Search - covid 19

The world is on the cusp of a historic global health accord. On April 16, 2025, World Health Organisation (WHO) member states forged a draft Pandemic Agreement after more than three years of negotiations. Adopted at the World Health Assembly in May, the agreement aims to make the world safer from future pandemics by strengthening global health infrastructure and collaboration. It also outlines clear targets and timelines to bolster health systems and prevent catastrophic health disasters like Covid-19. As WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted, this “generational accord demonstrates that even in a divided world, countries can unite for a shared response to shared threats”. Lessons learned from Covid The devastation wrought by Covid-19 was the undoubted catalyst for this agreement. In December 2021, amid the pandemic’s peak, WHO member states created an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to develop a convention, agreement or other international instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Over 13 formal rounds, countries gradually built consensus on a legally binding framework. These negotiations took place against a backdrop of high stakes and tensions as countries grappled with mistrust in the aftermath of Covid-19, geopolitical frictions, rampant misinformation, and even the withdrawal of the United States from the process. Despite the challenges, this marks only the second time in WHO’s 75-year history that member states have created a binding international health accord. After adoption by the WHA, the agreement will require signatures and ratifications from 60 countries to enter into force. Reaching this point was far from straightforward. One major sticking point was how to ensure fair access to vaccines, medicines, and other tools during pandemics, so that wealthy countries do not hoard supplies at the expense of poorer ones. Article 11 of the draft (on tech transfer) proved especially contentious, with hours spent debating how to help developing countries produce vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments. The final text encouraged countries to promote tech transfer on mutually agreed terms — an outcome some poor nations worried may be too weak. Ambitions on intellectual property waivers were tempered by opposition from some wealthy nations and industry, illustrating the delicate balance struck in the draft. Another obstacle was the question of Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS). This refers to rules for rapidly sharing outbreak samples and data in addition to ensuring countries providing those pathogens receive benefits (like vaccines). Countries agreed in principle to a framework ensuring that 20% of pandemic supplies will be set aside for equitable distribution. However, the detailed PABS annex is yet to be finalised, meaning further negotiations will continue even after the main agreement’s adoption. This unresolved issue underscores how complex questions of equity and trust still need to be ironed out. What the draft Pandemic Agreement proposes The draft WHO Pandemic Agreement is ambitious in scope. It establishes priorities and targets for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and commits signatories to a range of supporting actions. For the first time ever, a global health treaty explicitly embraces a “One Health” approach that recognises the interconnected health of humans, animals, and environment. This means countries will co-ordinate across sectors to better detect and curb diseases that jump from animals to humans – the source of most new pandemics. From there, the draft agreement underscores that strong national health systems are the foundation of pandemic preparedness, and countries should therefore fully invest in public health infrastructure, workforce training, and service delivery so they can respond swiftly to emergencies. It also envisions mobilising a skilled global health emergency workforce and financial mechanisms to fund preparedness efforts. In essence, nations recognise that preparedness requires sustained political and financial investment – something the agreement seeks to galvanise. At its heart, the treaty is about ensuring a more equitable and effective global response when the next pandemic hits. The draft obligates governments to attach conditions to publicly funded Research and Development (R&D) requiring vaccines or drugs developed with taxpayer money be made accessible and affordable globally. Additionally, the agreement would establish a global supply chain and logistics network to co-ordinate allocation of critical supplies and prevent crippling bottlenecks or hoarding of items like masks and personal protective equipment. Notably, the agreement takes care to affirm national sovereignty and dispel concerns about overreach. It explicitly states that nothing in the treaty gives WHO authority to dictate countries’ domestic health measures or laws. It cannot impose lockdowns, travel bans, or vaccine mandates. Such clauses were included to reassure governments and sceptics that the accord will respect each nation’s right to implement health policies as it sees fit. Challenges and opportunities While the agreement’s drafting is a diplomatic triumph, significant challenges lie ahead. Despite being formally adopted in May 2025, states will have 18 months to decide whether to formally join (ratify) the treaty. This process could take several years — more than enough time for another pandemic to strike. As former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark urged, leaders “should be investing now in pandemic preparedness... We can’t afford another pandemic, but we can afford to prevent one”. Achieving the treaty’s vision will therefore require continuous political commitment and funding starting immediately. Implementation also faces significant geopolitical and financial headwinds. The United States’ absence casts an alarming shadow. Many worry that without the world’s biggest economy - not to mention the WHO’s largest donor - on board, funding and compliance could suffer. Others nevertheless see the wider consensus as a show that with or without the US, countries are committed to working together. Washington’s stance could evolve with political changes. In the meantime, however, the rest of the world’s commitment underscores a broader point: the WHO’s reliance on a few major donors has been a vulnerability, and diversifying support is crucial. A policy breakthrough, but not a panacea On reflection, the agreement represents a major policy breakthrough in global health governance. For the first time, the world will have a comprehensive framework dedicated to pandemics, treating them as existential global security threats requiring a unified response. The agreement’s adoption reaffirms the WHO’s coordinating role and provides a platform for holding countries accountable to improve their capacities. It embodies hard-won consensus on principles like solidarity, fairness, and the notion that no country should be left behind when a health emergency strikes. Yet no treaty alone can guarantee global health security. Implementation will be the real test. Countries must follow through on investing in their healthcare systems, training health workers, building vaccine manufacturing hubs, and sharing data transparently. The treaty provides mechanisms for financing and other tools, but these need political will to function. Another critical factor is sustained funding and donor confidence in WHO and global health initiatives. The pandemic agreement arrives at a time when multilateral agencies have been battered by funding uncertainties – not least due to the US funding cutbacks and withdrawal. The hope is that this new agreement, by demonstrating global unity and a clear plan, will improve relations between donors and inspire increased investment in pandemic preparedness. A successful pandemic accord could convince both wealthy countries and philanthropies that their money will be used effectively to build a safer world — potentially unlocking more generous contributions. The example of Qatar’s flexible funding and growing roster of mid-sized donors show a trend of broader support that needs to continue. Realising the entire draft’s aspirations ultimately requires continued political resolve, resources, and inclusive collaboration. The involvement of all nations – big and small – will be necessary to operationalise the agreement’s provisions and keep momentum. Multilateral success stories like this treaty are rare, and thus precious. As Dr Tedros said, the agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. Now the world must translate words on paper into action. Dr Esmat Zaidan is Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Academic AffairsDr Diana AlSayed Hassan is Assistant Professor, both at Hamad Bin Khalifa University’s College of Public Policy. (This piece has been submitted by HBKU’s Communications Directorate on behalf of its authors. The thoughts and views expressed are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect an official University stance). About Hamad Bin Khalifa University Innovating Today, Shaping TomorrowHamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), a member of Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF), is a leading, innovation-centric university committed to advancing education and research to address critical challenges facing Qatar and beyond. HBKU develops multidisciplinary academic programs and national research capabilities that drive collaboration with leading global institutions. The university is dedicated to equipping future leaders with an entrepreneurial mindset and advancing innovative solutions that create a positive global impact. For more information about HBKU, its colleges, research institutes, and initiatives, please visit www.hbku.edu.qa

