates little margin for disappointment in earnings growth . Some of this year’s laggards may offer better value .

Andover: Be Wiser Insurance is fast-rising success

08 Dec 2011

Broker, listed at 214 in our Solent 250, is one of UK's top performing private companies.

 

Andover-based Be Wiser Insurance has been ranked as one of Britain’s most successful private companies by The Sunday Times.

Be Wiser was ranked number 214 in our Solent 250, published in November, after a big jump in sales.

And the independent has now been placed 13th in The Sunday Times Virgin Fast Track 100 which champions the UK’s top performing private companies based strictly on financial performance with the fastest growing sales over their latest three years.

Founded in 2007, Be Wiser Insurance is a brokerage success stories and things continue to go from strength to strength for the company.

Over its four years of trading, the company has opened four offices, all based in Andover, and has grown from employing just six staff to now employing over 240 staff.

The FSA regulated company has net assets in excess of £1 million and is one of the fastest growing personal lines brokers in the UK. The financial results for the year ending May 31, 2011 showed a staggering 116% increase in turnover, up from £5.6 million in 2010 to £12.1 million in 2011.

Acting for the majority of the largest UK based insurance companies, Be Wiser Insurance agents for over 30 household names, including Zurich, Aviva, AXA and Ageas.

Be Wiser Insurance’s chairman Mark Bower-Dyke said: ““Be Wiser Insurance is delighted to be recognised as one of Britain’s most successful private companies. As a young and growing company it goes to show what can be achieved when a great management team is combined with a strong commitment to staff training and development.”

Sir Richard Branson of Virgin, which has been the title sponsor of the league table for all 15 years, commented: “2011 has been another challenging year for the UK in political and economic terms. Against this economic background the strong performance of the Fast Track 100 companies is to be especially applauded.”

Climate Investment Funds Monitor

Summary of key developments and concerns

• At the November committee meetings CIF participants will review a new proposal to strengthen the operation of the CIFs. This document resulted from a submission from the UK which said the CIFs should focus on improving developmental impact, country ownership and transparency.
• The Clean Technology Fund will seek new pledges after approving a new investment plan from India, but concerns remain over the transparency of private sector projects, particularly those using financial intermediaries, and on the additionality of ‘leveraged’ private finance.
• The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience sub-committee has approved eight new investment plans. Because of oversubscription by countries to available PPCR concessionary loans the sub-committee has capped the amount of finance available to countries as loans. There has been widespread criticism and protest from civil society groups in recipient countries over the use of loans in the PPCR.
• The Forest Investment Program has approved investment plans from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of Congo, but significant concerns were raised by committee members over the plans, including on legal reform, land rights, developmental impact and whether they adequately addressed the drivers of deforestation.
• The Scaling up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries sub-committee approved the Kenyan investment plan, but numerous concerns were raised, especially over developmental impact, energy access, and debt-creation.

Introduction

The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) are financing instruments designed to pilot low-carbon and climate-resilient development through the multilateral development banks (MDBs). They are comprised of two trust funds – the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF). The SCF is an overarching fund aimed at piloting new development approaches. It consists of three targeted programmes: the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), the Forest Investment Program (FIP), and the Program for Scaling Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries (SREP). So far donors have pledged $4.3 billion to the CTF and $1.9 billion to the SCF.

This CIFs Monitor outlines recent developments at the CIFs, and collates ongoing concerns over their operation. It builds on theprevious Monitor, published in February 2011. It reports on CTF trust fund committee and SCF programme sub-committee meetings and communications from June onwards. These committees serve as the governing bodies of the funds.

