The 27 EU Member States are not entitled to derogate from the EU ban on neonicotinoid seeds, the European Court of Justice ruled on 19 January. This applies even in exceptional circumstances.
The ruling follows an application to the Belgian Council of State to annul Belgium’s derogation for the use of bee-toxic insecticides on sugar beet crops. The application was filed by the activist groups Pesticide Action Network Europe, (PAN Europe), the association Nature & Progrès Belgium, which raises awareness and informs the general public about environmental and societal issues, and a Belgian beekeeper.
The CJEU ruling reshuffles the deck and gives new hope to environmental organisations, as the institution recalled that the ban was adopted “because of the high acute and chronic risks to bees from seeds treated with plant protection products containing these neonicotinoids”. Since 2021, despite protests from associations against successive authorisations, neither the government nor the courts have followed them.
Neonicotinoids have been banned since the end of 2018 in the European Union because of their danger to biodiversity and human health. Eleven countries continue to grant “emergency authorisations” to stakeholders in the sugar beet sector, who are struggling to find alternatives. According to a recent PAN Europe report, EU Member States have granted more than 236 derogations for banned pesticides in the last four years, with neonicotinoids accounting for almost half (47.5%).
Anti-pesticide groups have argued that neonicotinoids are increasingly used preventively by ‘seed coating’ instead of being sprayed on the crop. This means that they are applied directly to the seed before the plant is even infested with pests.
Not surprisingly, today’s ruling puts an end to almost half of the derogations granted by Member States to banned pesticides.
The French government was planning to grant a derogation for the third consecutive year, in 2023, to sugar beet growers using these substances. It will have to abandon this project, now considered illegal by the EU.
Experts suggest that DNA found in sedimentary deposits likely originated from long-deceased animals.
The mystery surrounding the exact timing of the extinction of mammoths has long captivated paleontologists, as the decline of these giant ice age creatures seemed to coincide with the arrival of humans in North and South America.
This has led many to question if human activity played a role in the extinction of mammoths over 10,000 years ago.
A University of Cincinnati paleontologist refutes the latest timeline published in 2021 in the journal Nature that suggested mammoths met their end much more recently than we believed. An international team of researchers examined the environmental DNA of mammoth remains and more than 1,500 arctic plants to conclude that a wetter climate quickly changed the landscape from tundra grassland steppe to forested wetlands that could not support many of these big grazing animals, driving mammoths to extinction as recently as 3,900 years ago.
But in a rebuttal paper in Nature, UC College of Arts and Sciences assistant professor Joshua Miller and co-author Carl Simpson at the University of Colorado Boulder argue that the environmental DNA used to establish their updated timeline is more complex than previously recognized.
University of Cincinnati paleontologist Joshua Miller poses with a bronze statue of a mammoth outside the Geier Collections and Research Center of the Cincinnati Museum Center. Credit: Andrew Higley/UC
“The issue is you have no idea how old that DNA is,” Miller said. “Sedimentary deposits are complex. Materials of different ages are routinely buried together.”
Researchers have many tools to date sedimentary deposits and the materials contained in them. But not everything can be dated, Miller said.
“We can radiocarbon date all kinds of things: bones, teeth, charcoal, leaves. That’s very powerful. But currently, we can’t independently date DNA found in sediments,” Miller said.
From recent discoveries like the baby mammoth found in Canada this year, we know that many ice-age animals that died tens of thousands of years ago can become mummified in the arctic’s dry, cold environment. Miller said researchers can’t tell whether environmental DNA preserved in sediment was shed from a living or dead animal.
University of Cincinnati assistant professor Joshua Miller examines a mammoth skull at the Cincinnati Museum Center’s Geier Collections and Research Center. Credit: Andrew Higley/UC
“DNA is shed from organisms all the time,” Miller said. “In fact, DNA continues to be shed long after the animal dies. In places where decomposition is slow, that means long-dead and even long-extinct species can continue to make their way into surrounding sediments. In the arctic and other cold-weather places, it can take thousands of years for something to decompose.”
The researchers say the slow decomposition of animals in arctic regions could explain how mammoth DNA is showing up thousands of years later than the most recent mammoth fossil discovered. The paper notes that the mummified remains of elephant seals near Antarctica can be more than 5,000 years old.
Simpson said his work studying marine environments from recently eroded hillsides demonstrates how difficult it is to date ancient specimens.
