Fisheries are being demolished, while nations argue over who and what is to blame. Photo: Christingo (flickr)

As fisheries decline, nations are busy arguing over who's to blame. Japan is pointing to whales as a culprit, and in doing so, drawing the ire of conservationists and scientists.

Japan has claimed that whales' eating habits are responsible for the diminishing numbers of fish. Many say this is because Japan has been campaigning to end the ban on whale hunting and is looking for international support.

At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, a coalition of conservation groups and scientists accused Japan of dodging responsibility for the declining stocks.

Daniel Pauly, director of a renowned fisheries research center, said whales are "no more responsible than the Martians" and that Japan's accusation "prevents the very small resources of West African countries from being devoted to understanding the real reasons why their fisheries are declining."

According to Dr. Pauly’s decade-long study, only about 1 percent of what whales eat is also desired by human consumers.

He and others blame not whales but East Asian and European fishing fleets trolling the coast of West Africa.

"Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems," says Stanford's Steve Palumbi, "then this century is the last century of wild seafood.”

Here's one thing you can do to make sure that doesn't happen: Urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would ensure that the world's oceans are managed sustainably.

The World Wildlife Federation, whose website offers letters you can email to your Senator and e-postcards to alert your friends, gives ample reason why the law is needed:

"Two-thirds of fish stocks that supply the global market have been overexploited or fished to maximum capacity; more than half of the world's coral reefs are threatened by human activity; and close to one-fifth of Southeast Asia's reefs have been damaged or destroyed by coral bleaching.

Future leaders of Sierra Leone. Photo: Mike North (flickr)

Sierra Leone is OK now. A newly-elected government is in power and day-to-day activities of the administration are ongoing.

—Olusegun Ogundeji, Concord Times of Freetown.

In the aftermath of the brutal civil war from 1991 to 2002 in Sierra Leone, tens of thousands lost their lives while one-third of the country's population was displaced. Today, however, Sierra Leone has enjoyed several years of peace and has strengthened its security sector, promoted human rights and rule of law, and prepared for upcoming elections. Now, the country is ready to rebuild its economy through new private investments.

Determined to make a fresh start, Sierra Leone’s new president, Ernest Bai Koroma, has promised to tackle the country's economy with a highly ambitious program of reforms aimed to encourage foreign and local investment, build basic public infrastructure and services, and improve government accountability. One such initiative by the Sierra Leonean government includes negotiating entry into the UK-based Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which would make corporations and government become more transparent — and more attractive to investors.

Sierra Leone’s government has also been working with the IFC World Bank Investment Climate team for Africa, which will advise them on how best to implement reforms “to improve the country’s investment environment and remove obstacles blocking private sector development.”

In addition to the agricultural and gold-mining industries, Sierra Leone’s tourism industry is also getting a makeover. According to The Independent, "London-based travel companies are now marketing the former British colony as an adventure holiday destination as well as the setting for off-season sun and surf vacations to compete with the Canary Islands.”

Sierra Leone has a long way to go. It still ranks near the bottom on the UN's Human Development Index, one popular indicator of a country's well-being. But even without private investment, Sierra Leone has a lot to celebrate. As the UN Peacebuilding Commission has noted, “Sierra Leone could take pride in having restored State authority throughout the country, disarmed former combatants, resettled over 1 million displaced people, held elections, re-established public and social institutions, rehabilitated government infrastructure and provided some basic services.”

For a country once torn by war, those are certainly signs of progress.

Photo: Tatiana Cardeal (flickr)

Peru has one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Over the past six years, the country’s GDP has grown more than 6 percent annually. This is largely due to high market prices for mineral exports, increases in private investment and liberal economic policies that have been put into place by President Alan Garcia and his predecessor Alejandro Toledo.

Yet Peru’s economic growth is having a limited impact on poverty rates. While the capital, Lima, and the northern and coastal regions are flourishing, over 70 percent of the Andean region still lives in poverty. A major factor in this persistent poverty is the fact that many Peruvians continue to work in the informal sector of the economy, writes the Economist:

These unwaged people are often more or less cut off from the market economy. And it is market connections that make economic growth “trickle down” to the poor, points out Richard Webb, a social researcher and former central-bank governor. Enabling that to happen is thus a job for public policy. Better roads, education and social policy are all needed.