Measures to improve the CIFs

There have been a number of internal discussions on how to improve the operations of the CIFs. At the joint CTF-SCF committee meeting in June 2011 the CIF administrative unit submitted a paper on potential measures to improve the CIFs¹ . The paper noted areas where the CIFs could be reformed:

• Partnerships with international bodies like the UNFCCC
• The potential to seek more funding for the CIFs in order to expand operations and meet demand from countries interested in participating
• Improving the observer role
• Increasing country ownership of projects
• Using other MDB instruments such as development policy loans
• Improving active involvement of the private sector
• Increasing speed of disbursements
• Improving development impact and institutionalising gender in the CIFs

The UK, a major donor to the CIFs and instrumental in their creation, submitted a paper outlining its expectations for how they could be improved². It calls for:

• More attention to be given to development impacts and gender outcomes
• Increased evidence that implementing multilateral development banks (MDBs) are securing country ownership and consulting with civil society
• Increased transparency of decision making processes and investment planning
• A stronger focus on results frameworks and knowledge sharing

In October 2011 the CIF administrative unit produced a new paper on improving the CIFs, which seeks to address some of the points made in the UK submission and at the June 2011 joint CTF-SCF committee meeting³. It largely endorses the recommendations made by the UK.

The paper recommends:

• The establishment of ‘country coordination units’ to facilitate national dialogue, support coordination and improve reporting, that feedback on the extent of country ownership be included in reporting, and that MDBs and governments should use local consultants
• Working with the MDBs’ private sector arms to identify new tools and modalities, and directly allocating SCF resources for increasing private sector involvement
• The MDBs work on improved indicators of development and poverty reduction impacts for each programme and project
• That CTF closed sessions be eliminated, and that the CIFs should comply with the International Aid Transparency Initiative
• That governments and MDBs mainstream gender with clients, projects and at country level, and calls for more gender disaggregated data
• For improved dialogue with the UNFCCC
• Also includes measures to improve results frameworks and communications

Bretton Woods Project report

In June the Bretton Woods Project released a report evaluating the adequacy of the CIFs as a model for the GCF⁴. The report highlights a number of ways in which operations at the CIFs demonstrate progress in climate finance mechanisms. It also collates concerns by civil society groups on how governance arrangements at the CIFs prevent meaningful participation by affected communities and civil society observers, and over the level of country and community ownership of projects. It highlights critical views on claims by the CIFs to leverage large amounts of private finance. It also notes that the CIFs overwhelmingly favour mitigation and, contrary to the polluter-pays principle, offer loans for adaptation. In addition it highlights the lack of developmental impact in CIF projects.

CIF observers

At the joint CTF-SCF committee meeting in June 2011 it was agreed that the process for selecting observers from civil society and the private sector would be reopened. This was after observers argued that the process, which opened in May 2011, did not provide clarity over selection criteria and that there was a general lack of awareness of the process amongst networks. Civil society and private sector observers both submitted documents outlining how the process should be improved. The new process opened in October 2011, and integrated most of the observers proposals, including strengthened selection criteria, and increased engagement with wider civil society networks.

A survey of CIF participants was conducted by Transparency International and presented at the CIFs Partnership Forum in June 2011. NGO RESOLVE, which managed the last observer recruitment process, also conducted a consultation process on the observer role. Both processes identified serious challenges and faults with the current observer model, including:

• Little clarity on what the role entails regarding the monitoring of projects on the ground
• Not enough support in training and information sharing to allow effective participation
• A lack of capacity to communicate with constituencies
• Not enough technical and financial support to allow effective communication with constituencies
• A lack of processes for observers to gather local feedback at country and project level
• No process to allow effective monitoring of projects or input on investment plans
• A weak set of rights and obligations at committee level that hampers effective and meaningful engagement in committee proceedings, including an inability to vote on decisions

Clean Technology Fund

Background

The objective of the CTF is to use minimum levels of concessional financing to catalyse investment opportunities that will reduce emissions in the long term. The CTF focuses on financing projects in middle-income and fast-growing developing countries.

