View previous stories
	Livelihoods Development Critical to Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Economic Recovery by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)   In the wake of armed conflict, rebuilding livelihoods is critical to peacebuilding and economic redevelopment, according to a new study launched by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the University of Tokyo, McGill University, and Tufts University.   According to the study, entitled Livelihoods, Natural Resources, and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, reestablishing natural resource-based livelihoods following conflict can strengthen food security, provide employment, help reintegrate ex-combatants and other vulnerable groups, and offer opportunities for cooperation between formerly warring groups.   Edited by Helen Young, a professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and Lisa Goldman, a senior attorney at ELI, the book combines the expertise and field experience of practitioners, researchers, civil society advocates, and others active in livelihoods and post-conflict peacebuilding from around the world. The publication includes 18 cases studies on livelihoods in 16 conflict-affected countries and territories in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East. Together, these case studies illustrate a theory of change that underlies post-conflict livelihood interventions based on sustainable natural resource management.   The book examines post-conflict initiatives spanning a broad range of natural resource‒based livelihoods, including agricultural development, land tenure, pastoralism, fisheries and coastal management, forest governance, protected area management and ecotourism, and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR).   These case studies illustrate some of the challenges inherent in post-conflict livelihoods programming: how to balance trade-offs, how to prioritize and sequence livelihoods interventions, how to undertake institutional reform, and the advantages and disadvantages of a market-based approach. At the same time, there is no uniform approach that can work in every case. Theoretical approaches must be informed by best practices that are rooted in messy, complex local realities.   "Rebuilding livelihoods in post conflict countries is a critical component of peacebuilding and economic recovery. Where conflict-affected communities rely on natural resources for livelihood security, peacebuilding solutions must address the livelihood needs of poor and vulnerable populations to ensure the sustainable management of these resources in the context of future national development planning and encourage the equitable distribution of development assistance," said United Nations Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.   "This publication is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the role of livelihoods and natural resources in post-conflict peacebuilding," noted Jan Egeland, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council. "If we are to build robust and peaceful societies, nothing is more important than creating and sustaining livelihoods."   From informal community-based institutions to government ministries, from local customs to formal laws and regulations, experiences highlighted in the book illustrate the important role institutions and policies in fostering innovative approaches to managing natural resources in a more sustainable, economically productive manner. The findings also emphasize the critical need for a participatory approach that incorporates the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders.   "The case studies provide practical lessons in designing and implementing livelihoods programs in post-conflict countries for national officials, development practitioners, and local community groups," stated ELI Acting President Scott Schang. "These lessons can help improve livelihoods initiatives going forward."   "Where livelihoods are given priority, peacebuilding can promote the sustainable use of natural resources, increase cooperation between opposing groups, provide basic services to the poor and those most in need of resources, create income-generating opportunities for local communities, and enhance both regional security and resilience in the face of recurring shocks and instability," emphasized co-editor Helen Young. Visit the related web page
	Ten Reasons to Defend the Corporate Income Tax by Tax Justice Network   Transnational corporations (TNCs) and their entourage of ‘advisers’ argue that corporate income tax is the biggest ‘barrier to growth’. Their allies in national governments dutifully join a ‘race to the bottom’ to cut corporate tax and encourage TNCs to invest in their countries, rather than anywhere else.   This does little to resolve the problems of the global economy, but it does allow the more disreputable among national governments to claim they’re attracting beloved TNCs to their shores.   Around the world, while unjust or ‘regressive’ taxes on the general population, like consumption or ‘value added’ taxes, have been rising, more equitable ‘progressive’ taxes on the wealth of the rich, like TNCs, have been falling, as services relied on by the public at large are slashed by their supposedly ‘bankrupt’ governments.   If the trend continues, and corporate taxes eventually fall to zero, then the logical conclusion will be for people to become corporations, rather than corporations to become people (as, in terms of legal status, they already are), and pay no income tax at all.   The Tax Justice Network summarizes its findings like this:   The corporate income tax is under attack. Nation states are scrambling to offer multinational corporations an ever growing feast of lower taxes, loopholes and incentives. Lobbyists and politicians constantly try to persuade us that the corporate tax is a bad, inefficient, unreasonable tax. Yet it is one of the most precious of all taxes.   Corporate income taxes have added up to almost $7.5 trillion since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, in OECD (rich) countries alone. This is nearly half of all OECD public health spending and around double the amount spent on public tertiary education, one of the fundamental underpinnings of corporate profits. It is even more important for developing countries.   And yet the corporate tax is disappearing fast. Average headline tax rates are around half what they were in 1980, and on current trends will reach zero in the next two or three decades. We may not even have this much time, given the influence of the large accountancy firms and corporate lobbyists actively working to hasten its demise.   Since the 1970s multinational corporate profits have soared but the constant attacks on the corporate tax mean nation states are capturing a dwindling share of this bonanza. The result is greater inequality, higher taxes for poorer sections of society, distorted markets, and rising fears of plutocracy.   Our report outlines 10 reasons why it is essential to defend the corporate income tax. In summary, these are:   1. Corporate income taxes raise essential revenue for schools, hospitals and the rule of law.   2. Less well understood is the fact that the corporate tax helps hold the whole tax system together: without it, people will stash their money in zero-tax corporate structures and defer or even escape tax entirely.   3. The corporate income tax curbs inequality and protects democracy. The tax charge falls largely on the wealthy owners of capital: without it, corporations and their wealthy owners free-ride off the public services paid for by others.   4. Corporate taxes enhance national welfare. So-called ‘competitive’ tax-cutting is fool’s gold, particularly for the larger economies.   5. Corporate tax cuts, incentives and loopholes ricochet around the world. A tax cut in one place may suck capital out of others and prompt other jurisdictions to follow suit, in a race to the bottom where the only winners are the very wealthiest sections of society.   6. The corporate income tax is particularly important for developing countries, which rely more heavily on it than rich countries do.   7. Corporate taxes can rebalance economies. Corporations around the world are hoarding cash, not investing it. Corporate taxes harness this idle cash and put it to productive uses, via government spending on education, roads and other public services.   8. The corporate tax curbs rent-seeking [profiting from profits]. Because rent-seeking tends to be more profitable than genuine productive activity, the corporate tax falls more heavily on it.   9. Tax cuts and special incentives don’t stop at zero: they turn negative. In this race to below the bottom there is no limit on corporations’ zeal for free-riding off public goods and subsidies paid for by others.   10. Corporate taxes spur transparency and more accountable government. To collect the tax, states must put in place good tracking measures.   Our document also addresses seven common myths about the tax: that it’s fine because tax avoidance ‘is legal’; that taxes are ‘too high’; that tax is ‘theft’; that the corporate tax is unfair ‘double tax’; that it is inefficient and should be replaced by VAT; that corporate directors have a fiduciary duty to minimize tax; that the tax falls most heavily on ‘workers’; and that the Laffer Curve [declining revenues from higher taxes] and so-called Dynamic Scoring [of incentive effects] are useful guides to policy.   In short, the corporate income tax is worth fighting for.   The full report, and a shorter summary, are free to download from the Tax Justice Network website: http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/03/18/new-report-ten-reasons-to-defend-the-corporate-income-tax/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/03/development-and-taxes-a-vital-piece-of-the-post-2015-puzzle/ http://www.taxjustice.net/2014/01/17/price-offshore-revisited/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories