Strategic gas storage coordination among EU member states during supply crises: an optimization approach

Given the strong presence of natural gas in the European Union (EU) energy mix (25%), this work focuses on natural gas strategic storage reserves as a first non-market based solidarity measure to increase energy security among EU Member States in response to natural gas supply “high-impact, low-probability” events (HILP). It presents a two-stage stochastic LP optimization gas transport model minimizing costs to study the short-term resilience of the network to supply shocks when using strategic storage in a coordinated fashion and including a policy perspective (i.e., EU Regulation 2017/1938) to evaluate the impact of HILP on the level of demand curtailment, survival time, and the natural gas supply mix among MS in the EU. The model is implemented to analyze three applications related to natural gas storage: (1) assess resilience and security in the EU gas system during a real case of shock in demand during an exceptionally cold weather; (2) test the role of coordination in case of short-term HILP events in the EU natural gas network; and (3) examine solidarity measures, such as strategic storage, among EU Regional Risk Groups during gas system disruptions due to HILP events. Results highlight the value of gas infrastructure diversification and the role of storage in the gas market and its inherent value in the system. In particular, the cost efficiency found in the coordinated use of strategic storage during a short-term emergency emphasizes the importance of storage-based solidarity in mitigating the effects of HILP supply disruptions and securing resources to the grid. They indicate that geographical proximity alone, without solidarity interventions, is insufficient to provide system resilience and that solidarity interventions enhance survival time for Regional Risk Groups in the EU and reduce liquefied natural gas (LNG) and system costs, offering an additional insight on the interplay between storage and LNG.Open Acces

High food prices: The what, who, and how of proposed policy actions

"The complex causes of the current food and agriculture crisis require a comprehensive response. In view of the urgency of assisting people and countries in need, the first set of policy actions— an emergency package—consists of steps that can yield immediate impact: 1. expand emergency responses and humanitarian assistance to food-insecure people and people threatening government legitimacy, 2. eliminate agricultural export bans and export restrictions, 3. undertake fast-impact food production programs in key areas, and 4. change biofuel policies. A second set of actions—a resilience package—consists of the following steps: 5. calm markets with the use of market-oriented regulation of speculation, shared public grain stocks, strengthened food-import financing, and reliable food aid; 6. invest in social protection; 7. scale up investments for sustained agricultural growth; and 8. complete the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Investment in these actions calls for additional resources. Policymakers should consider mobilizing resources from four sources: the winners from the commodity boom among countries; the community of traditional and new donor countries; direct or indirect progressive taxation and reallocation of public expenditures in the affected countries themselves; and mobilization of private sector finance, including through improved outreach of banking to agriculture. Because of countries' diverse situations, the design of programs must be country driven and country owned. Accountability for sound implementation must also rest with countries. At the same time, a new international architecture for the governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition is needed to effectively implement the initiatives described, and especially their international public goods components. Global and national action is needed, through existing mechanisms, well-coordinated special initiatives, and possibly a special fund." from TextFood prices, Food supply, Food demand, Social protection, Agricultural research, Agricultural policy, Agricultural subsidies,

Projected health-care resource needs for an effective response to COVID-19 in 73 low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study

BACKGROUND; : Since WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, more than 20 million cases have been reported, as of Aug 24, 2020. This study aimed to identify what the additional health-care costs of a strategic preparedness and response plan (SPRP) would be if current transmission levels are maintained in a status quo scenario, or under scenarios where transmission is increased or decreased by 50%.; METHODS; : The number of COVID-19 cases was projected for 73 low-income and middle-income countries for each of the three scenarios for both 4-week and 12-week timeframes, starting from June 26, 2020. An input-based approach was used to estimate the additional health-care costs associated with human resources, commodities, and capital inputs that would be accrued in implementing the SPRP. FINDINGS: The total cost estimate for the COVID-19 response in the status quo scenario was US$52.45 billion over 4 weeks, at$8.60 per capita. For the decreased or increased transmission scenarios, the totals were $33.08 billion and$61.92 billion, respectively. Costs would triple under the status quo and increased transmission scenarios at 12 weeks. The costs of the decreased transmission scenario over 12 weeks was equivalent to the cost of the status quo scenario at 4 weeks. By percentage of the overall cost, case management (54%), maintaining essential services (21%), rapid response and case investigation (14%), and infection prevention and control (9%) were the main cost drivers.; INTERPRETATION; : The sizeable costs of a COVID-19 response in the health sector will escalate, particularly if transmission increases. Instituting early and comprehensive measures to limit the further spread of the virus will conserve resources and sustain the response.; FUNDING; : WHO, and UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office

Reducing the Impact of Organisational Silos on Resilience: A Report on the impact of silos on resilience and how the impacts might be reduced

Organisations need to perform effectively if they are to meet societal goals and expectations. This is especially important when adverse events arise, whatever the cause. Silos are organisational units where there is a breakdown in communication, co-operation and co-ordination with external parties. Silos can arise within organisations, a result of silo mentality. Or organisations themselves can become siloed if they unduly limit their connections with other organisations. Silos are often detrimental to the resilience of organisations and communities. Two definitions of resilience are suggested; one based on New Zealand research undertaken within the Resilient Organisations Research Programme (www.resorgs.org.nz) and another from the UK that addresses resilience at both organisational and national levels. There is a need to improve the way that we manage silos in the interests of organisational and community resilience. How silos arise and what can be done about them to promote resilience is the topic of this report. Good internal management practices, together with bridge-building between organisations to improve collaboration, appear to be particular needs. Specific steps need to be taken where private incentives fall short of delivering all of the community’s resilience requirements. This report concludes by suggesting some points that need to be recognised to reduce the impact of silos on resilience

An American Model for the EU Gas Market?