The trust fund committee has so far endorsed 13 investment plans for a total of $4.3 billion for 12 countries: Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam; and one regional formation for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) covering Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. Nigeria has had an investment plan approved but there are currently no resources available to allocate to it. Chile has decided to not submit its investment plan until more resources are available.The trust fund committee of the CTF met in Cape Town in June 2011. At the meetings, the World Bank, as the CIFs trustee, presented a report outlining the financial status of the CTF. It noted that pledges from the USA are largely outstanding. USA representatives insisted that they are working hard to ensure that CIF funding is approved by USA legislators soon. The CTF was a victim of the April 2011 US budget deal, when although the USA executive branch had requested a $400 million disbursal, negotiations between the Democratic party-controlled Senate and Republican party-controlled House of Representatives resulted in a budget allocation of only $185 million⁵. Draft legislation from the House in late July eliminated all funding to the CTF and SCF for 2012, while a Senate proposal in September 2011 allocated $350 million to the CTF and $100 million to the SCF. Negotiations continue between the legislative.

The committee discussed a proposal from the CIF administrative unit for an enhanced system of pipeline project management. It requested greater MDB flexibility in allocating resources, asking for MDBs to be allowed to shift up to 15% of investment envelopes between constituent projects without the committees’ approval. Committee members discussed the need for greater clarity on project development at committee level. Brazil and India both pointed out that there needs to be more factors in deciding resource allocation than just speed of project implementation, and that often projects with potentially higher developmental impacts took longer to develop. The US, in light of the fact that MDBs are both implementing agencies and co-financiers of CIF projects as well as sitting on CIF governing committees, also pointed out that MDBs do not have sufficient incentives to question the viability of their own projects. The committee concluded that any changes in resource allocation should be disclosed to allow committee oversight, and that a future administrative unit proposal should be developed that includes stakeholder engagement and ownership in the criteria deciding resource allocation⁶.

The committee also approved a proposal for a joint mission to develop a clean technology investment plan for India. The proposal was presented as an interim measure while details of the new Green Climate Fund (GCF) were finalised. There was discussion on the fact that India will join Nigeria and Chile as prospective recipients of CTF resources, the viability of which is based upon the availability of more CTF funds. The committee reached an agreement that the MDBs and the administrative unit should seek to raise additional funds for expanded CTF programmes. The India investment plan has now been published and will be discussed at the November meetings.

Concerns

Transparency

An ongoing concern at the CTF has been the availability of project information regarding disbursements of resources, at both programme and project level (see previous Climate Investment Funds Monitor). As trustee the World Bank reported that it is developing an integrated electronic system that will allow greater efficiency of programme management and committee oversight. The World Resources Institute (WRI), the developed countries civil society observer at the CTF, said that it is vital that “reporting on disbursement must make clear (1) which MDBs are disbursing funds within a country, (2) the projects to which funds are being disbursed, and (3) the recipient institution within countries.”⁷

WRI also raised the issue of a lack transparency regarding private sector and financial intermediary (FI) projects. A large number of CTF projects are implemented through FIs. WRI submitted a detailed proposal recommending ways to improve the transparency of private sector and FI projects. In proposing improvements to the reporting framework, WRI stressed that “the lack of information regarding financial intermediary (FI) projects and private sector projects can breed mistrust – improved reporting and communication should therefore be seen as an intrinsic part of building confidence in the CIFs, and ensuring accountability for public funds being put to good use.”⁸ It acknowledged that details of private sector financing are not disclosed because of business confidentiality, but proposed that the names of companies receiving financing could be revealed, as well as qualitative information on the range of projects in the portfolio of FIs. The MDBs were to take this proposal into account at their next coordination meeting, and discussions will continue at the upcoming November committee meeting.

Morocco solar power project

The Moroccan concentrated solar power (CSP) project, implemented as a public-private partnership (PPP), was approved by the committee and will receive $197 million in CTF funding. This is the first phase of a much larger project that aims to generate 2,000 MW of CSP by 2020. The project has already faced criticism for prioritising energy exports to Europe over domestic energy access (see previous Climate Investment Funds Monitor). At the committee meetings WRI questioned to what extent financing is dependent on access to the European market, and what contingency plans are in place if access is not forthcoming, and sought clarity on the level of state subsidy required considering the high technology costs. They stressed the need for transparency and accountability in PPP contractual arrangements.

