Browse by: "2012"
Index
Index par titre
Index par année
This study examines the impact of exchange rates and their volatility on trade flows in two small, open economies – Chile and New Zealand – with three major trading partners, in two broadly defined sectors – agriculture on the one hand and manufacturing and mining on the other. It finds that exchange volatility impacts trade flows in the small, open economies more than was found for larger economies. Findings do not clearly indicate the direction of the impact, i.e. whether this volatility increases or decreases trade in all countries and sectors. Exchange rate levels, on the other hand, affect trade in both agriculture and manufacturing and mining sectors although their magnitude differs depending on the trading partner and sector. Moreover, this study indicates that a depreciation in the exchange rates in Chile and New Zealand would not lead to a strong change in their trade balances with three main trading partners across the board.
L’Allemagne s’est engagée à respecter des objectifs ambitieux de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) en 2020 et ultérieurement. Elle met en oeuvre tout un éventail de mesures pour atteindre ses objectifs d’atténuation du changement climatique, et notamment divers instruments économiques. Ces mesures ont contribué à réduire les émissions nationales de GES, et à atteindre d’autres objectifs. Cependant, il en découle plusieurs prix du carbone (explicites et implicites), qui risquent de nuire à l’efficacité globale par rapport aux coûts de son action. Le présent rapport examine les prix du carbone qui se dégagent de l’application de trois instruments économiques clés en Allemagne : les taxes sur l’énergie, les taxes sur les véhicules et le système d'échange de quotas d'émission de l’UE. Il aborde aussi le recours aux tarifs d’achat pour encourager la production d’électricité moyennant des sources renouvelables, en mettant l’accent sur les coûts implicites de réduction des émissions de GES et les interactions avec d’autres instruments de la politique d’environnement. Ce document de travail se rapporte à l’Examen environnemental de l'OCDE de l’Allemagne, 2012 : http://www.oecd.org/fr/environnement/examensenvironnementauxparpays/examensenvironnementaux delocdeallemagne2012.htm
The new study will outline trends and progress since 2005, and will examine the key remaining challenges drawing on the experience of IEA member countries to inform the analysis as appropriate. It is being undertaken in consultation with key Russian stakeholders to ensure the analysis reflects a sound, evidence-based understanding of the key issues.
This paper outlines some key issues and preliminary views emerging from IEA analysis and consultations to date, and is provided to facilitate more effective consultation and dialogue with key stakeholders. The IEA would welcome comments on the issues and questions raised in this document, or any other observations stakeholders may wish to raise that may be of relevance to this study.
Please forward any written comments in English or Russian to [email protected]. Comments would be gratefully received before close of business, Monday 30 April 2012.
Any other questions in relation to this project should be directed to Douglas Cooke, Project Leader ([email protected]) or Isabel Murray, Russia Programme Manager ([email protected]).
Tntil India adopted the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (Liability Act) and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011 (Liability Rules or Rules),1 no specific legislation was in place to govern nuclear liability or to compensate victims for damages due to a nuclear incident in India.
On 26 April 1986, the international nuclear community experienced a dramatic “wake-up call” when the reactor core of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, situated in the former Ukrainian Republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, melted down. Due to the large volume of radioactive elements which were released into the atmosphere and spread around the globe, particularly across the northern hemisphere, the accident has been categorised as “by far the most devastating in the history of nuclear power”.1 The incident served to dramatically and vividly remind the world of the potentially devastating national and transboundary consequences which may follow a nuclear accident, and it dispelled the myth that nuclear incidents create predominantly national safety risks. Suddenly all countries, even those without nuclear power capacity or situated in relative geographic isolation from nuclear sites, were forced to realise the risks that could be thrust upon them by a nuclear accident, even one occurring in a far distant state. Chernobyl demonstrated that despite the stationary nature of such plants, thanks to global wind currents external damage could be considerable.
The current state of affairs concerning development in the United States of a permanent repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) is, in a word, uncertain. The President of the United States has asserted that he believes licensing and development of the Yucca Mountain repository should be abandoned, while other important parties believe licensing and development should continue. And not surprisingly, there is a disagreement as to what the law requires and whether the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository can be terminated at this point, even if the President would like for that to happen. The future of Yucca Mountain, and the future of radioactive waste disposal in the United States generally, currently are pending before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and eventually the Supreme Court of the United States may decide some of the important legal issues concerning Yucca Mountain’s future. The November 2012 US elections also likely will have a significant impact on future radioactive waste repository development.
The Bologna Process put in motion a series of reforms for higher education. In Germany, the “Bologna reform” focused national standards and guidelines which served as criteria for obligatory programme accreditation by external bodies. This article reports on the results of an empirical study that examined the effects and limitations of accreditation as a means of monitoring the reform of study programmes. An analysis of 1 380 accreditation decisions taken in the Federal State of Lower Saxony between July 2004 and December 2009 and a series of interviews of key actors in the state’s 36 higher education institutions gave rise to a better understanding of whether accreditation does in fact support HEIs’ quality assurance goals.
Unconditional and conditional quantile regressions are used to explore the determinants of labour earnings at different parts of the distribution and, hence, the determinants of overall labour earnings inequality. The analysis combines several household surveys to provide comparable estimates for 32 countries. The empirical work suggests that, in general, a rise in the share of workers with an uppersecondary or post-secondary non-tertiary degree and a rise in the share of workers on permanent contracts are associated with a narrowing of the earnings distribution. By contrast, a shift in the sector composition of the economy is not found to have a large impact on overall earnings inequality. As for tertiary education, the impact remains ambiguous as there are several offsetting forces.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “safeguards system” serves as the foundation of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, under which the IAEA acts as an auditor, monitor and inspector of state-administered nuclear energy programmes. The system consists of agreements and practices that enable the IAEA to gain a clear picture of a state’s nuclear activities in order to provide credible assurances that nuclear energy is used for exclusively peaceful purposes.
Yet – outside the major pension funds and insurance companies – institutional investor allocations to clean energy projects remain limited, particularly when it comes to the types of direct investment which can help close the financing gap. Reasons for institutional investor hesitancy include a lack of information and expertise when it comes to the type of direct infrastructure investment required to finance clean energy projects, and a potentially unsupportive regulatory backdrop. These problems are compounded by a lack of suitable investment vehicles providing the risk/return profile that institutional investors need to manage the risks specific to clean energy projects. There are many species of risk, including regulatory risk stemming from a lack of clarity in terms of environmental and climate policy, and retroactive changes to support mechanisms. Progress is being made – with investor groups coming together to use their scale and build their expertise in clean energy investment. From the public and private sectors, actions are underway to scale up green bond offerings, create risk-mitigating public finance mechanisms and co-investment funding structures. These initiatives need to be encouraged, carefully monitored, and expanded where successful.