TUESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2004
101 African Stock Markets Surge Ahead in 2003
(FR) (Ghana ranked #1, others among world's most profitable) (350)
102 Bush Nominates Three New Ambassadors to African Nations
(FR) (U.S. representatives named to Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire, The Gambia) (280)
103 Text: USDA Announces First Steps To Update Biotech Rules
(FR) (Seeking public comment on proposed Environmental Impact Statement) (680)
104 Text: Bush Signs Omnibus Spending Bill Into Law
(Provides fiscal year 2004 funding for 7 of the 13 regular spending bills)
(160)
105 Excerpt: Survey Shows Business Taking Little Action on
HIV/AIDS
(FR) (Results presented at World Economic Forum) (2750)
*AEF101 01/26/2004
African Stock Markets Surge Ahead in 2003
(FR) (Ghana ranked #1, others among world's most profitable) (350)
Washington -- Africa was home to the world's best performing stock market in 2003 -- Ghana. The Ghana Bourse, with a U.S. dollar return of 144 percent, outpaced 61 markets around the world surveyed by Databank Financial Services, Ltd., according to a January 23 press release from the Corporate Council on Africa (CCA).
Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria and Mauritius were other strong performers in Africa, with returns in U.S. dollar terms exceeding 50 percent in 2003. According to Databank, average returns on African stocks last year reached 44 percent. This compares favorably with a 30 percent return by the MSCI global index (Morgan Stanley Capital International); 32 percent in Europe; 26 percent in the U.S. (Standard & Poor's); and 36 percent in Japan (Nikkei).
The Corporate Council on Africa, a Washington-based organization of more than 190 U.S. companies dedicated to strengthening the U.S.-Africa trade relationship, hailed these findings. According to CCA President Stephen Hayes, the performance of African markets is "another reason why investors should seriously consider Africa's emerging markets as places ripe for investment."
Over the two-year period 2002-2003, the Ghana Bourse led the world with a compounded index return in U.S. dollar terms of 256 percent, CCA's release said. Impressive corporate results, cheap valuations and an improving macroeconomic environment drove Ghana's surging market. In 2003, Standard and Poor's upgraded Ghana's sovereign credit rating to B+.
Databank also found that Kenyan stocks attracted new attention because of a successful political transition in the country, the government's commitment to macroeconomic reforms, government steps to tackle corruption and the resumption of foreign aid.
Rising crude oil prices, exchange and interest rate stability and cheap valuations also lifted Nigerian stocks, according to the release
The vibrancy of Africa's stock markets will be highlighted in New York on February 26, when CCA convenes a conference with the theme "Increasing Capital Flows to Africa."
CCA members represent nearly 85 percent of total U.S. private sector investments in Africa.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of
State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
*AEF102 01/26/2004
Bush Nominates Three New Ambassadors to African Nations
(FR) (U.S. representatives named to Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire, The Gambia) (280)
President George W. Bush nominated U.S. ambassadors to the nations of Eritrea, Cote, D'Ivoire, and The Gambia in a White House statement released January 23.
Scott H. DeLisi, nominated as ambassador to Eritrea, is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service who currently serves as Director of the Office of Southern African Affairs at the State Department. He previously served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Botswana. DeLisi earlier served as a political officer in Colombo, Sri Lanka and Islamabad, Pakistan. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota and his law degree from the University of Minnesota School of Law.
Aubrey Hooks, nominated as ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire, is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and currently serves as U.S. Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Previously, he served as the Economic Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. Mr. Hooks also served at the American embassies in Tel Aviv, Israel and at Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of South Carolina and his master's degree from the University of Michigan.
Joseph D. Stafford III, nominated as ambassador the Republic of The Gambia, is also a member of the Senior Foreign Service and currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. He previously served in the same position for both the U.S. embassies in Tunis, Tunisia, and in Algiers, Algeria. Mr. Stafford earned his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the University of Tennessee.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of
State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
*AEF103 01/26/2004
Text: USDA Announces First Steps To Update Biotech Rules
(FR) (Seeking public comment on proposed Environmental Impact Statement) (680)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) intends to update and strengthen its biotechnology regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms, Agriculture Secretary Anne Veneman announced January 22.