“Seashells can sit on the seafloor for thousands of years. When you see shells on the beach, some could be from animals that died recently while others might be from shellfish that died millennia ago,” Simpson said. “This happens in the vertebrate record as well.”
Miller said the question remains what impact, if any, humans had on the global decline and extinction of mammoths. Humans were known to use fire to alter landscapes in profound ways, Miller said. They also hunted mammoths and made use of their ivory tusks.
So when did the last mammoths die off? Scientists say most mammoths went extinct more than 10,000 years ago, but remnant populations lived on islands such as Russia’s Wrangel Island until much more recently.
This cohabitation with modern humans is one reason mammoths capture our imaginations, researchers said.
“They’re tantalizingly similar to animals that live among us today,” Miller said. “We can almost touch them. That makes mammoths really alluring. For many people, they are the poster children of ice age megafauna.”
Simpson noted that mammoths once lived on the Channel Islands of California near where he grew up. The islands were home to a pygmy mammoth weighing 2,000 pounds. Today, the biggest mammal on the island is a tiny endemic fox.
“I think about how amazing it would have been to grow up with all of those big animals walking around,” Simpson said. “But I just missed them.”
Reference: “When did mammoths go extinct?” by Joshua H. Miller and Carl Simpson, 30 November 2022, Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05416-3
Amid a rise in plastic waste, more must be done across Europe to tackle the root causes of marine litter at its source to prevent the waste from polluting in-land rivers and making its way to our coastlines and seas, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) web report published today.
The report offers ten recommendations to boost knowledge to complement already stepped-up action by the European Union through the EU’s Zero Pollution action plan, the Circular Economy action plan (including the Plastics Strategy), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Single-Use Plastic Directive.
Despite these measures, data shows that plastic waste generation is growing faster than economic growth. Continuous increase in plastic waste generation is still exerting too much pressure on European coasts and seas. And that the European Union is currently not on track to meet its policy goals of significantly reducing waste in its shift to a circular economy, which aims to massively reduce the amount of plastics and packaging that are currently thrown out.
Between 2011 and 2020, plastic waste generated in the EU’s 27 Member States per person increased by 22%, as did the amount of mismanaged plastic waste. Most used and discarded plastic items are either recycled, incinerated, or stored in waste facilities, but due to limits in waste management capacity, a portion still makes its way into our seas and oceans, making it the primary source of marine litter. This uncollected waste is taken to our coasts via Europe’s many rivers. The outcome is that 75% of assessed marine areas are polluted. This is a huge problem because of plastic’s impact on marine life and on human health via the food chain. In some cases, the persistent nature of plastic means that it can last up to 500 years in the environment.
What we need to know to act
To achieve Europe’s green goals, and specifically, waste prevention, reduction and management goals, a full understanding of marine litter is needed — from source to sea. We also need to decouple waste generation from economic growth. Efforts in Europe to improve waste collection and management have made some headway in reducing the share of mismanaged small non-packaging plastic items (PPSI) waste. To find solutions, EU legislation is moving to a more integrated approach based on monitoring which could be supported by improved data gathering and analysis on land and rivers. Most marine litter is generated on land, and the reliability of waste management data are limited and plastic litter transported via rivers remains understudied.
The recommendations focus on better use of existing and emerging data sources to better monitor problem areas, which can help develop targeted measures.
Old-fashioned clean-ups and physical monitoring by volunteer citizen scientists are also invaluable. Technology also plays an increasingly important role. Remote sensing via satellites, planes, drones and artificial intelligence can help make sense of the ‘big data’ collected.
Waste leakage and river litter estimation models are just as important as fine-grained data collection and monitoring activities. The use of these tools are needed to drive political decision-making in countries and communities facing the biggest waste mismanagement problems.
Amid a rise in plastic waste, more must be done across Europe to tackle the root causes of marine litter at its source to prevent the waste from polluting in-land rivers and making its way to our coastlines and seas, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) web report published today.
The report offers ten recommendations to boost knowledge to complement already stepped-up action by the European Union through the EU’s Zero Pollution action plan, the Circular Economy action plan (including the Plastics Strategy), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Single-Use Plastic Directive.
Despite these measures, data shows that plastic waste generation is growing faster than economic growth. Continuous increase in plastic waste generation is still exerting too much pressure on European coasts and seas. And that the European Union is currently not on track to meet its policy goals of significantly reducing waste in its shift to a circular economy, which aims to massively reduce the amount of plastics and packaging that are currently thrown out.