During a year of tumultuous events in geopolitics, much of the global economy, and stock prices, have remained buoyant. This may not be the contradiction it appears. Despite what appears to be significant potential for economic disruption, some investors have adopted an attitude of ‘nothing ever happens’, to counter a tendency to over-react to events provoking headlines that have – or may have – little lasting economic impact. The buoyancy of the stock market despite geopolitical tensions and trade wars highlights the risk of over-reacting to the news. Some investors adopt a mantra of ‘nothing ever happens’ – but are they under-estimating looming risks? The ‘nothing ever happens’ mantra is not a matter of ignoring global events, but rather coolly assessing the actual economic impact. Of course, some turbulent events in geopolitics are notable more for their potential, than the short-term reality. Threats or hints of nuclear weapons being used are unlikely to lead to an actual nuclear war, but the risk of nuclear weapons being fired in anger is not zero, so it is one to watch. In the financial markets, weak signals that could herald a shock on the scale of 2008 are observable – high valuations in the stock market, also in crypto at a time of weak regulation – but it is impossible to gauge if these signals are a harbinger of an impactful crash, or whether they remain weak. And if there is a shock, could it occur this year, or in five years’ time? If one looks historically at the events that have had a major economic impact, there have been few. Examples include the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and 1979-81 which led to stagflation in many economies, and the financial crash and banking bailouts of 2008 – although the impact of the latter was largely confined to western economies which had banks directly exposed; Gulf countries were largely unaffected. Of greater impact globally was the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-22, owing the strict lockdowns. It is long established in the academic disciplines of cognitive behavioural psychology and behavioural finance that, as a species, we are more drawn to dramatic and negative developments than benign ones; loss aversion is more powerful than the prospect of gains, and bad or shocking news is effective as clickbait. This means that the discipline of staying informed through news media can result, paradoxically, in a skewed understanding of global developments. Complicating the issue is that much news is gathered through social media that is not fact-checked. In its 2024 Global Risks Report, the World Economic Forum cited disinformation as the most serious destabilising factor for the short-term, citing the use of deepfake videos and other misuses of AI. These phenomena lend weight to the idea of downplaying the significance of narratives shaped by headlines. Another element is that, far from ‘nothing’ happening, there is too much. The projections from early 2025 by many economists of the impact of President Trump’s tariff policy have been way off, with a typical estimate of 0.1% reduction of GDP for each 1% added to tariffs proving to be inaccurate. The issue may be the sheer complexity and interconnectedness of the global economy, which makes it is doubtful that it can be modelled or projected in a meaningful way. Economic historians note that protectionist policies were likely a significant cause of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In the 2020s, trade of goods is, proportionately, a smaller part of the economy, compared with services, including much activity that is online. Entrepreneurialism and business growth are now global phenomena. It would probably be impossible accurately to quantify this proportion, but one proxy indicator is that only around 17% of the earnings on the S&P 500 are directly affected by tariffs, according to an analysis by Deutsche Bank. Moreover, while the US is the biggest market, it is around 24% of global GDP, compared with over 40% in the 1960s. There is a risk that the ‘nothing ever happens’ movement could under-estimate the impact of a succession of developments which, individually, may not amount to much but which cumulatively can become impactful. These include President Trump’s tariffs, his firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rise of public debt in the US and other western economies, the concentration of stock market gains within just a few tech firms, Trump’s threats to the chairman of the Federal Reserve, his deregulation of crypto. Some of these individually may be judged to be of minor significance, but the accumulation may be beginning to be felt. Of these, probably of greatest long-term significance is rising debt, which means an increasing proportion of government expenditure being devoted to interest payments placing pressure on public services, and the progressive erosion of value of fiat currencies. The prices of tangible assets, such as gold, property and land, have been appreciating. This slow, long-term development will almost certainly become of greater magnitude, in economic terms, than many of the more dramatic developments that prompt headlines. The author is a Qatari banker, with many years of experience in the banking sector in senior positions

US Senator Bernie Sanders has called on Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy Jr to resign, days after a senior public health official was fired and four others resigned in disputes over Kennedy's unorthodox opposition to vaccines.Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, wrote in a *New York Times guest essay that Kennedy is "endangering the health of the American people now and into the future”.This week, Kennedy ousted the director of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Susan Monarez, less than a month into her tenure, deepening disarray at the nation's main public health agency.Monarez had refused to adopt new limitations on the availability of some vaccines urged by Kennedy, saying they went against scientific evidence.Four other senior CDC officials resigned in protest, citing anti-vaccine policies and misinformation promoted by Kennedy and his team; hundreds of their colleagues walked out of the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta in support of the departing leaders.Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate's health committee and an opponent of Kennedy's confirmation earlier this year, wrote that Kennedy ousted Monarez because she refused "to act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous policies”."Despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical community, Secretary Kennedy has continued his longstanding crusade against vaccines and his advocacy of conspiracy theories that have been rejected repeatedly by scientific experts," Sanders wrote.He said that vaccines for diseases such as polio and coronavirus (Covid-19) had saved hundreds of millions of lives around the world.A spokesperson for Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment.Kennedy, a lawyer and prominent anti-vaccine advocate, ran an unsuccessful campaign for the presidency last year.He espouses healthy eating, natural foods and exercise, but also frequently shares his theories about vaccines and other medical issues that many doctors and scientists say are groundless and drawn from the conspiratorial fringe.On Wednesday, Kennedy baffled doctors when he said he kept seeing children walking through airports that he had diagnosed as "overburdened with mitochondrial challenges, with inflammation", based on their faces and body movements.President Donald Trump, a Republican, nominated Kennedy to become the health secretary earlier this year and he was sworn in in February.Kennedy emphasised in a congressional hearing in May that he did not think Americans should ever take medical advice from him.

