India and the European Union have given the World Trade Organization lists of the U.S. products that could incur high tariffs in retaliation for U.S. President Donald Trump’s global tariffs on steel and aluminum, WTO filings showed Friday.

The EU said Trump’s steel tariffs could cost $1.5 billion and aluminum tariffs a further $100 million, and listed rice, cranberries, bourbon, corn, peanut butter, and steel products among the U.S. goods that it might target for retaliation.

India said it was facing additional U.S. tariffs of $31 million on aluminum and $134 million on steel, and listed U.S. exports of soya oil, palmolein and cashew nuts among its potential targets for retaliatory tariffs.

One trade official described the lists of retaliatory tariffs as “loading a gun,” making it plain to U.S. exporters that pain might be on the way.

India said its tariffs would come into effect by June 21, unless and until the United States removed its tariffs.

The EU said some retaliation could be applied from June 20.

Trump’s tariffs, 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, came into force in March to strong opposition as many see the measures as unjustified and populist.

There were also objections that the tariffs would have little impact on China, widely seen to be the cause of oversupply in the market.

Trump justified the tariffs by claiming they were for U.S. national security, in a bid to protect them from any legal challenge at the WTO, causing further controversy.

Rather than challenging the U.S. tariffs directly, the EU and India, like China, South Korea and Russia, told the United States that they regarded Trump’s tariffs as “safeguards” under the WTO rules, which means U.S. trading partners are entitled to compensation for loss of trade.

The United States disagrees.
…

India and the European Union have given the World Trade Organization lists of the U.S. products that could incur high tariffs in retaliation for U.S. President Donald Trump’s global tariffs on steel and aluminum, WTO filings showed Friday.

The EU said Trump’s steel tariffs could cost $1.5 billion and aluminum tariffs a further $100 million, and listed rice, cranberries, bourbon, corn, peanut butter, and steel products among the U.S. goods that it might target for retaliation.

India said it was facing additional U.S. tariffs of $31 million on aluminum and $134 million on steel, and listed U.S. exports of soya oil, palmolein and cashew nuts among its potential targets for retaliatory tariffs.

One trade official described the lists of retaliatory tariffs as “loading a gun,” making it plain to U.S. exporters that pain might be on the way.

India said its tariffs would come into effect by June 21, unless and until the United States removed its tariffs.

The EU said some retaliation could be applied from June 20.

Trump’s tariffs, 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, came into force in March to strong opposition as many see the measures as unjustified and populist.

There were also objections that the tariffs would have little impact on China, widely seen to be the cause of oversupply in the market.

Trump justified the tariffs by claiming they were for U.S. national security, in a bid to protect them from any legal challenge at the WTO, causing further controversy.

Rather than challenging the U.S. tariffs directly, the EU and India, like China, South Korea and Russia, told the United States that they regarded Trump’s tariffs as “safeguards” under the WTO rules, which means U.S. trading partners are entitled to compensation for loss of trade.

The United States disagrees.
…

China has dropped an anti-dumping investigation and given long awaited approval for the sale of Toshiba’s memory chip business, in gestures that could suggest a thaw between Beijing and the U.S. as trade talks resumed in Washington.

The Commerce Ministry said Friday ended the probe into imported U.S. sorghum because it’s not in the public interest. A day earlier, Beijing cleared the way for a group led by U.S. private equity firm Bain Capital to buy Toshiba Corp.’s computer memory chip business.

The moves signaled Beijing’s willingness to make a deal with Washington amid talks between senior U.S. and Chinese officials aimed at averting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, analysts say.

“I think China is willing to make concessions,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS. “The Chinese stance has been very clear, that China wants to mute any trade dispute. But of course it doesn’t mean China would heed to all the demands the U.S. would place.”

A White House official said China had offered to work to cut the trade deficit with the U.S. by $200 billion, while stressing that the details remained unclear. But China’s Foreign Ministry denied it.

“It’s untrue,” said spokesman Lu Kang. “The relevant discussion is still underway, and it is constructive.”

The Commerce Ministry said it was ending the anti-dumping probe and a parallel anti-subsidy investigation because they would have raised costs for consumers.

The U.S. is China’s biggest supplier of sorghum, accounting for more than 90 percent of total imports. China’s investigation, launched in February, had come as a warning shot to American farmers, many of whom support the Trump administration yet depend heavily on trade. They feared they would lose their largest export market for the crop, which is used primarily for animal feed and liquor.

The Commerce Ministry said that, “Anti-dumping and countervailing measures against imported sorghum originating in the United States would affect the cost of living of a majority of consumers and would not be in the public interest,” according to a notice posted on its website.

It said it had received many reports that the investigation would result in higher costs for the livestock industry, adding that many domestic pig farmers were facing hardship because of declining pork prices.

China’s U.S. sorghum imports surged from 317,000 metric tons in 2013 to 4.76 million tons last year while prices fell by about a third in the same period.

The ministry said any deposits for the preliminary anti-dumping tariffs of 178.6 percent, which took effect on April 18, would be returned in full.

The announcement came after President Donald Trump met at the White House with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, the leader of China’s delegation for talks with a U.S. team headed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Trump had told reporters earlier that he had doubts about the potential for an agreement. He also raised fresh uncertainty about resolving a case involving Chinese tech company ZTE, which was hit with a crippling seven-year ban on buying from U.S. suppliers, forcing it to halt major operations. Trump said the company “did very bad things” to the U.S. economy and would be a “small component of the overall deal.”

Song Lifang, an economics professor and trade expert at Renmin University, said haggling is currently underway.

“It’s time for both to present their demands, but it’s also a time to exhibit their bargaining chips,” said Song, adding that approval for the Toshiba deal, worth $18 billion, was “an apparent sign of thaw” amid a U.S. investigation into Chinese trade practices requiring U.S. companies to turn over their technology in exchange for access to China’s market.

The Trump administration has proposed tariffs on up to $150 billion in Chinese products to punish Beijing while China has responded by targeting $50 billion in U.S. imports. Neither country has yet imposed tariffs.
…

China has dropped an anti-dumping investigation and given long awaited approval for the sale of Toshiba’s memory chip business, in gestures that could suggest a thaw between Beijing and the U.S. as trade talks resumed in Washington.

The Commerce Ministry said Friday ended the probe into imported U.S. sorghum because it’s not in the public interest. A day earlier, Beijing cleared the way for a group led by U.S. private equity firm Bain Capital to buy Toshiba Corp.’s computer memory chip business.

The moves signaled Beijing’s willingness to make a deal with Washington amid talks between senior U.S. and Chinese officials aimed at averting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, analysts say.

“I think China is willing to make concessions,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS. “The Chinese stance has been very clear, that China wants to mute any trade dispute. But of course it doesn’t mean China would heed to all the demands the U.S. would place.”

A White House official said China had offered to work to cut the trade deficit with the U.S. by $200 billion, while stressing that the details remained unclear. But China’s Foreign Ministry denied it.

“It’s untrue,” said spokesman Lu Kang. “The relevant discussion is still underway, and it is constructive.”

The Commerce Ministry said it was ending the anti-dumping probe and a parallel anti-subsidy investigation because they would have raised costs for consumers.

