Category: STUDY

Revealed – UNODC Southeast Asia Opium Survey 2013

UNODC-SoutheastAsia-2013

DOWNLOAD THE STUDY

UNODC-SEA-Opium-2013
A total area of over 62,000 hectare of opium poppy cultivation took place in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Myanmar and Thailand in 2013. In order to assess the scope of opium poppy cultivation and opium production in the region, UNODC has been conducting opium surveys in cooperation with the Government of Lao PDR since 1992 and the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (GOUM) since 2002, while Thailand established its own monitoring system. This report contains the results of the 2013 UNODC-supported opium poppy cultivation surveys in Lao PDR and Myanmar. In addition, the results from the opium poppy surveys implemented by the Government of Thailand are presented in this regional overview.

sea-opium-2013-1024x599
Opium poppy cultivation in South-East Asia

Despite a consistent downward trend in opium poppy cultivation from 1998-2006, when Myanmar experienced an 83% reduction and Lao PDR saw the largest relative decline among the three countries, opium poppy cultivation in the region has since increased, though at a relatively slow pace.

sea-opium-2013-2

According to government reports, opium poppy cultivation in Thailand has remained stable at a very low level. However, opium poppy cultivation in Myanmar increased from 21,600 hectares in 2006, the year with the lowest level of cultivation, to 57,800 hectares in 2013. In Lao PDR, it increased from 1,500 hectares in 2007 to 6,800 hectares in 2012. In 2013, 3,900 hectares were estimated, but due to differences in methodology compared to 2012, a trend could not be established. Thus, overall, opium poppy cultivation in the region has more than doubled since 2006, this despite official reports from the Governments of the three countries indicating that a total of 12,949 hectares of opium poppy were eradicated in 2013.

Myanmar remained the second largest opium poppy grower in the world after Afghanistan in 2013, with Lao PDR accounting for only a very small proportion of the global total.

Opium yield and production

In South-East Asia, opium poppy is mostly cultivated on steep hills with poor soil and no irrigation, and opium yields are much lower than in Afghanistan, where opium poppy is often cultivated on good soils and flat, irrigated land. In 2013, opium yields were estimated at 6.0 kilograms per hectare in Lao PDR, 15.0 kilograms per hectare in Myanmar and 15.6 kilograms per hectare in Thailand. In 2005, Lao PDR and Myanmar together produced 326 tons of opium, or 7% of that year’s global opium production of 4,620 tons. In 2013, the two countries produced 893 tons, or 18% of the total opium production in 2012.

Opium cultivation and poverty

While the area under poppy cultivation in Myanmar increased by 13% in 2013, the number of households growing poppy remained roughly the same, as farmers on average dedicated a larger portion of their land to poppy cultivation than in 2012. The average area of poppy per opium growing household more than doubled from 0.17 hectares in 2002/2003 to 0.43 hectares in 2013. This implies a larger dependency of those households on opium.

Furthermore, the Myanmar survey found that many households not only earn income from the cultivation of opium poppy on their own land, but also by labouring in the poppy fields of other farmers. Alternative development projects thus need to address both of these groups, as a reduction in poppy cultivation for many households means the loss of an opportunity to generate income from poppy-related wage labour.

There is a strong link between poverty and poppy cultivation. In poppy-growing villages in Myanmar, significantly higher proportions of households are in debt and are exposed to food insecurity than in non-poppy-growing villages. Furthermore, households in poppy-growing villages on average suffer longer from food insecurity than households in non-growing villages. Thus, in poppy-growing villages, opium cultivation seems to be a means to earn cash income in order to purchase food in months when households’ food resources have been depleted. In other words, poppy farmers try to compensate for a lack of alternatives in their opportunities for earning income in order to subsist.

Income patterns in poppy-growing and non-poppy growing villages in Myanmar are complex and differ in much more than just poppy cultivation. Despite indicators of greater vulnerability (as seen in higher levels of debt, food insecurity and drug use), households in poppy-growing villages in all regions, with the exception of East Shan, had a higher average income than those in non-poppy-growing villages. On the other hand, households in non-poppy-growing villages had better access to salaried jobs and petty trade.

In Lao PDR, no socio-economic survey of poppy-growing villages was conducted in recent years. The data from the helicopter flights and satellite image analysis indicated that poppy cultivation continued to be a phenomenon linked to villages in peripheral, difficult to access locations, far from population and market centres.

Risks and opportunities associated with different income patterns in poppy-growing and non-poppy-growing villages need to be investigated in more detail in Myanmar but also in Lao PDR to understand how livelihood risks can be reduced and the resilience of households can be improved in the context of efforts to contain and reduce households’ dependence on poppy cultivation.