Between 2011 and 2020, plastic waste generated in the EU’s 27 Member States per person increased by 22%, as did the amount of mismanaged plastic waste. Most used and discarded plastic items are either recycled, incinerated, or stored in waste facilities, but due to limits in waste management capacity, a portion still makes its way into our seas and oceans, making it the primary source of marine litter. This uncollected waste is taken to our coasts via Europe’s many rivers. The outcome is that 75% of assessed marine areas are polluted. This is a huge problem because of plastic’s impact on marine life and on human health via the food chain. In some cases, the persistent nature of plastic means that it can last up to 500 years in the environment.
What we need to know to act
To achieve Europe’s green goals, and specifically, waste prevention, reduction and management goals, a full understanding of marine litter is needed — from source to sea. We also need to decouple waste generation from economic growth. Efforts in Europe to improve waste collection and management have made some headway in reducing the share of mismanaged small non-packaging plastic items (PPSI) waste. To find solutions, EU legislation is moving to a more integrated approach based on monitoring which could be supported by improved data gathering and analysis on land and rivers. Most marine litter is generated on land, and the reliability of waste management data are limited and plastic litter transported via rivers remains understudied.
The recommendations focus on better use of existing and emerging data sources to better monitor problem areas, which can help develop targeted measures.
Old-fashioned clean-ups and physical monitoring by volunteer citizen scientists are also invaluable. Technology also plays an increasingly important role. Remote sensing via satellites, planes, drones and artificial intelligence can help make sense of the ‘big data’ collected.
Waste leakage and river litter estimation models are just as important as fine-grained data collection and monitoring activities. The use of these tools are needed to drive political decision-making in countries and communities facing the biggest waste mismanagement problems.
European soils are under increasing pressure due to soil sealing, pollution, intensive agriculture and climate change. At the same time, there are management options to improve soil functions and health, including to sequester carbon, increase biodiversity and prevent erosion.
The EEA’s ‘Soil monitoring report’ presents a comprehensive set of common indicators to assess soil health as well as risk-based thresholds to inform protection and restoration needs and soil-related policies in Europe.
The selected indicators address soil organic carbon, nutrients, acidification, pollution, biodiversity, erosion, compaction and sealing. For each indicator, the EEA report identifies thresholds beyond which soil functioning, for example for water purification or food production, is negatively affected. These thresholds can be regarded as critical tipping points for soil health and action points to safeguard soils.
The EEA assessment supports the EU soil strategy for 2030, which is an integral element of the European Green Deal with the overall aim of ensuring healthy soil ecosystems and sustainable use of EU soils.
Gerry Armstrong, Alexander Dvorkin (FECRIS Vice-President), Thomas Gandow and Luigi Corvaglia (member of the Board) during a FECRIS conference in Salekhard, Sibéria, 29 September 2017. In the Center, Mgr Nikolai Chashin.
The international conference “The Mission and the Orthodox Church” ended in Volos, bringing together Orthodox theologians from all over the world who discussed theological and current problems of church life in dozens of sections. One of the topics generating the most interest was “War and Peace”, with its focus on the “Russian world” doctrine, which is currently the main ideology of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Already at the beginning of the Russian invasion of the neighboring country, the Academy of Theological Studies in Volos formulated several theses about the nature of this ideology, which became extremely popular in Orthodox circles (see here and here). In this theological text, the “Russian world” is defined as a heresy based on ethnophiletism. The discussion on the issue of whether it is also the doctrine of the Russian world or is it a political ideology has been going on for several months. At the graduate theological forum in Volos, the report of Archimandrite Cyril (Govorun), whose point of view can be summarized in the following few points. Specifically, he claims:
“1. If by heresy we mean the Trinitarian or Christological heresies discussed between the fourth and seventh centuries, then the “Russian world” could not qualify as a heresy. However, if we go back to the time of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, when Christianity was confronted by the hostile pagan Greco-Roman world, we can draw some parallels with the teaching of the “Russian world.”
In my opinion, both worlds are dualistic and based on coercion and a mixture of religion and politics. These features are embodied in the religious currents that the martyr Irenaeus and his companions defined as heresies. I think that the doctrine of the “Russian world” can be approached in the same spirit.