The U.S. is China’s biggest supplier of sorghum, accounting for more than 90 percent of total imports. China’s investigation, launched in February, had come as a warning shot to American farmers, many of whom support the Trump administration yet depend heavily on trade. They feared they would lose their largest export market for the crop, which is used primarily for animal feed and liquor.

The Commerce Ministry said that, “Anti-dumping and countervailing measures against imported sorghum originating in the United States would affect the cost of living of a majority of consumers and would not be in the public interest,” according to a notice posted on its website.

It said it had received many reports that the investigation would result in higher costs for the livestock industry, adding that many domestic pig farmers were facing hardship because of declining pork prices.

China’s U.S. sorghum imports surged from 317,000 metric tons in 2013 to 4.76 million tons last year while prices fell by about a third in the same period.

The ministry said any deposits for the preliminary anti-dumping tariffs of 178.6 percent, which took effect on April 18, would be returned in full.

The announcement came after President Donald Trump met at the White House with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, the leader of China’s delegation for talks with a U.S. team headed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Trump had told reporters earlier that he had doubts about the potential for an agreement. He also raised fresh uncertainty about resolving a case involving Chinese tech company ZTE, which was hit with a crippling seven-year ban on buying from U.S. suppliers, forcing it to halt major operations. Trump said the company “did very bad things” to the U.S. economy and would be a “small component of the overall deal.”

Song Lifang, an economics professor and trade expert at Renmin University, said haggling is currently underway.

“It’s time for both to present their demands, but it’s also a time to exhibit their bargaining chips,” said Song, adding that approval for the Toshiba deal, worth $18 billion, was “an apparent sign of thaw” amid a U.S. investigation into Chinese trade practices requiring U.S. companies to turn over their technology in exchange for access to China’s market.

The Trump administration has proposed tariffs on up to $150 billion in Chinese products to punish Beijing while China has responded by targeting $50 billion in U.S. imports. Neither country has yet imposed tariffs.
…

The European Commission is proposing that EU governments make direct money transfers to Iran’s central bank to avoid U.S. penalties, an EU official said, in what would be the most forthright challenge to Washington’s newly reimposed sanctions.

The step, which would seek to bypass the U.S. financial system, would allow European companies to repay Iran for oil exports and repatriate Iranian funds in Europe, a senior EU official said, although the details were still to be worked out.

The European Union, once Iran’s biggest oil importer, is determined to save the nuclear accord, that U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned on May 8, by keeping money flowing to Tehran as long as the Islamic Republic complies with the 2015 deal to prevent it from developing an atomic weapon.

“Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has proposed this to member states. We now need to work out how we can facilitate oil payments and repatriate Iranian funds in the European Union to Iran’s central bank,” said the EU official, who is directly involved in the discussions.

The U.S. Treasury announced on Tuesday more sanctions on officials of the Iranian central bank, including Governor Valiollah Seif,. But the EU official said the bloc believes that does not sanction the central bank itself.

European Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete will discuss the idea with Iranian officials in Tehran during his trip this weekend, the EU official said. Then it will be up to EU governments to take a final decision.

EU leaders in Sofia this week committed to uphold Europe’s side of the 2015 nuclear deal, which offers sanctions relief in return for Tehran shutting down its capacity, under strict surveillance by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to stockpile enriched uranium for a possible atomic bomb.

Sanctions-blocking law

Other measures included renewing a sanctions-blocking measure to protect European businesses in Iran.

The Commission said in a statement it had “launched the formal process to activate the Blocking Statute by updating the list of U.S. sanctions on Iran falling within its scope,” referring to an EU regulation from 1996.

The EU’s blocking statute bans any EU company from complying with U.S. sanctions and does not recognize any court rulings that enforce American penalties. It was developed when the United States tried to penalize foreign companies trading with Cuba in the 1990s, but has never been formally implemented.

EU officials say they are revamping the blocking statute to protect EU companies against U.S. Iran-related sanctions, after the expiry of 90- and 180-day wind-down periods that allow companies to quit the country and avoid fines.

A second EU official said the EU sanctions-blocking regulation would come into force on August 5, a day before U.S.

sanctions take effect, unless the European Parliament and EU governments formally rejected it.

“This has a strong signaling value, it can be very useful to companies but it is ultimately a business decision for each company to make [on whether to continue to invest in Iran],” the official said.

Once Iran’s top trading partner, the EU has sought to pour billions of euros into the Islamic Republic since the bloc, along with the United Nations and United States, lifted blanket economic sanctions in 2016 that had hurt the Iranian economy.

Iran’s exports of mainly fuel and other energy products to the EU in 2016 jumped 344 percent to 5.5 billion euros ($6.58 billion) compared with the previous year.

EU investment in Iran, mainly from Germany, France and Italy, has jumped to more than 20 billion euros since 2016, in projects ranging from aerospace to energy.

Other measures proposed by the Commission, the EU executive, include urging EU governments to start the legal process of allowing the European Investment Bank to lend to EU projects in Iran.

Under that plan, the bank could guarantee such projects through the EU’s common budget, picking up part of the bill should they fail or collapse. The measure aims to encourage companies to invest.
…

The European Commission is proposing that EU governments make direct money transfers to Iran’s central bank to avoid U.S. penalties, an EU official said, in what would be the most forthright challenge to Washington’s newly reimposed sanctions.

The step, which would seek to bypass the U.S. financial system, would allow European companies to repay Iran for oil exports and repatriate Iranian funds in Europe, a senior EU official said, although the details were still to be worked out.

The European Union, once Iran’s biggest oil importer, is determined to save the nuclear accord, that U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned on May 8, by keeping money flowing to Tehran as long as the Islamic Republic complies with the 2015 deal to prevent it from developing an atomic weapon.

“Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has proposed this to member states. We now need to work out how we can facilitate oil payments and repatriate Iranian funds in the European Union to Iran’s central bank,” said the EU official, who is directly involved in the discussions.

The U.S. Treasury announced on Tuesday more sanctions on officials of the Iranian central bank, including Governor Valiollah Seif,. But the EU official said the bloc believes that does not sanction the central bank itself.

European Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete will discuss the idea with Iranian officials in Tehran during his trip this weekend, the EU official said. Then it will be up to EU governments to take a final decision.

EU leaders in Sofia this week committed to uphold Europe’s side of the 2015 nuclear deal, which offers sanctions relief in return for Tehran shutting down its capacity, under strict surveillance by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to stockpile enriched uranium for a possible atomic bomb.

Sanctions-blocking law

Other measures included renewing a sanctions-blocking measure to protect European businesses in Iran.

The Commission said in a statement it had “launched the formal process to activate the Blocking Statute by updating the list of U.S. sanctions on Iran falling within its scope,” referring to an EU regulation from 1996.

The EU’s blocking statute bans any EU company from complying with U.S. sanctions and does not recognize any court rulings that enforce American penalties. It was developed when the United States tried to penalize foreign companies trading with Cuba in the 1990s, but has never been formally implemented.

EU officials say they are revamping the blocking statute to protect EU companies against U.S. Iran-related sanctions, after the expiry of 90- and 180-day wind-down periods that allow companies to quit the country and avoid fines.

