Specialist Of Strategic Planning: Fill & Download for Free

Im going to throw one out there that you dont here much about anymore and part of the reason you dont is well, it failed. It failed on the strategic level because of very poor intelligence. However, the raid was carried out and was by all accounts, a complete success.Operation Ivory Coast/Kingpin 1970Son Tay North Vietnam.The mission was to rescue 55 POWs believed held at the camp south of Hanoi since 1968.Polar CircleThe concept of a rescue mission inside North Vietnam began on 9 May 1970. An Air Force intelligence unit concluded through analysis of aerial photography that a compound near Sơn Tây, suspected since late 1968 of being a prisoner of war camp, contained 55 American POWs and that at least six were in urgent need of rescue. The camp was situated in an area where 12,000 North Vietnamese troops were stationed within 5 miles (8.0 km). After validation of their findings, BG James R. Allen, the deputy director for plans and policy at Headquarters USAF, met in the Pentagon on 25 May with Army BG Donald Blackburn, Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities (SACSA). Blackburn was responsible directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and had also been the first commander of the covert Studies and Observation Group in Vietnam.Blackburn immediately met with General Earle G. Wheeler, the outgoing JCS Chairman, to recommend a rescue of all the POWs at Son Tây. To study the feasibility of a raid, Wheeler authorized a 15-member planning group under the codename Polar Circle that convened on June 10. One of its members was an officer who would actually participate in the raid as a rescue helicopter pilot. The study group, after a review of all available intelligence, concluded that Sơn Tây contained 61 POWs.When Blackburn's recommendation that he lead the mission himself was turned down, he asked Colonel Arthur D. Simons on 13 July to command the Army's personnel. Eglin Air Force Base was selected as the joint training site for the prospective force. Personnel selection proceeded over the objections of the Marine Corps, which was excluded from participation, but selection and planning was performed by Special Operations "operators", not by the JCS, to avoid service parochialism, resulting in a force chosen for mission needs, highlighting combat experience in Southeast Asia and operational specialty skills, and not rank or branch of service.Ivory CoastThe second phase, Operation Ivory Coast, began on 8 August 1970, when Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, the new JCS Chairman, designated Manor as commander and Simons as deputy commander of the mission task force. Ivory Coast was the organization, planning, training, and deployment phase of the operation. Manor set up an Air Force training facility at Eglin's Duke Field and brought together a 27-member planning staff that included 11 from the prior feasibility study.Simons recruited 103 personnel from interviews of 500 volunteers, most Special Forces personnel of the 6th and 7th Special Forces Groups at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. USAF planners selected key Air Force commanders, who then picked personnel for their crews. Helicopter and A-1 Skyraider crews were put together from instructors at Eglin and personnel returned from Southeast Asia. Two crews for C-130E(I) Combat Talons were assembled from squadrons in Germany and North Carolina. All were then asked to volunteer for a temporary duty assignment without additional pay and without being told the nature of the mission. 103 Army and 116 Air Force personnel were selected for the project, including ground force members, aircrewmen, support members, and planners. The 219-man task force planned, trained, and operated under the title of the "Joint Contingency Task Group" (JCTG).The planning staff set up parameters for a nighttime raid, the key points of which were clear weather and a quarter moon at 35 degrees above the horizon for optimum visibility during low-level flight. From these parameters, two mission "windows" were identified, 18–25 October and 18–25 November.Training proceeded on Range C-2 at Eglin using an exact but crudely made replica of the prison compound for rehearsals and a $60,000 five-foot-by-five-foot scale table model (codenamed "Barbara") for familiarization.Air Force crews flew 1,054 hours in southern Alabama, Georgia, and Florida conducting "dissimilar (aircraft) formation" training with both UH-1H and HH-3E helicopters at night and at low-level (a flight profile for which procedures had to be innovated by the two selected crews), and gaining expertise in navigation training using forward looking infrared (FLIR), which, until Ivory Coast, had not been part of the Combat Talon's electronics suite. A vee formation in which the slower helicopters drafted in echelon slightly above and behind each wing of the Combat Talon escort aircraft was chosen and refined for the mission to give the helicopters the speed necessary to keep pace with the Talons flying just above their stall speeds.Special Forces training began on 9 September, advancing to night training on 17 September and joint training with air crews on 28 September that included six rehearsals a day, three of them under night conditions. By 6 October, 170 practice sessions of all or partial phases of the mission were performed on the mockup by the Special Forces troopers, many with live fire.On that date, the first full-scale dress rehearsal, using a UH-1H as the assault helicopter, was conducted at night and included a 5.5-hour, 687 miles (1,106 km) flight of all aircraft, replicating the timing, speeds, altitudes, and turns in the mission plan.The rehearsal spelled the end of the option to use the UH-1 when its small passenger compartment resulted in leg cramps to the Special Forces troopers that completely disrupted the timing of their assault, more than offsetting the UH-1's only advantage (smaller rotor radius) over the larger HH-3.Two further full night rehearsals and a total of 31 practice landings by the HH-3E in the mockup's courtyard confirmed the choice.On 24 September, Manor recommended approval of the October window to US Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, with 21 October as the primary execution date. However, at a White House briefing on 8 October with National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and General Alexander M. Haig, Kissinger delayed the mission to the November window because President Nixon was not in Washington and could not be briefed in time for approval of the October window. This delay, while posing a risk of compromising the secrecy of the mission, had the benefits of additional training, acquisition of night-vision equipment, and further reconnaissance of the prison.Manor and Simons met with the commander of Task Force 77, Vice Admiral Frederic A. Bardshar, aboard his flagship USS America on 5 November to arrange for a diversionary mission to be flown by naval aircraft. Because of policy restrictions of the bombing halt then in place, the naval aircraft would not carry ordnance except for a few planes tasked for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR).Between 10 and 18 November, the JCTG moved to its staging base at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. The Combat Talons, using the call signs Daw 43 and Thumb 66 in the guise of being a part of Project Heavy Chain, left Eglin on 10 November, flew to Norton Air Force Base, California, and then routed through Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii and Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, arriving in Takhli on 14 November. The next day, four C-141 Starlifters departed one per day (to avoid the appearance of a major operation in progress), carrying the Army contingent of the JCTG, its equipment, and the UH-1 helicopter from Eglin to Thailand. The Special Forces personnel arrived in Thailand at 03:00 local time 18 November and later that date President Nixon approved execution of the mission, setting in motion the final phase, Operation Kingpin.After overcoming in-theater friction with the 1st Weather Group at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Vietnam, planners began watching the weather during the week before the projected target date. On 18 November, Typhoon Patsy struck the Philippines and headed west towards Hanoi. Weather forecasts indicated that Patsy would cause bad weather over the Gulf of Tonkin on 21 November, preventing carrier support operations, and converging with a cold front coming out of southern China, would cause poor conditions over North Vietnam for the remainder of the window. The