As the first step in this process, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS] to discuss the current regulations and the potential effects of any proposed changes.
A notice in the Federal Register January 23 outlines the issues and alternatives that will be studied in the environmental impact statement and seeks public comment "to further delineate the scope of the issues and alternatives."
Comments concerning the scope of the EIS and of any proposed regulations may be submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery, or e-mail, and must be received by USDA by March 23.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html
Following is a USDA press release:
(begin text)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
January 22, 2004
USDA ANNOUNCES FIRST STEPS TO UPDATE BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATIONS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2004 -- Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced USDA's intention to update and strengthen its biotechnology regulations for the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered (GE) organisms.
"The science of biotechnology is continually evolving, so we must ensure that our regulatory framework remains robust by anticipating and keeping pace with those changes," Veneman said. "A comprehensive environmental impact statement [EIS] is the critical first step in the process. Our regulatory system must be both rigorous and flexible and based on sound science principles and mitigation of risks."
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will prepare an environmental impact statement evaluating its biotechnology regulations and several possible regulation changes, including the development of a multi-tiered, risk-based permitting system to replace the current permit/notification system, along with enhancements to the deregulation process to provide flexibility for long term monitoring. Any proposed changes to the regulations will be science and risk-based.
USDA's APHIS has regulated agriculture biotechnology since 1987, ensuring the safe field testing of more than 10,000 GE organisms and overseeing the deregulation of more than 60 GE products. Over the past several years, the Bush Administration has taken steps to strengthen USDA's biotechnology regulations through the creation of the biotechnology regulatory services program, enhancements to its permitting system for plant-made pharmaceuticals and industrials, and the development of a compliance and enforcement unit to ensure adherence to the agency's regulations.
APHIS welcomes comments and input from stakeholders and the public to assist in determining the scope of the EIS and any proposed regulations. This notice is scheduled for publication in the Jan. 23 Federal Register and is available for viewing today at www.aphis.usda.gov/. APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related information, including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html
Consideration will be given to comments received on or before March 23. Comments may be submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery, or e-mail.
Send an original and three copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. 03-031-2, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238. If you use e-mail, address comments to mailto:regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Comments must be contained in the body the message; do not send attached files. Please include your name and address in the body of the message and use "Docket No. 03-031-2" on the subject line.
Comments may be reviewed in USDA's South Building, Room 1141, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to view comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of
State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
*AEF104 01/26/2004
Text: Bush Signs Omnibus Spending Bill Into Law
(Provides fiscal year 2004 funding for 7 of the 13 regular spending bills) (160)
Following is a statement by the White House press secretary on President Bush's signing January 23 of a major spending bill for the fiscal year that began October 1, 2003:
(begin text)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
January 23, 2004
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
On Friday, January 23, 2004, the President signed into law:
H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, which provides FY 2004 appropriations for seven of the 13 regular appropriations bills. FY 2004 appropriations are included for: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the District of Columbia; International Assistance Programs; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Executive Office of the President; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Corporation for National and Community Service; and many other smaller agencies.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of
State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
*AEF105 01/26/2004
Excerpt: Survey Shows Business Taking Little Action on HIV/AIDS
(FR) (Results presented at World Economic Forum) (2750)
A global survey of business leaders shows that firms are not very active in combating HIV/AIDS, even in the face of expectations that their businesses may be adversely affected by the advance of the epidemic. Commissioned by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, the survey was conducted among almost 7,800 business leaders in 103 nations.
Entitled "Business and HIV/AIDS: Who Me?," the survey also concluded that businesses have made an incomplete assessment of the actual risks they do face from the disease, and have an inaccurate understanding of how widely their workforces are affected by the virus. The findings were presented January 22 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The study also found a correlation between business leaders' outlook on their capability to cope with the epidemic and their opinions about the quality of governance in their nations. Those survey respondents who regard their countries as generally well governed with respect to economic and social policies are also more optimistic about battling the epidemic. Respondents in low-income countries with high rates of disease voiced the most concern about the impact of the epidemic.
