The G-20 is meeting this week in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Chaired by President Barack Obama, the purpose of the summit is to, “review the progress made since the Washington and London Summits and discuss further actions to assure a sound and sustainable recovery from the global financial and economic crisis.” I’ve heard of the G-8, but the G-20? I began to wonder about this alphanumeric soup of organizations. Who are they and what are they concerned with? The following scorecard should help interested followers of this subject keep track of the major players.

The G-6: Organized in 1975 by the finance ministers of Germany and France who were frustrated with the formality and structure of larger international meetings, the G-6 and subsequent evolutions of this body are strictly informal bodies that meet to discuss economic issues of mutual interest. After the creation of the G-8, the term G-6 is now used to refer to the six most populous members of the European Union. The member countries are: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan

The G-7: Formed in 1976, this is an informal forum for the finance members of seven big industrial economies to discuss economic issues and seek agreement. Member countries include: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States. Now also includes the European Union.

The G-8: An evolution of the G-7, membership grew to include Russia. The European Union is a limited member; it cannot host a meeting or hold the presidency of the body. Members are: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Russia. European Union (limited member)

The G-8 plus Five: Recognizing the growing influence of other countries, the original group sometimes broadens their meetings by including the Outreach Five. As with all meetings, other countries are sometimes invited to attend. Members: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, Russia. European Union (limited member) Plus: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa.

The G-20: According to their website, “[t]he G-20 was created as a response both to the financial crises of the late 1990s and a growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance.” Where the earlier groups (G-6 through G-8) were organized around the industrialized countries of the world, the G-20 begins to bring emerging economies into the dialog. Their first meeting was in Berlin, Germany. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis.

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, European Central Bank

The G-33: The name for a group of developing countries that coordinates on trade and economic issues. It was created in order to help group countries which were all facing similar problems and give a unified voice to countries that were traditionally excluded from discussions among the industrialized countries. Members: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

There are other groups variously labeled as G-8, G-20, G-33, and even N-11 (countries which Goldman Sachs considered in 2005 to have a high potential of becoming the world’s largest economies this century: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam).

One of the best, reliable, sources of information about these groups and their members may be found on the websites of the World Trade Organization and the previously mentioned G-20.

You can Track the ongoing discussions of the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit here. But be prepared for slow page loading. It is a very busy website.

One of the many slums in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Photo: World Resources Institute (flickr)

In Brazil, forests are rapidly being destroyed, slums are expanding, and crime has reached an all-time high.

The solution? Government officials in Rio de Janeiro insist that building a nine mile, cinder-block wall around their slums will help to prevent the Atlantic rain forest from further deforestation, and restrict the expansion of these shanty towns. Human rights groups and many residents of the slums — known as favelas — disagree, reports the Wall Street Journal. They claim the purpose of the walls is to further separate the slums from Rio's beautiful beaches and wealthier residents.

To give the government's claims some credit, the expansion of favelas has contributed to Rio De Janeiro's rain forest destruction over the years. In 2004, deforestation reached its peak when 10,588 square miles of forest were destroyed. The Atlantic rain forest, an ecosystem that once was a large and flourishing part of Brazil, has lost 93 percent of its forest cover. The walls are meant to serve as "ecobarriers," to prevent the favelas from expanding into the already at-risk, forested hillsides.

But it seems that the reason for the wall stems beyond the goal to protect the rain forest. The Journal explains:

it's all part of a wider plan by Rio officials to clean up the famously freewheeling city. Under Mr. Cabral, the state intends to hire 22,000 police officers in part to occupy favelas now under control of drug gangs.

Residents of Rio's slums claim the wall will only cage them in and restrict their ability to come and go as they please. Human rights groups are up in arms as well — referring to the proposed wall as a means of "social apartheid."

Representatives of Rochina, one of the many Rio slums in, convinced government officials to replace the high wall with ecological parks, paths, and low walls that still mark the limits of the neighborhood. Other favelas are are trying to follow suit and some government officials are reportedly considering alternatives to the wall. In the meantime, the construction of the walls continue until perhaps a different idea is agreed upon that makes the barrier clear without making residents feel trapped.

Photo: Urban Poor Associates (UPA) (flickr)

In March of 2008, over 250 people from 34 different countries gathered to talk about trash in Bogotá.

Why? These people came together to attend the First International and Third Latin American Conference of Waste Pickers in Bogota, Colombia. The goal of the conference was to help waste pickers organize around the challenges they face and learn from each other's experiences.

Worldwide there are about 15 million people that earn their living by collecting and sorting through trash in order to find materials that can be recycled, resold and reused. Some waste pickers are actually hired by local governments and businesses to sort through trash to find recyclables, others do it illegally.