presence of the cold front, however, indicated that conditions in the objective area on 20 November would be good and possibly acceptable over Laos for navigation of the low-level penetration flights. A reconnaissance flight on the afternoon of 20 November by an RF-4C Phantom carrying a weather specialist confirmed the forecast. Manor decided to advance the mission date by 24 hours rather than delay it by five days.Manor issued the formal launch order at 15:56 local time 20 November, while the raiding force was in the final stages of crew rest, and brought together the entire ground contingent for a short briefing regarding the objective and launch times. Following the briefing, Manor and his staff flew by T-39 Sabreliner to Da Nang, where they would monitor the mission from the USAF Tactical Air Control Center, North Sector (TACC/NS) at Monkey Mountain Facility. Three theater lift C-130s previously staged at U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield arrived at Takhli to transport the Army contingent and helicopter crews to Udorn RTAFB and the A-1 pilots to Nakhon Phanom.Penetration into North VietnamBeginning at 22:00 20 November 1970, aircraft began leaving five bases in Thailand and one in South Vietnam. Cherry 02, the Combat Talon escort for the A-1 strike formation, took off from Takhli at 22:25. Cherry 01, scheduled to take off a half hour later, had difficulty starting an engine and took off 23 minutes late at 23:18. Cherry 01 adjusted its flight plan and made up the time lost at engine start. At 23:07, two HC-130P aerial refuelers (call signs Lime 01 and Lime 02) took off from Udorn, followed by the helicopters ten minutes later. Shortly after midnight, the A-1 Skyraiders lifted off four minutes early from Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base under clandestine, blacked-out conditions. The helicopters encountered thick clouds over northern Laos at their refueling altitude and climbed to 7,000 feet (2,100 m) AGL (Above Ground Level) to refuel from Lime 01 on the flight plan's fourth leg. Lime 01 then led them to the next checkpoint for hand-off to Cherry 01 at 01:16.The formations flew roughly parallel tracks that crossed Laos to the west of the Plain of Jars before turning northeastward. Both formations flew twelve planned legs.The flight path was a corridor 6 miles (9.7 km) wide, the width required for safe terrain clearance in the event of formation breakup or the loss of drafting position by a helicopter. The Combat Talon navigators had the task of keeping the formations on the center line of the corridor. Pilots of both formations required a flight path of descending legs, maintaining an altitude of 1,000 feet (300 m) above ground level in the mountain valleys, because the HH-3E had difficulties in climbing while in formation. The Combat Talon C-130s experienced sluggish flight controls at the required airspeeds, and the A-1s were hampered by their heavy ordnance loads.The slow speeds necessary for the formations, 105 knots (194 km/h; 121 mph) for the helicopters and 145 knots (269 km/h; 167 mph) for the A-1s, degraded nearly all modes of the Combat Talon's AN/APQ-115 TF/TA navigational radars. The Terrain Following mode computed changes in altitude only to a programmed minimum airspeed of 160 knots (300 km/h; 180 mph), well outside the parameters of the mission. The Terrain Avoidance mode (adapted from the AN/APQ-99 terrain avoidance radar of the RF-4C photo reconnaissance aircraft) was distorted by the nose-high attitude dictated by the slow speeds and would no longer display hazardous terrain directly in front of or below the Combat Talon's flight path. The Doppler radar (used to calculate wind drift and ground speed) often had to use information in its computer's memory because of processing lapses. While the ground-mapping radar (correlating landmarks shown on maps to radar returns) was not affected, the jungle terrain did not provide easily identifiable points. All of these handicaps were overcome with the external pod installation of FLIR, which readily identified the rivers and lakes used as turning points.The assault formation approached from the southwest using the clutter returns of the mountains to mask them from radar detection, while U.S. Navy aircraft launched at 01:00 21 November from the aircraft carriers USS Oriskany and USS Ranger in the largest carrier night operation of the Vietnam War. Starting at 01:52, twenty A-7 Corsairs and A-6 Intruders, flying in pairs at stepped-up altitudes to deconflict their flight paths, entered North Vietnamese airspace on three tracks, dropping flares to simulate an attack. The last track also dropped chaff to mimic the mining of Haiphong harbor. Over the Gulf of Tonkin, twenty-four other aircraft in thirteen orbits provided support and protection. The operation prompted a frantic air defense reaction at 02:17 that provided a highly effective diversion for the raiders and completely saturated the North Vietnamese air defense system.Both Air Force formations, over a period of thirteen minutes, were unavoidably but separately exposed for several minutes each to an early warning radar located at Na San, North Vietnam, 30 miles (48 km) to the north, because the flight tracks had to be routed around uncharted mountains. Neither formation was detected, possibly because of the diversion. The rescue forces entered the Red River valley at 500 feet (150 m) AGL to find conditions clear and visibility excellent. The helicopter formation reached its Initial Point (20 kilometers—12 minutes flying time—from Son Tây) with the A-1 strike formation two minutes behind, as planned. The HH-3E assault team helicopter had flown formation just behind and above the left wingtip of Cherry 01, drafting on the leader to gain the additional airspeed needed to bring its cruise airspeed safely above the stalling speed of the Combat Talon. Cherry 01 and the two HH-53s designated for prisoner pickup accelerated to climb to 1,500 feet (460 m) AGL, while the four assault helicopters broke formation and descended to 200 feet (61 m) in single file, timed to land forty-five seconds apart.Combat assaultAt 02:18 Cherry 01 transmitted the execute command "Alpha, Alpha, Alpha" to all aircraft as it overflew the prison and deployed four illumination flares, then performed a hard-turning descent to 500 feet (150 m) to drop two battle simulators south and southeast of Sơn Tây. After Apple 03 made its strafing pass with side-firing miniguns on the prison's guard towers, Cherry 01 successfully dropped one of two planned napalm ground markers as a point of reference for the A-1s, then departed the objective area to a holding point over Laos where it would provide UHF direction-finding steers for the departing aircraft.The assault helicopters in single file encountered winds that caused them to break formation 150 yards (140 m) to the right of their intended track. The pilots of Apple 03, the gunship helicopter preceding the others, observed a compound nearly identical to the prison camp in size and layout (previously labeled a "secondary school" by intelligence sources) and steered toward it, followed by the assault lift force. However, they recognized their error when they saw the river next to the actual location and corrected their flight path. Banana, the HH-3E carrying the Blueboy assault team, descended on the wrong location and observed that the expected courtyard was much smaller than required and that the expected treeline enclosed the compound rather than crossing through it. By that time, Blueboy (as previously rehearsed) was firing its weapons from all openings in the helicopter. Banana's pilots also recognized the error, applied power, and quickly veered north to the actual target.Despite the error, and trees taller than briefed that forced a steeper descent than rehearsed, the assault team crash-landed into the courtyard of Sơn Tây prison at 02:19 with all weapons firing. Although one raider, acting as a door gunner, was thrown from the aircraft, the only casualty was the helicopter's flight engineer, whose ankle was fractured by a dislodged fire extinguisher. Army Captain Richard J. Meadows used a bullhorn to announce their presence to the expected POWs, while the team dispersed in four elements on a rapid and violent assault of the prison, killing guards and methodically searching the five prisoner blocks cell by cell.Also at 02:19, Apple 01 (after its pilots saw Banana fire on the first location) landed the Greenleaf support group outside the south side of the secondary school, thinking it to be the target prison compound. Unaware that it was 400 meters from the objective, it lifted off to relocate to its holding area. The "secondary school" was actually a barracks for troops that, alerted by Banana's aborted assault, opened fire on Greenleaf as two of its elements assaulted the compound. The support group attacked the location with small arms and hand grenades in an eight-minute firefight, after which Simons estimated that 100 to 200 hostile soldiers had been killed. Two A-1s supported Greenleaf with an air strike using white phosphorus bombs on a wooden footbridge east of the area. Apple 01 returned at 02:23, and by 02:28, the support group had disengaged under fire and reboarded the helicopter for the short movement to the correct landing area.The pilot of Apple 02 observed the errors in navigation by the helicopters in front of him and made a hard turn towards the prison. He also observed Apple 01 unload at the secondary school and initiated Plan Green, the contingency plan for the loss or absence of Greenleaf. The Redwine security group, including ground force commander Sydnor, landed at 02:20 outside Sơn Tây prison and immediately executed the previously rehearsed contingency plan. In the meantime, Cherry 02 arrived with the A-1 force, dropped two more napalm ground markers, and created other diversions to disguise the target area by dropping MK-6 log flares and battle simulators at road intersections that North Vietnamese reaction forces might be expected to use. Cherry 02 then orbited in the area just west of the Black River acting as on-call support for the ground teams, jamming North Vietnamese radio communications, and providing a secure radio link to the mission command post in Da Nang.After a thorough search that included a second sweep ordered by Meadows, Blueboy's three teams found that the prison held no POWs. Meadows transmitted the code phrase "Negative Items" to the command group. Pathfinders clearing the extraction LZ blew up an electrical tower that blacked out the entire west side of Sơn Tây including the prison area. At 02:29, Sydnor ordered the A-1s to attack the vehicle bridge over the Song Con leading into the area and, three minutes later, called for extraction by the HH-53s idling on the ground in a holding area a mile away. Before the first helicopter arrived, a truck convoy approached the prison from the south, but was stopped by two Redwine security teams that each fired an M72 light antitank weapon into the lead vehicle.At 02:28, Cherry 02's electronic warfare operator noted that Fan Song fire control radars for North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites had gone active. SAM launches at the F-105 Wild Weasel force began at 02:35, with at least 36 missiles fired at the rescue forces. One F-105 was briefly enveloped in burning fuel by a near-miss at 02:40 and returned to base. Its replacement was severely damaged six minutes later by another SAM. Twenty other SAMs fired at Navy aircraft all missed. Two MiG-21 interceptors on alert duty at Phúc Yên Air Base were never given permission to launch, despite several requests to do so.Extraction of the RaidersThe HH-53s returned singly to the extraction landing zone amidst the SAM barrage, flying well below the minimum effective level of the missiles, and Apple 01 landed first at 02:37. It lifted off with its passengers at 02:40, followed a minute later by the landing of Apple 02, which departed at 02:45. Apple 03, the last aircraft out, was cleared to leave its holding area at 02:48. The raid had been executed in only 27 minutes, well within the planned 30-minute optimum time. Although at first it was feared one raider had been left behind, all the troopers were accounted for. One Redwine trooper had been wounded in the leg and was the only casualty to hostile fire on the raid.Shortly after its departure, Apple 03 mistook a support fighter for a MiG and called a warning, and although one of the Combat Apple KC-135s supporting the mission issued information that no MiGs had taken off, the entire force descended to treetop altitude. Apple 04 reported that an air-to-air missile had been launched at it and missed, but this was later found to have been aerial rockets fired into a hillside by one of the A-1 escorts, jettisoning ordnance to increase maneuverability as a result of the erroneous MiG call.The assault formation was out of North Vietnam by 03:15 and landed back at Udorn at 04:28, five hours after launch. The crew of the damaged F-105 was compelled to eject over northern Laos thirty minutes after being hit and within sight of its tanker, when it flamed out from lack of fuel. Alleycat, the C-130E Airborne Control and Command (ABCCC) aircraft in orbit at the time over northern Laos, coordinated with several USAF entities, including Brigham Control in Thailand and ground resources in Laos, to cover the downed crewmen with supporting aircraft until a search and rescue effort could be mounted. Lime 01, refueling at Udorn, took off again using the call sign King 21 to coordinate the recovery, while Lime 02 refueled Apple 04 and Apple 05 to extend their flight time. Supported by the C-123 Candlestick flare aircraft diverted from its station on another mission by Alleycat, a SAR force was launched, and when its "Sandy" A-1s arrived from Nakhon Phanom to cover the pickups, Apple 04 and Apple 05 each recovered one of the downed airmen at first light after three hours on the ground.HH-3E in prison compound looking east. The guard tower is directly over the east entrance gate.Wreckage of HH-3E looking toward west compound wall, with the river beyondEquiptment left behind.Intelligence FailureThe mission was deemed a "tactical success" because of its execution, but clearly involved an "intelligence failure". The 65 prisoners at Sơn Tây had been moved on 14 July because its wells had been contaminated by flooding, or possibly due to the threat of further inundation, to a camp 15 miles (24 km) closer to Hanoi that the POWs dubbed "Camp Faith". Although relatively near Sơn Tây, the risk of disastrous consequences from lack of reconnaissance, planning, and rehearsing precluded a switch of targets at the last minute. A mission with Camp Faith as the objective required a lengthy delay for a new window of acceptable conditions, which increased the chance of security compromise and further withheld personnel and equipment from their parent commands. New reports of increasing numbers of deaths among POWs argued strongly against such a delay. The raid went as planned in the event that the renewed activity at Sơn Tây noted in aerial reconnaissance photos taken 13 November involved POWs.Although the mission objective involved an intelligence failure, the gathering of accurate intelligence for the operation, in both quality and quantity, was remarkably successful. The failure lay in "compartmentalization" of the information and isolation of the JTCG from "the normal intelligence flow". As early as the Polar Circle feasibility group, which conducted its capability assessment at the Defense Intelligence Agency's Arlington Hall facility rather than the Pentagon, members of the rescue operation were isolated from contact with outside organizations and closely monitored to prevent accidental leaks to the curious that might irreparably harm security. As a planner and participant stated in his history of the operation: "The raid was allowed to take place because those who had the correct intelligence information were not aware that someone was contemplating a POW rescue."Further, by the time intelligence regarding the moving of the prisoners was received, prompting the Defense Intelligence Agency to do an intensive overnight re-analysis of all of its data, the day of the operation had already arrived as a result of the 24-hour advancement of the operation due to Typhoon Patsy and the 12-hour time difference with Southeast Asia. When a final meeting with Defense Secretary Melvin Laird took place at 05:00 (Washington, D.C., time) to determine if the mission should proceed, its launch was less than five hours away. There was no consensus on the reliability of the data, and Blackburn was strongly predisposed to go ahead. One military analyst observed that as a result, the highest-level decision makers succumbed to the phenomenon of "groupthink".Operation Ivory Coast