President Garcia has worked to increase social spending on anti-poverty programs, and staunchly advocates market-based solutions to Peru’s poverty problem. However, Garcia’s ability to combat poverty continues to be hampered by his unpopularity (his latest approval rating is only 26 percent), his lack of a legislative majority, and fears of corruption in lower levels of government. Unless Garcia can find a way to make Peru's growth work for more Peruvians, his liberal economic policies may lose support from those who aren't seeing the benefits of market capitalism.

Photo: Chris Hondros for Mercy Corps

Like it or not, Kosovo is independent. Yet its survival depends on whether or not it will be able to build a functioning and sustainable economy, a goal that remains far from certain. Post-independence Kosovo faces daunting economic challenges, including weak infrastructure, unemployment rates of nearly 50 percent, and economic corruption that has been ranked as fourth worst in the world by Transparency International.

Although some in Kosovo are confident about prospects for economic growth and development, many estimate that it will be another ten to fifteen years before Kosovo can support itself economically. Commentary from the World Politics Review argues that independence may actually exacerbate Kosovo's economic problems:

While Kosovo may be able to get loans now from the IMF and World Bank, the last nine years have shown that aid alone is not going to do it. Kosovo has already received 25 times per capita the amount of aid given to Afghanistan, and the economy is still in shambles. Furthermore, it is a safe bet that Serbia will obstruct investment in Kosovo, first by shutting down the commercial border between the countries, and then by challenging privatization plans in the World Court and other international bodies. Late last week, Serbia indicated that it will continue to pay Kosovo's debts to the international community, which will amount to $70 million this March alone. Serbia's only reason for doing this is to preserve its legal claim to the territory and its right to tax any development projects. The legal wrangling likely to result will tie up proposed projects for years, and chase away the few investors Kosovo might be able to attract.

For the first time in more than five years, the average household income is declining in the U.S., reports the Financial Times.

Joseph Stiglitz, John Edwards and anti-war group MoveOn.org all blame the Iraq War for triggering a U.S. recession. While the connection is politically attractive to some, President Bush — and even some of his critics — argue that this simply isn't true.

When President Bush said last week that "spending in the war might help with jobs" and that "this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting," even well-known Bush-basher Paul Krugman had to concede the point. In a blog post, he wrote, "Hate to say this, but he’s right."

Although Cuba's new leader says he will continue to run the country under a socialist framework, economic changes may soon be underway.

According to The Economist:

In his speech, Raúl also gave broad hints of economic changes. He recalled a commitment by Fidel in 2005 gradually to revalue the peso. Since many prices are set in hard currency, that is essential if wages are to rise above their average of $20 a month. This would take time, he said, but would involve moving away from the state-run rationing system and taking more account of wages and prices. That amounts to a move towards market mechanisms. And he praised decentralisation.

Some predict that Cuba will try to mimic progress made in Vietnam in Cuba by embracing markets while still adhering to the concept of socialism. This would be a substantial change for Cuban economic policy.

Photo:whiffer (flickr)

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, the former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly argues that Chavez has failed to live up to his pro-poor rhetoric, and that the policies of his administration have hurt both the national economy and the Venezuelan poor. While many observers outside Venezuela believe that Chavez has made the welfare of the poor his highest priority, the author notes that neither official statistics nor independent assessments show any evidence that Chavez's policies have helped combat poverty in Venezuela.

Fidel has resigned, but a Castro still rules over Cuba. What are the differences between Fidel Castro and his brother Raul, and what will these differences mean for a post-Fidel Cuba? While there is a general consensus that Fidel's official resignation is unlikely to bring substantial political and economic change in Cuba in the near future, there have been indications that Raul may follow the "Chinese model" and gradually open up the Cuban economy while maintaining strict political control.

Many Cubans say Raúl will have no option but to give Cubans more leeway, economically if not politically. “People here say they are fidelistas, but not necessarily socialistas,” said an analyst in Havana, who asked to remain anonymous. Without Fidel, “Raúl will have to renegotiate an agreement with the Cuban people”.

Raúl is hardly likely to jettison half-a-century of socialist reforms and throw the country open to foreign capital, as Russia did in the 1990s. But he has hinted that he wishes to gradually open up the system, acknowledging the “excessive number of prohibitions” in Cuba and starting a national debate about the shortcomings of the regime.