A second EU official said the EU sanctions-blocking regulation would come into force on August 5, a day before U.S.

sanctions take effect, unless the European Parliament and EU governments formally rejected it.

“This has a strong signaling value, it can be very useful to companies but it is ultimately a business decision for each company to make [on whether to continue to invest in Iran],” the official said.

Once Iran’s top trading partner, the EU has sought to pour billions of euros into the Islamic Republic since the bloc, along with the United Nations and United States, lifted blanket economic sanctions in 2016 that had hurt the Iranian economy.

Iran’s exports of mainly fuel and other energy products to the EU in 2016 jumped 344 percent to 5.5 billion euros ($6.58 billion) compared with the previous year.

EU investment in Iran, mainly from Germany, France and Italy, has jumped to more than 20 billion euros since 2016, in projects ranging from aerospace to energy.

Other measures proposed by the Commission, the EU executive, include urging EU governments to start the legal process of allowing the European Investment Bank to lend to EU projects in Iran.

Under that plan, the bank could guarantee such projects through the EU’s common budget, picking up part of the bill should they fail or collapse. The measure aims to encourage companies to invest.
…

Switzerland’s government has requested a report into the risks and opportunities of launching its own cryptocurrency, a so-called “e-franc” that would use technology similar to privately launched coins like bitcoin but have backing of the state.

The lower house of the Swiss parliament must now decide whether to back the Federal Council’s request for a study into the subject, which has been discussed in Sweden.

Cryptocurrencies have drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and international governing bodies coming to grips with the technology’s rapid ascent. The coins use encryption and a blockchain transaction database designed to enable anonymous transactions that do not require centralized processing.

Other countries interested

Several countries have begun evaluating the viability of introducing their own state-backed digital currency, with Sweden’s Riksbank saying an e-crown might help counteract issues arising from declining cash use and help make payment systems more robust.

But existing digital currencies such as bitcoin have been hampered by extreme volatility, high-profile hacks and doubts about long-term viability. Venezuela has issued a state-backed coin, but major developed economies have so far steered clear.

The Bank of International Settlement in March warned central banks to think hard about potential risks and spillovers before issuing their own cryptocurrencies.

Swiss bank cautious

In Switzerland, if the proposal is approved, a study will be produced by the Swiss finance ministry. No timing has been given on when it would be published should the go-ahead be given.

Swiss lawmaker Cedric Wermuth, vice president of the Social Democratic Party, called for the study. In its response Thursday, the Swiss government, or Federal Council, backed the proposal to look into it, although it said there were hurdles.

“The Federal Council is aware of the major challenges, both legal and monetary, which would be accompanied by the use of an e-franc,” it said. “It asks that the proposal be adopted to examine the risks and opportunities of an e-franc and to clarify the legal, economic and financial aspects of the e-franc.”

The Swiss National Bank has so far been cautious on the issue. Private-sector digital currencies were better and less risky than any version that might be offered by a central bank, SNB governor Andrea Maechler said last month.
…

Switzerland’s government has requested a report into the risks and opportunities of launching its own cryptocurrency, a so-called “e-franc” that would use technology similar to privately launched coins like bitcoin but have backing of the state.

The lower house of the Swiss parliament must now decide whether to back the Federal Council’s request for a study into the subject, which has been discussed in Sweden.

Cryptocurrencies have drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and international governing bodies coming to grips with the technology’s rapid ascent. The coins use encryption and a blockchain transaction database designed to enable anonymous transactions that do not require centralized processing.

Other countries interested

Several countries have begun evaluating the viability of introducing their own state-backed digital currency, with Sweden’s Riksbank saying an e-crown might help counteract issues arising from declining cash use and help make payment systems more robust.

But existing digital currencies such as bitcoin have been hampered by extreme volatility, high-profile hacks and doubts about long-term viability. Venezuela has issued a state-backed coin, but major developed economies have so far steered clear.

The Bank of International Settlement in March warned central banks to think hard about potential risks and spillovers before issuing their own cryptocurrencies.

Swiss bank cautious

In Switzerland, if the proposal is approved, a study will be produced by the Swiss finance ministry. No timing has been given on when it would be published should the go-ahead be given.

Swiss lawmaker Cedric Wermuth, vice president of the Social Democratic Party, called for the study. In its response Thursday, the Swiss government, or Federal Council, backed the proposal to look into it, although it said there were hurdles.

“The Federal Council is aware of the major challenges, both legal and monetary, which would be accompanied by the use of an e-franc,” it said. “It asks that the proposal be adopted to examine the risks and opportunities of an e-franc and to clarify the legal, economic and financial aspects of the e-franc.”

The Swiss National Bank has so far been cautious on the issue. Private-sector digital currencies were better and less risky than any version that might be offered by a central bank, SNB governor Andrea Maechler said last month.
…

The United States sought on Thursday to further choke off funding sources for Iranian-backed Hezbollah, imposing sanctions on its representative to Iran, as well as a major financier and his five companies in Europe, West Africa and the Middle East.

The U.S. Treasury said Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi was a Hezbollah financier operating through Belgium, Lebanon and Iraq, and was a close associate of Gambia’s former president Yahya Jammeh, who is accused of acquiring vast wealth during his decades-long rule.

It also imposed sanctions on Hezbollah’s representative to Iran, Abdallah Safi Al-Din, who it said served as an interlocutor between Hezbollah and Iran on financial issues.

The department said it had blacklisted Belgian energy services conglomerate Global Trading Group; Gambia-based petroleum company Euro African Group; and Lebanon-based Africa Middle East Investment Holding, Premier Investment Group SAL Offshore and import-export group Car Escort Services. All were designated because they are owned or controlled by Bazzi, the Treasury said.

“The savage and depraved acts of one of Hezbollah’s most prominent financiers cannot be tolerated,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

“This administration will expose and disrupt Hezbollah and Iranian terror networks at every turn, including those with ties to the Central Bank of Iran,” he said.

The sanctions are among a slew of fresh measures aimed at Iran and Hezbollah since U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal last week.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is set to outline in a speech in Washington on Monday plans by the United States to build a coalition to look closer at what it sees as Iran’s “destabilizing activities,” spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters at the State Department.

In one of the biggest moves this week aimed at clamping down on Iran’s overseas operations, the Treasury sanctioned Iran’s central bank governor, Valiollah Seif.

On Wednesday, the United States, backed by Gulf States, imposed additional sanctions on Hezbollah’s top two leaders, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Naim Qassem.
…

The United States sought on Thursday to further choke off funding sources for Iranian-backed Hezbollah, imposing sanctions on its representative to Iran, as well as a major financier and his five companies in Europe, West Africa and the Middle East.

The U.S. Treasury said Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi was a Hezbollah financier operating through Belgium, Lebanon and Iraq, and was a close associate of Gambia’s former president Yahya Jammeh, who is accused of acquiring vast wealth during his decades-long rule.

It also imposed sanctions on Hezbollah’s representative to Iran, Abdallah Safi Al-Din, who it said served as an interlocutor between Hezbollah and Iran on financial issues.