"Society would undoubtedly benefit significantly if businesses made a greater contribution to tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic," the report says. It suggests that international leaders must provide more accurate information about the threats of the disease in order to create greater incentive for business to act.
The report is available in full at http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp
Following are excerpts from the report:
(begin excerpt)
Business and HIV/AIDS: Who Me?
A global review of the business response to HIV/AIDS 2003-2004
Introduction
"Business and HIV/AIDS: Who Me?" presents findings from the first global survey of business leaders'opinions on and responses to the threat of HIV/AIDS. The report, which was commissioned as part of the 2003/2004 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, is the first of these publications to address HIV/AIDS. Recognition of the virus's importance by this prestigious and wide-ranging study reflects the growing concern of policy-makers and business leaders across the world. HIV/AIDS is increasingly recognized as a potentially serious threat to economies, businesses and communities.
This report provides an analysis of the data collected by the Global Competitiveness Report's Executive Opinion Survey. The survey gathers the opinions of over seven thousand business leaders in 103 countries, tackling such issues as their concerns over HIV/AIDS, their estimates of HIV prevalence within their firms, and their responses to the disease. It allows us to paint a picture of the type of environment that is most vulnerable to serious impacts of HIV/AIDS on businesses and communities. Geographical location, national incomes and quality of governance are all significantly correlated with firms' perceptions of the virus's likely impact. Responses to the survey highlight which factors are seen by business as most important.
The report is divided into three sections. Part 1 assesses the literature on the impact of HIV/AIDS on economies and businesses. It looks at the areas of a business that are most likely to be affected and at how businesses are measuring the effects.
Part 2 discusses the data from the Executive Opinion Survey, focusing on the questions covering HIV/AIDS. It examines firms' estimates of the scale of the epidemic and its impact on their operations; the nature of that impact; the perceived effect on the communities in which business work; and how businesses have responded to the threat. It also looks at how the policy environment faced by a business can have a major effect on how firms perceive the virus.
Finally, in part 3 of the report, we draw out the main conclusions from the data and offer recommendations for future action. We conclude by making recommendations for the content of future Executive Opinion Surveys.
Executive Summary
HIV/AIDS has become a major global policy issue, with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan describing it as, "not only the world's biggest public health challenge, but in some countries the biggest single obstacle to development". The Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004 (GCR) addresses HIV/AIDS for the first time. This report analyses the results of the GCR Executive Opinion Survey, which asks 7,789 firms in 103 countries about their concerns over and responses to the threat of the virus.
Part 1 assesses studies of the impact of HIV/AIDS on economies and businesses. From the limited evidence available in the existing literature, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Serious macroeconomic impacts are likely to be limited to high HIV prevalence countries.
Individual businesses may see adverse effects in both low- and high-prevalence settings. The effect on the labour force is likely to be most visible and, particularly in hard-hit countries, damaging. The impacts on markets and costs of capital are harder to detect and are likely to be felt, if at all, in the longer term.
For large multinational businesses with high-profile brands and for companies in certain sectors, reputation may be the key driver for action on HIV/AIDS.
Part 2 discusses the Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) data, focusing on the questions covering HIV/AIDS. Only 13% of firms in the survey have conducted quantitative studies of HIV prevalence levels among their workers. 64% nevertheless provide estimates of infection rates, with the majority reporting lower rates than the UNAIDS estimate of overall prevalence in their countries. The disparity between EOS and UNAIDS estimates is greatest in Africa, where 45% of firms report less than 1% prevalence, despite estimates from UNAIDS that just 10% of respondent firms in Africa are located in such low-prevalence countries. Firms that have carried out quantitative surveys report lower infection rates than other firms.
Despite perceived low infection rates among workers, business leaders nevertheless regard HIV/AIDS as a serious problem and are concerned about its impact on their business:
The most concerned firms are based in high-prevalence and low-income countries.