The short answer is they are very badly equipped to face this challenge and there are substantial forces preventing this situation being improved. Focussing on my home city Melbourne, this is the first of three essays on the topic previously published on my blog Earthsign.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A salutary tale of the obstacles separating us from a sustainable futureThis is the beginning of a salutary tale of the obstacles between us and an environmentally sustainable, green future. On blogs like this, the discussion is commonly about one or more of three broad topics. First is the threat to our future revealed by the latest climate science. Second is the action taken by national and (far less frequently) state governments in response to the threat. Third is the determined resistance to government action by deluded deniers or self-interested, disingenuous, often industry-funded, climate change deceivers. Central to the discussion tends to be the prevalence of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-intensive fossil fuels as source fuel for stationary energy.Discussion of the substantial GHG impact of the built environment is rare. This post addresses the substantial role of Australia's urban built environment in the generation of our GHG burden. Ultimately I wish to address the difficulties confronted by our third tier of government local government in their attempts however halting and fragmentary to deliver responsible action on both climate change mitigation and adaptation. To tell the whole story needs more than one post. In this first post I'll broadly address the nature of the relationship between the built environment energy use and GHG emissions. I'll try to summarize the ways in which the built environment impacts on energy consumption and GHG emissions and indicate the scope of the savings that might potentially be achieved.A published online text from the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne summarizes the problem as follows:The built environment includes a diverse range of human-made infrastructure systems, including buildings, transport networks (roads, bridges, railways) and utilities (water, power, telecommunications). Without these systems, large cities would cease to function and human health and survival would be significantly jeopardized.The built environment is responsible for a large proportion of global energy demand and consumption, which results in considerable impacts on the natural environment. It is estimated that the operation of buildings alone (including our houses, hospitals, schools and offices) accounts for up to 40% of total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.In Australia, the majority of energy consumption associated with the built environment is from fossil-fuel-based sources, such as coal, oil and natural gas. Energy is used for a wide range of purposes including the production of materials, construction, and heating, cooling, lighting and appliance operation. This consumption results in significant impacts on the natural environment and human health, through the depletion of natural resources, the release of greenhouse gas and other emissions and the production of waste.Regulation of the construction of the built environment has the potential to reduce the energy demand and therefore GHG burden of buildings. The key findings of one study commissioned by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) Climate Change Task Group (CCTG) are that:The building sector is responsible for a significant proportion of Australia’s total GHG emissions, and energy use in buildings is rapidly growing. Electricity demand in residential and commercial buildings can be halved by 2030, and reduced by more than 70 per cent by 2050 through energy efficiency;Energy efficiency could deliver savings of 30-35 per cent across the whole building sector by 2050. Energy savings in the building sector (which accounts for 60 per cent of GDP and 23 per cent of GHG emissions) could reduce the costs of greenhouse gas abatement across the whole economy by $30 per tonne, or 14 per cent, by 2050. By 2050, GDP could be improved by around $38 billion per year if building sector energy efficiency is adopted, compared to previous economy-wide estimates of the 60 per cent deep cuts scenario;andAustralia has the ability to achieve at least 60 per cent deep cuts in GHG emissions by 2050 supported by the capacity to transform buildings to deliver energy savings.The quote above indicates that the buildings of which the built environment is composed impact on our collective carbon footprint through the energy consumed in their everyday occupation - lighting, climate conditioning and the operation of equipment and appliances within them. However their impact is far larger than that. The manner in which they are distributed in the city has a great impact on our GHG emissions burden.Urban residential density for example can be directly related to GHG emissions from transport-related energy consumption as the graph below indicates. It reveals that that European cities like Paris London and Copenhagen have a more or less optimal balance between density and transport related energy consumption. With a density of 40-50 persons per hectare they have transport related energy consumption of 10-15 gigajoule/capita/year.Melbourne with a density of about 15-20/hectare has transport related energy consumption of around 30 gigajoule/capita/year. Here a couple of cautions are appropriate. It is worth noting that urban population density is never uniform across a city. For example in Melbourne the inner urban City of Yarra (which will later become important in this story) has a population density of almost 40/hectare. Also, although the graph accurately relates the two variables in a broad variety of world cities it says nothing about the nature of their relationship. It is tempting to conclude that the inverse relationship between population density and transport related energy consumption is causal – one is caused by the other – but the relationship is more complex than that.The construction, operation and maintenance of vast, city-wide road, energy, waste and water infrastructure networks on which the city depends for its viability greatly contribute to our energy consumption and GHG burden. Further, sprawling low density cities like Melbourne maximize the distance between food production (vulnerable to climate change and heavily dependent on the availability of oil and petrol) and food consumption. The Victorian Eco Innovation Lab at the University of Melbourne has researched this problem. They comment:How do we prepare now for a future of unprecedented resource scarcity and environmental change? Unless we take radical steps to increase the resilience and sustainability of critical infrastructure, access to vital systems and services is at risk.This paper highlights the dynamic forces increasing the vulnerability of current infrastructure and services and presents the case for distributed systems as an alternative design model.We suggest this model exists in the natural environment and in production and consumption systems that have already begun adapting to conditions of increased uncertainty, resource scarcity and a ‘low-carbon’ future. A distributed approach to system design offers many benefits over traditional infrastructure models.Research and case studies strongly suggest such an approach can:Increase the physical resilience of infrastructureFoster social and institutional flexibility and innovationReduce the environmental footprint of production and consumptionTheir research is contained in the reports 'Distributed Systems: A design model for sustainable and resilient infrastructure' and 'Distributed Water systems' which can be downloaded here.They argue that:Over the next few decades the way people obtain their food, water and energy will undergo a major (r)evolution. One pathway sees people no longer relying on industrial production units hundreds or thousands of kilometres, or even continents, away. Instead they will source a greater proportion of essential resources, goods and services from within their ‘neighbourhood’. Energy (principally electricity) is already showing signs of this transformation in most developed economies, with innovative arrangements of gas, solar, wind and biomass generators positioned throughout every region, backed up by new storage systems and some remaining large-scale centralised power stations. Developments in the water and food sectors seem to be following the same path.They identify three global drivers of change behind the coming (r)evolution in these vital urban systems:Of the major global forces for change, environmental degradation is most understood. It already has a profound impact on primary production and the availability of natural resources. Its impacts on food and water security are particularly widespread. Critical industries such as fishing and agriculture have already suffered major declines in some areas. Ecosystem services such as water purification and soil fertility are also widely degraded.Extensive research indicates climate change will affect the