The department said it had blacklisted Belgian energy services conglomerate Global Trading Group; Gambia-based petroleum company Euro African Group; and Lebanon-based Africa Middle East Investment Holding, Premier Investment Group SAL Offshore and import-export group Car Escort Services. All were designated because they are owned or controlled by Bazzi, the Treasury said.

“The savage and depraved acts of one of Hezbollah’s most prominent financiers cannot be tolerated,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

“This administration will expose and disrupt Hezbollah and Iranian terror networks at every turn, including those with ties to the Central Bank of Iran,” he said.

The sanctions are among a slew of fresh measures aimed at Iran and Hezbollah since U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal last week.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is set to outline in a speech in Washington on Monday plans by the United States to build a coalition to look closer at what it sees as Iran’s “destabilizing activities,” spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters at the State Department.

In one of the biggest moves this week aimed at clamping down on Iran’s overseas operations, the Treasury sanctioned Iran’s central bank governor, Valiollah Seif.

On Wednesday, the United States, backed by Gulf States, imposed additional sanctions on Hezbollah’s top two leaders, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Naim Qassem.
…

The United Nations is forecasting that the global economy will expand by more than 3 percent this year and next year — but it warns that increasing risks could trigger “a shock to investment and trade” and a sharp drop to 1.8 percent growth in 2019.

The U.N.’s mid-year report on the World Economic Situation and Prospects launched Thursday says growth in the world economy is surpassing expectations, reflecting further economic expansion in developed countries and broadly favorable investment conditions.

However, the report said, “downside risks” have increased including “a rise in the probability of trade conflicts between major economies.”

Dawn Holland, chief of the U.N.’s Global Economic Monitoring Branch, cited the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs in January and proposed new tariffs against China as well as the renegotiation of the U.S. trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, which has left “a void of uncertainty.”

There are also negotiations between the European Union and the United States partly linked to tariffs on steel, she said, and an increasing number of disputes have been raised with the World Trade Organization over the last six months.

The report said other factors also pose risks including uncertainty over monetary policy, increasing debt levels, and greater geopolitical tensions including in the Korean peninsula, Middle East, South China Sea and Ukraine.

But the U.N.’s assessment was generally upbeat citing continued economic improvements over the last several months including accelerating wage growth, improved investment prospects, and the short-term impact of the U.S. fiscal stimulus package.

“Many commodity-exporting countries will also benefit from the higher level of energy and metal prices,” the report said.

According to the U.N., world growth is now forecast to reach 3.2 percent in both 2018 and 2019, up from its forecast in December of 3 percent growth this year and 3.1 percent next year.

While many countries will experience growth, the report said output is expected to decline in central Africa and southern Africa, the report said. And the forecast for economies in transition including Russia and the world’s poorest countries have been revised “marginally downward” for 2018.

Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development Elliott Harris cautioned, however, that “there is a strong need not to become complacent in response to upward trending headline figures.”

The report not only highlights the risks to economic growth but “the need to urgently address a number of policy challenges, including threats to the multilateral trading system, high inequality and the renewed rise in carbon emissions,” he told a press conference launching the report.

And it warned that if trade tensions and barriers were to “spiral over the course of 2018, through widespread retaliations and extensive disruption to global value chains, this could trigger a sharp drop in global investment and trade.”
…

The United Nations is forecasting that the global economy will expand by more than 3 percent this year and next year — but it warns that increasing risks could trigger “a shock to investment and trade” and a sharp drop to 1.8 percent growth in 2019.

The U.N.’s mid-year report on the World Economic Situation and Prospects launched Thursday says growth in the world economy is surpassing expectations, reflecting further economic expansion in developed countries and broadly favorable investment conditions.

However, the report said, “downside risks” have increased including “a rise in the probability of trade conflicts between major economies.”

Dawn Holland, chief of the U.N.’s Global Economic Monitoring Branch, cited the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs in January and proposed new tariffs against China as well as the renegotiation of the U.S. trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, which has left “a void of uncertainty.”

There are also negotiations between the European Union and the United States partly linked to tariffs on steel, she said, and an increasing number of disputes have been raised with the World Trade Organization over the last six months.

The report said other factors also pose risks including uncertainty over monetary policy, increasing debt levels, and greater geopolitical tensions including in the Korean peninsula, Middle East, South China Sea and Ukraine.

But the U.N.’s assessment was generally upbeat citing continued economic improvements over the last several months including accelerating wage growth, improved investment prospects, and the short-term impact of the U.S. fiscal stimulus package.

“Many commodity-exporting countries will also benefit from the higher level of energy and metal prices,” the report said.

According to the U.N., world growth is now forecast to reach 3.2 percent in both 2018 and 2019, up from its forecast in December of 3 percent growth this year and 3.1 percent next year.

While many countries will experience growth, the report said output is expected to decline in central Africa and southern Africa, the report said. And the forecast for economies in transition including Russia and the world’s poorest countries have been revised “marginally downward” for 2018.

Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development Elliott Harris cautioned, however, that “there is a strong need not to become complacent in response to upward trending headline figures.”

The report not only highlights the risks to economic growth but “the need to urgently address a number of policy challenges, including threats to the multilateral trading system, high inequality and the renewed rise in carbon emissions,” he told a press conference launching the report.

And it warned that if trade tensions and barriers were to “spiral over the course of 2018, through widespread retaliations and extensive disruption to global value chains, this could trigger a sharp drop in global investment and trade.”
…

Iranian state TV is reporting that the country has signed an agreement with a British consortium to develop an oil field, just as another major company, France’s Total, says it will withdraw from Iran because of the renewed U.S. sanctions.

The new agreement is the first between Iran and a company from a key Western ally of the United States since Washington last week announced it will pull out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and Western powers. The U.S. said it was reinstalling sanctions against Iran.

Managing Director of Pergas International Consortium Colin Rowley, and Bijan Alipour, managing director of National Iranian South Oil Co., signed a preliminary deed on the partnership in the presence of British Ambassador Rob Macaire in Tehran on Wednesday night.

The project, if the agreement turns into a contract, will require more than $1 billion to produce 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day during the next decade in the 55-year old Karanj oil field. The oil field is located in the country’s oil-rich province and currently produces 120,000 barrels of crude per day.

The U.S. sanctions aim to limit companies from any country from dealing with Iran by prohibiting them from using American banks in their operations. Pergas seems to do little business in the U.S., potentially giving it more freedom to operate in Iran.

Its move contrasts with the decision by French oil and gas producer Total to not continue a multi-billion dollar project in Iran unless it is granted a waiver by U.S. authorities.

The group said in a statement Wednesday that it “cannot afford to be exposed to any secondary sanction” including the loss of financing by American banks.

Total wants U.S. and French authorities to examine the possibility of a specific project waiver.

The 2017 contract for new development at the vast South Pars gas field was the first major gas deal signed with Iran following the 2015 nuclear deal.

Major European powers and Tehran committed this week to keep working together to save the Iran nuclear deal.
…

Iranian state TV is reporting that the country has signed an agreement with a British consortium to develop an oil field, just as another major company, France’s Total, says it will withdraw from Iran because of the renewed U.S. sanctions.