Firms in countries with strong overall governance indicators -- including an effective, open and fair national legislative body with a strong focus on improving health, education and poverty reduction; a favourable business environment; and a free press -- are less concerned about the threat of HIV/AIDS to their businesses than firms in badly-governed settings.
Firms show a similar pattern of concern over the virus's impact on their communities.
Although operating costs are generally not perceived to have increased substantially as a result of the epidemic, firms believe that if their communities are hard hit, they themselves are unlikely to be immune to the effects.
Businesses' response to the epidemic has so far been piecemeal. 83% of firms have no HIV/AIDS-specific written policy. The 6% that do have policies (the remainder do not answer the question) do not always implement them.
Prevention programmes focus primarily on information provision, with employees the main target. A significant proportion also target employees' dependents and surrounding communities.
Care, support and treatment programmes target both employees and their dependants with a range of policies including diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, treatment for opportunistic infections and provision of anti-retroviral drugs
In countries with high HIV-prevalence and low incomes, many respondents are unsatisfied with their firms' existing policies.
Part 3 of the report summarizes the main findings from the EOS data. It draws three important conclusions. First, businesses are not particularly active in combating HIV/AIDS, even when they are concerned about the epidemic's effect on their business. Second, firms are making decisions on what to do about HIV/AIDS without comprehensive knowledge of the risks they face. Few firms have conducted quantitative studies of HIV prevalence among their workforce and, while many are worried about the epidemic, highlighting specific aspects of a business that are likely to be affected proves difficult. Those firms that do provide estimates of prevalence rates among their workers systematically believe that a smaller proportion of their workforce is infected than national prevalence rates would predict.
The third main finding is that businesses are more sanguine about being able to cope with HIV/AIDS if they believe their countries are generally well governed. Businesses appear to support a broad response to the epidemic, involving private and public sectors and nongovernmental organizations. Governments and NGOs are likely to benefit from working in partnership with businesses, providing them with the information they lack and designing incentives to encourage business involvement. ....
Conclusions: What have we learned
Taken as a whole, the Executive Opinion Survey suggests three important conclusions on business and its current level and quality of response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic:
1. Firms are not particularly active in combating HIV/AIDS, even when they expect the epidemic to cause serious problems for their business.
47% of the business leaders polled felt that HIV/AIDS is having or will have some impact on their business, and 21% estimate a serious impact. HIV/AIDS is consistently regarded as a more serious threat than either malaria or tuberculosis, both globally and across all regions.
Respondents do not believe they will be immune to the virus when it makes inroads on their local communities. Businesses estimate roughly the same level of impact on the communities in which they operate as on the firm itself (overall, 20% perceive a serious impact on the community and 21% on the firm). Business leaders' levels of concern about HIV/AIDS also rise in line with prevalence rates in their country of operation. For example, in Africa, where infection rates are highest, 89% of firms report some impact and 60% a serious impact.
Even in areas where prevalence rates are high, there are many firms that do not believe they will be affected by HIV/AIDS. Globally, moreover, fewer than 6% of businesses surveyed have an HIV/AIDS-specific written policy that has received formal approval, and firms that report a serious current or future impact from the epidemic are only twice as likely to have a programme in place. Even among those firms that have conducted workforce surveys, only 15% have board-approved policies
Despite the dearth of policies and programmes, and the inconsistent nature and implementation of those that do exist, 37% of all business leaders are satisfied with their response to HIV/AIDS, despite relatively low levels of activity. However, firms become less sanguine in areas where the epidemic is at its worst.
2. Businesses appear to be making decisions based on a patchy assessment of the risks they face.
Among those who report a severe current or future impact from HIV/AIDS, fewer than 25% can point to specific areas of the business that the virus will affect. Further, two thirds of business leaders have not seen a serious impact against any of the five operating indicators.
This finding suggests one of two scenarios. Either many businesses anticipate that they will face increased costs as a result of HIV/AIDS, but only in the future, or they are drawing on insufficiently sophisticated information to disaggregate the impact of the epidemic from other factors affecting business performance.
Business leaders also find estimating HIV prevalence rates among their workforce problematic. Over a third did not answer this question, and just 18% overall have conducted a quantitative survey among their employees.