But waste pickers want more respect from their communities. They see waste picking is a business that is saving hundreds of thousands of pounds of salvageable material from landfills each year.

Conference participants devised strategies to work with their communities to legalize their trade in places where sorting through trash is prohibited. They broke out into groups and agreed on goals specific to their region. For instance, waste pickers in Asia are working to integrate the voices of environmental activists into their work. Waste pickers in Latin America plan to collaborate and organize with each other by using a community website.

Conferences like this one will help draw attention to the waste pickers' cause, as well as allow them to organize and establish a unified voice. Silvo Ruiz, a legal representatives working with the waste pickers, echoed the call for greater unity among waste pickers in the conference's final report.

We waste pickers will keep our hands in the garbage bag that provides our livelihood, but our head outside of the bag, to fight for the public policies we need to improve our situation. Intermediaries wait comfortably in their warehouses, and [w]aste [p]ickers do the hard work of collecting. Waste should not be for the intermediaries, but for the waste pickers who do all the work. United, we can fight for what is needed.

Traffic in Brazil. Photo: Fernando Meyer (flickr)

Car sales are down just about everywhere. Brazil is no exception. Sales of passenger cars dropped by 10 percent in April, trucks and buses by a quarter. But one niche market seems to be doing just fine: armored cars.

High crime rates are the norm in Brazil's biggest cities. In Sao Paulo, where armed robbery of pedestrians and motorists is fairly common, resident Craig Bavington tells the New York Times, "It is not a question of if you are going to be assaulted, it is when it is going to happen."

Commuters in high-traffic areas are among the most susceptible. Motorists in congested cities such as Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Recife become sitting ducks for criminals. Having an armored car that can withstand a shot from a .44 magnum provides a sense of security. João Neves feels like he’s "inside a fortress" when he is driving in his armored 2005 Volkswagen Passat. (Other armored choices include Jeeps, Mercedes, and Chevys.)

Sales of armored vehicles in Brazil have increased more than threefold over the past decade. With roughly 120 manufacturers throughout the country, the average cost of an armored vehicle ranges between $22,000 and $55,000. Dealers offer payment plans that make armored vehicles even more enticing for middle-class families.

Brazilians seem to be putting their safety ahead of other spending priorities. Armored car sales are rising as the country experienced its worst quarter of economic growth on record. In Mr. Neves’ opinion, "Even though the crisis does exist, I consider my well-being and my security a priority."

This pharmacy at the Evangel Hospital in Jos, Nigeria could be one of the beneficiaries of cheaper drugs and better facilities from GSK. Photo: MikeBlyth (flickr)

Pharmaceutical companies are often seen as villains for making life-saving drugs so expensive the poor can't afford them. But what if a new CEO was making drugs more affordable and sharing secrets that would lower profits but result in more cures?

Andrew Witty is the new chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) — the second largest drug company in the world. Witty recently outlined his plan to radically shift GSK policy to make four major changes that will help the developing world:

1. Slash drug prices to 25 percent (or lower) of their current U.S. and UK levels in the world's 50 poorest nations, and make drugs more affordable in middle-income countries like Brazil.

2. Reinvest 20 percent of drug profits made in developing countries to support health clinics and pay medical workers in those same countries.

3. Place their research on neglected diseases (with the exception of HIV) into a patent pool to share with other scientists to dramatically speed up medical breakthroughs.

4. Invite researchers from other governments, companies, and NGOs to participate in their research on tropical diseases at their institute at Tres Cantos in Spain.

So why would GSK do this? Witty told the Guardian he was so tired of hearing speeches about how terrible it is that there has been no progress in tuberculosis research or treatments for other diseases that he decided to do something about it.

We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it's likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that's what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries.

Lowering drug prices will help — but without adequate health care infrastructure, even cheaper drugs might not be accessible. That's what makes reinvesting profits to support clinics and pay medical workers' salaries so important, because it will increase access to these drugs.

But the most important change Witty has proposed is sharing GSK's research. By placing their research into patent pools, GSK will dramatically increase the speed of early-stage R&D activities and the likelihood of finding cures to neglected diseases.

"This is a gutsy move in a commercial world" said Mike French, World Vision's director of advocacy. "Witty has demonstrated a willingness to make saving lives a business goal along with making money."

A child running through the streets of his favela. Photo: carf (flickr)

Brazil's fight to eliminate the drug trade in its urban slums has been violent and expensive.

An estimated 1,300 people were killed by police in 2007 alone with a staggering murder rate of 150 homicides per 100,000 people in the Rio slums — that's 10 times greater than Chicago's.

