New Articles

How Modern Networks are Supporting Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Recovery

How Modern Networks are Supporting Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Recovery

Ensuring how lifesaving medicines and supplies are distributed is challenging, especially when it involves moving supplies in a hurry. Whether overseeing how disaster relief services are distributed in a time of crisis or to secure the medical supply chain to help eliminate counterfeit drugs, locking lock down the global supply chain and achieving transparency has never been more critical.

Traditionally, many U.S. based nonprofits have been penalized by potential donors for having high administrative costs. Thanks, in part, to this increased spending scrutiny, investments in technologies that could be transformational in the fight against poverty and disease have been shelved to keep spending at bay and to avoid doling out the high price tag the technology could cost. Dan Pallotta’s Ted Talk called out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities when he urged companies to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments even if that comes with big expense. Having worked with hundreds of nonprofit organizations, I have witnessed their Herculean efforts to get the right aid, to the right people, at the right time despite the fact they were saddled with antiquated technology.  Nonprofit organizations, especially those delivering lifesaving aid, need world-class tools as much, if not more, than for-profit organizations.

Coping with Supply Chain Management Challenges

The sheer number of constituents involved in the aid ecosystem – nonprofits, first responders, governments, funders, suppliers, logistics providers, warehouses, food banks, clinics, etc. – each rely on different systems, applications, and formats that make custom integrations necessary for them to collaborate.

For instance, many non-government organizations (NGOs) are working to end AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa. However, they all face a number of logistical challenges as they deal with naturally occurring data silos that are scattered across various geographic locations. Also, the scale of these programs is massive. In Ethiopia alone there are more than 435,000 square miles with more than 30M people living in poverty.

In the humanitarian arena, challenges are also amplified by poor infrastructure. When it comes to internet speed, most of Africa ranks at the bottom of the list with Ethiopia coming in at 139 out of 196 countries worldwide. And as one could imagine, the internet access declines the further one  travels into more rural areas.

While distributing international aid is challenging, managing a supply chain moving pharmaceuticals is especially difficult. First, there’s a lot of product to deal with and pharmaceuticals require a hyper focus on expiration dates, medical oversight and, for some products including vaccines, a temperature-controlled supply chain.

Then, there is the growing epidemic of fraudulent and counterfeit products that are entering the supply chain. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, substandard and counterfeit drugs cause improper dosing, compromise the effectiveness of medicines and can even lead to overdose and death. The WHO says that one in ten medicines are counterfeit, and 100,000 people in Africa die every year due to counterfeit medicines.

As if the above challenges aren’t bad enough, a disaster can make them exponentially more difficult. Communication problems are magnified, internet access can be lost in affected communities, and new players are introduced. Consequently, needs are changing even more rapidly and time is of the essence.

Humanitarian Aid Reaches a Tipping Point

Nonprofits and the partners they rely on are realizing that the flawed architecture of single enterprise-centric solutions cannot support the highly dynamic and interconnected business environment that is required to deliver aid. Just as cloud-based social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook have created new approaches to how we manage our personal and business relationships, new network platforms and the resulting communities are changing how business is conducted between the end consumer and all the companies on the network.

Similar to when you change your status or job, your entire network has access to this information in real time, and supply chain networks work the same way. With you and all of your partners on the same page at the same time brings unprecedented value to the humanitarian aid ecosystem.

In a network model, costs are reduced for all parties as the network grows, because they are shared by the members. In addition, these networks operate using a monthly subscription fee versus the traditional large up-front costs. This lowers the barrier to entry, provides a predictable ongoing run rate, and enables all parties to leverage the same platform and infrastructure.

In the network model, the technology is by the community for the community. The community defines best practices and as new features are added, they are shared across the network. The technology is evergreen versus stagnant; constituents stay on the leading edge, rather than having to invest in expensive upgrades.

How Networks are Supporting Universal Visibility and Transparency

Sophisticated permissions technology is also enabling new found visibility, as advanced networks can partition data and provide the right information to the right person. Now, logistic providers know the exact location of their trucks, program managers can see who received aid, and funders will see their impact quantified.