Respondents systematically believe that a smaller proportion of their workforce is HIV positive than national prevalence rates would predict, a difference that is more, not less pronounced among those that have carried out studies. This finding suggests that either these businesses are using faulty data, or that their employees are indeed less likely to be infected than average, either due to the type of workers they employ, or to the success of their prevention programmes.
3. Firms seem to favour a broad social response to the epidemic, even if only a small number of businesses currently see themselves as a integral part of that response.
Confidence in managing the threat of HIV/AIDS among businesses is affected by broader perceptions of how well equipped they believe their country to be to cope with a range of other pressing issues. In other words, businesses seem to expect a lesser impact from the epidemic if they live in a society that is generally well governed.
Firms with equal prevalence rates (both self-reported and as reported by UNAIDS country figures) think HIV/AIDS will have less of an effect both on the company and community, the more confident they are in a range of governance, economic policy and social policy indicators. Government transparency, freedom of information and effective poverty reduction programmes are all felt to be helpful by business leaders concerned by HIV/AIDS. In other words, business leaders seem to support the view that serious public health problems merit more than a health-based response.
How to turn back the ‘lethal march'
Society would undoubtedly benefit significantly if businesses made a greater contribution to tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic. However, the observed failure to act suggests that firms lack either information or incentives. In the former case, they may not be able to assess the risks they face, the costs of acting and the potential benefits from successful action accurately. In the latter case, there may be significant externalities, where the benefit from action accrues not just to the business that funds the action, but to the wider society. This suggests an agenda for future action.
Accurate, objective and unbiased information on HIV/AIDS must be generated and disseminated, covering areas such as workforce prevalence, the impact of the epidemic on business at different prevalence levels and the cost effectiveness of business-sponsored prevention activity. Studies must be rigorous in their attention to the potential for externalities, taking account of frequently practiced responses, such as where a business chooses to employ new workers rather than provide benefits for sick workers. There should be particular emphasis on demonstrating, beyond question, specific activities for which business can expect an adequate rate of return for any investment they make.
The potential of business associations and coalitions to tackle HIV/AIDS should continue to be utilized, as firms have a greater incentive to participate in and sponsor prevention activity if they can focus on the problems facing an industry sector or geographical area. Coalitions are also able to share experience and spread the cost of developing tools and approaches, ensuring lower start-up costs and greater efficiencies.
Public-private partnerships should be considered where they capitalize on the relative strengths of and incentives enjoyed by governments, NGOs and businesses. Governments and NGOs should continue to use moral suasion to make firms more likely to act, while being aware of the capacity and financial constraints facing many firms. But governments can also use policy to make action more likely, although they must tread lightly if they are not to generate further ill economic effects. Governments can also design contracts, tax relief programmes and other types of incentives to reward business action or partfund activity through the public purse.
What else we need to know
Inclusion of questions on the impact of HIV/AIDS on business and firms' response to the epidemic is a new component of the Executive Opinion Survey. The results and conclusions of the 2003 study suggest that in future years it will be important for this part of the survey to focus on specific testing of the following set of hypotheses:
--Do businesses perceive AIDS to be a significant business issue?
--What information do they use to assess risks? • Do businesses believe they can respond effectively to the epidemic? Why/why not?
--What are the components of their response? How much do they spend? Can they quantify any benefits they receive?
--What other policy interventions make business more or less likely to respond?
--How do these data vary according to company size, business sector, seniority of respondent, region, national income group and national prevalence rates?
Data that deals with these questions will inform business leaders and policy-makers alike, and equip them to manage the threat of HIV/AIDS more effectively in three key ways.
First, it will provide specific measures of the relationship between business concern and related action on combating the epidemic at firm level, in terms of workforce, customer and community impacts. Second, it will demonstrate the extent of business's ability to quantify and measure the human and financial impacts it is experiencing, or expects to face. And third, it will open up a dialogue between business and policy-makers on how public and private sectors can most effectively collaborate to arrest the ‘lethal march' of HIV/AIDS on a global basis.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of
State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN
$$$$