And crime is costly. One UN report says the economic and social costs of Brazil's crime represents 10 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. Spending on crime means there's less money available for education, health care and other social services.

But in the hope of ending the war and expelling the drug trade, the government is changing its policing philosophy and trying a new approach in two slums (favelas in Spanish and Portuguese): Santa Marta and the City of God, made famous by a film of the same name released in 2002.

Rather than conducting what some call "hit-and-run" drug raids, police are entering communities and staying. They are getting to know the residents and attempting to build trust. Coupled with this new policing strategy is a $17 million investment in communities that's paying for new infrastructure such as a soccer field, housing and wireless Internet connections.

“We are working in a way that the state is present in the day-to-day life of poor people," President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva tells the BBC. "In the past it was only the police intervening with lots of brutality which punished the guilty and the innocent — very often only the innocent. Now we have police there, who are becoming a community police force.”

(To hear more from President de Silva, check out this BBC interview.)

Reuters reports that for now, the drug lords are gone from these communities. But while changing strategies offers hope, it won’t be easy to make a permanent change. After years of neglect and abuse, residents are slow to trust. Many are afraid the police will leave and they will have to answer to the drug lords once they return.

“If you ask the residents here what is better — the government or the parallel power — I bet you the huge majority will say the parallel power until they get used to the new reality," says the head of a residents' association in Santa Marta. (Watch a BBC report on how the new policy is changing Santa Marta.)

There are nearly 1,000 slums in Rio, and many question the program’s viability in favelas more sprawling than Santa Marta and the City of God. Although many are skeptical of the new policing strategy, the increased security coupled with the investments in infrastructure is certainly a step in the right direction.

Photo: adman_as (flickr)

How can you help the world's neediest people when you don't even know they exist?

Take Rio de Janiero's sprawling slum settlements, known as favelas. They contain maybe one-third of the city's population, but no one really knows for certain, and the official counts are probably too low. When you consider similar situations worldwide, there are perhaps more than a billion people whose governments have no official record of their existence, says Melanie Edwards.

Her company, Mobile Metrix, hires and trains local teenagers — in Brazil and other developing countries — equips them with handheld computers and sends them door-to-door to get lifestyle information on their neighbors via a 100-question survey.

The idea is that aid organizations, governments and corporations essentially make decisions on where to spend money based on unreliable numbers. Enter Mobile Metrix, which says it "connects the uncounted poor with companies and nonprofits that can meet their needs."

Part of the reason the model is viable is because Mobile Metrix is able to persuade corporations to support its work. When a dengue epidemic infected nearly 250,000 in Rio de Janeiro earlier this year, for example, Mobile Metrix teamed up with Johnson & Johnson to provide favela residents with anti-mosquito repellent and doorstep tips on malaria prevention.

Edwards says each young Mobile Metrix "agent" is paid better than a drug pusher on the streets of Rio and can gain professional skills and a sense of dignity.

"These are capable, untapped human resources. By believing in them, we dignify them and they dignify themselves," Edwards told Rob Katz of NextBillion.net. "We see our employees step into their power — to transform themselves and their community."

Photo: *LJ*(flickr)

This weekend’s gathering of leaders of 20 of the world’s biggest economies didn’t yield a clear-cut solution to the global financial crisis. It did, however, signify a fundamental shift to a world where emerging economies like Brazil, India and China wield greater influence than ever before.

Of these, China is certainly the biggest. With $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, China is being courted to contribute funds to the International Monetary Fund to be used for emergency loans for struggling countries. China has made no promises yet, preferring instead to focus on its own economy with a $590 billion stimulus plan. Whether China agrees to contribute to the IMF or not, there’s no doubt that the country is poised to play a much larger role in global economic decision-making.

The breadth of China's role could depend on its ability to keep its own economy chugging along. A UN-sponsored report released over the weekend suggests China’s widening gulf between the country’s rich and poor threatens to undo recent economic gains by reducing consumer spending and productivity.

China’s stimulus package, with a focus on low-income housing and rural infrastructure, may help to shrink these growing inequalities. Since more than ever the world is looking to China to provide economic stability, they can’t afford to get this wrong.

Produce at a farmers market in Sao Paulo. Photo: Luiz Castro (flickr)

Typically, when global food prices soar, farmers gain and consumers lose. Two South American countries are taking very different approaches to the recent food price hikes. Brazil is pushing its farmers to win more, while South American neighbor Argentina is trying to soften the financial blow to its consumers.

Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is encouraging local farmers to produce more for the global market by increasing government farm credits, a type of indirect subsidy. His administration has also reduced interest rates for farmers to finance new farm machinery and equipment.