Networks also provide a single version of truth to all the constituents so the entire humanitarian ecosystem can be on the same page and focus on the recipients changing needs. This is especially important in a disaster, when every moment counts.

The network can also be used to fight the counterfeit problem as the technology can store a library of authentic products by dosage form all the way down to the molecule. At any point in the supply chain products can be validated to ensure they are legitimate using sophisticated scanners. If a counterfeit product is detected, networks provide the ability to track and trace through serialization which greatly helps in the event of recalls and the removal of counterfeit products.

As more organizations join the network, the value of being a participant increases. New companies will find that many of their business partners are already on the network, which reduces time for on-boarding. This enables the humanitarian response to be agile and expand as required, which is especially important in disaster response because you never know when or where the next disaster will strike. Even with no internet access, some sophisticated network providers offer the ability to work offline and then synch up when an internet connection becomes available. In a disaster response scenario or working in developing countries, this is a game changer. Today, nonprofits have the opportunity to leap frog some traditional challenges and investments. For example, they can skip ERP and go straight to a network platform.

Whether working domestically or internationally, networks give humanitarian organizations transformational abilities that can magnify bottom of pyramid impact. By allowing the supply chain to bypass ERP solutions, participants have the ability to create bi-directional supply chains versus the traditional push model. This enables them to better understand what is needed and ultimately help relieve the suffering for those inflicted.

About the Author:

Melis Jones, Global Marketing Director at One Network Enterprises., a provider of the blockchain-and AI-enabled network platform, The Real Time Value Network.  To learn more, visit https://www.onenetwork.com/ or follow them at@onenetwork

America First: Is U.S. Trade Policy Too Rough, or Too Fast?

With just a few months left until the end of the year, enforcement of the current U.S. Administration’s trade policy agenda remains in full swing. From the renegotiation of NAFTA, to the imposition of two rounds of massive tariffs on China and others, few in the international trade community can point to a period in recent memory when the U.S. has been more active on the global trade stage.

Even the Chair of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement appellate body has signaled an unprecedented challenge in managing its caseload given the “high number and complexity of appeals” currently before the body. The United States has logged no less than 123 disputes as complainant before the dispute settlement panel, even as the U.S. President threatens to pull out of the WTO for perceived “unfair treatment”.

In order to keep open the trade doors of foreign markets, the U.S. must leverage its size as the world’s largest economy. To do so, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) must maintain incentives that go beyond size, and sharpen trade policy attention through five priority areas established by the U.S. President on:

(1) integrating national security in policy decisions; (2) encouraging use of taxes and deregulation to strengthen the U.S. economy; (3) revising or terminating trade agreements that don’t meet current objectives, while creating new ones that do; (4) enforcing U.S. trade laws ranging from invoking a Section 301 investigation under the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 ( for the first time since 2001), to ensuring the Federal Trade Commission reviews labels to prevent unfair export competition; and (5) reforming the multilateral trading system. On the latter, it remains to be seen, what actions the U.S. will take, and how other WTO members will respond.

The American private sector, for its part, depends on USTR’s leadership, to lift barriers to cross-border trade so that it can focus on manufacturing competitive products, managing global value chains with its many foreign partners, and continuing to provide innovative services to consumers. In fact, with the United States being by far the largest exporter of services in the world (to the tune of US$760 billion in 2016), the U.S. service sector, from banking, energy, and courier services, to insurance and information technology, among others, depend on friendly business opportunities overseas to keep their huge profits.

But leadership must be accompanied by diplomacy. Renegotiating trade deals, or implementing new trade policies, only has value when the private sector gains access to better trade opportunities, and economic activity is buoyed in both the affected export and import markets.  According to the U.S. association of “Women in International Trade”,  the only way for the U.S. to have a win-win with its international trade policy, is for the current Administration to demonstrate “…firm, but fair behavior” in its trade dealings. There, the private sector has an important role to play.

If the latest round of U.S. trade policy changes is to have the desired effect, the American private sector, with international supply chains spanning the globe, must take a more active role as a diplomatic buffer, using its huge cross- border, “soft diplomacy” influence to hold open the doors of riled foreign markets that sustain millions of jobs riding on “made in America” exports.