supply and security of food, water and even energy supplies. Higher temperatures, more extreme weather events and shifts in weather patterns will change where, how, and with what certainty, agricultural crops can be grown. The same factors (combined with greater evaporation, increased likelihood of algal blooms and wild fires) are already reducing the security of water supply. Energy supply will be affected via lower inflow to hydro-generation dams and greater frequency and intensity of storms disrupting sea-based oil and gas supplies from regions like the Australia’s North West and the Gulf of Mexico. Higher temperatures may also increase energy loss during transmission and disrupt energy distribution. Electricity and gas lines are already vulnerable from fires and from melting permafrost.Oil scarcity or ‘peak oil’ is the least recognised but perhaps most pressing force for change. Diverse risks are posed by the decline in oil output and a permanent shift in oil market conditions from excess oil supply to excess demand. This is about to occur in the next few years. With demand rising and output falling, oil and gas prices are expected to become extemely volatile (probably increasing rapidly in price) – destabilising supply and triggering ‘knock-on’ effects. Most aspects of modern society are vulnerable. Oil and gas are vital to food production, storage and distribution, as well as to the pharmaceuticals, pesticide and fertiliser industries. Oil underpins global transport, commerce and trade. Because cheap, secure access to oil has shaped urban design, people in car-based societies can be at high risk from oil scarcity; locked into low-density suburbs with little access to alternative mobilityThey indicate that change is likely to be sudden rather than incremental:The nature of change in complex systems adds a new layer of risk and uncertainty. Put simply, ‘complex adaptive systems’14 such as the climate, the economy and ecosystems, do not change gradually when highly stressed. They have a range or boundary of conditions within which change is relatively predictable. As human impacts push systems close to these thresholds of stability, they can behave unpredictably – with small changes having big and often surprising results. These affects are the kinds of ‘high impact, low probability’ events that planners, engineers, insurers find extremely hard to prepare for.So we can see that the built fabric of Melbourne, the world's most liveable city is profoundly unsuited to the environmental and economic challenges we face now and increasingly in coming decades. The potential savings to be gained from reconfiguring the city are great but the lead times are long and the challenges both large and imminent. This means that the urgency is great and that we should simply get on with the task of implementing necessary change – right? Well yes but as the next post will show we are not acting to avert the looming catastrophe because of powerful vested interests acting to prevent this.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is the second essay on this topic previously punished on my blog EarthsignA sustainable city? Not if the building industry gets its wayIn my previous post on this topic I outlined the massive contribution of the built environment to our collective greenhouse gas emissions burden. I touched on the key findings of one study commissioned by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) Climate Change Task Group (CCTG) that:The building sector is responsible for a significant proportion of Australia’s total GHG emissions, and energy use in buildings is rapidly growing. Electricity demand in residential and commercial buildings can be halved by 2030, and reduced by more than 70 per cent by 2050 through energy efficiency;Energy efficiency could deliver savings of 30-35 per cent across the whole building sector by 2050. Energy savings in the building sector (which accounts for 60 per cent of GDP and 23 per cent of GHG emissions) could reduce the costs of greenhouse gas abatement across the whole economy by $30 per tonne, or 14 per cent, by 2050. By 2050, GDP could be improved by around $38 billion per year if building sector energy efficiency is adopted, compared to previous economy-wide estimates of the 60 per cent deep cuts scenario;andAustralia has the ability to achieve at least 60 per cent deep cuts in GHG emissions by 2050 supported by the capacity to transform buildings to deliver energy savings.The previous post on this topic ended as follows:So we can see that the built fabric of Melbourne, the world's most liveable city is profoundly unsuited to the environmental and economic challenges we face now and increasingly in coming decades. The potential savings to be gained from reconfiguring the city are great but the lead times are long and the challenges both large and imminent. This means that the urgency is great and that we should simply get on with the task of implementing necessary change – right? Well yes but as the next post will show we are not acting to avert the looming catastrophe because of powerful vested interests acting to prevent this.We are used to hearing about the short sighted, self interested environmentally destructive policies of the lobby groups associated with Australia's mining and generating industries. However dubious the connection, they link the profitability of their industries with the collective good of the Australian community. They ferociously defend the profits of their constituents at all cost. Advertising campaigns, threatened or actual, fictitious or factual, with the potential to erode the electoral viability of governments, have become a potent means of imposing their will on governments and the the Australian community that elects them.The tactics of the building and construction lobbies are very similar to those of their mining and generating counterparts. As with the mining and energy lobbies the construction industry lobby groups identify their industries' self interest with that of the larger public by publicly acknowledging the reality of the climate crisis but then resolutely oppose each and any useful climate policy initiative that might reduce (or slow growth in) the profitability of the industries they represent. They are equally as destructive, as the mining and energy lobbies, of the prospects for implementing the rational, effective climate policies we so desperately need and can so transparently afford to make.The building lobbies consist primarily of the Housing Industry Association (HIA), the Master Builders Association (MBA) and the Property Council of Australia (PCA) with the largest and most active the HIA. Their lobbying exploits although occasionally reported, have not lodged in the public consciousness to anything like the same extent as their mining and energy counterparts. They make submissions on proposed legislation, seek media coverage of their positions and lobby government ministers at both State and Federal levels. Although this post will concentrate on the HIA the position of the main building industry lobby groups on climate change is very similar.Writing in the Age in 2007 Royce Millar described the HIA as follows:A child of the post-war building boom, the HIA grew out of the now defunct Builders and Allied Trades Association. While the core members are builders, big and small, they also include developers, architects, building material manufacturers, banks, real estate agents and lawyers. It is part of a wider property lobby that includes the Master Builders Association, the Property Council and the Urban Development Institute. With a membership of 43,000 and growing, a staff of 315, large headquarters in Canberra and a comprehensive national structure, the HIA is widely regarded as the largest and most potent of the property industry groups.The influence of the HIA can be seen at both State and Federal levels in the policies of both Liberal - National Party coalition and Labor governments. As both Labor and Coalition governments subscribe to the primacy of the market as an economic regulator the policies of governments of both persuasions have been heavily influenced by the ideas of the building lobby.In Millar's article Dr Sarah Maddison, an Australian politics specialist at the University of NSW, draws attention to the rather obvious vested interest of the HIA et al. The "HIA has its own vested interest — money. "The HIA is not lobbying on behalf of the environment, on behalf of future generations; it's lobbying on behalf of its members' own bottom line. Their interest is flogging houses."The HIA obviously still agrees with this assessment. In a submission to independent federal MP Robert Oakeshott