The new agreement is the first between Iran and a company from a key Western ally of the United States since Washington last week announced it will pull out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and Western powers. The U.S. said it was reinstalling sanctions against Iran.

Managing Director of Pergas International Consortium Colin Rowley, and Bijan Alipour, managing director of National Iranian South Oil Co., signed a preliminary deed on the partnership in the presence of British Ambassador Rob Macaire in Tehran on Wednesday night.

The project, if the agreement turns into a contract, will require more than $1 billion to produce 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day during the next decade in the 55-year old Karanj oil field. The oil field is located in the country’s oil-rich province and currently produces 120,000 barrels of crude per day.

The U.S. sanctions aim to limit companies from any country from dealing with Iran by prohibiting them from using American banks in their operations. Pergas seems to do little business in the U.S., potentially giving it more freedom to operate in Iran.

Its move contrasts with the decision by French oil and gas producer Total to not continue a multi-billion dollar project in Iran unless it is granted a waiver by U.S. authorities.

The group said in a statement Wednesday that it “cannot afford to be exposed to any secondary sanction” including the loss of financing by American banks.

Total wants U.S. and French authorities to examine the possibility of a specific project waiver.

The 2017 contract for new development at the vast South Pars gas field was the first major gas deal signed with Iran following the 2015 nuclear deal.

Major European powers and Tehran committed this week to keep working together to save the Iran nuclear deal.
…

The European Union has called on U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to stop threatening it with tariffs on steel and aluminum, saying Thursday it is prepared to discuss trade — but not at gun-point.

In March, Trump slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on imported aluminum, but granted the 28 EU countries a temporary exemption until June 1. He also temporarily exempted big steel producers Canada and Mexico, provided they agree to renegotiate a North American trade deal to his satisfaction.

“It’s Europe’s economic sovereignty, and what we are demanding is that we are exempted without conditions or time limits,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in Bulgaria, where EU leaders have gathered for a summit with Balkans countries.

Convinced that the U.S. move breaks global trade rules, the EU has drawn up a list of “rebalancing” duties worth some 2.8 billion euros ($3.4 billion) to impose on U.S. products if it is not permanently exempt. It has vowed not to negotiate under threat.

“I don’t think we have to consider this or that, when it contravenes the laws of international trade,” Macron said.

But he added: “We can improve things, in a peaceful setting.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed his remarks.

“We have a common position: we want an unlimited exemption, but are then prepared to talk about how we can reciprocally reduce barriers for trade,” she told reporters in the Bulgarian capital Sofia.

Should the exemptions be dropped, the EU stands ready to deepen trans-Atlantic energy cooperation, notably on liquefied natural gas, improve reciprocal market access for industrial products and work together to reform the rules of the World Trade Organization.

The EU rejects Trump’s assertion that the tariffs are needed for U.S. national security and sees them as protectionist measures meant to boost local businesses. Most EU countries are U.S. allies in the world’s biggest security organization, NATO.

 
…

The European Union has called on U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to stop threatening it with tariffs on steel and aluminum, saying Thursday it is prepared to discuss trade — but not at gun-point.

In March, Trump slapped tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on imported aluminum, but granted the 28 EU countries a temporary exemption until June 1. He also temporarily exempted big steel producers Canada and Mexico, provided they agree to renegotiate a North American trade deal to his satisfaction.

“It’s Europe’s economic sovereignty, and what we are demanding is that we are exempted without conditions or time limits,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in Bulgaria, where EU leaders have gathered for a summit with Balkans countries.

Convinced that the U.S. move breaks global trade rules, the EU has drawn up a list of “rebalancing” duties worth some 2.8 billion euros ($3.4 billion) to impose on U.S. products if it is not permanently exempt. It has vowed not to negotiate under threat.

“I don’t think we have to consider this or that, when it contravenes the laws of international trade,” Macron said.

But he added: “We can improve things, in a peaceful setting.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed his remarks.

“We have a common position: we want an unlimited exemption, but are then prepared to talk about how we can reciprocally reduce barriers for trade,” she told reporters in the Bulgarian capital Sofia.

Should the exemptions be dropped, the EU stands ready to deepen trans-Atlantic energy cooperation, notably on liquefied natural gas, improve reciprocal market access for industrial products and work together to reform the rules of the World Trade Organization.

The EU rejects Trump’s assertion that the tariffs are needed for U.S. national security and sees them as protectionist measures meant to boost local businesses. Most EU countries are U.S. allies in the world’s biggest security organization, NATO.

 
…

President Donald Trump says the United States has not “folded” in trade negotiations with China as both countries get set for another round of meetings.

“We have not seen China’s demands yet,” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “The U.S. has very little to give because it has given so much over the years. China has much to give.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin opens two days of talks in Washington with Chinese officials Thursday.

“These meetings are a continuation of the talks held in Beijing two weeks ago and will focus on rebalancing the United States-China bilateral economic relationship,” the White House says.

They are also aimed at avoiding a full-blown trade war after the U.S. and China exchanged tariffs in March.

Trump told the country Wednesday that the U.S. has been losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year and countless U.S. manufacturing jobs because of its trade deficit with China.

But despite his tough talks on China, Trump wants to rescue China’s giant technology company ZTE, puzzling many lawmakers.

ZTE was forced to close one of its plants and cease major operations after the U.S. Commerce Department barred it from buying American-made components for its consumer products. ZTE had been using those components in goods sold to Iran and North Korea, a violation of U.S. trade embargoes.

The president said earlier this week that “too many jobs” were being lost in China because of ZTE’s problems, and he ordered the Commerce Department to help it “get back into business, fast.”

Republican Senator Marco Rubio told VOA that the Commerce Department’s sanctions on ZTE are “a law enforcement function that really shouldn’t have anything to do with trade. … Chinese telecom companies are agents of the Chinese government. They don’t just steal national security secrets, they steal commercial secrets.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also talked to VOA, saying Trump does not know how to fight when it comes to balancing trade issues.

“The president talked big about wanting to have a fair trade relationship with China and folded immediately on the ZTE issue.”

Pelosi said Trump’s motives over ZTE are hard to understand, but said he will face serious opposition in Congress if he tries to use ZTE as a bargaining chip.

Michael Bowman and VOA Mandarin contributed to this report.
…

President Donald Trump says the United States has not “folded” in trade negotiations with China as both countries get set for another round of meetings.

“We have not seen China’s demands yet,” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “The U.S. has very little to give because it has given so much over the years. China has much to give.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin opens two days of talks in Washington with Chinese officials Thursday.

“These meetings are a continuation of the talks held in Beijing two weeks ago and will focus on rebalancing the United States-China bilateral economic relationship,” the White House says.

They are also aimed at avoiding a full-blown trade war after the U.S. and China exchanged tariffs in March.

Trump told the country Wednesday that the U.S. has been losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year and countless U.S. manufacturing jobs because of its trade deficit with China.

But despite his tough talks on China, Trump wants to rescue China’s giant technology company ZTE, puzzling many lawmakers.

ZTE was forced to close one of its plants and cease major operations after the U.S. Commerce Department barred it from buying American-made components for its consumer products. ZTE had been using those components in goods sold to Iran and North Korea, a violation of U.S. trade embargoes.