Gram Bharati Samiti, Asian region civil society observer on the CTF, underlined the importance of meaningful and extensive public participation in the project. This is especially pertinent considering that it is taking place on land owned by Ait Oukrour community, which will mean a transfer of property rights, and that a social development plan for affected communities is being developed which is supposed to involve ‘participatory mechanisms’. The project has been categorised as ‘category A’ by the World Bank, meaning it carries potentially irreversible social and environmental risks. As WRI observe, these include “water scarcity, water pollution from cooling and discharge, leakage of transfer fluids and anti freeze, construction impacts”.

CTF in Turkey

In September 2011 Swiss NGO the Berne Declaration published an in-depth research study of the CTF programme in Turkey. It contextualises some of the above concerns regarding the use of financial intermediaries to disburse finance, premised on the idea that this will leverage other sources of private investment into clean energy technology. The report argues that, in the energy efficiency sector, the CTF programme largely achieved its official objectives of removing first-mover hurdles and stimulate private investment. However, it questions the large amount of CTF resources directed at the hydropower sector: “hydropower is already marketable and we have not found evidence that the comparatively large portion of CTF money invested in hydropower has had a positive spill-over effect and leveraged investment into other renewable energies. In addition, there are serious concerns about the environmental and social risks of hydropower projects... Despite the highly concessional CTF incentive, only five wind energy projects and one geo-thermal power project were supported, compared with 26 energy efficiency and 30 hydro-power projects.”

The report identifies an overbearing emphasis on rapid disbursement as a serious impediment to transformational change: “The strategic decision to commit CTF funds rapidly forced the financial intermediaries to move to sectors which are easy to finance because they already have favourable regulations and are profitable. The Berne Declaration’s analysis shows that if concessional climate finance is to be additional and remove first mover hurdles, rapid investment cannot be an objective in itself.” It also argues that the use of FIs, in this case two Turkish banks, meant that there was little transparency or stakeholder participation in the project: “The CTF Turkey is a compelling case for more proactive disclosure of information about projects in the CTF pipeline, especially if implemented through financial intermediaries.”

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)

Background

The PPCR aspires to demonstrate how climate risk and resilience can be integrated into core development planning and implementation. PPCR funding is disbursed in two phases, to support two types of investment: first technical assistance to allow developing countries to integrate climate resilience into national and sectoral development plans, resulting in a Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR), and second, funding for the implementation of this programme.

In 2009, nine countries (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Tajikistan, Yemen and Zambia) and two regional groupings (six Caribbean island countries and three Pacific island countries) were invited to participate in the PPCR. All but four of the 18 participating countries have now submitted SPCRs⁹.

Updates

Resources

See graph 2. for status of contributions to SREP.

In the intersessional period between the last sub-committee meetings in November 2010 and those in June 2011 the PPCR sub-committee endorsed SPCRs for Samoa, Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The SPCRs requested the following in grant and loan resources from the PPCR:

• Samoa - $25 million in PPCR grants
• Grenada - $8 million in PPCR grants, $12 million in PPCR loans
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines - $7 million in grants, $3 million in loans

At the June PPCR sub-committee meetings SPCRs were endorsed for Cambodia, Mozambique, Nepal, St. Lucia and Zambia. Each SPCR has requested a range of funding in both grants and concessional finance, with all but St. Lucia requesting over $50 million in PPCR loans. However, at the June sub-committee meetings it was decided that owing to the limited amount of concessional PPCR financing available, each of the programmes (and those yet to be submitted) will only be able to programme up to $36 million in loans. This is an equal share of the remaining capital contributions pledged to the PPCR. The range of grant financing will be limited to $40-50 million. All countries with SPCRs endorsed before this decision may continue to programme resources up to the ceilings they originally requested.