in 2012 the HIA described itself as follows: (my emphases)"HIA is Australia’s peak residential building industry association, representing over 42,000 members nationally.HIA members comprise a diversity of residential builders, including all Top 100 builders, all major building industry manufacturers and suppliers and importantly for the purposes of this legislation, we represent residential land developers and apartment builders, small to medium builders, contractors and consultants to the residential building industry.HIA members construct over 85% of the nation’s new housing stock. HIA exists to service the businesses it represents, lobby for the best possible business environment for the building industry and to encourage a responsible and quality driven, affordable residential building and development industry."The urban built environment increases our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in three ways. Firstly via the emissions generated by the materials manufacturing and construction process itself. Secondly, by the emissions attributable to the ongoing energy use required by lighting, climate conditioning and equipment use within buildings. Thirdly, the physical character, especially the population density and degree of separation of the different functions of cities greatly influences GHG emissions through the energy required to construct operate and maintain the enormous infrastructure networks of roads, pipes and wires underpinning urban life and through the emissions resulting from the necessity to transport people and goods between the cities different functions.In Australia regulation of the built environment is complex. All tiers of government, Federal, State and local, have a role in its regulation. It is controlled by State Planning Acts and the Building Code of Australia (BCA) often in conjunction with various Australian Standards. The BCA itself varies from State to State and national co-ordination is the province of the Australian Building Codes Board. According to Millar:"There is ample evidence of the HIA's sway on (Federal) housing policy. In the early '90s it claimed responsibility for the Hawke/Keating government's first home-owner assistance and the reversal of its decision to scrap negative gearing. Little known, for instance, is that the Howard Government gave the HIA the job of drafting terms of reference — and therefore the parameters of public debate — for the agenda-setting 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into first home-ownership. At the time, groups such as National Shelter were critical of the narrowness of the inquiry scope, noting that it did not allow consideration of renters and public housing."However the lion's share of the responsibility for regulating the delivery of the urban built environment is held by State and local governments. When the former Victorian State Labor government of premier Steve Bracks showed leadership on residential greenhouse emissions with its five-star energy rating for new homes."The HIA won key concessions, including a delay in the rating's introduction and the removal of high-rise apartments from its scope. Behind the scenes it also proposed the compromise of a water tank or solar panel on new homes, rather than more onerous demands on housing fabric. Tanks and panels could be added to any existing house design."The HIA head office also ran an aggressive campaign against the national roll-out of five-star rules, arguing it would inflate the cost of an average new home by about $15,000 and undermine affordability and the economy."The relationship between local government, responsible for administering delivery of planning strategies in built form and State government which determines much of the framework shaping growth and change in the built environment is cumbersome and potentially troublesome. The situation in Victoria is quite typical. In a submission to a Productivity Commission Issues Paper on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation the local government umbrella group Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) put it succinctly (My emphases again):"Under the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987 councils prepare and administer a planning scheme for their municipal district using the Victoria Planning Provisions. Planning Schemes have prescribed State content and any local content must be consistent with State policy and approved by the Victorian Minister for Planning after a public process. Councils are responsible to enforce compliance with their planning scheme and with land use and development decisions made, even when made by other parties such as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has endorsed national criteria for cities planning, which in theory should integrate climate change considerations. How councils foster activity in support of higher order and long term policy aspirations can be challenging. The cumulative impact of council decisions as a responsible planning authority affect how land is used and developed and how cities function, and is a critical policy tool for climate change adaptation."It is clear that in this political environment whoever has the ear of the State Planning Minister and the State Premier is in a position to control the situation and the building lobbies in particular the HIA have made sure that they are in this position. The HIA has steadfastly opposed any addition of sustainability provisions to State Planning controls and so far no attempt to achieve such change has failed in large measure due to the opposition of the building lobbies. When former Labor Housing Minister Justin Madden a trained architect who might be expected to act responsibly on these matters urged home buyers not to succumb to 'housing obesity' (Australia's houses are the largest in the world) the then head of the HIA rebuked him as follows:"If people want to have more housing consumption who are we to say that's inappropriate? It would be a concern to us (the HIA) if politicians and bureaucrats were going to be the sole arbiters of good housing taste."In 2012 the HIA argued in a submission to the same Productivity Commission Issues paper that regulation of the built environment should be entirely within the envelope of the BCA. It further argued that existing BCA processes were adequate to accomplish any necessary changes in respect of the carbon intensiveness of the built environment. The HIA expressed their concern that "…state and local government use planning policies (might be used to) override the BCA. In most states and territories this is possible and in particular at the local government level, creates confusion for residential building and development, as standards are inconsistent across councils."In other words the HIA maintains that (for the convenience and short term profitability of its members) increasingly stringent regulation of the environmental performance and energy efficiency of the urban built environment must occur simultaneously across all jurisdictions or not at all. To Hell with the welfare of the Australian community. In fact, as the HIA well knows, change in the BCA has historically been glacially slow. This has not been for the want of the production of research reports and recommendations.In the context of environmental sustainability and climate change, as long ago as 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office produced Scoping studies on Minimum Energy Performance Requirements for Incorporating into the Building Code of Australia and one on the Environmental Standards of Building Materials. In 2000 the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) in conjunction with other authorities prepared a series of three thorough reports recommending wide changes to the BCA to address the climate threat. Nothing happened. Again in 2006 the AGO returned to the well producing Scoping Studies on Improving Water Efficiency of Buildings and in 2010 the ACBC produced An Investigation of Possible Building Code of Australia (BCA) Adaptation Measures for Climate Change. The process of producing reports continues but little or no change has occurred as a result of fifteen years of this activity. This could be reasonably taken as an indication of the power of the building lobbies.It is understandable that an industry lobby group whose constituents' continued profitability is potentially affected by climate change action, whether directed towards mitigation or adaptation, should make active representations to government on their behalf on all of these issues and the HIA certainly has done so in a series of submissions to both State and federal governments. But it might be