It is dualistic because, like the ancient dualistic Manichaeism or Montanism, it sees the world as ontologically polarized—between the “Godless West” and “Holy Russia.” It is based on coercion that has reached unprecedented bloody proportions. Finally, we witness the politicization of religion in Russia to a degree comparable to the period from Augustus to Diocletian. It may well be called a political religion, as the pagan imperial religion was in the age before Constantine.
St. Irenaeus and his associates saw heresies as forms of pagan thought disguised as Christianity. I would interpret the “Russian world” in a similar way.
2. Almost all local Orthodox churches are subjected to ethnophiletism – each to its own degree. It would be unfair to accuse only the Russian Orthodox Church of ethnophiletism. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrated an unprecedented degree of ethnophiletism. Even the Balkan wars at the beginning of the 20th century are less ethnophiletic because they are less cruel and bloody than the Russian war in Ukraine.
I think it is more correct to call the “Russian world” not ethnophyletic, but phyletic doctrine. The “Russian world” claims to be above ethnic boundaries. Essentially, he states that the Russian-speaking ethnicities (ἔθνη) in Eastern Europe and even in Central Asia constitute one “people” – a word that can be translated by the Greek race. Therefore, the Russian world can and should be accused not so much of ethnophyleticism as of violent phyleticism, the emphasis being on “violent.”
3. The Council of Crete of 2016 called Philetism a “church heresy”. I find this adjective promising in the interpretation of the “Russian world” doctrine. The “Russian world” has its own ecclesiology, and it is twisted. It is in such ecclesiology that the ROC found justification not to go to the island of Crete in 2016, later to unilaterally sever relations with other churches, as well as to deploy non-canonical activities in Africa. The way in which the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate treat the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is another proof of a distorted church consciousness. It has come to the point that the ROC and the UOC-MP are ready to rechristen the members of the OCU, which, it must be reminded, is in full communion with at least some of the local Orthodox churches, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The distorted ecclesiology, which is the basis of the ideology of the Russian world, is characterized by a number of reductionisms. The universal church, if viewed through the prism of the “Russian world”, is practically reduced to one local church – the Moscow Patriarchate. In this case, the statement “I believe in one, holy, conciliar and apostolic church of the Moscow Patriarchate” is not anecdotal, but quite convincing. It is these distorted ecclesiological views that are the cause of the fear that prevents many members of the UOC from joining the OCU.
4. Finally, let me use the distinction I made in my earlier ecclesiological studies. In the case of the Russian Church, we are dealing with an extreme case of replacing the nature of the Church with its administrative structures. As a result, the Russian Church turned out to be silent about the war in Ukraine. Or rather, only her administration is allowed to speak about the war, and these are words of unequivocal support. The voice of the entire church has been reduced to the pro-war pronouncements of its administrative apparatus.
5. As a conclusion: all heresies are primarily a reductionism of Orthodoxy. The “Russian world” has created an ecclesiology that is such reductionism. It is therefore quite similar to an ecclesiastical heresy.’
Illustrative photo: Saint Louis King of France and a page (El Greco)
The Church of Scientology in London just won an appeal over the recognition of its chapel as a place of “public religious worship”.
The case was not about being recognized as a genuine religion, as this was already affirmed by the supreme court in 2013 (and the new appeal decision rightfully start by these very words: “1. Scientology is a religion.”) in R. (Hodkin) v Registrar General. Rather, the case was about whether was the chapel to be considered as a public worship space, per the existing case law.
The Church of Scientology in London had stated that their chapel and ancillary premises were to be tax exempt as place of public religious worship (from non-domestic rating”, a tax on properties not used for living accommodation), and the HM Revenue & Customs disagreed. A first instance judge agreed with HM Revenue & Customs, and the case was appealed by the Church before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in London.
The appeal judges heard evidence and experts from both parts and concluded that the chapel was a place of “public religious worship” and that it and most of the parts of the Church building were indeed to be exempted, overturning the previous ruling.
In their long judgment in 146 points, dated 5 January 2023, they described the Church building as an “imposing Portland stone façade [which] features balconies and flagpoles which would not look out of place in the Vatican.” They stated that estimates of the Church’s total UK membership vary widely, writing that “media estimates have ranged from 15,000 adherents to as many as 118,000”, but that Sunday services were only attended by small congregations, other Scientology services being more at the core of Scientology religious practice (“In Scientology, greater emphasis is placed on other forms of observance.”).
Nevertheless, the judges made clear that the numbers were not the stake, the only issue being “if all ‘properly disposed persons’ are eligible to enter and participate in the acts of worship being conducted there.”