Magda Theodate is an international trade attorney, and global trade facilitation consultant. She has more than a decade of experience applying her legal skills in support of international trade reforms, trade policy development, and governance initiatives that enhance economic development in lower and middle income countries. To learn more, please visit : www.globalexecutivetrade.com

USTR: China Must “Allow Market Forces to Operate”

Washington, D.C. – If China is going to deal successfully with its economic challenges at home, “it must allow market forces to operate, which requires altering the role of the state in planning the economy,” according to the latest Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance compiled by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

The country, the report added, likewise “must reform state-owned enterprises, eliminate preferences for domestic national champions and remove market access barriers currently confronting foreign goods and services.”

The report cited a “dramatic expansion in trade and investment” among China and its many trading partners since the country acceded to the WTO in December 2001.

U.S. exports of goods to China totaled $122 billion in 2013, representing an increase of 535 percent since 2001 and positioning China as the U.S.’ largest goods export market outside of North America, while U.S. services exports reached $38 billion in 2013, representing an increase of 603 percent since 2001.

Services supplied through majority U.S.-invested companies in China also have been increasing dramatically, totaling an additional $39 billion in 2012, the latest year for which data is available.

“Despite these results, however, the overall picture currently presented by China’s WTO membership remains complex, largely due to the Chinese government’s interventionist policies and practices and the large role of state-owned enterprises and other national champions in China’s economy,” the report said.

In 2014, as in past years, when trade frictions have arisen, the U.S. “pursued dialogue with China to resolve them,” it said.

But, when dialogue with China “has not led to the resolution of key trade issues, the United States has not hesitated to invoke the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism.”

Since China’s accession to the WTO, the U.S. has brought 15 WTO cases against China, more than twice as many WTO cases as any other WTO member has brought against China, according to data supplied by the Geneva-headquartered global trade group.

In doing so, “the United States has placed a strong emphasis on the need for China to adhere to WTO rules, holding China fully accountable as a mature participant in, and a major beneficiary of, the WTO’s global trading system,” the USTR report said.

“The United States views economic reform in China as a win-win for the United States and China,” the report concludes “not only because the Chinese government’s interventionist policies and practices and the large role of state-owned enterprises in China’s economy are principal drivers of trade frictions, but also because a sustainable Chinese economy will lead to increased U.S. exports and a more balanced U.S.-China trade and investment relationship will help drive global economic growth.”

12/31/2014

EU Files Boeing 777X Tax Incentive Dispute With WTO

Los Angeles, CA – The European Union (EU) has filed a dispute with the WTO Secretariat in Geneva against the U.S. regarding “conditional tax incentives” offered by the state of Washington to “commercial airplane manufacturers.”

The EU asserts in the dispute – a not-so-veiled slap at Boeing and its new 777X commercial jetliner – that the “vastly expanded tax incentives are conditioned on local content requirements prohibited by the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.”

The request for consultations was made, the European Commission (EC) said, in response to a decision by the state of Washington in November 2013, to extend to 2040 subsidies to Boeing that were originally granted through 2024.

The EC is charging that the broadened subsidies were contrary to the WTO rules, “because they require the beneficiary to use domestic goods rather than imported ones.”

“The subsidies scheme extension is estimated to be worth $8.7 billion and will be the largest subsidy for the civil aerospace industry in U.S. history,” according to a Commission statement.

The 777X is a new version of Boeing’s successful 777 twin-engine wide-body jet. It’s scheduled to go into service in 2020. The company has reportedly received orders amounting to billions of dollars for the aircraft from a number of air carriers.

The EU’s request Friday for consultations is the first step in a dispute within the WTO’s Dispute Settlement System.

WTO rules call for Washington, D.C. to respond to the request within 10 days, but due to the Christmas holidays, the EU has agreed to extend the deadline until January 7.

The consultations will give the U.S. and the EU the opportunity to discuss the dispute and reach a solution without proceeding to litigation. The talks must begin within 30 days and generally cannot last longer than two months.