SPCRs for Bolivia, Jamaica, Yemen and the regional track for the Caribbean program have been submitted for review, with decisions on endorsement to be taken at the November sub-committee meetings.

Disbursement report

In response to questions from sub-committee members and observers over details of disbursements, the World Bank, acting in its role as trustee, has begun issuing disbursement reports for the PPCR on a bi-annual basis. The first of these was issued in December 2010, and the second in June 2011.

The June 30th disbursement report shows that $55.8 million has been approved by the trustee; $13.3 million has been transferred to MDBs ($1.7 million for the Asian Development Bank, $3 million for the EBRD, and $11.3 million for IBRD).  Of the $13.3 million, the MDBs have disbursed $1.7 million.  This is a disbursement rate of 13%. ¹⁰

Sunset clause

At the June 2011 meetings the PPCR sub-committee requested that the SCF trust fund committee amend the PPCR design documents description of the programmes’ sunset clause to ensure it is consistent with language in the SCF governance framework. The PPCR design document currently states that “the PPCR Sub-Committee may not approve, after the end of calendar year 2012, any new financing under the PPCR for programme activities”. However, the SCF governance framework does not specify any date, and merely states that “Recognizing that the establishment of the SCF is not to prejudice the on-going UNFCCC deliberations regarding the future of the climate change regime, including its financial architecture, the SCF will take necessary steps to conclude its operations once a new financial architecture is effective.”

Recipient countries at the PPCR were concerned that the language in the design document may hinder future implementation of SPCRs and disbursal of allocated funds. Although all SPCRs are likely to have been approved by 2012, funding for individual programme activities will still need to be subject to approval.  A document released in November entitled ‘Proposed measures to improve the operations of the climate investment funds’¹¹, prepared by the CIF admin unit and the MDB committee, proposes that the joint CTF/SCF committee approve removal of the sentence stipulating that the PPCR ends operations in 2012.

Concerns

Tajikistan SPCR

A January report by international NGO Oxfam details serious flaws in the PPCR process in Tajikistan. It collates the perspectives of local stakeholders and documents a range of criticism over how the PPCR strategy has been developed. This includes concerns among local NGOs that consultation was limited to government agencies and a shortlist of civil society organisations, “meaning that the voices and perspectives of affected communities were not considered at the critical design stage”. There was limited access to Bank and other MDB staff, to project information and to documents in local languages.

The report concludes that the PPCR in Tajikistan is in need of radical overhaul, and recommends that it should be reoriented towards the rural small food producers who are the most vulnerable to climate change, and should support the government as primary actor for ownership of PPCR programmes. It should also include the meaningful participation of affected communities and civil society organisations, make gender equality central to climate funding, and ensure funding processes are transparent and accountable.

Protests over use of loans

In February 2011 in Bangladesh, 11 civil society organisations formed a human chain in Dhaka protesting against the fact that financing for the PPCR programme is heavily loan-based. The programme consists of $50 million in grants and $60 million in loans from the PPCR, which are tied up with loans of $300 million from the International Development Association (IDA), the Bank arm for low-income countries, and $215 million in loans from the Asian Development Bank. Prodip Kumar Roy, of NGO Campaign for Rural Sustainable Livelihoods, said that the loans are “imprudent and premature as the multilateral climate financing process of UNFCCC is going to take shape by 2012” ¹².