Meanwhile, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is increasing export taxes to provide incentives to local farmers to sell their products at home rather than abroad.

At a time when food prices are soaring, should farmers have to share their windfall with the rest of the country? And do governments have the right to manipulate food exports to stabilize prices at home?

The Economist argues that although an export tax on food provides short-term relief for consumers, it will also lower domestic incomes. And it's especially dangerous in Argentina, the magazine says. "Few countries have been as badly governed as Argentina," and "over the past 70 years it has often been the farmers and their exports that have rescued the economy only to see populist governments in Buenos Aires plunder the Pampas to placate their urban voters."

Around 22 percent of the Brazilian Amazon is owned by various Indian tribes. Photo: leoffreitas (flickr)

The fate of the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, hangs in the balance. In the coming weeks, Brazil’s Supreme Court will hear a case that will set a major precedent and shape the country's policy with respect to development in the Amazon and the rights of the forest's Indian tribes.

The case centers around the territory of Raposa Serra do Sol, which is located in the northeastern Brazilian state of Roraima. Raposa Serra do Sol is home to 18,000 Indians from the Macuxi, Ingarico, Patamona, Wapixana and Taurpeng tribes. In 2005, this territory was declared a reservation site for indigenous tribes.

The conflict has quickly escalated in this region as some Brazilians have refused to leave the area, claiming their right to develop the land. Specifically, some of the local rice farmers have resorted to violence in order to keep their farms. The situation is quickly deteriorating and the Supreme Court warns that the conflict could soon turn into a civil war. The court will soon decide if the government can legally continue to evict the rice farmers.

The rice farmers argue that it is not right for the government to evict people from their own land and to stop Brazilians from developing this rich area. About 12 percent of Brazil’s precious land has already been given to the various indigenous peoples. They argue that Brazilian land should be used for the betterment of Brazilians. Especially with the world food crisis, expanding Brazil’s agricultural sector into this region could greatly help the poor afford food and help the expand the local economy through much-needed jobs.

The tribes and their supporters, however, argue that their concerns outweigh the settlers’ economic reasoning. As the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon plays a major role in the environment. The forest is a climate regulator that affects rainfall in Brazil and Argentina and, some claim, even in Europe and North America. The preservation of its trees is pivotal in the fight against global warming. Already the cutting and burning of Amazonian trees account for about half of the world’s green-house gas emissions from deforestation. If Brazilians are allowed to develop this land, not only will they be kicking the Indians out of their ancestral homes, but they will also be severely hurting the already-precarious environment.

Brazil is experiencing an economic boom. Photo: adam79 (flickr)

While much of the world fights off fears of recession and economic stagnation, Brazil is having an economic boom. Its steady growth rate has boosted production and has made Brazil a major player in world trade.

Brazil owes much of its new fortunes to its two burgeoning industries of oil and ethanol. Oil was recently discovered off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, which is estimated to hold between 5 to 8 billion barrels. With this discovery, foreign investment has been flooding into the country as companies try to develop this profitable resource.

Brazil is also experiencing windfall profits in agriculture, specifically ethanol. In recent months, ethanol has been gaining in popularity as an alternative fuel because of the rising cost of oil. Brazil, as the world’s largest exporter of ethanol, has greatly benefited from this rapid increase in demand.

Brazil has always been known as a country with a wide gap between the very rich and very poor. In 2004, the bottom 10 percent of the population received only 0.9 percent of the national income while the top 10 percent received 44.8 percent, according to UNDP figures. A surprising and encouraging result of this economic boom is that the gap is finally growing smaller. From 2001, Brazil's income inequality gap has shrunk 6 percentage points as more people moved up into the growing middle class. As well, the bottom 10 percent of Brazil’s population had a 58-percent increase in their incomes.

The government has played a major role in creating this upward social mobility in Brazil. They have used Brazil’s growing wealth to increase funding for many social programs for the poor. One very popular program is the Bolsa Familia program that gives small subsidies to help the poor buy food and other necessities. Millions of people have used this program to help lift themselves out of poverty and destitution. Once they are on a stable financial footing, many Brazilians have then applied for a microloan to start some type of business so that they can have a good income in Brazil's expanding formal economy.

These programs have been very successful in improving Brazil’s entire society. From 2004-2006 the number of people under the poverty line — earning less than $80 a month — decreased by 32 percent.

These statistics, at least, suggest that more and more Brazilians are able to climb out of poverty.

Rainforest destruction and tribal interests conflict with development. Photo: Orvarati (flickr)

One of the world’s last uncontacted tribes was photographed this week from a helicopter flying over the Amazon rainforest, near the Brazil-Peru border. The photos were taken by the Brazilian government’s Indian Affairs Department to, “show the [tribes’] houses, to show they are there… This is very important because there are some who doubt their existence.”