Revealed – Open Source Center Master Narratives Country Report: Syria

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/OSC-SyriaMasterNarratives.png

 

Understanding master narratives can be the difference between analytic anticipation and unwanted surprise, as well as the difference between communications successes and messaging gaffes. Master narratives are the historically grounded stories that reflect a community’s identity and experiences, or explain its hopes, aspirations, and concerns. These narratives help groups understand who they are and where they come from, and how to make sense of unfolding developments around them. As they do in all countries, effective communicators in Syria invoke master narratives in order to move audiences in a preferred direction. Syrian influencers rely on their native familiarity with these master narratives to use them effectively. This task is considerably more challenging for US communicators and analysts because they must place themselves in the mindset of foreign audiences who believe stories that — from an American vantage point — may appear surprising, conspiratorial, or even outlandish.

This report serves as a resource for addressing this challenge in two ways. First, it identifies a set of eight master narratives carefully selected based on their potency in the Syrian context and relevance to US strategic interests. Second, this report follows a consistent structure for articulating these narratives and explicitly identifies initial implications for US communicators and analysts. The set outlined here is not exhaustive: these eight master narratives represent a first step that communicators and analysts can efficiently apply to the specific messaging need or analytic question at hand. For seasoned Syria experts, these narratives will already be familiar — the content contained in this report can be used to help check assumptions, surface tacit knowledge, and aid customer communications. For newcomers to Syria accounts, these narratives offer deep insights into the stories and perceptions that shape the Syrian political context that may otherwise take years to accumulate.

Some master narratives cut across broad stretches of the Syrian populace, while others are held only by particular audience segments. This study divides Syria into six audience segments that demonstrate how different master narratives resonate with different sections of the populace. Each of the six master narratives aligns with one or more of the following segments: Regime Insiders, Wealthy Urbanites, Rural Sunnis, Urban Working Classes, Alawites, and Kurds (See the Appendix for a detailed description of these audience segments.)

…

DOWNLOAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE:

OSC-SyriaMasterNarratives

Study – BRD Citizens Spying for the Stasi – Studie – Bundesbürger im Dienste der Stasi-Spionage

Hier können Sie die Studie herunterladen:

DOWNLOAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE:

Hier können Sie die Studie herunterladen:

Bundesbürger-im-Dienst-der-DDR-Spionage.-Eine-analytische-Studie-Wissenschaftliche-Reihe-der-Bundesbeauftragten-für-die-Unterlagen-des-Staatssicherheitsdienstes-der-ehemaligen-DDR

STUDY – Income for Top 1% of Americans Rose 74% From 1996-2006

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/income-inequality.png

Growing Income Inequality Examined by CRS:

The inequality of income among American taxpayers has grown markedly in recent years, the Congressional Research Service confirmed in a new study of U.S. tax records.Even as total income grew between 1996 and 2006 (the last year for which individual tax data are available), many Americans were losing ground.“Inflation-adjusted income actually fell for those in the bottom income quintile (the poorest 20% of tax filers) and almost doubled for the richest 0.1% of tax filers,” the CRS found. “Consequently, income inequality increased between 1996 and 2006.”

Bush tax cuts, stock market widen income gap:

The rich have gotten richer, thanks to the stock market and the Bush tax cuts, a recent report has found.

Growth in income from capital gains and dividends has widened the divide between the wealthy and the poor in recent years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. It supplanted wage inequality as the primary driver of the growing income gap, which helped spur the Occupy Wall Street movement last fall.

After-tax income for the top 1% of taxpayers soared 74%, on average, between 1996 and 2006. The top 0.1% benefited even more, nearly doubling their income over that decade.

By comparison, the bottom 20% of taxpayers saw their income fall by 6%, while the middle quintile experienced a meager 10% gain.

But “income” means something very different for the rich than for the poor.

High-income people benefited in particular from the stock market boom in the late 1990s and from companies enjoying strong profit growth and paying out healthy dividends more recently, said Harry Holzer, professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

In 1996, the top 1% of taxpayers relied on wages for 34.4% of their income. A decade later, that number had fallen to just over a quarter, the report found. Meanwhile, income from capital gains and dividends grew by nearly 7.5 percentage points to 38.2% of earnings.

The Bush tax cuts, which lowered rates on both income and capital gains, also helped fuel the growth in income inequality, according to the report. The difference in tax rates paid by the poor and the rich narrowed, with the Top 0.1% of American taxpayers seeing their average tax rate fall by about a quarter.

 

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL FILES HERE

R42131