Also in February, in Nepal, 11 civil society organisations released a statement demanding that the government only accept the grant component of its PPCR package. Echoing sentiments from Bangladesh, the statement says that “we oppose the World Bank on pledging of loans for adaptation and resilience to the nations that needs immediate financial support to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change … This is intended to devalue and defame the ongoing climate funding process under the UNFCCC mechanism.”¹³

In June, 49 civil society organisations, networks and communities from recipient countries of the PPCR released a statement imploring the UK government not to offer loans for adaptation through the programme. Signatories included NGO Haiti Survive and the Ngati Hine tribe of Polynesia. It argues that: “Climate loans will only lock our countries into further debt, and further impoverish our people. … The World Bank is dominated by rich countries, and has a long history of failed projects and imposing harmful policy conditions. It is also responsible for pushing projects and policies that have caused climate change through deforestation, supporting harmful extractive industries, and providing financing for fossil fuels.”¹⁴

A June report by UK NGOs World Development Movement and Jubilee Debt Campaign, Climate Loan Sharks: how the UK is making developing countries pay twice for climate change, argues that through its granting of loans for adaptation projects the PPCR is a vehicle for developed countries that have emitted the lion's share of greenhouse gases to avoid their responsibility to help poorer countries cope with the effects of climate change. It finds that the PPCR's “creation and governance lack legitimacy, it is not designed to meet local needs nor build local ownership of projects and lacks transparency. It fails to consistently consider key issues such as gender in its country plans, or meaningfully engage civil society, and overrules national governments' funding priorities.”¹⁵

Institute of Development Studies research

In May 2011 the UK research body Institute of Development Studies (IDS) published a report on the PPCR. They declare that “the CIFs and the PPCR have paved the way for a shift in climate finance sources and delivery mechanisms which establish a longer term role for the World Bank and the MDBs in both financing and implementing mainstreamed adaptation. These forms of finance shift the landscape for action on the ground and further frustrate the ability of those most vulnerable to climate change impacts to shape future adaptation funding flows.” The report highlights a consistent lack of developing country and civil society input in the design process of the PPCR, and a lack of participation for affected communities and civil society groups at country level. This led to “a programme and structure more in tune with the donor and MDB agenda than one which seeks to respond to needs of the most vulnerable and establish true country ownership.”¹⁶

A case study on the PPCR in Mozambique contextualises these critiques. It reveals that the dominant role of MDBs in planning and implementation of the programme meant that it reflected MDB interests as opposed to national priorities for climate resilience. The report concludes that a lack of public engagement and awareness means that “the MDBs undermine the PPCR’s claim that it is ‘designed to catalyse a transformational shift’ in climate change policy and adaptation practice, and increase the risk that it will in fact end up reinforcing rather than transforming ‘business as usual’.”¹⁷

Forest Investment Program (FIP)

Background

The FIP is a financing instrument aimed at assisting countries to reach their goals under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+)ⁱ. It aspires to provide scaled up financing to developing countries to initiate reforms identified in national REDD+ strategies, which detail the policies, activities and other strategic options for achieving REDD+ objectives. It anticipates additional benefits in areas such as biodiversity conservation and protection of the rights of indigenous people.

Updates

Resources and investment plans

See graph 2. for status of contributions to the FIP.

The FIP has eight pilot countries. Of these Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lao PDR and Mexico have all completed joint missions and programming processes and submitted investment plans for endorsement. At the June FIP sub-committee meetings the investment plans from Burkina Faso and DRC were endorsed. The sub-committee approved $1.6 million in FIP resources for preparatory grants in DRC, and $5 million for readiness activities in Burkina Faso. The investment plans from Lao PDR and Mexico will be reviewed at the November sub-committee meetings. Programming processes are continuing in the other four pilot countries, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia and Peru.

Dedicated grant mechanism for indigenous peoples and local communities

At the June meetings Indonesian NGO AMAN and Congolese NGO REPALEAC, members of the working group tasked with designing the dedicated grant mechanism, presented a working draft of the projects implementation plan. The mechanism is supposed to facilitate the active participation of affected communities in FIP investment strategy planning. After reviewing the document, the sub-committee requested that representatives of indigenous peoples groups and local communities, alongside the MDB committee, prepare a final proposal for the mechanism at the November meeting.