A Latin term that used to be little-known outside the world of customs brokers has become the stuff of headlines this year. That’s thanks to a decision by US President Donald Trump to end the tariff-free treatment of “de minimis” merchandise that had been in place for almost 90 years.The phrase — which loosely translates as “too small to matter” — refers to small packages shipped directly to consumers from abroad, millions of which arrive in the US every day. Qualifying as de minimis came with a huge perk: no customs declarations and no duties.This worked to the advantage of Chinese dis-count marketplaces such as Shein Group Ltd and Temu, which have tapped Americans’ appetite for buying cheap clothing, toys, electronics, and more, online. But the tariff exemption came to an end for packages from mainland China and Hong Kong on May 2, and ceased for the rest of the world on August 29.US consumers now face the prospect of higher prices and a longer wait for their orders. Ahead of the de minimis changes taking effect in August, many postal operators paused US-bound parcel shipments, citing a lack of clarity over how the tariffs will be collected.What was the US de minimis exemption?For a package to qualify, it had to have a re-tail value of no more than $800, which was high compared with other countries. The threshold in Canada is C$150 ($109) for parcels from the US and Mexico to be exempt from customs duties and C$20 ($15) for those from elsewhere, while in the European Union it’s €150 ($175). China, for its part, generally waives duties on packages worth up to about $7.The exemption in the US dated back to 1938, when Congress tweaked tariff rules to drop duties on low-cost items to avoid unnecessary expense for little reward, or, as one former Treasury official put it, “spending a dollar to collect 50 cents.” The exemption started at $1, where it stayed for decades before rising to $5 in 1990, $200 in 1993 and then jumping to $800 in 2016 during the Barack Obama presidency.What do the new rules mean for US consumers?The end of the de minimis exemption doesn’t mean Americans can’t order small packages from abroad. What’s changed is that the goods will be channelled through customs and incur levies.Sellers could absorb the additional costs or they could pass them on to consumers — either indirectly through a higher retail price, or directly by making buyers pay the duty.Shein and Temu raised prices on a wide range of products — from dresses to kitchenware — ahead of the tariffs kicking in on May 2. The average price of 98 products listed on Shein tracked by Bloomberg News increased by more than 20% by early May from two weeks prior.Elsewhere, South Korean beauty retailer Olive Young — which has been capitalising on the social media-fuelled popularity of Korean skincare products among American consumers — said it would add a 15% duty to all US orders at the checkout from August 27.The end of the de minimis carve-out could dis-proportionately impact lower-income households in America. Almost 75% of direct shipments imported by the poorest zip codes were de minimis, compared to 52% for the richest zip codes, according to analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research using data from 2021.Could the end of the de minimis exemption cause supply chain disruption?Mail carriers in more than two dozen countries, including Australia, Singapore and Norway, temporarily suspended shipments to the US ahead of the August 29 de minimis cutoff date, as they grappled with how the new system will be implemented.The restrictions imposed by Deutsche Post and DHL Parcel Germany — part of DHL Group, one of the world’s largest couriers — reflected uncertainty over “how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future, what addition-al data will be required, and how the data transmission to the US Customs and Border Protection will be carried out,” according to a company statement.Postal services have never had to handle this amount of paperwork before. The packages that enter the US now have to have a customs declaration that details the contents of the parcel, the value, and the country of origin of the goods — not just where they’re shipped from, but where they were made.Beyond the near-term disruption from potential backlogs, many e-commerce deliveries are likely to become slower because the added costs will make air cargo — already an expensive way to move freight — a potentially unprofitable mode of transportation for low-cost goods.Rather than fly on a plane and take a couple of days to arrive, a package might instead take a three-week journey on a container ship from China to the US West Coast.Which companies will be most affected by the de minimis carve-out disappearing?Low-cost online retailers such as Temu, Shein and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd’s AliExpress used the de minimis exemption for years to expand in the US — a trend that was supercharged by the Covid-era boom in e-commerce.Cross-border online retail has been a lifesaver for many Chinese manufacturers running on wafer-thin profit margins as spending by domestic shoppers plunged during the pandemic and never really recovered.Shein pioneered the model of targeting cost-conscious Americans with $2 blouses and $10 shirts during the pandemic, and Temu jumped in around 2022 with its “Shop Like a Billionaire” catchphrase. TikTok Shop, the shopping platform of the popular video app, is a more recent entrant.The end of the de minimis exemption appears to have had a dampening effect on US demand. Shein’s weekly sales dropped by as much as 23% year-on-year in late June before staging a recovery, according to Bloomberg Second Measure, which analyses credit and debit card transactions in the US. Temu saw a deeper decline — its weekly sales slumped by more than a third year-on-year in June and had yet to rebound to the prior year’s levels by mid-August.It’s not just the bottom line of the Chinese marketplaces that will be impacted by the de minimis changes. The exposure to tariffs will also hit “dropshippers,” who use e-commerce platforms to fulfil orders and send goods directly to customers, as well as small US businesses that have been importing products in batches under the $800 threshold to avoid tariffs. Small international businesses selling into the US will be affected too, including those using marketplaces such as eBay Inc and Etsy Inc.There are fears that the end of the de minimis exemption in the US could spur a flood of cheap goods, particularly those from China, to be sent to other countries instead. Amid concerns about domestic producers being undercut, markets including the UK are reviewing their own duty-free treatment of low-value imports.How have Trump’s de minimis changes evolved?Within days of taking office, the Trump administration suspended the de minimis rule for mainland China and Hong Kong. However, it soon delayed the change while the US Postal Service wrestled with how to implement the policy.The suspension was effectively reimposed on May 2, hitting buyers of packages worth up to $800 arriving from mainland China and Hong Kong with either a levy equivalent to 120% of their value or a flat fee of $100.When the US and China later announced an agreement to lower triple-digit tariffs on each other’s imports, Trump signed an executive order cutting the de minimis duty to 54%, while maintaining the flat fee.Then, on July 30, Trump said the de minimis ex-emption would end for items sent from anywhere in the world, although gifts valued at less than $100 will remain duty-free. According to a White House fact sheet, starting August 29, a posted package will be taxed in one of two ways:* The importer can pay a percentage levy on the parcel’s value. This is equivalent to the pre-vailing tariff rate the US has assigned to goods from the country of origin as part of Trump’s broader trade war.* Or, for the first six months of the new policy, the importer can pay a flat duty ranging from $80 to $200 per item, depending on the applicable country-specific tariff rate.What effect has the US de minimis exemption had?With the threshold as high as it was in the US, around 4mn small packages claiming de minimis exemptions crossed into the US every day in 2024, according to US Customs and Border Protection. These parcels often went unchecked be-fore being transferred to a truck for delivery directly to the consumer’s doorstep.This helped Americans access lots of cheap merchandise sold by e-commerce retailers in China. It also strained global supply chains, raised air cargo costs and swamped border enforcement efforts.The packages are thought to be one of the ways illegal drugs such as fentanyl have been smug-gled into the US and how other goods have entered the country in violation of rules against imports from regions known for human-rights abuses.The administration of President Joe Biden was well on its way to cracking down on de minimis abuses before he lost his re-election bid in November 2024, so Trump’s decision to eliminate the exemption wasn’t a complete surprise.How much trade did the de minimis rule affect?The de minimis exemption affected quite a bit of trade in both volume and value, with both rising exponentially. Such packages used to be confined to t-shirts and small electronics, but they’ve expanded to include bigger-ticket items such as electric bikes retailing for $799.According to a White House fact sheet, the number of individual shipments to the US claiming de minimis exemptions surged to nearly 1.4bn in 2024, up from 134mn a decade earlier. While China officially reported about $23bn worth of small parcel exports to the US last year, Nomura Holdings Inc estimates as much as $46bn of US-bound packages came from the country. (There’s a discrepancy because with so many parcels, it’s hard to count all of them in official statistics.) That’s still just a small fraction of the value of total US goods imports, which last year surpassed $3.2tn. Consequently, the suspension of the de minimis ex-emption isn’t expected to have a major effect on the US economy.