It is generally believed that the American model is not suitable for Europe, yet North America is the only large and working competitive gas market in the world. The paper shows how its model could be adapted as a target for market design within the European institutional framework. It starts from analysis of the main peculiar economic features of the gas transportation industry, which should underpin any efficient model. After the Third Package is properly implemented the EU will share several building blocks of the American model: effective unbundling of transportation and supply; regulated tariffs which, for long distance transportation, are in fact largely related to capacity and distance; investments based mostly on industry’s initiative and resources, and the related decisions are increasingly made after open and public processes. Yet Europe needs to harmonize tariff regulation criteria, which could be achieved through a monitoring process. National separation of main investment decisions should be overcome, possibly by organising a common platform where market forces and public authorities interact with private suppliers to require existing and develop new capacity, whereas industry competitively offers its solutions. Such platform would allow for long term capacity reservation, subject to caps and congestion management provisions. Auctions and possibly market coupling would play an important role in the allocation of short term capacity but a limited one in long term. Market architecture and the organisation of hubs would also be developed mostly by market forces under regulatory oversight. The continental nature of the market suggests a likely concentration of trading in a very limited number of main markets, whereas minor markets would have a limited role and would be connected to major ones, with price differences reflecting transportation costs and market conditions. Excessive interference or pursuit of political goals in less than transparent ways involves the risk of slower liquidity development and higher market fragmentation. With this view as a background, regulatory work aimed at completing the European market should be based on ensuring the viability of interconnections between current markets and on the establishment of common platforms and co-ordinated tariff systems, fostering the conditions for upstream and transportation capacity development.Hubs; infrastructure; target model; network tariffs; gas market design; capacity allocation

Gas models and three difficult objectives

Competition, security of supply and sustainability are at the core of EU energy policy. The Commission argues that making the European gas market more competitive (completing the internal gas market) will be instrumental in the pursuit of these objectives. We examine the question through the eyes of existing models of the European gas market. Can model tell us anything on this problem? Do they confirm or infirm the analysis of the Commission appearing in fundamental documents such the Green Paper, the Sector Inquiry or the new legislation package? We argue that results of existing models contradict a fundamental finding (paragraph 77) of the Sector Inquiry. We further elaborate on the basis of the economic assumption underlying the models, that changing the assumptions implicitly contained in paragraph 77 cast doubts on a large part of the reasoning justifying the completion of the internal gas market. We also explain that models could help arriving at a better definition of the relevant market, which is so important in the reasoning of the Commission. Last we also find model results that question the effectiveness of ownership unbundling. As to security of supply, we explain that models can also contribute to assess the value of additional infrastructure in the context of security of supply, but this potential seems largely untapped. Last we note that sustainability has not yet penetrated models of gas markets. We conclude by suggesting other area of immediate concern, possibly of higher technical difficulty, that modellers could address in future research.

Electric Power Grids Under High-Absenteeism Pandemics: History, Context, Response, and Opportunities.

Widespread outbreaks of infectious disease, i.e., the so-called pandemics that may travel quickly and silently beyond boundaries, can significantly upsurge the morbidity and mortality over large-scale geographical areas. They commonly result in enormous economic losses, political disruptions, social unrest, and quickly evolve to a national security concern. Societies have been shaped by pandemics and outbreaks for as long as we have had societies. While differing in nature and in realizations, they all place the normal life of modern societies on hold. Common interruptions include job loss, infrastructure failure, and political ramifications. The electric power systems, upon which our modern society relies, is driving a myriad of interdependent services, such as water systems, communication networks, transportation systems, health services, etc. With the sudden shifts in electric power generation and demand portfolios and the need to sustain quality electricity supply to end customers (particularly mission-critical services) during pandemics, safeguarding the nation's electric power grid in the face of such rapidly evolving outbreaks is among the top priorities. This paper explores the various mechanisms through which the electric power grids around the globe are influenced by pandemics in general and COVID-19 in particular, shares the lessons learned and best practices taken in different sectors of the electric industry in responding to the dramatic shifts enforced by such threats, and provides visions for a pandemic-resilient electric grid of the future. [Abstract copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Constraints and Strategies for the Development of the Seed System in Mozambique

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Directorate of Economics, Republic of Mozambiquefood security, food policy, Mozambique, seed system, Crop Production/Industries, Q18,

The Global Risks Report 2016, 11th Edition

Now in its 11th edition, The Global Risks Report 2016 draws attention to ways that global risks could evolve and interact in the next decade. The year 2016 marks a forceful departure from past findings, as the risks about which the Report has been warning over the past decade are starting to manifest themselves in new, sometimes unexpected ways and harm people, institutions and economies. Warming climate is likely to raise this year's temperature to 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era, 60 million people, equivalent to the world's 24th largest country and largest number in recent history, are forcibly displaced, and crimes in cyberspace cost the global economy an estimated US$445 billion, higher than many economies' national incomes. In this context, the Reportcalls for action to build resilience – the "resilience imperative" – and identifies practical examples of how it could be done.The Report also steps back and explores how emerging global risks and major trends, such as climate change, the rise of cyber dependence and income and wealth disparity are impacting already-strained societies by highlighting three clusters of risks as Risks in Focus. As resilience building is helped by the ability to analyse global risks from the perspective of specific stakeholders, the Report also analyses the significance of global risks to the business community at a regional and country-level