If both parties fail to reach an agreement, the EU can request that a “panel of experts” be commissioned to study the dispute and reach a verdict.

12/23/2014

WTO: Global Customs Agreement Deal In a Fortnight

Los Angeles, CA – There is a “high probability” that a major deal on streamlining global customs rules will be implemented within two weeks now that the U.S., the European Union and India have reached a compromise agreement on agricultural subsidies.

India said it will sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) as the U.S. and the EU have said they will accept India’s demand that it be allowed to stockpile food without observing the usual World Trade Organization rules on government subsidies and that developing countries be provided flexibility in fixing minimum support price for farm products.

India’s stand plunged the WTO into a crisis that effectively paralyzed the global trade group and risked derailing the customs reforms that are seen affecting an estimated $1 trillion to global trade.

“I would say that we have a high probability that the Bali package will be implemented very shortly,” said WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo. “I’m hopeful that we can do it in a very short period of time, certainly within the next two weeks.”

Implementation of all aspects of the Trade Facilitation Agreement package, he added, “would be a major boost to the WTO, enhancing our ability to deliver beneficial outcomes to all our members.”

Azevedo made his comments ahead of the recent Group of 20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, Australia.

The compromise U.S./EU/India agricultural subsidy deal included no major revision of the original WTO deal struck last December, which provided for India’s food stockpiling to be shielded from legal challenge by a “peace clause.”

A food security law passed by India’s last government expanded the number of people entitled to receive cheap food grains to 850 million.

India recently disclosed that its state food procurement cost $13.8 billion in 2010-11, part of the total of $56.1 billion it spends on farm support. Wheat stocks, at 30 million tons, are more than double official target levels.

The deal, which needs to be backed by all 160 WTO members, has resurrected hopes that the trade body can now push through those reforms, opening the way up for further negotiations.

11/19/2014

U.S., China Planning New Hi-Tech Tariff Cut Agreement

Los Angeles, CA – The U.S. and China have reached an “understanding” on a deal that would eliminate more than 200 tariffs on certain high-tech goods.

Speaking with the media at the current Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Beijing, U.S. officials said that the quasi-agreement is yet to be finalized in detail.

They did say, however, that an agreement would include the phased-out removal of tariffs on such goods as medical devices, global positioning systems, computer software, and video game consoles.

No specific timeline was given on finalizing a broader agreement, which would have to be vetted by the World Trade Organization.

Talks on a proposed hi-tech trade deal collapsed last summer due to disagreements over what products would be covered by an expanded agreement. A finalized deal would mark the first major tariff reduction agreement by the WTO in 17 years.

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), a new agreement would affect $4 trillion in annual trade and dismantle a tariff system that adds as much as 25 percent to the cost of imported high-tech products sold in the U.S.

“We already export over $2 billion of high-tech, high-end semiconductors, even with 25 percent tariffs,” said USTR Michael Froman. “Eliminating those tariffs will obviously expand that trade significantly. It’s an area where we have a comparative advantage, and where we can support a lot of good, well-paying American jobs.”

11/12/2014

WTO Slams US ‘COOL’ Meat Import Labeling Rules

Los Angeles, CA – Canada and Mexico are lauding a finding by the World Trade Organization that the US has failed to bring its Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) meat labeling regulations fully in line with international fair trading rules.

In a joint statement, the governments of Canada and Mexico issued a statement saying, “The WTO has confirmed once again what we have known all along: that the United States’ mandatory COOL requirement for beef and pork is a blatant breach of its international obligations as a member of the WTO.”

The WTO ruling, the statement said, “provides an opportunity for the U.S. to cease this harm and to comply with its international obligations.”

COOL rules require retailers such as grocery stores and meat markets to list the country of origin on the products they sell.

The WTO ruled in June 2012 that the COOL program “unfairly discriminated” against Canadian and Mexican beef and pork imports because it gave “less favorable treatment” to those products than that given US-produced beef and pork in violation of WTO rules.

The US responded, saying that it had met a deadline to change the rules, but Canada and Mexico said it had not done enough.