And here is their conclusion:
“Taking the evidence as a whole, we are entirely satisfied that at the material time in 2013 the chapel at the London Church was a place of public religious worship, and that it has continued to be so. The building itself indicates by its permanent signage and branding that it is a place where strangers are welcome, including to attend services. The Church actively invites non-Scientologists who have had no previous significant contact with the religion to participate in its services as a way of introducing them to its message and encouraging them to discover more. It uses conventional advertising on its premises, which are open to visitors every day, as well as word of mouth, email invitations, and its website. Its ambition is not limited to drawing its existing members closer, or attracting their immediate friends and family, and plainly extends to all comers.”
Therefore, the tribunal granted the Church with the exemption from non-domestic rating and ruled that the Scientology chapel was a place of public religious worship.
A few of the stories to tell you about – This Week at NASA!
[embedded content]
US, Japan Sign Space Agreement at NASA Headquarters
On January 13 at NASA Headquarters, administrator Bill Nelson, Japan’s prime minister Kishida Fumio, and others were on hand as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hayashi Yoshimasa signed an agreement for a continued collaboration in space exploration between the two nations.
The SpaceX Dragon cargo craft is pictured departing the vicinity of the space station following its undocking from the Harmony module’s space-facing port. Credit: NASA
SpaceX Dragon Cargo Ship Departs the Space Station
A SpaceX Dragon cargo ship undocked from the International Space Station on January 9 with about 4,400 pounds of cargo to be returned to Earth, including valuable scientific experiments.
Newly discovered Earth-size planet TOI 700 e orbits within the habitable zone of its star in this illustration. Its Earth-size sibling, TOI 700 d, can be seen in the distance. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Robert Hurt
Webb, Other Missions Highlighted at AAS
The 241st meeting of the American Astronomical Society featured news that our Webb Space Telescope helped reveal remarkable similarities between distant galaxies from the dawn of the universe and a rare class of small galaxies much closer to us.
2022 effectively tied for Earth’s 5th warmest year since 1880, and the last 9 consecutive years have been the warmest 9 on record. NASA looks back at how heat was expressed in different ways around the world in 2022. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Reports 2022 Tied for 5th Warmest Year on Record
According to an analysis by NASA, Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2022 tied with 2015 as the fifth warmest on record. The past nine years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.
A cloned horse – the first of its kind born in China, which is expected to open up new opportunities for the country’s equestrian sector – has been unveiled in Beijing, AFP reported.
Cloning of race or thoroughbred horses has already been practised in several countries since the early 2000s, especially for the purpose of genetic improvement.
Born in June last year to a surrogate mother, Zhuang Zhuang, it was created at the Sinojin Laboratory in Beijing with materials from Germany. He is the first “warmblood” horse born in China and officially licensed by the China Horse Industry Association. Warmblood is an official classification for breeds of light horses with a lively temperament, specifies BTA.
Cloning can help reduce the cost of breeding and raising horses. The production of horses in China through cloning should reduce dependence on expensive horse imports and thus facilitate Chinese equestrian sport.
The world’s first cloned horse was born in Italy in 2003.
Chinese animal cloning companies have made significant progress, with technologies already developed for sheep, cows, pigs, dogs and cats.
Knowledge Economy – The transition from an industrial, resource-based model of economic development to a creative model, driven by knowledge, skills, human creativity and institutions capable of transforming them into economic values, has proved a difficult task for many countries. The new millennium has become a real testing ground for the concepts of such transformation. Human capital, a key resource in those countries that have successfully made the transition, has survived the COVID-19 pandemic. Will it survive a new crash test when the global economy plunges into crisis and creative and rent-oriented value systems collide against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine? Endre Birich describes possible scenarios.
National economies began to shift to innovation since the 1950s, but only in the early 2000s did the transition have taken place de facto in many countries. One of the defining indicators of this transformation is the volume of intangible assets, which predominantly consists of intellectual rights. After all, it is thanks to intellectual rights that the results of creative labor can be used for entrepreneurial activity.