People mostly mix between digitisation and digitalisation. However, in business matters and services it would be very important to differentiate between digitisation and digitalisation.Understanding the key differences between these two terms is essential when formulating business strategy. Also, there are some legal implications here regarding data protection, authenticity of the docs for evidence purposes and acceptance before Courts.In brief, digitisation means to convert something into a digital format, and usually refers to encoding of data and documents. While, digitalisation means to convert business processes to use digital technologies, instead of similar things or offline systems such as paper or whiteboards.In a nutshell, digitisation refers to information, while digitalisation refers to processes.Appreciating the difference is important because they are genuinely different things to business matters, each requiring different resources, approaches and tools. Whether you are using the term digitise or digitalise, make sure you are referring to the right thing to avoid confusion, misunderstandings and could be legal repercussions.Digitisation is basically the process of taking analogue information, such as documents, sounds or photographs, and converting into a digital format that can be stored and accessed on computers, mobile phones and other digital devices.In business, digitisation may involve scanning old documents into PDFs, converting printed photographs into image files, or transforming printed reports into meaningful data that can be manipulated and analysed. Some digitisation projects may include going back over years of business records and information and converting them into a digital format for easy reference and other logistical purposes. The original content may be stored or destroyed, or may degrade over time, as in the case of magnetic tapes.In other cases, it may be that any new information being captured in a business is now created and stored primarily in a digital format, with any physical forms being only secondary copies. We have to mention that, the law regulates this process of keeping the old data and storing them in magnetic tapes. This is sensitive work to be undertaken by experienced personnel and requires careful attention, as courts may ask for them.For digitalisation, there is still some debate around the exact meaning, which means that people sometimes use it to describe digitisation. However, the general consensus is that digitalisation refers to the conversion of processes or interactions into their digital equivalents. And because all business processes and interactions involve people in some way, it would be more accurate to say that digitalisation is the reorganisation of these business activities around digital technologies.Examples include moving from sending physical letters via the postal service to using email, or from having in-person meetings to using online video conferencing tools. The Zoom meetings were very helpful and useful during Covid-19 and sure will continue for practical reasons.Digitalisation of a business is also likely to be an ongoing exercise, as new technologies emerge that allow further digitalisation of processes and interactions in many times and for many purposes.I believe, the distinction between digitisation and digitalisation is clear. However, the mixture is there which makes unnecessary confusion. Dr AbdelGadir Warsama Ghalib is a corporate legal counsel. Email: [email protected]

Following the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in June, we reached a breakthrough moment. Governments, international financial institutions, and civil-society organisations, recognising the need to tackle today’s debt and development crises, are ready for action ahead of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September. Recent reports that we each co-authored – Healthy Debt on a Healthy Planet, the Jubilee Report, and the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Expert Group on Debt – along with many other experts’ work, have definitively established the severity and urgency of these intertwined crises and their devastating consequences. In 2024, developing countries paid $25bn more to external creditors than they received in new disbursements. That means 3.4bn people – or more than 40% of the world’s population – live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health or education. As aid flows decline, climate change and nature loss accelerate, and global growth slows, developing countries’ debt vulnerabilities will only increase, as will the threats to people’s well-being, the planet, and global stability. Not only do many recognise the severity and urgency of the problem, they also agree on how we got here. The global financial system is not designed to meet the needs of people and the planet. Given historical inequities and low bargaining power, developing countries consistently face high borrowing costs and uneven incidence of prudential regulation. Without measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and strategic investment planning, borrowing and lending policies have failed to mobilise the productive investments that drive sustainable growth. Moreover, capital flows are highly volatile, with money flooding into developing countries during booms and flooding out in the wake of shocks. Meanwhile, the laws and policies governing debt restructurings have long encouraged delay, not resolution. The situation has only worsened in recent years. In response to Covid-19, the countries that could afford to spend huge amounts to support their citizens did so, but the lack of a global safety net meant that developing countries could do nothing of the kind. While new allocations of the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (the IMF’s reserve asset) helped somewhat, they were insufficient. Moreover, recent efforts to address debt distress, such as the G20 Common Framework, have fallen drastically short. Restructurings continue to move slowly and remain opaque, with outcomes largely determined by differentials in bargaining power between countries and their creditors. And restructuring now requires co-ordination among a wider array of players – including the Paris Club of sovereign creditors, newer bilateral lenders like China, and ever more private creditors. This makes restructuring processes even more complicated. Even when relief comes, it often arrives too late and achieves too little. Given the complexity of the crisis, there is no silver bullet. But nor are we at any loss for effective, practical solutions. To attack root causes, we should accelerate efforts to reform how the World Bank and IMF conduct debt-sustainability analyses. The current approach is not inclusive, does not account fully for climate- and nature-related risks, and does not consider the use of funds. Addressing these and other issues might seem technical, but the impact would be significant. For too long, flawed frameworks have held back the kind of productive borrowing that is needed to improve human capital, increase infrastructure investment, and strengthen climate resilience. At the same time, there is a strong case for creating new structures and institutions, starting with a Borrowers’ Club. Since lenders have been co-ordinating for decades, borrowers can hope to compete only if they do the same. Such co-ordination would enhance their collective bargaining power and ensure that their interests are considered. It could also provide a platform for everything from South-South learning to technical assistance and enhanced debt management. Past attempts at co-ordination among borrowers have featured a lack of resolve. But there is new momentum. We now need to move forward by establishing shared strategic goals, a governance structure, and adequate funding. To improve the restructuring process, we also need to change the incentives for both creditors and debtors. One option is to incorporate into the Common Framework automatic debt-service standstills for countries that face unsustainable debt burdens. The IMF could also use its policy of lending into arrears to guarantee that multilateral financing serves its purpose, rather than being used for repayment of distressed bonds that need to be restructured. It makes no economic sense – nor is it just – that after a devastating hurricane, scarce funds flow to remote creditors instead of to those who urgently need food and shelter. Reforming the legislation that governs restructurings to deter holdouts must be high on the common agenda. That includes changing the “compensatory” pre-judgment interest rate in New York State for debts in arrears, which has been fixed at 9% since 1981 (when inflation was 8.9%), and introducing caps on recovery. It is no mystery why creditors do not currently rush to the negotiating table. Across these key solutions – reforming debt-sustainability analyses, establishing a Borrowers’ Club, and improving the time and depth of restructuring – what matters as much as the idea is the strength of the commitment to it. In 2000, efforts by a powerful global coalition helped to deliver significant relief for low-income countries. But today’s reality demands that we adopt much broader and deeper reforms to solve the immediate crisis affecting low-income countries, and many middle-income countries as well, prevent future crises, and promote growth, job creation, and prosperity. As we look toward the UNGA in September, we should be focused on driving progress on these practical solutions. — Project Syndicate Martín Guzmán, a former minister of economy of Argentina, is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences and of the Jubilee Commission at the Vatican.Mahmoud Mohieldin, UN Special Envoy on Financing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and Co-Chair of the Expert Group on Debt, is a former minister of investment of Egypt (2004-10), former senior vice-president of the World Bank Group, and former executive director of the International Monetary Fund.Vera Songwe, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is Founder and Chair of the Liquidity and Sustainability Facility and Co-Chair of the Expert Review on Debt, Nature, and Climate.