Unless the revised COOL rules are given the all-clear by the WTO’s Appellate Body, both Mexico and Canada can ask the trade body to let them impose trade sanctions on the US.

US pork producers have urged Congress and the administration to fix the rules and avoid “financially devastating” retaliation, while several other groups including the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, farmer cooperatives and corn refiners said the offending sections should be immediately rescinded.

“The WTO dispute panel on the US Country of Origin Labeling rule brings us all one step closer to facing retaliatory tariffs from two of our largest trading partners,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President Bob McCan.

Canada and Mexico said they “remain extremely disappointed that the United States has continued, to date, to attempt to defend this clearly protectionist policy, which harms trade with the United States’ largest export markets and also hurts domestic US livestock producers and meat processors and retailers.”

10/22/2014

WTO Downgrades Trade Growth Forecasts

Geneva, Switzerland – The World Trade Organization has reduced its forecast for world trade growth in 2014 to 3.1 percent, a significant drop from the 4.6 percent it made in April.

In addition, it also cut its estimate for 2015 to 4.0 percent from its previous 5.3 percent forecast.

The downgrade “comes in response to weaker-than-expected GDP growth and muted import demand in the first half of 2014, particularly in natural resource exporting regions such as South and Central America,” the global trade group said.

Beyond the specific downward revisions, it said, “risks to the forecast remain predominantly on the downside, as global growth remains uneven and as geopolitical tensions and risks have risen,” while “international institutions have significantly revised their GDP forecasts after disappointing economic growth in the first half of the year,” said WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo.

When the last forecast was released in April 2014, conditions for stronger trade growth seemed to be falling into place after a two year slump that saw world merchandise trade grow just 2.2 percent on average during 2012–13, with leading indicators at the time pointing to an upturn in developed economies and Europe in particular.

“Although growth has strengthened somewhat in 2014, it has remained unsteady,” the WTO said with output in the US during the first quarter of this year falling by –2.1 percent, annualized rates and in the second quarter in Germany by –0.6 percent, “sapping global import demand.”

China’s GDP growth also slowed from 7.7 percent in 2013 to 6.1 percent in the first quarter of this year before rebounding in the second. The slow first quarter contributed to weak exports in trading partners.

“As a result of these and other factors, global trade stagnated in the first half of 2014, as the gradual recovery of import demand in developed countries was offset by declines in developing countries,” the WTO said.

Growth in trade and output “is expected to be somewhat stronger in the second half of 2014 as governments and central banks may provide policy support to boost growth, and as idiosyncratic factors such as harsh weather conditions in the US and a sales tax rise in Japan weighted on trade in the first half of this year begin to fade.”

However, the WTO said, “several risk factors on the horizon have the potential to produce worse economic outcomes.”

For example, it said, tensions between the European Union and the US on the one hand and the Russian Federation on the other over Ukraine have already resulted in trade sanctions on certain agricultural commodities, and the number of products affected could widen if the crisis persists.

At the same time, the continuing conflict in the Middle East “is also stoking uncertainty, and could lead to a spike in oil prices if the security of oil supplies is threatened.”

This is the moment, he said, “to remind ourselves that trade can play a positive role here. Cutting trade costs and broadening trade opportunities can be a key ingredient to reversing this trend,” said the WTO’s Azevêdo.

09/24/2014

Economist: India ‘Scuttles’ WTO Trade Talks

Los Angeles, CA – India “has apparently chosen to scuttle the ‘good ship’ WTO-Bali, the first truly multilateral agreement achieved since the founding of the WTO in 1995,” says Dr. Kent Jones, professor of economics at Babson College in Massachusetts.

“This is not the only ship in the WTO fleet, but it is the only one of its kind that has been successfully floated under its multilateral negotiating mandate. It is now taking on water, thereby endangering the entire multilateral trading system,” says Jones, a published author and an acknowledged expert on trade and policy issues who served as a senior economist for trade policy at the US State Department.

India, said Jones, “agreed last December to accept a deal in Bali that combined new rules on trade facilitation with a 2017 timeline on reconciling WTO agricultural rules with India’s food security policies.”