expected to base its arguments on fact. In 2011 the HIA declared its opposition to the carbon tax warning that cost increases associated with the pricing regime will add $6000 to the cost of building an average new house and push up mortgage repayments by $43 a month. This was of course picked up in the national media by the Murdoch Press and by the Federal leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott in his ceaseless campaign of disinformation on this topic. The correction of the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that:"The Housing Industry Association has not released the calculations behind this estimate. According to the CSIRO, more than half the embodied energy in constructing a new house comes from cement, aluminium, steel, copper, glass and plastics. Under the former Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, all of these products would have been shielded from 94.5 per cent of the carbon price. The HIA estimate cited by Mr Abbott ignores this, making the inaccurate assumption of no industry assistance under the carbon price."and"The HIA/MBA figure was produced before the carbon price policy was announced. It assumes no industry assistance, which means it significantly exaggerates the impact of a carbon price on housing construction. In fact the Government is providing $9.2 billion of assistance to manufacturers of building materials like steel, cement, aluminium, copper, glass and plastics, shielding these products from 94.5 per cent of the carbon price."just got lost in the noise and hysteria.So at the end of this lengthy diatribe we can see that Australia's urban built environment is a major contributor to our green house gas burden. We can see that reducing this component is difficult and complex and that the industry lobby groups, in the interest of protecting the profitability of their members, have so far successfully frustrated any and all efforts to achieve regulatory change to improve the situation. In the final piece of this tale of woe I will have a look at the impact of all of this at the local government coal face - the pointy end of delivering the buildings and infrastructure that make up our cities.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is the third and concluding essay on this topicTrying to show the way or trying to hold the line?This post outlines the substantial difficulties experienced by local government as they attempt to confront climate change on behalf of their constituents. In this post, number three in the series, I will try to outline some of the problems experienced by Municipal Councils as, in the extremely difficult operating environment outlined above, they try to represent the best interests of their constituents and even take some steps in the direction of improved environmental sustainability and a reduced contribution to GHG emissions. I will rely on my experience with my local Council the City of Yarra, an inner Melbourne municipality.It is relevant to briefly summarize some key parameters shaping Yarra's urban development. The City of Yarra is subject to the same development pressures as other inner urban municipalities in Melbourne. This can be summed up as a fierce, developer driven - State government facilitated, push for greater residential and employment densities in the inner city. The residential population of the City of Yarra has been predicted to increase from 78,583 in 2011 to 97,850 in 2026 an increase of 24,300 or roughly 31%. As the residential population increases so will the number of jobs within the city boundaries - from 64,211 in 2011 to 86,010 in 2026 an increase of 21,799 or 34%. All this new employment is expected to occupy up to 127 additional hectares of land.Current residential population density is around 40 per hectare, roughly twice the average for the metropolitan area and four times greater than new residential development at the suburban periphery. If projections are realized residential population densities will increase (by 25%) to around 50 per hectare in 2026. This increased residential and worker population will require greatly increased built floorspace to accommodate it not to mention probably between 30,000 and 40,000 new car parking spaces that must accompany this expansion.The planning legislative and regulatory framework shaping this rapid re-making of our urban built environment is the responsibility of State government and the ultimate gatekeepers of change in the landscape of planning and urban design are the peak bodies of the construction and property industries. These have rigidly resisted government policy initiatives intended to reduce our collective carbon footprint chiefly on the grounds that they will restrict the profitability of their members. As I have previously noted they have demonstrated an impressive capacity to influence government policy in their area of concern.In this environment it is no surprise that Council's strategic planning documents completely fail to acknowledge the implications of the built environment for both climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. Apart from token references to voluntary measures that developers might (but almost certainly won't) choose to implement there is no acknowledgement of either the threat climate change represents or the opportunities to address this threat inherent in the intelligent design of the urban built environment.It is appropriate to give a little background on the composition and policies of the City of Yarra. The City of Yarra lies almost completely within the boundaries of the Federal seat of Melbourne which after decades as a safe ALP seat elected Adam Bandt the first Federal Lower House MP from the Greens at the last election. As this suggests, when the citizens of Yarra vote they vote solidly to the left of centre. Yarra Council currently consists of three Greens, three ALP, two socialist and two independent councillors who might be described as small 'l' liberals. It is a progressive Council with an ambitious suite of policies aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation. Council has devoted funds to the establishment of the Yarra Energy Foundation, an independent body whose mission statement proclaims:The Yarra Energy Foundation is a non-profit organisation solely dedicated to making the City of Yarra carbon neutral by 2020.The Foundation was established by the Yarra City Council in August 2010 to fulfil its mission of a carbon neutral city by 2020. The foundation leads projects that work with residents, businesses and the wider community to achieve its aims.Yarra Council has progressive policies in respect of waste recycling, bicycle transport and urban agriculture and has set ambitious targets in respect of growth of renewable energy use and reductions in carbon emissions. In July 2011 Yarra was named sustainable city of the year in the Keep Australia Beautiful Awards. This is not a conservative Council being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century climate realities but one who can be seen to be trying quite hard to move forward on a number of climate change related fronts.Municipal councils consist of elected Councillors who attempt to balance the interests of their constituents against countervailing pressures from State government and private business interests attempting to shape their urban environment. However they also consist of employed Council planning officers charged with the fine tuning and delivery of a policy framework totally controlled by the State government. The impediments to effective change in local government response to climate change inherent in the situation outlined above are obvious.The peak body representing Melbourne Municipal Councils is the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). In a submission to a Productivity Commission Inquiry into Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation the MAV argues for increased powers to local government and greatly increased provision of resources and training to enable Council officers to better deliver useful outcomes in this complex but vitally important area. In a response to the same Inquiry and recognizing the same problems that the MAV highlighted the HIA argued for increased concentration of power at State government level and the revision of the Building Codes to provide uniform national standards. As I showed in my previous post the building lobby has historically strongly influenced change in the regulation of the built environment at State Government level and has effective control over the processes of review and revision of the National Building Codes. The unspoken but nevertheless central objective of their submission is to retain control of changes in the regulation of the built environment in the interests of avoiding any impact (real or imagined) on the short term profitability of their members.Now this has been a lengthy summary of a complex situation. You may have found it somewhat boring and remote from your everyday existence. Nevertheless unless something is radically altered the self interested and so far very effective resistance of the building lobby to the modification of our urban built environment to address climate change will most likely profoundly impact on the quality of life of Melbourne residents in the near future. The activities of the building lobby have not attracted anything like the same attention as their counterparts in the mining and generating industries but they present just about as large an institutional impediment to necessary change as any other.Just how much their resistance is likely to affect Melbourne's residents will be outlined in my next and final post on this issue. Despite the obstacles outlined in these posts progress is being made both here and elsewhere so I will complete my next post with a summary of progress and possibilities in the grinding battle to achieve a more resilient, carbon constrained, climate adapted Melbourne.