Beyond the TarmacThe Asia-Pacific region’s aviation industry is back on the growth trajectory.The International Air Transport Association (IATA), the global body of airlines, predicts 9% growth for Asia-Pacific in 2025.Which means, a region that has struggled to shrug off the strictures of Covid-19 is once again posting the highest growth rate in the world.Aviation in Asia-Pacific supports $890bn in GDP and 42mn jobs, with the potential to increase to $2.3tn in GDP and 62mn jobs by 2043.Analysts say rising middle-class populations, particularly in China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, are fuelling demand for both domestic and international travel.Asia is the epicentre of global e-commerce (China and Southeast Asia leading), driving robust demand for air cargo and integrated logistics.Asia-Pacific is home to some of the world’s most dynamic tourism markets. Countries like Thailand, Japan, Vietnam, and Australia continue to record strong inbound flows. Analysts believe regional tourism agreements and visa liberalisation policies are expected to boost connectivity.The UNWTO and IATA forecast Asia-Pacific to contribute more than half of global passenger growth over the next two decades.“Most countries have crossed the line of pre-COVID figures and are experiencing increasing air travel demand,” says Sheldon Hee, IATA’s Regional Vice President for Asia-Pacific.“Four of the most populous countries in the world are in our region and all are young, emerging economies with a fast-growing middle class. We are even seeing some significant visa relaxation policies.“But the resumption of growth comes with challenges,” he adds. “The profit margin for 2025 is expected to be just 1.9%, or $2.60 per passenger. Aviation in Asia-Pacific must become more economically robust to meet demand with a high level of customer service delivered cost-efficiently.”Airport and airspace capacity are naturally the main considerations. On the positive side, there are at least 90 new airports under construction or in the planning stage, including significant gateways in Australia, India, and Vietnam. Each is a sign that the relevant government has aviation development on its agenda.“But there is more room for collaboration,” says Hee. “Airlines don’t need over-investment in facilities that would require deeper cost recovery. Development must be calibrated correctly, and airlines must be part of the conversation so that investments are correctly staged.”To assist passenger throughput — especially amid narrow margins — digitalisation in both passenger and cargo operations is essential. Every efficiency will count.Digitalisation and contactless travel centred on IATA’s ‘One ID’ will also be key enablers in enhancing the customer experience.India’s ‘Digi Yatra’, a facial recognition system for verified domestic customers, is leading the way but interoperability will be critical.Meanwhile, airspace is also being upgraded across the region but there is a notable bottleneck in the Bay of Bengal where aircraft get bunched for a variety of factors.The different levels of maturity in this diverse region mean there are also plenty of areas still reliant on older equipment, which leads to inefficiencies on a broader scale.Air cargo is an important part of needed capacity as Asia-Pacific is a major origin point for the booming e-commerce trade. Cargo revenues are often critical to the profitability of a flight, and this is certainly the case in Asia-Pacific.Trade barriers and tariffs could change traditional flows but demographic conditions and the desire to trade more within the region mean there are multiple opportunities for air cargo ahead.Although the outlook remains positive for this sector, there are inefficiencies to address. Paper is still commonplace in the region and optimisation based on the ONE Record has plenty of room for growth.“The industry is also doing a lot of work to make the carriage of dangerous goods (DG), and particularly lithium batteries, safer,” says Hee. “Good progress is being made but this work is especially pertinent to Asia-Pacific given the manufacturing in the region. We must educate the upstream shippers about the need for correct DG packaging and documentation.”IATA said it continues to work with governments and aviation authorities to promote the benefits of aviation and the business case for unlocking capacity.Undoubtedly, Asia-Pacific will remain the fastest-growing aviation region globally, led by China and India. Regional connectivity, tourism, and cargo are estimated to expand strongly.That said, the region’s air traffic management systems need modernisation to handle rising volumes efficiently and safely. Despite expansion, congestion at major airports in the region remains a major concern.

US President Donald Trump’s ongoing public pressure on the Federal Reserve marks a striking challenge to central bank independence in a developed economy, a necessary safeguard to set interest rates based on the economy’s needs.In the US, the Fed’s independence has largely been respected by lawmakers in the modern era.But for months, Trump has repeatedly criticised Fed Chair Jerome Powell for keeping interest rates steady. Trump, who wants rates cut, has vowed to replace Powell - whose term as chair ends in 2026 - with someone more compliant.Late on Monday, Trump moved to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook following allegations that she falsified mortgage documents, a dramatic escalation in the president’s battle for more control over the US central bank that unnerved investors.The Fed’s independence traces its roots to the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951, which separated monetary policy, the management of money supply, from fiscal policy, government decisions about taxation and spending. That ended a period in which the central bank was pressured by the US Treasury to keep interest rates artificially low.The Fed sets interest rates without needing approval from the president or Congress. While it is accountable to lawmakers and its leadership is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the long, staggered terms of the Board of Governors and the chair help insulate the Fed from short-term political pressures.While presidents over the years have privately expressed frustration to the Fed leadership over the level of interest rates, they generally have refrained from publicly criticising the central bank.In the decades since the Fed gained independence, other central banks around the world have gained similar autonomy in setting rates free of political interference.The most common argument for independence is that it allows monetary policy experts to make decisions that prioritise long-term economic stability over short-term political gains.But following the 2008 financial crisis, critics accused central banks of having failed to anticipate the collapse of the housing bubble.Central banks again became a lightning rod for criticism after the inflation crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic forced them to escalate interest rates in 2022.Critics accused them of missing the initial inflation buildup and then being too slow to respond as living costs soared.More recently, as economic growth has slowed, central bankers have come under political pressure to bring rates down.The end result has been renewed scrutiny of the judgment of officials, their accountability to executive and legislative branches of governments, and the transparency of their decision-making processes.Investors value the Fed’s status as an independent organisation. Without it, the central bank’s pledge to keep inflation in check lacks credibility.In the US, the Supreme Court has shielded Fed officials from being directly removed by the president without cause, which has quieted Trump’s threats to fire Powell.Yet the president is able to put his stamp on the central bank by nominating new people to vacancies.The Federal Reserve’s annual gathering in Jackson Hole last week also highlighted the political pressures weighing on the Fed.Global central bankers gathered at the US mountain resort over the weekend were starting to fear that the political storm surrounding the Fed may engulf them too.If the world’s most powerful central bank were to yield to that pressure, or Trump finds a playbook for removing its members, a dangerous precedent would be set from Europe to Japan, where established norms for the independence of monetary policy may then come under new attack from local politicians.A scenario in which the Fed sees its ability to counter inflation is jeopardised by a loss of independence could be taken as a direct threat to their own standing and to economic stability more broadly.