Trade facilitation provisions, he said, “would combine reductions in red tape and improvements in customs logistics with aid for developing countries’ trade infrastructure. The lion’s share of economic welfare gains, estimated at $1 trillion, would flow to developing countries, most of which are not amused at India’s decision to renege on the deal at the last minute.”

India’s system of food subsidies and stockpiling, Jones asserts, “currently runs afoul of WTO agricultural rules, but beyond that requires a wasteful domestic bureaucracy and market distortions that cannot help the poor in a sustainable manner. In addition, it cannot improve agricultural productivity, which is what is really needed for a lasting solution to its food security problem.”

Nonetheless, he adds, “the Bali deal set a moratorium on challenges to such policies until 2017, by which time negotiations on reforming the rules could take place. In the interim, alternatives and compromises could be considered that could allow India’s food security policies to coexist with WTO rules for global markets.”

The new government “feels that this timeline is not good enough, and hopes to hold the globally popular trade facilitation deal hostage in order to force a global agricultural deal immediately that will make its current policy legal under WTO rules. India professes to support trade facilitation, which only lays bare its cynical strategy to renege on its earlier commitments and blame everyone else for failing to re-negotiate,” Jones says.

“DESTRUCTIVE BRINKMANSHIP”

India’s “strategy of brinkmanship appears not only destructive to the WTO’s credibility as a negotiating forum, but to India’s global interests as well. Most major trading countries are so furious at India for breaking its word at Bali that many are planning to implement trade facilitation outside the regular WTO framework, through bilateral, regional or ‘pluritaleral’ agreements,” he says. “Global WTO agreements are the best way to expand trade, but countries have already shown that they will strike their own deals if WTO negotiations break down.”

According to Jones, “These initiatives outside the WTO would deprive India of any leverage in pursuing agricultural rules reform in its favor, while forfeiting its potential leadership role among developing and emerging economies. Brazil and China, in particular, reportedly criticized India’s veto.”

Without a deal forged in Bali, the “peace clause” preventing disputes against India’s agricultural policies would be suspended, which could lead to trade sanctions. India’s export industries would also suffer from abandoning the WTO negotiations. It stands to lose a lot from this misadventure,” he asserts.

“Indian trade diplomats insist that they have presented viable compromise measures that could lead to a new deal in September,” says Jones.

“Diplomats can always walk back from the brink, but it seems clear that there will be no fundamental renegotiation of what was agreed in Bali last December. By throwing rocks in its own harbors, India’s economy will remain tethered to a costly protectionist regime, while the rest of the world will seek other shores—and negotiating venues.”

08/07/2014

WTO Slams China for Lack of Trade Transparency

Los Angeles, CA – China is coming under harsh criticism from the World Trade Organization with members of the 160-nation body asserting that Beijing has failed to live up to key transparency commitments it made when it joined the organization in 2001.

The WTO Secretariat recently released the results of a critical 200-page report on China’s trade policy which concluded that, over the past two years, the country continues to exhibit a lack of clarity, organization and centralization of its trade rules and regulations.

EU ambassador Angelos Pangratis described the lack of clarity on trade issues as “striking,” while Canada’s representative also criticized the “often vague and insufficent information available” from Beijing.

Release of the report came during the WTO’s recent, bi-annual policy review held at the group’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Many of the 50 WTO members who took part in the review also criticized Beijing’s use of export restraints and taxes, restrictions on foreign investments and said it must improve protection for intellectual property rights (IPR).

The US Representative to the WTO, Christopher Wilson, said that China’s “apparently retaliatory conduct” in its use of duties, and said the country appeared to ignore a number of WTO findings against it.”

Wilson added, “An enormous amount of work remains if China is to close significant loopholes in its legal framework and reduce the unacceptably high IPR infringement levels.”

Responding to the WTO report, China’s Assistant Minister of Commerce, Wang Shouwen said its findings were “baseless” and that China “has one of the best track records of implementing WTO rulings.”

But, he added, though China “has made great strides to address these issues…it has pledged to do more to improve transparency.”

07/30/2014