The transition to a new type of economic asset – people’s knowledge, skills, and creative talent – is taking place everywhere. In established, traditional industries, the structure of surplus value is also changing – industries are becoming more creative. Thus, according to the WIPO report “Intangible Capital in Global Value Chains,” the contribution to the added value of a product is mainly due to intellectual property. That is, for example, the cost of a cup of coffee is least contributed to by the labor of plantation farmers and most contributed to by know-how, patents, brands, design, marketing solutions, all things related to intangible assets. Income associated with intangible capital in 19 manufacturing industries increased by 75% between 2000 and 2014 The profit of the most developed economies from the use of intangible assets exceeded the profit from the exploitation of traditional assets – knowledge, facilities, production equipment and materials.
The countries that succeeded in using human capital in their economies became leaders, ensuring high living standards and long-term influence in the world market. The path to this new model was different: for Great Britain, Germany and the United States it took 30-50 years, while for South Korea it took only 10-15 years.
Our study of approaches to the transformation of the economy in more than 10 successful countries, conducted in 2019 – 2020, allowed us to identify a common system of tools and determine when and which of them and in what combination led to positive change. The results of the study helped to develop a methodology, to a certain extent an algorithm, of transformation of economic systems and the transition from an industrial-raw economy to a creative economy based on the development and involvement of human capital in productive activities. The approach was called – The Methodology of Pole Kinetics”.
The study showed several important patterns common to all countries. First, the success of the transition to a creative economy (knowledge economy, digital economy, post-industrial society, etc.) depends on how precisely each state managed to select public policy instruments and launch workable institutions. The selection is based on an assessment of the consistency of public policy instruments with the underlying values of society.
Regardless of the form – tax breaks, grants, venture capital, political or economic programs, infrastructure – they must be accepted by society. Otherwise, they will lead to verbiage and bring no real progress. Economists and marketers must make it a priority to match people’s expectations, cultural code, and values.
Human values in a particular society determine the limits and permissible limits of communication between those in power and ordinary people. Some societies sacralize power, others perceive the state as a service. Some make long-term plans, others live in the here and now, some are pluralistic, others monolithic. If power does not act in accordance with basic values, the creative economy will not take off, institutions will function without real effect, and the talents and abilities of citizens will remain unclaimed.
Exports of creative goods and services are seen as an important indicator of the maturity of the knowledge economy. According to UNCTAD’s Creative Economy Outlook 2022, global exports of creative goods increased from $419 billion to $524 billion from 2010 to 2020, and exports of creative services rose from $487 billion to $1.1 trillion. The difference in absolute numbers and the rate of change is largely due to the growth of the software market and digitalization, where goods turn into services, such as streaming audio and video.
The largest exporters of creative services in 2020 are the United States ($206 billion), Ireland ($174 billion), Germany ($75 billion) and China ($59 billion).
Some countries have tried but failed to form a target model of economic development. A striking example of such a situation is Russia. A set of public policy instruments, including the government’s “Strategy 2020”, seemingly demonstrates everything that has been accumulated by the global community, but does not correlate in any way with the values of Russian society itself.
IP is the most important tool for building a creative economy and engaging human capital in the productive sectors of the economy. Innovation and creativity flourish only where the rights to the creative product are securely protected by law and customary business practices. It is IP that enables ideas, images and narratives to drive economic growth. WIPO’s annual Global Innovation Index clearly demonstrates that leading countries are at the forefront of patenting, focusing on copyright and use advanced digital tools for IP management.
The rise of the intellectual property institution has also led to a global change – in the measurement of economic success through GDP dynamics, based on the system of national accounts. Industries that used to be accounted for as necessary “transaction costs,” that is, taking away value for the sake of the common good, such as new knowledge or research, have been relegated to the category of “producing” value. Today emerging and transition economies, without redesigning their structure, have almost no chance of catching up with the leaders and fitting fairly into value chains.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a serious test for the creative economy. The lockdown imposed in most countries paralyzed entire industries, dramatically reducing communications. Closed borders have challenged the global character of today’s international community. Theaters, concert halls, contemporary art biennales, creative clusters, and many other cultural hotbeds of the knowledge economy have come under pressure. But unprecedented measures of support from governments seeking to preserve cultural environments, the self-organization of creative communities, and the reorientation toward digital channels of communication have enabled human capital to survive and made markets for IP-based “creative” products sustainable. Moreover, the pandemic has played the role of a street traffic supervisor – triggering an explosive growth of digitalization. Technologies related to remote work, cloud services, video and music streaming, online education, delivery, and so on have gained unprecedented speed. According to Gartner, the global IT market will grow 9.5 percent in 2021.