Qatar has made significant achievements in food security and self-sufficiency over the past years in many basic food products, most notably self-sufficiency in the production of fresh dairy products and poultry.The country’s efforts to meet its needs for these basic products aim to reduce the dependence on imports from foreign markets and to mitigate its exposure to the risks of disruptions to global supply chains and price fluctuations in global commodity markets.The private sector plays a key role in supporting Qatar’s food security, according to private sector representatives, speaking exclusively to Qatar News Agency (QNA). They emphasised the importance of co-operation and integration between the public and private sectors in achieving the country’s strategic and development goals.In remarks to QNA, Assistant Director of the Food Security Department at the Ministry of Municipality Hamad Hadi al-Hajri said Qatar’s National Food Security Strategy 2030 is primarily based on achieving sustainability in the use of natural resources, through their optimal utilisation and preservation, especially land and water.He pointed out that the strategy aims to boost local production of highly perishable agricultural goods, such as staple vegetables, fresh milk and its derivatives, fresh poultry meat, table eggs, fresh fish, and fresh red meat.As for commodities that can be stored for long periods, including wheat, sugar, rice, edible oils, and frozen poultry, the strategy recommends focusing on building a strategic stockpile to reduce pressure on natural resources and preserve them.These efforts have contributed to a significant increase in local production, thereby strengthening food security and reducing reliance on imports.The Assistant Director of the Food Security Department confirmed that the focus on sustainability and local production has positively impacted self-sufficiency rates for basic food commodities, especially perishable commodities.The fresh dairy and derivatives sector, along with the fresh poultry sector, has achieved a self-sufficiency rate of approximately 98%, covering all local needs for over four years. This outstanding performance is expected to continue, confirming the stability of local production and its efficiency in meeting national demand sustainably.In regards to the strategic vegetable sector; it has achieved remarkable progress, reaching a self-sufficiency rate of 39% in 2024, especially in light of the climatic and environmental challenges. It is worth noting that local production covers most of the demand during the peak production period in winter, particularly for basic vegetables, thus enhancing food security during this time of year and reducing dependence on imports.Concerning table eggs, the self-sufficiency rate has reached 30%, with projects under construction that are expected to contribute in increasing this rate in the coming period. The fresh fish sector has achieved a self-sufficiency rate exceeding 65%, amid efforts to preserve marine stocks by stabilising fishing effort and focusing on expanding aquaculture projects to ensure sustainable production. This is in addition to achieving 14% self-sufficiency in fresh red meat production.Al-Hajri explained that the priorities for the next phase of the National Food Security Strategy 2030 are to foster sustainable agricultural production, enhance adaptation to climate change by adopting more flexible and efficient agricultural practices, and increase self-sufficiency rates in basic commodities.Self-sufficiency plansBy 2030, the strategy plans to achieve 55% self-sufficiency in fresh strategic vegetables, 70% in table eggs, 30% in sheep and goat meat, and 80% in fresh fish, while maintaining previously achieved self-sufficiency levels in fresh dairy products and fresh poultry.In terms of water sustainability, the goal is to reduce groundwater extraction for agricultural purposes by 70% and to reduce the amount of water used per ton of crops produced by 40% by 2030.In terms of improving efficiency and reducing food loss, the strategy aims to reduce food waste by 30%, reduce food waste by 50%, address between 55% and 70% of food loss and waste using sustainable solutions, and reducing the number of foodborne illnesses to 24 cases per 100,000 people.He noted that these goals constitute a clear framework for an advanced stage of work toward achieving sustainable and comprehensive food security in Qatar, capable of adapting to future environmental and economic challenges.Pivotal role of private sectorAl-Hajri explained that the Qatari private sector is a key pillar in supporting the state’s efforts to achieve the goals of the National Food Security Strategy. It plays a pivotal role in promoting economic development by providing the necessary investments to develop the food security system and increase production in various sectors such as agriculture, the food industry, and food security-related technologies.He pointed out that the private sector is characterised by its flexibility and capacity for innovation, enabling it to adopt modern solutions and advanced technologies that help promote sustainability and address challenges associated with food security.Furthermore, enhancing co-operation between the public and private sectors is also a key pillar emphasised by the National Food Security Strategy 2030. This co-operation aims to ensure the successful implementation of planned initiatives and activities, particularly in the areas of increasing the efficiency of agricultural production, enhancing the strategic stock of food commodities, and improving supply chains.He indicated the role of the private sector is highlighted through close integration and co-operation with the public sector to achieve the goals of the three pillars of the Food Security Strategy regarding local production and market demand, strategic reserves and warning systems, and international trade and investment.Speaking on the private sector’s contributions, al-Hajri added that it effectively supports the raising of self-sufficiency rates for basic commodities through the implementation of various projects, such as greenhouse projects for growing vegetables, and sheep and goat fattening projects that increase self-sufficiency in red meat, in addition to fish farming projects that maintain sustainable levels of fish stocks and ensure sufficient supplies for local consumption.The private sector also participates actively in strategic food stock projects by managing storage and recycling operations, ensuring the preservation of stock quality and its availability in times of need.Public-private sector partnershipQatar Chamber (QC) Board Member and Chairman of QC’s Food Security and Environment Committee, Mohamed bin Ahmed al-Obaidli, said in a statement to QNA that Qatar has achieved advanced and tangible steps in enhancing food security by adopting a clear strategy and strengthening effective partnerships between the public and private sectors in this vital sector.He pointed out that Qatar’s global standing, thanks to the wise vision of its wise leadership, its active role in international mediation, and its prominent position on the global gas production map, has strengthened its international relations and strategic partnerships with all countries around the world, positively impacting this vital sector. Al-Obaidli noted that the country has accumulated extensive experience during its journey towards self-sufficiency in a number of basic products, such as meat and vegetables, in addition to significant developments in agricultural technology, livestock production projects, and food processing.He stressed the vital role played by the local private sector in enhancing food security and achieving self-sufficiency, especially during times of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic.He pointed out that the country’s strategic reserve depends on increasing local production, which Qatar has succeeded in achieving in partnership with the private sector, developing supply chains, and strengthening trade relations with friendly countries, resulting in providing all the elements of food security for the entire population.He also noted that the launch of the National Food Security Strategy 2030 marks a pivotal step towards strengthening food security, reflecting the wise leadership’s vision for achieving sustainable development across all economic sectors in line with Qatar National Vision 2030.He pointed out that QC is encouraging the Qatari private sector to engage in food security projects by providing specialised information and studies, and encouraging the establishment of joint ventures with leading international companies in the fields of storage, transportation, and other sectors. The Chamber has received trade delegations from several countries, with the aim of bringing together Qatari companies operating in the food security sector with their counterparts from these investment destinations.The QC board member underscored that the Food Security and Environment Committee organises meetings between investors, business owners, and relevant authorities to study the problems and obstacles facing food security and environment sector, and works to find appropriate solutions. The Committee has also presented a number of initiatives and proposals to support farm owners and increase the competitiveness of local products.Businessman Ali al-Khalaf, emphasised the importance of the private sector’s role and the integration of its efforts with the public sector in achieving Qatar’s food security goals. He reaffirmed the role played by the private sector in serving Qatar’s food security goals under the supervision of relevant government agencies, whether at the level of importing consumer goods or at the level of local agricultural production.He explained that there are regulatory procedures and co-operation between relevant government agencies and various private sector companies, each according to its specialisation in the field of trade, in order to strengthen the partnership between the public and private sectors and support the strategic stock system for food, consumer, and supply goods.Al-Khalaf added that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, for example, is responsible for supervising and managing the strategic stock and monitoring its adequacy among strategic suppliers and registered traders, thus, it has a direct relationship with the various private sector companies that import, store, and distribute in the local market.