Concerns

Quality review of investment plans

At the June 2011 meeting the sub-committee discussed a paper proposing different options for a quality review of FIP investment plans. The paper included two options for the review. The sub-committee noted its general support for the first option: an independent quality review conducted by a single reviewer, but with a significant role for the pilot country and implementing MDB, including the selection of the reviewer and developing the terms of reference for the review.

Norway objected to this option, and instead argued for the second option, which included a roster of expert reviewers more independent from pilot countries and MDBs. Civil society observer Greenpeace supported the Norwegian proposal and urged the establishment of an independent review process, where the quality review would be an impartial third party analysis to help the committee to take informed decisions, rather than the review being a service to the MDBs and the governments themselves.

No decision was taken, and the review is on the agenda for the November meetings. In late August NGOs Greenpeace, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of the Earth USA, Bank Information Centre and Global Witness sent a letter to the CIF administrative unit stating that an “independent review process that would add value must in our view provide a robust independent assessment of whether proposed investment plans and projects meet the FIP objectives, principles and criteria in order to assist the Pilot Countries in designing high quality plans, but also to help inform the members of the sub-committee to determine whether the programmes and projects can achieve the desired transformational results”¹⁸. It asks the sub-committee to consider detailed changes to the proposed review process.

Burkina Faso investment plan

There was a long and substantive debate at the June 2011 sub-committee meetings over both the Burkina Faso and DRC investment plans. Concerns raised in the meetings reflect broader issues currently surrounding debates over REDD+ and FIP. Critical commentators have noted that it is unclear how FIP, which provides large-scale funds for national forest investment strategies under REDD+, relates to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, which provides grants for REDD+ readiness plans. As NGOs Forest Peoples Programme and FERN have noted, “the relationship between investment strategies under the FIP and REDD strategies developed under the FCPF or UNREDD is still unclear and appears to vary between countries.”¹⁹  

At the sub-committee meeting Norway noted that it remained unclear how Burkina Faso’s investment plan builds on readiness activities, and affirmed that the FIP design document stipulates that readiness plans need to inform investment plans. The sub-committee chair noted that there is no obligation for FIP pilot countries to participate in UNREDD or the FCPF, and that it remains unclear exactly what is meant by readiness. The USA then argued that in terms of readiness there needs to be more analysis of what the drivers of deforestation are, and that investments should not be locked in before analytical work has been done. Civil society observer Network for the Environment and Sustainable Development in Central Africa noted that although the plan states that consultations with affected communities took place, there is no information on how concerns raised in consultations were taken into account.

The World Bank then argued that there has been sufficient work done by the government in Burkina Faso, and that the plan should be approved. Reflecting broader concerns around the role of the MDBs in governance arrangements at the CIFs²⁰, Norway questioned the role of MDBs on the committee as defenders of their own programmes. MDBs sit on the committee as non-voting members, but also act as implementing agencies of CIF programmes.

The sub-committee provisionally endorsed the investment plan, on the condition that in completing further readiness activities it take into account comments from the sub-committee, including on drivers of deforestation. It asked the Burkina Faso government and MDBs to submit a revised investment plan. Since then they have also agreed to submit a readiness plan developed using FCPF readiness guidelines.

Democratic Republic of Congo investment plan

The DRC investment plan provoked a similarly extensive and intense discussion amongst sub-committee members. There were a number of issues raised, including on the selection of three similar project sites near urban centres, how the private sector will be involved in the projects, and how indicators from the FIP results framework were included in the plan.ⁱⁱ Discussion also centred on three issues critical to both the DRC plan, and to REDD+ more generally: adequate studies and enabling activities undertaken before locking-in investments, clarity and formalisation of legal reform relating to the land and tenure rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities, and the design of a benefit-sharing mechanisms.