It may seem that humanity has recovered. But… the world immediately faced a new deep man-made crisis related to the economic consequences of Russian aggression in Ukraine, which we have yet to assess and understand. Fuel and food blackmail, the clash between “material” and “creative” value systems amid the warfare in Europe for the second time this decade have raised doubts about the West’s ability to keep human capital, the goals and ideals of post-industrial society and the creative economy at the center of economic policy. Economic leaders are now focused not so much on innovation as on finding new energy suppliers and ensuring the survival of the energy and machine-building sectors. For one-third of the world’s population, the issue of food security has become more acute than ever.
The situation is most dramatic for Germany, whose industrial strength depended heavily on traditional logistics and Russian natural resources. The world’s second-largest steel producer, ArcelorMittal, closed two plants in Bremen and Hamburg. Slovakia closed its largest aluminum smelter, Slovalco. In Lithuania, nitrogen fertilizer maker Achema suspended operations. Governments are using cash injections to stem the effects of the energy crisis, which has affected the creative industries. Germany has already allocated 350 billion euros to compensate for rising electricity rates. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, high gas prices will continue until 2024. Experts doubt that the European industry will be able to recover from the shock any time soon.
It may seem inappropriate to talk about human capital at a time when the material basis of the continents’ social and economic prosperity is under threat. Skeptics predict a throwback to “good old” Europe, with large conscript armies, closed borders, national currencies, and the priority of industrial production and agriculture. In fact, however, we are witnessing a process that inspires the creative class.
In a matter of months, the EU has managed to reorient its economy toward new energy suppliers and has given a real impetus to alternative energy projects. The crisis has given unprecedented boost to eco-generation and green energy projects, which are an integral part of the knowledge economy and a strategy based on human capital. Creativity plus new energy seems to be the new formula for economic prosperity.
The creative segment of the European economy continues to grow. In 2022, Switzerland ranked first in WIPO’s annual Global Innovation Index, surpassing the United States, which has held that position for the past 12 years. Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands are among the most successful countries here. Startups are attracting investments, and governments are launching special national programs in film, media, design, theater, contemporary visual arts and tourism.
The European creative economy has been so sustainable thanks to the right choice of policies to support human capital that are consistent with national identity and its underlying values. The European example is further proof that human capital must be defined not only as skills, knowledge and abilities, but also as a network of institutions that help turn them into economic values. Otherwise, it will not turn into capital, but will remain just an informal community of talented people. All successful countries that have changed the structure of their economies have improved their institutions, such as IP and its protection system, the creation of a financial system capable of dealing with intangible assets, and a fiscal system adapted to the specific needs of the creative economy.
We can now safely conclude that both global crash tests had a surprisingly creative effect. The first one gave a strong impetus to the rise of digital technologies and services and tools to bring digital content to market. This opened up a host of new opportunities for increased communications, and it is the intensity of these that will serve as a catalyst for further growth. The second has caused large-scale migration, the outflow of human capital to the territories that are safest for it, and the mixing of communities with different sets of values. Economies that had not previously thought about creative industries, due to the scarcity of people with the right level of skills and the modest size of the market, began to create the infrastructure for innovation and attracting new talent. Moreover, their institutions are already competing. Kyrgyzstan is creating a Creative Industries Park, and Kazakhstan is home to the Astana International Financial Center, whose court is based on English common law. Georgia is preparing to launch a global creative center. Dubai, once associated primarily with oil production, has opened the Al Quoz Creative Zone. The Buenos Aires municipal government is redeveloping some depressed areas of the city by introducing a certain creative industry: some areas become home to designers, others host film and music professionals or technological entrepreneurs. Once countries create institutions, they have a legitimate expectation that these institutions will create a critical mass of talent and resources to launch a creative economy at home.
But will the “replanted trees,” i.e., teams, products, IP, be able to take root in the new environment? What impact will these flows have on society’s values? Will policymakers be able to study these changes and offer appropriate tools to stimulate the transition to a creative economy? In the past the answers to these questions were sought intuitively or empirically, but today we have modern methods, in particular the Pole Kinetics Methodology, and can shape growth strategies based on scientific evidence. After all, it is the answers to these questions that determine the success of both emerging and advanced economies.
The Author
Endre Birich, CEO Kettari Foundation. The Kettari Foundation is a new generation of venture investment with a focus on creators and creative industries. Recently, Kettari has enjoyed huge success in its support of young creators, particularly those ‘digital nomads’ that have been displaced by the war in Ukraine.