Prices of coconut oil are surging in Asia, where top consumer India leads the charge with a tripling in two years, as supply shortages and booming demand for the nutrient-rich water enclosed within turn the kitchen staple into a premium product.The edible oil is slipping out of the reach of price-conscious consumers, and those accustomed to its distinctive flavour, deeply embedded in regional cuisine, must search harder to find alternatives.“I will switch to the more affordable refined sunflower oil for everyday cooking and save coconut oil for dishes where its flavour is absolutely irreplaceable,” said Leelamma Cherian, who lives in India’s southern state of Kerala.The price surge that began in the second half of 2024 was accelerated by output disruptions across major producer nations from India to Southeast Asia, caused by seasons of lower rainfall, extended heat, and more ravages by pests and disease.Prices in India have nearly tripled in less than two years, to a record Rs423,000 ($4,840) a metric ton, while global prices surged to an all-time high of $2,990 per ton over the same period.A group of producer nations, the International Coconut Community (ICC), says growing demand in the face of production limits will keep second-half global prices in the range of $2,500-2,700, well over the 2023 figure of about $1,000.Coconut oil supplies usually improve in Southeast Asia in the second half, and new season output will help ease prices off records, said a Singapore-based vegetable oil trader.“Still, prices probably won’t drop below $2,000 anytime soon,” he said.A fall below $1,800 a tonne in the next two years was unlikely, he added, pointing to the neglect of plantations and unfavourable weather in recent years as factors likely to delay a broader production recovery, especially at a time when supplies of other similar lauric oils are tight.“While prices are expected to ease gradually, the current rally is likely to establish a new normal.”The price surge also affects unripe green coconuts harvested for their electrolyte-laden water, and products such as copra, milk, and powder, while squeezing makers of shampoo and skincare items, who prize the oil for its high content of lauric acid.Supply squeezeGlobally, coconut oil output is falling as trees age, replanting proves inadequate, and plantations grapple with a shortage of better seed varieties, said Dorab Mistry, a director of Indian consumer goods company Godrej International.World coconut oil production was 3.67mn tonnes in 2024-25, with no growth over the past three decades, barring minor annual fluctuations, the US agriculture department says.As weather conditions increasingly swing from hot, dry spells to sudden heavy rains, both extremes disrupt coconut production, said Joe Ling, executive director of Malaysia’s Linaco Group, a leading supplier.These days, at least one producing country is affected — if dry weather is not curtailing output in Indonesia or Malaysia, it is highly likely that typhoons are disrupting production in the Philippines, or vice versa, Ling said.Yields fell in 2023 as the El Niño weather phenomenon brought above-average heat and below-average rains to key growing regions, said a Mumbai-based dealer at a global trading house, who sought anonymity in line with company policy.The shortfall was only reflected in 2024, since coconuts typically need nearly a year to mature after flowering.In the wake of years of underinvestment thanks to low prices, coconut production was further hit by the Covid-19 outbreak, as lockdowns brought a slump in demand and prices.That in turn led farmers to neglect plantations, resulting in lower yields just as demand began to recover when social media influencers drummed up attention to the health benefits of coconut water.Higher demand for the water prompted farmers to harvest coconuts earlier and further narrowed the supply of mature nuts used to make oil and copra.Even at higher prices, the perceived health benefits continue to fuel demand for coconut food products, said Ling of Linaco Group.The rally has led his company to raise prices almost monthly and maintain supplies despite upsetting customers, Ling added.Coconut oil’s premium over rival palm kernel oil, also primarily produced in Asia, has surged to a record $1,000 per tonne, up from the usual $100-$200. Palm kernel oil prices have also risen, climbing 30% this year.Any major shift away from coconut oil could drive up prices of alternatives, including palm kernel oil for industry and palm, soy, and sunflower oils for households.Global demandWhile coconut oil is popular in Asia, demand for copra, coconut cream, and milk is strong in Britain, China, Europe, Malaysia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.To capitalise on rising demand, Indonesian farmers are increasingly shipping whole coconuts instead of extracting oil, said Amrizal Idroes, vice chairman of the Indonesian Coconut Processing Industry Association.Indonesia’s coconut oil exports fell 15% between January and June, while shipments of items such as desiccated coconut and endocarp coconut rose by 58% annually, government data showed.Shortages have spurred calls for changes to trade policies that make more oil available at home.In Indonesia, the association urged suspension of coconut exports for six to 12 months to stabilise prices, while in India, the Solvent Extractors’ Association asked New Delhi to allow imports of coconut oil and copra.India regulates imports of coconut oil tightly, with a duty of more than 100% that makes them expensive, and traders required to seek permits from state trading enterprises.Higher prices have spurred farmers to expand planting, with strong seedling demand depleting most nurseries’ stocks this year, said an official of India’s state-run Coconut Development Board, who sought anonymity.But yield from new plantations take four or five years to come in, so prospects are bleak for prices to subside quickly. — Reuters

In July, I took part in a tough sporting challenge, known as Hyrox. This is a fitness race that combines running with functional workouts. It is intense and demanding, involving intervals in which eight runs of 1km are alternated with a tough challenge such as successive burpees or heavy lifting. The distance and the events are standardised, allowing for direct competition at each event, and comparisons to be made across different events. It is open to people of all abilities. The winner of the pro category receives an award of up to $7,500.This year, for the first time, it introduced an Adaptive category for athletes with physical challenges. I had wanted to take part last year, but some of the exercises were not possible for me, given the amputation of some of my fingers following an accident in the Himalayas in 2021. I was permitted to complete the ‘Farmer’s Carry’, which normally involves walking with two heavy kettle bells, carrying only one, while for the exercise involving pulling a sled with a rope I was permitted to complete half the usual distance. There were attentive, trained assistants for the Adaptive category, and generally the management and logistics are excellent. Within the Hyrox venue there are specialists such as physiotherapists.Taking part in a tough multi-disciplinary sporting contest helped me test my fitness, and boost my mood. It’s one of a growing range of branded mass-participation sporting events, the demand for which looks set to grow and growHyrox is a young event, begun in 2017, but growing rapidly, reaching $140mn turnover and with a presence in 11 countries. Around 650,000 people took part in 2024, compared with 650 at the first event in Germany seven years earlier. Events are heavily over-subscribed – securing a place has been described as like trying to get a ticket for a Taylor Swift concert.Its popularity chimes with strong social trends among young people. In a 2024 survey by the consultancy McKinsey, 56% of people in the Generation Z age group said fitness was a ‘very high’ priority, compared with 40% of respondents overall. Many seek immersive experiences that combine fitness with social engagement and memorable moments.Hyrox fits well with an emerging recognition that hybrid training – combining strength work with cardiovascular exercise – is the best for all-round fitness. Body builders who do weights but not cardio risk limited mobility and lung capacity, while those who only do running can have a weak core and be prone to injuries such as over-stretched hamstrings. Hybrid training is essential for mountaineering, and once you reach a high-level of all-round fitness, it’s a condition you don’t want to let drop.The Covid-19 pandemic has also spurred increased sporting activity. During lockdowns, many took to running in their allotted hour in the open air, while sales of cycling machines and treadmills soared. Globally the sports events market is growing at around 10% compound annual growth rate. It reached a turnover of $185bn in 2021, projected to grow to $609bn