Proof that this tribe exists complicates the current battle between those who want to conserve the Amazon and those who want to develop it. Even though they've not been contacted before, these tribes are a casualty of the forest battle.

Currently, the Indian Affairs Department guesses there are about 500 uncontacted Indians living on the Brazil side of the border. However, as previously uncontacted tribes in Peru have tried unsuccessfully to defend their territory from loggers, they have been systematically killed and forced to move across the border.

This migration is a problem not only for the tribes losing their traditional homeland, but also for the uncontacted tribes who are already living in Brazil. The Indian affairs department of Brazil predicts more violence in the area, not only between tribes and loggers, but between tribes now living in the same territory.

Contacted tribes in both Brazil and Peru have been active in attempting to prevent further intrusion into the rainforest. Brazilian Indians are holding a mass rally this week in Altamira, protesting the series of dams the government wants to build on the Xingu River. They say that they have not been included in the decision making process, even though the dams would essentially destroy their way of life. Kayapó Indian leader Raoni, sent a defiant letter to Brazil’s President Lula vowing to stop the construction. He also protests the government's violations of indigenous rights enshrined in Brazil's 1988 Constitution.

The conflict over the rainforest is not confined to regional politics. In Peru, a French company is being sued by an Amazon Indian organization, AIDESEP, in an attempt to prevent drilling for oil nearby the border area where the uncontacted tribes were just photographed. AIDESEP asserts that Perenco, a U.S. company recently taken over by French owners, should be prohibited from working in the area and contacting any tribes.

Any contact with the tribes could be catastrophic. The recently contacted Murunahua tribe by the Yurua river watched half of their members die from disease, a mortality rate common in recently contacted tribes.

Despite the danger to the tribes, and international law that acknowledges the uncontacted tribes as the rightful owners of their land, Perenco is currently expanding into these areas.

José Carlos dos Reis Meirelles Júnior, head of the Indian Protection post near the Peru border says, "What is happening in this region is a monumental crime against the natural world, the tribes, the fauna and is further testimony to the complete irrationality with which we, the ‘civilized’ ones, treat the world."

Photo: Deforestation in Mato Grosso, a major soybean growing region in Brazil leoffreita (flickr)

The woman known as the “guardian angel” of the world’s biggest rainforest has called it quits.

Marina Silva cited "the growing resistance found by our team in important sectors of the government and society" in stepping down as Brazil’s environment minister. Environmentalists saw her as a key ally in defending the Amazon.

Silva’s resignation is but one in a series of foreboding events in the face of increasing deforestation. Despite three years of decline, deforestation accelerated in the Brazilian Amazon during the last half of 2007. Land conversion pressures are attributed to soaring prices and demand for soy and beef exports. Brazil’s ascent to an agricultural superpower and its steady, 5-percent economic growth has stimulated hydroelectric dams, roads and other infrastructure projects.

The environmental effects of Amazonian destruction have global consequences. Deforestation not only threatens the existence of the indigenous populations who have lived in the Amazon for millennia, but also irreversibly damages a region of unparalleled biodiversity. Deforestation also exacerbates global warming. According to mongabay, an environmental news site:

… the country is ranked as the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases due largely to deforestation and forest degradation, which account for 70 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite the global importance of the Amazon, Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made it clear that an international debate on the Amazon's fate is unwelcome.

This week, President Lula declared: "The Brazilian Amazon has an owner, and that owner is the Brazilian people.” He acknowledged conservationists' concerns but stressed the need to use the resources of the Amazon forest, which makes up two-thirds of the country’s territory.

If Brazil insists on framing the Amazon as a domestic issue, perhaps the best hope for conservation lies with the people who inhabit it. Construction of the Belo Monte dam — which would be one of the world's largest hydroelectric power plants, after China's Three Gorges and the Itaipu dam shared by Brazil and Paraguay and would also threatens severe ecological and social damage — gathered more than 1,000 environmental activists and Indians protesters in Altamira last week.

Nineteen years ago, a similar dam project was successfully defeated after being met with international condemnation. With today’s rate of deforestation and economic pressures, however, the future of the Amazon looks grim. The actions of both President Lula and Marina Silva lead us to one conclusion: in Brazil, economic growth trumps environmental protection.

Struggling fishing communities Brazil may have found a way to turn their economic troubles around. A university there has set up a fishermen's cooperative to introduce oyster farming in the area and boost economic development. The advantages of oyster farming go beyond economics — the industry can increase biodiversity and water-filtration services.