A delegation of Congolese civil society groups argued that there are serious outstanding legal issues concerning the rights of affected communities, and that the DRC readiness plan stipulates that these need to be analysed and reforms implemented before investments take place. They also noted that legal texts on the rights of forest communities in the DRC, developed after over a year of consultations, were still not signed. They also noted that studies on the drivers of deforestation and benefit sharing mechanisms were stipulated in readiness plans but were still not finalised. Greenpeace also raised these concerns, and in addition noted that enabling activities for investments, including those by the private sector, were not adequately developed, and should include adequate and clear legal frameworks, clear land and tenure rights and good governance and law enforcement. This was supported by Norway. Greenpeace requested that legal texts on forest communities were signed, that DRC provide additional information on enabling activities, and that all analysis stipulated in the readiness plans be completed. The UK backed this proposal.

Despite these contentious points the sub-committee endorsed the investment plan, and only included requirements that the DRC and MDBs provide analysis on the barriers to private sector engagement, and that “components of the plan are coordinated, both with each other and with other initiatives in the country, so as to promote synergies and the achievement of sustainable impacts contributing to the objectives of FIP.”

Scaling up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries (SREP)

Background

SREP is still at an early stage of development, having only been approved in May 2009 and launched at the Copenhagen climate summit in December 2009. It aims to catalyse scaled up investment in renewable energy markets in low-income countries by enabling government support for market creation and private sector implementation. At the June 2010 sub-committee meetings six countries were selected for pilot programmes: Ethiopia, Honduras, Kenya, the Maldives, Mali and Nepal.

Updates

Resources

See graph 2. for status of contributions to SREP.

Honduras, Nepal, Mali and Kenya have all completed country planning processes and have submitted investment plans for endorsement. At an intersessional meeting of the sub-committee in September the Kenyan investment plan was endorsed by the sub-committee. As well as requesting the maximum agreed funding from SREP of $50 million, Kenya have also requested $35 million of additional funding from the SREP reserve, which was noted by the sub-committee.

Investment plans from Honduras, Nepal and Mali will go before the sub-committee at the November meetings. Ethiopia and the Maldives are continuing their programming processes alongside the implementing MDBs.

Concerns

Kenya investment plan

Although the Kenyan plan was endorsed by the sub-committee a number of committee members voiced concerns and were invited to submit them in writing before the November meetings. Civil society observer Transparency International pointed out that only one civil society group was consulted on the plan, and requested that others, including the Kenya Climate Change network, are consulted in the further development of the plan. They also noted that in the risk assessments for the project “attention and scrutiny need to be paid to ensure the robust character of consultation practices and the degree to which the views of stakeholders are adequately addressed”.²¹ Ethan Biofuels, a company that serves as private sector observer for SREP, also called for a full disclosure of the entire stakeholder engagement process undertaken when developing the plan.

Transparency International also called for an objective analysis of the institutional capacity and governance of national implementing agencies, which it argues is weak in the investment plan, to ensure they comply with “internationally recognised standards regarding procurement, financial management and environmental and social safeguards”. They also provide substantive comments on the clarity of indicators in the results frameworks and on the availability of key documents.

Amongst the comments provided by sub-committee members were concerns over the development impact of the Kenyan investment plan. Norway questioned the solar-water heating component of the plan, stating that it “may provide important energy efficiency benefits and improved living standards for the urban middle-class, but may only indirectly contribute to poverty reduction.”²²

The UK and Australia also noted that the majority of proposed financing will be to the geothermal component, which does not directly provide energy access benefits, instead relying on “trickle down or indirect effects on access via an increase in grid capacity”²³. This is despite the emphasis in SREP design documents on increasing energy access for poor communities. They agreed with Norway that it is worrying that a large number of indicators in the results framework remain ‘to be confirmed’, including those on relating to development benefits, gender, productive uses of energy and social impacts.

Transparency International also pointed out that investments in the plan total $928 million, with SREP providing $85 million, and the Kenyan government and implementing MDBs co-financing another $453 million. The remaining $242 million will come from development partners and commercial loans. They said that considering the large amount of loans in the project, and the fact that some of these will be non-concessional, “it is reasonable to question whether this financing arrangement would result in increased energy costs to poor communities.”²⁴