by 2031, according to research by Allied Market Research.The Hyrox business model is smart. There is an entry fee, sponsorship of the events, and branded items such as clothing, energy gels, drinks and so on. Participants are looking for a social, immersive event. You can buy a package of photos of yourself taking part. Participants will post these on social media, so the Hyrox brand gets some promotion for free.When I completed the Hyrox circuit, I found it to be tough. My mountaineering training and experience prepared me well – but it was still quite demanding. The greatest pay-off was the sensation afterwards: I felt great. There is the physical benefit of being fitter, combined with the sense of achievement at overcoming some tough challenges, and the exhilaration of competing alongside other people.Hyrox takes its place in a diverse and growing array of branded mass-participation sporting activities. Tough Mudder involves watery outdoors courses, and involves obstacles, such as scrambling up steep slopes and traversing walls. It was taken over by Spartan Race after it hit financial troubles. Spartan Race events range from the 3-mile Spartan Sprint to the Spartan Ultra. Toughest of all is the Ironman triathlon, which consists of an open water swim of just under 4km, a bicycle ride of 180km, followed by a full marathon (40km), all within a single day.Probably the largest mass participation event is Parkrun, a weekly, Saturday morning 5km run, started in London in 2004 and now in more than 2,300 locations worldwide with around half a million people taking part every week. It has a similar business model to Hyrox: participation is free but there is branded merchandise and commercial sponsorship.Long established are many marathons, half-marathons and 10km runs in towns and cities all around the world, often attracting thousands of participants.An increasing array of organised sporting activities, of varying levels of toughness and competitiveness, ensures that there is a good chance that an event will suit someone who is keen to be active. This sector looks set for continued future growth.The author is a Qatari banker, with many years of experience in the banking sector in senior positions

Next year will mark the 250th anniversary of the ratification of the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States. But another foundational document, fundamental to our understanding of economics, will reach the same milestone in 2026: Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. At a time of rapid economic and structural transformation, its insights are worth revisiting.Two stand out. One is that the “invisible hand” of markets efficiently allocates resources, as long as certain conditions – including a stable currency, a degree of trust and moral rectitude among economic actors, and credible property rights – are in place. Externalities (the unpriced impact of an entity’s activities on others) and informational gaps and asymmetries diminish the invisible hand’s efficiency and performance.The second, arguably more important insight is that an economy’s efficiency and productivity are enhanced by the “division of labour,” known today as “specialisation.” A specialised economy is powered by various pockets of knowledge and expertise, which take advantage of economies of scale, learning, and enhanced incentives for innovation. Since specialisation does not work in the absence of a reasonably efficient method of exchange, it depends on Smith’s invisible hand. As specialisation advances, so does the economy’s complexity.As Smith noted, however, specialisation is limited by the “extent of the market”: a small market cannot create enough demand to sustain a wide variety of specialised businesses. That is why improvements in transportation and communication linkages, which lower the cost of addressing an expanding market, have enabled greater specialisation.Another important potential constraint on specialisation is the risk it inevitably generates. Since an economy’s patterns of specialisation are structural, they take time to change. So, if the trading system is disrupted, or certain skills or industries are rendered obsolete (such as by technological innovations or shifting demand patterns), individuals, firms, and even entire economies must undergo a transition, which may prove difficult and prolonged.In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as economies became more specialised, various policies, institutions, and conditions – from antitrust to social safety nets to the maintenance of macroeconomic and monetary stability – gradually emerged to mitigate the associated risks. But these were largely national-level solutions, and, after World War II, specialisation went global.What began as a means of supporting the postwar economic recovery soon became a comprehensive transformation. Colonial empires were abandoned, along with their asymmetric economic structures, and mercantilism gave way to free trade. Add to that advances in transportation and communications technology, accelerated by the digital revolution, and the first constraint on specialisation – the “extent of the market” – was radically loosened.For developing economies, this was a game-changer. Given their low per capita GDP, they could not generate sufficient domestic demand to benefit from the efficiency and productivity gains of specialisation. But once they gained access to foreign markets and technologies, they capitalised on their comparative advantages and achieved rapid GDP growth. Increasing specialisation was thus accompanied by a geographic shift in economic activity.The resulting structural disruptions outpaced the evolution of governance structures capable of mitigating the proliferating risks. For a while, this did not seem to matter much: the advanced economies, especially the US, still underwrote international economic governance, making the rules and sponsoring the institutions that kept the system running. But, eventually, the shift in global economic power reached a tipping point: the demand constraint on specialisation was loosened to the point that the risk constraint was kicking in. As the structural disruptions grew more pronounced, popular frustration deepened across the advanced economies, fuelling a social and political backlash. Then, a proliferating series of shocks – escalating climate impacts, the Covid-19 pandemic, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and rising geopolitical tensions – reinforced this shift. Donald Trump’s return to the White House, with his “America first” foreign policy and preference for bilateral dealmaking, cemented it.As a result, many countries now view economic security as inextricably linked to national security: while specialisation remains intact within economies, it is being partly reversed at the international level. Although it is impossible to know precisely where this process will lead, one can expect adverse consequences for productivity and growth – in effect the price of increased resilience and reduced risk. Countries with less capacity to generate domestic demand – whether because of low per capita GDP or small population size – will suffer the most, with the extent of their losses depending on how much access to global markets they retain.But Smith’s model of specialisation may soon face an even more fundamental shift. Recall that it is based on the creation of pockets of specific knowledge and expertise that are not easily acquired or transferred. But generative AI models, among their many effects, now appear to be on course to deliver expertise in almost any area, to anyone who wants it, at very low cost.The potential consequences are far-reaching. If expertise becomes less scarce, the price it commands will fall. Only knowledge and skills that remain difficult to transfer – say, because they cannot easily be described or documented – will increase in value. In other words, a significant share of human capital might not be worth nearly as much at some point in the future as it was in the past 250 years, but another share could be worth much more. A question that must now be investigated is how big each of these shares will be.Nearly 250 years after Smith introduced the concept of specialisation, it remains a key feature of our economies. But it has also changed profoundly. It is in partial retreat in the global economy, as the perceived risks of interdependence rise. Artificial intelligence will probably not reduce specialisation, but by altering the knowledge-transfer equation, it may change the relative prices of the human capital associated with various types of specialised knowledge. — Project SyndicateMichael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Emeritus Professor of Economics and a former dean of the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University and a co-author (with Mohamed A El-Erian, Gordon Brown, and Reid Lidow) of Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured World.