The president said earlier this week that “too many jobs” were being lost in China because of ZTE’s problems, and he ordered the Commerce Department to help it “get back into business, fast.”

Republican Senator Marco Rubio told VOA that the Commerce Department’s sanctions on ZTE are “a law enforcement function that really shouldn’t have anything to do with trade. … Chinese telecom companies are agents of the Chinese government. They don’t just steal national security secrets, they steal commercial secrets.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also talked to VOA, saying Trump does not know how to fight when it comes to balancing trade issues.

“The president talked big about wanting to have a fair trade relationship with China and folded immediately on the ZTE issue.”

Pelosi said Trump’s motives over ZTE are hard to understand, but said he will face serious opposition in Congress if he tries to use ZTE as a bargaining chip.

Michael Bowman and VOA Mandarin contributed to this report.
…

Four years ago, Maeve Taylor and her husband decided to quit their jobs and move their family across the United States to start an organic dairy farm in New York.

The couple used a federal loan to buy 35 cows and started to learn their new trade on a patch of rented farmland.

But when they began looking for land of their own they hit their first major hurdle. Even in an area with a long agricultural tradition and lots of farmland, there was nothing to buy — at least at a price they could afford.

“You’d think you could buy something, but hardly any of it is for sale,” Taylor told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “Wealthy landowners … live here as retirement homes or have purchased property as a vacation home.”

More than 31 million acres (12.5 million hectares) of U.S. farmland were lost between 1992 and 2012, according to a major assessment released this week by the American Farmland Trust — double previous estimates.

The advocacy group found nearly two-thirds of all U.S. development during that period was on farmland, taken over primarily by the expansion of urban areas and by low-density housing.

Experts say new farmers are being priced out by developers and the rural landscape risks being radically transformed as farms are split or sold as real estate, unless the government is prepared to safeguard agricultural property.

“We’re at a time in history where farmland isn’t being bought by farmers,” said Holly Rippon-Butler at the National Young Farmers Coalition, an advocacy group. “Our limited agricultural resources could be lost to agriculture forever. That’s the urgency.”

Nearly 100 million acres — 10 percent of agricultural land in the United States — is expected to change hands by the end of the decade as elderly farmers retire, according to a 2014 government estimate, the first of its kind.

The average age of U.S. farmers — and agricultural landholders — has been steadily rising, to the point where today many are looking to secure a comfortable retirement.

Almost two-thirds of U.S. farmland is now managed by someone over 55, and farmers older than 65 now outnumber those under 35 by a sixfold margin, according to the Young Farmers Coalition, citing federal statistics.

“Significant challenge”

The looming changeover in landholdings could be an opportunity for new farmers wanting to buy. But most agricultural lands are kept within families or sold to acquaintances, not on the open market.

Less than a quarter of the nearly 100 million acres of agricultural land that will change hands is expected to be sold to a non-relative, according to the 2014 federal findings.

Another 58 million acres is expected to be passed down through farming families.

Taylor said she and her husband were repeatedly turned away by sellers who pointedly told them that they wouldn’t be able to afford the asking price.

Eventually, driven by falling prices for organic dairy products, they decided to sell their cows in order to pay off their loan — a story that appears to be increasingly common.

Last year, the Young Farmers Coalition surveyed U.S. farmers aged under 40 to gauge how they were fairing. The findings were stark. Almost 40 percent of respondents cited land access as a “significant challenge” — the survey’s most-cited concern.

Real estate values for farms more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, U.S. Department of Agriculture research found in February.

Meanwhile, farm incomes stayed relatively flat, particularly after commodity prices fell in recent years. A study released in September found that the value of farm production compared with farm real estate is at its lowest point ever recorded.

Opportunities

Campaigners are now looking to lawmakers debating updates to what is commonly known as the farm bill, which expires in September.

The new five-year bill, a draft of which was released in mid-April, could offer strategies to address the issue.

While local-level zoning regulations already seek to protect farmland in the United States, experts say it is not difficult for developers to change the designation — and almost unheard of for it to be changed back again.

“In general, once you transfer land out of farming, it’s very difficult if not impossible to bring it back into farming,” said Juli Obudzinski, deputy policy director with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Even if land continues to be farmed, Obudzinski said spiking real estate values meant it was more likely to be bought up by existing farmers than new ones looking to get into the sector, and called for a national strategy on the looming transition.

“Otherwise, our concern is that these lands will just go to the biggest farms and the highest bidders, increasing consolidation and decreasing the viability of rural communities,” Obudzinski said.

Still, the aging of U.S. agricultural landholders does offer potential opportunities.

Maeve Taylor’s family is now in the process of purchasing land in nearby Vermont, close enough that they won’t have to move.

The transaction is being facilitated by the Vermont Land Trust, which matched the Taylors with a farming family who wanted to sell.

It structured the sale in such a way that the land would be affordable to the Taylors, using a mechanism under debate in the farm bill discussions.

The owners had been raising organic wheat for nearly four decades, Taylor said, supplying it to nearby bakers. Now, they wanted to retire and ensure that their business continued.

The land sale is expected to take place this month, and Taylor expects to be farming organic wheat by summer.
…

Four years ago, Maeve Taylor and her husband decided to quit their jobs and move their family across the United States to start an organic dairy farm in New York.

The couple used a federal loan to buy 35 cows and started to learn their new trade on a patch of rented farmland.

But when they began looking for land of their own they hit their first major hurdle. Even in an area with a long agricultural tradition and lots of farmland, there was nothing to buy — at least at a price they could afford.

“You’d think you could buy something, but hardly any of it is for sale,” Taylor told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “Wealthy landowners … live here as retirement homes or have purchased property as a vacation home.”

More than 31 million acres (12.5 million hectares) of U.S. farmland were lost between 1992 and 2012, according to a major assessment released this week by the American Farmland Trust — double previous estimates.

The advocacy group found nearly two-thirds of all U.S. development during that period was on farmland, taken over primarily by the expansion of urban areas and by low-density housing.

Experts say new farmers are being priced out by developers and the rural landscape risks being radically transformed as farms are split or sold as real estate, unless the government is prepared to safeguard agricultural property.

“We’re at a time in history where farmland isn’t being bought by farmers,” said Holly Rippon-Butler at the National Young Farmers Coalition, an advocacy group. “Our limited agricultural resources could be lost to agriculture forever. That’s the urgency.”

Nearly 100 million acres — 10 percent of agricultural land in the United States — is expected to change hands by the end of the decade as elderly farmers retire, according to a 2014 government estimate, the first of its kind.

The average age of U.S. farmers — and agricultural landholders — has been steadily rising, to the point where today many are looking to secure a comfortable retirement.

Almost two-thirds of U.S. farmland is now managed by someone over 55, and farmers older than 65 now outnumber those under 35 by a sixfold margin, according to the Young Farmers Coalition, citing federal statistics.

“Significant challenge”

The looming changeover in landholdings could be an opportunity for new farmers wanting to buy. But most agricultural lands are kept within families or sold to acquaintances, not on the open market.

Less than a quarter of the nearly 100 million acres of agricultural land that will change hands is expected to be sold to a non-relative, according to the 2014 federal findings.

Another 58 million acres is expected to be passed down through farming families.

Taylor said she and her husband were repeatedly turned away by sellers who pointedly told them that they wouldn’t be able to afford the asking price.

Eventually, driven by falling prices for organic dairy products, they decided to sell their cows in order to pay off their loan — a story that appears to be increasingly common.

Last year, the Young Farmers Coalition surveyed U.S. farmers aged under 40 to gauge how they were fairing. The findings were stark. Almost 40 percent of respondents cited land access as a “significant challenge” — the survey’s most-cited concern.

Real estate values for farms more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, U.S. Department of Agriculture research found in February.

Meanwhile, farm incomes stayed relatively flat, particularly after commodity prices fell in recent years. A study released in September found that the value of farm production compared with farm real estate is at its lowest point ever recorded.

Opportunities

Campaigners are now looking to lawmakers debating updates to what is commonly known as the farm bill, which expires in September.

The new five-year bill, a draft of which was released in mid-April, could offer strategies to address the issue.

While local-level zoning regulations already seek to protect farmland in the United States, experts say it is not difficult for developers to change the designation — and almost unheard of for it to be changed back again.

“In general, once you transfer land out of farming, it’s very difficult if not impossible to bring it back into farming,” said Juli Obudzinski, deputy policy director with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Even if land continues to be farmed, Obudzinski said spiking real estate values meant it was more likely to be bought up by existing farmers than new ones looking to get into the sector, and called for a national strategy on the looming transition.

“Otherwise, our concern is that these lands will just go to the biggest farms and the highest bidders, increasing consolidation and decreasing the viability of rural communities,” Obudzinski said.

Still, the aging of U.S. agricultural landholders does offer potential opportunities.

Maeve Taylor’s family is now in the process of purchasing land in nearby Vermont, close enough that they won’t have to move.

The transaction is being facilitated by the Vermont Land Trust, which matched the Taylors with a farming family who wanted to sell.

It structured the sale in such a way that the land would be affordable to the Taylors, using a mechanism under debate in the farm bill discussions.

The owners had been raising organic wheat for nearly four decades, Taylor said, supplying it to nearby bakers. Now, they wanted to retire and ensure that their business continued.

The land sale is expected to take place this month, and Taylor expects to be farming organic wheat by summer.
…

Malaysia’s new government to scrutinize past economic policies under the now ousted Najib Razak administration is prompting analysts to warn of a slide in investment and growth in one of Southeast Asia’s top economies.

The new leadership has appointed a group of prominent citizens, an eminent persons group, to come up with a new policy agenda within the next 100 days that will, among other things, review mega investment projects that have been key drivers of economic growth.

The new government has also established a special task force as corruption allegations over the abuse of funds in a sovereign wealth fund set up by Najib, and ordered a review of political representation on Malaysia’s largest government investment firms, including the main sovereign and pension funds.

Leading the eminent persons group is a former finance minister, Daim Zainuddin, and it includes a former central bank governor, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, a former president the Malaysian energy giant, Petronas, an economist and a leading businessman.

Gareth Leather, senior Asia economist for Capital Economics, an economic research group in London, says a key issue is whether Malaysia’s new government will remain united in the face of moves toward economic reforms.

“[The coalition] when it was formed was very much a coalition against Najib rather than anything pro-reform. So the first real test they have got is to see if there is enough cohesion within that coalition to push through [economic] reforms,” Leather told VOA.

A key campaign promise by new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s Pakatan Harapan — or Alliance of Hope — was to abolish a value added, goods and services tax.

While the tax, known as GST, was unpopular among voters, analysts say the revenue enabled the government to diversify its tax base from an over-reliance on corporate tax and the oil industry.

Immediately after the vote, financial markets reacted nervously to the scrapping of the tax and questions of the impact the measure would have on the government’s budget. Contributions from the GST have reached $10.6 billion.

Malaysian Finance Ministry officials have not said when the tax would be abolished, and analysts predicted a tough road ahead for the plan.

“To raise as much money as the GST while getting rid of the GST is going to be quite difficult. I don’t think that they can really go ahead and form a U-turn a d decide to keep it — so it’s going to be quite tricky managing it for them,” Leather said.

Analysts say financial markets are also closely watching steps in the new investigations centered on former leader Najib, accused of siphoning off billions of dollars from the 1MDB wealth fund. He firmly denies the charges. The U.S. Department of Justice alleges some $4.5 billion was misappropriated from the 1MDB, originally set up by Najib.

At least six countries, including the U.S., Singapore and Switzerland, are investigating the allegations of corruption. The new government has vowed to undertake fresh investigations into the case. Last weekend Malaysian immigration authorities refused Najib and his family the right to leave the country pending the investigations.

Unlike abolishing the sales tax, Leather predicts the corruption investigations will have a positive effect on the economy.

“Hopefully what it will do is it will bring to light a lot of the problems, institutional problems that have been holding Malaysia’s economy back over the past few years. It would have been shocking had Najib been able to steal this election,” he said.

But observers say a review of the multi-billion dollar mega projects, especially those undertaken by China, may have a major impact. The Chinese have invested more than $3.38 billion in Malaysia — and China is the leading foreign investor ahead of the U.S., Japan and Singapore. Chinese investments include manufacturing, real estate and sovereign wealth fund bonds.

China has also supported rail infrastructure in Malaysia that is linked to the One Belt One Road, a Beijing initiative that envisions building a network extending throughout Asia.

Analysts say there is a risk that investment — a key driver of growth — may fall sharply over the next two years.

Economic growth, with quarterly figures due this week, has been expanding at between 5.5 percent and 6 percent over the past year, aided by exports and foreign investment.

During the election campaign, Mahathir rallied against Chinese investment and promised a detailed review of projects involving foreign countries.

Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Bangkok’s Thammasat University, also predicts that Malaysia faces key economic challenges, especially after more than 60 years of government led by the monolithic United Malay National Organization coalition.

Pavida, in emailed comments to VOA, said it “remains to be seen how much political power can be remained from [the] economic sphere” after such a length of time.

“While the intention to scrutinize major projects and to investigate corruption should be well received, major changes will not come easily as the Malaysian economy and business have long been dominated by government linked or government supported corporations and entities,” she said.

On a positive note, she added, “the euphoric excitement toward changes, equality and transparency, should be welcome, as they bode well for what is needed in the new era of efficiency — and innovation-driven economy that Malaysia aspired to achieve.”

 
…

Malaysia’s new government to scrutinize past economic policies under the now ousted Najib Razak administration is prompting analysts to warn of a slide in investment and growth in one of Southeast Asia’s top economies.

The new leadership has appointed a group of prominent citizens, an eminent persons group, to come up with a new policy agenda within the next 100 days that will, among other things, review mega investment projects that have been key drivers of economic growth.

The new government has also established a special task force as corruption allegations over the abuse of funds in a sovereign wealth fund set up by Najib, and ordered a review of political representation on Malaysia’s largest government investment firms, including the main sovereign and pension funds.

Leading the eminent persons group is a former finance minister, Daim Zainuddin, and it includes a former central bank governor, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, a former president the Malaysian energy giant, Petronas, an economist and a leading businessman.

Gareth Leather, senior Asia economist for Capital Economics, an economic research group in London, says a key issue is whether Malaysia’s new government will remain united in the face of moves toward economic reforms.

“[The coalition] when it was formed was very much a coalition against Najib rather than anything pro-reform. So the first real test they have got is to see if there is enough cohesion within that coalition to push through [economic] reforms,” Leather told VOA.

A key campaign promise by new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s Pakatan Harapan — or Alliance of Hope — was to abolish a value added, goods and services tax.

While the tax, known as GST, was unpopular among voters, analysts say the revenue enabled the government to diversify its tax base from an over-reliance on corporate tax and the oil industry.

Immediately after the vote, financial markets reacted nervously to the scrapping of the tax and questions of the impact the measure would have on the government’s budget. Contributions from the GST have reached $10.6 billion.

Malaysian Finance Ministry officials have not said when the tax would be abolished, and analysts predicted a tough road ahead for the plan.

“To raise as much money as the GST while getting rid of the GST is going to be quite difficult. I don’t think that they can really go ahead and form a U-turn a d decide to keep it — so it’s going to be quite tricky managing it for them,” Leather said.

Analysts say financial markets are also closely watching steps in the new investigations centered on former leader Najib, accused of siphoning off billions of dollars from the 1MDB wealth fund. He firmly denies the charges. The U.S. Department of Justice alleges some $4.5 billion was misappropriated from the 1MDB, originally set up by Najib.

At least six countries, including the U.S., Singapore and Switzerland, are investigating the allegations of corruption. The new government has vowed to undertake fresh investigations into the case. Last weekend Malaysian immigration authorities refused Najib and his family the right to leave the country pending the investigations.

Unlike abolishing the sales tax, Leather predicts the corruption investigations will have a positive effect on the economy.

“Hopefully what it will do is it will bring to light a lot of the problems, institutional problems that have been holding Malaysia’s economy back over the past few years. It would have been shocking had Najib been able to steal this election,” he said.

But observers say a review of the multi-billion dollar mega projects, especially those undertaken by China, may have a major impact. The Chinese have invested more than $3.38 billion in Malaysia — and China is the leading foreign investor ahead of the U.S., Japan and Singapore. Chinese investments include manufacturing, real estate and sovereign wealth fund bonds.

China has also supported rail infrastructure in Malaysia that is linked to the One Belt One Road, a Beijing initiative that envisions building a network extending throughout Asia.

Analysts say there is a risk that investment — a key driver of growth — may fall sharply over the next two years.

Economic growth, with quarterly figures due this week, has been expanding at between 5.5 percent and 6 percent over the past year, aided by exports and foreign investment.

During the election campaign, Mahathir rallied against Chinese investment and promised a detailed review of projects involving foreign countries.

Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Bangkok’s Thammasat University, also predicts that Malaysia faces key economic challenges, especially after more than 60 years of government led by the monolithic United Malay National Organization coalition.

Pavida, in emailed comments to VOA, said it “remains to be seen how much political power can be remained from [the] economic sphere” after such a length of time.

“While the intention to scrutinize major projects and to investigate corruption should be well received, major changes will not come easily as the Malaysian economy and business have long been dominated by government linked or government supported corporations and entities,” she said.

On a positive note, she added, “the euphoric excitement toward changes, equality and transparency, should be welcome, as they bode well for what is needed in the new era of efficiency — and innovation-driven economy that Malaysia aspired to achieve.”

 
…

Most U.S. insurance companies have not adapted their strategies to address the dangers of climate change, making them likely to raise rates or deny coverage in high-risk areas, said a study released Tuesday.

With predictions of an above-average Atlantic hurricane season approaching, thousands of people could be unable to afford insurance protection or lose it altogether, said the Canadian research study published in the British Journal of Management.

Scientific consensus holds that climate change increases the intensity and frequency of extreme weather, from hurricanes to flooding. Last year, three record hurricanes struck the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, causing billions of dollars’ worth of damage.

Yet insurance and reinsurance companies overwhelmingly continue to treat storms as “anomalous rather than correlated to climate change,” the study said.

“Insurers that ignore climate change will not put away enough money to cover their claims. To recoup those losses, they’ll have to raise rates or pull coverage from high-risk areas,” said lead author Jason Thistlethwaite, an assistant professor of environment and business at the University of Waterloo.

They will face whopping payouts associated with disasters, he said.

So long, coverage

“When this shift happens, thousands of people will lose coverage or it will be unaffordable,” he said.

Insured losses hit an all-time high between 2004 and 2014, according to a 2015 analysis by reinsurer Swiss Re.

Insurance companies use reinsurance to minimize their risk. 

But in 2015, only 3 percent out of a sample of 178 U.S. property insurers and reinsurers were taking into account climate change in corporate governance, underwriting and investment, the study found.

However, the number of companies factoring in climate change in at least one area of operation doubled to about three dozen from 2012 to 2015, it said.

With storm-related payouts soaring, insurance companies may go out of business or lose investors, Thistlethwaite said.

A shrinking insurance market will drive up costs to consumers, he said.

The researchers analyzed insurers in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, Washington and New Mexico.

Less than a month away, the Atlantic hurricane season has been predicted to be “above average” by Colorado State University meteorologists. The season runs from June 1 to November 30.
…

Most U.S. insurance companies have not adapted their strategies to address the dangers of climate change, making them likely to raise rates or deny coverage in high-risk areas, said a study released Tuesday.

With predictions of an above-average Atlantic hurricane season approaching, thousands of people could be unable to afford insurance protection or lose it altogether, said the Canadian research study published in the British Journal of Management.

Scientific consensus holds that climate change increases the intensity and frequency of extreme weather, from hurricanes to flooding. Last year, three record hurricanes struck the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, causing billions of dollars’ worth of damage.

Yet insurance and reinsurance companies overwhelmingly continue to treat storms as “anomalous rather than correlated to climate change,” the study said.

“Insurers that ignore climate change will not put away enough money to cover their claims. To recoup those losses, they’ll have to raise rates or pull coverage from high-risk areas,” said lead author Jason Thistlethwaite, an assistant professor of environment and business at the University of Waterloo.

They will face whopping payouts associated with disasters, he said.

So long, coverage

“When this shift happens, thousands of people will lose coverage or it will be unaffordable,” he said.

Insured losses hit an all-time high between 2004 and 2014, according to a 2015 analysis by reinsurer Swiss Re.

Insurance companies use reinsurance to minimize their risk. 

But in 2015, only 3 percent out of a sample of 178 U.S. property insurers and reinsurers were taking into account climate change in corporate governance, underwriting and investment, the study found.

However, the number of companies factoring in climate change in at least one area of operation doubled to about three dozen from 2012 to 2015, it said.

With storm-related payouts soaring, insurance companies may go out of business or lose investors, Thistlethwaite said.

A shrinking insurance market will drive up costs to consumers, he said.

The researchers analyzed insurers in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, Washington and New Mexico.

Less than a month away, the Atlantic hurricane season has been predicted to be “above average” by Colorado State University meteorologists. The season runs from June 1 to November 30.
…