Dubai: There are a lot of factors to consider when choosing a career to pursue. A major consideration is whether or not the job offers a work-life balance. Is the nature of work flexible or manageable? Does it offer good career growth prospects? Or does it pay a lot of money?For many professionals, particularly those who have come to the UAE for the money, it is the size of the paycheque that matters most.To determine which jobs make a mint all the time, Gulf Newscrunched the numbers by reviewing more than 300 professional titles or positions in the UAE based on two key metrics: basic wage and allowances.The job titles considered fall into key job groups: accounting and finance, health care, human resources, information technology, retail and corporate banking, marketing, legal, office support, hospitality and services, among others.Topping the charts are occupations that require a knack for strategic thinking, mathematics or accounting, with salaries not less than Dh50,000 a month. Those who are great leaders, expert communicators and have a knack for turning prospects into clients also show up on the list.Here’s a closer look at the 12 highest-paying roles among key professions in the UAE:1. Chief executive officersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh100,000Salary range: Dh75,000 to Dh135,000Salary applicable to: Bank CEOsWhat CEOs do/ why they earn much:Chief executive officers serve as leaders in organisations, so everything they do and all the decisions they make can have an impact on the company’s bottom line. “They are normally appointed to their roles by a board of directors, if they have been with the business for years, they have most likely worked their way up the ladder and had a very positive impact on the overall business growth and potentially led the business to [an initial public offering],” says Jennifer Campori, Charterhouse managing director.“The argument of whether CEOs deserve high salaries has long been debated, [and] the best answer I can give is that some deserve the high salary and others are paid a high salary simply because they can command that [pay]. Overall, CEOs should be the keystone to a business, inspiring leadership and hopefully, transforming a business,” she adds.What it takes to get the job: The qualifications would depend on the nature of an organisation, but it is ideal to have both a graduate and undergraduate degree, with a strong background in finance and leadership.Other job titles offering the same average monthly pay: CEOs in oil and gas companiesSource: Charterhouse2. Marketing expertsAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh95,000Salary range: Dh80,000 to Dh90,000Salary applicable to: Chief marketing officersWhat CMOs do/ why they earn much:Just like CEOs, chief marketing officers (CMOs) have a huge responsibility, as they manage the marketing operations of an organisation and work towards improving the brand. Employers expect them to exude strong leadership, as well as planning and strategic thinking skills.CMOs are mainly responsible for creating and executing strategic marketing plans, directing the development and implementation of brand strategy, managing events, achieving revenue growth and profitability, and ensuring brand recognition, among many others, says Charlie Burke, recruitment consultant for sales and marketing at Hays.What it takes to get the job: The candidate should be a strategic thinker, creative and innovative, meticulous planner, and possess commercial awareness, as well as project management skills, interpersonal skills, follow-up skills and computer literacy, according to Burke. Minimum qualifications would normally include a university degree in marketing, sales or similar and experience in managing a marketing/sales team.Source (salary figures): Charterhouse3. Top accounting, finance professionalsAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh75,000Salary range: Dh55,000 to Dh90,000Salary applicable to: Chief financial officers (CFOs)What CFOs do/ why they earn much:Chief financial officers rank high on the pay scale because they are seen as a “key trusted strategic adviser” of an organisation, says Colleen Schooling, regional head, Europe and UAE, at CPA (Certified Public Accountants) Australia.“In today’s world, the perceptions and recommendations of market analysts play a big part in determining the value of company share prices via their ability to deliver future profits and cash flows to shareholders. They determine that by analyzing key data prepared and communicated by corporate CFOs. Hence the CFO’s salary, given their importance with this role, has gone up the pecking order,” says Ralph Khoury, CFO at TBWA\RAAD Middle East.What it takes to get this job: The key to become a successful CFO is to have a passion for finance, accounting and delivering shareholder value. “You can’t be afraid of making the tough, and of course being your own man. CFO qualifications are important. Economics and Accounting Majors provide a good base, as does ongoing professional development under the CPA mantra. But at the end of the day, it is the real life experience of handling those tough decisions that provide the best qualification,” adds Ganesh Prabhu, CFO, Simmons & Simmons Middle East.Other job titles offering similar compensation: engineering project directorsSource: Charterhouse4. LawyersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh77,000Salary range: Dh60,000 to Dh106,000Salary applicable to: Chief legal officersWhat chief legal officers do/ why they earn much:Companies hire their own lawyers to ensure their business is protected from possible lawsuits or legal issues. “[It is the in-house counsels' responsibility] to protect the business from a legal and compliance perspective. They manage all contractual issues and agreements, along with ensuring that the company is limited from any forms of legal liability,” explains Kate Bramwell, business manager, legal, at Hays.What it takes to get this job:A general counsel position requires a candidate to have at least a law degree with the right legal qualification. “In the Middle East, many candidates are qualified either to the UK, Australia, New Zealand or the US. Looking closer to home, many general counsels are qualified to the Jordanian, Beirut or Egyptian Bar,” says Bramwell. “Typically they will have a minimum of eight post-qualified experience. They will typically have trained within a law firm and have around five years' experience of working within private practice when they will then move on to work on an in-house basis which is viewed as a more commercial take on a legal role.”Source: Hays5. DoctorsAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh 73,460.75Salary range: Not availableSalary applicable to: Specialist neurologists, vascular surgeons, child psychiatrists/psychologists, heads of obstetrics and gynaecologyWhat neurologists do/ why they earn much:The position, just like any other doctor, requires extensive training and education. “Neurologists are highly trained physicians who specialize in diagnosing and treating the diseases of the brain as well as any impairment to the spinal cord, autonomic nervous system, peripheral nerves, muscles and blood vessels that are associated with any of these structures,” says Sharad Sindhwani, head of product development at Naukrigulf.“Neurology comes under specialty medicine and a consultant in this area is highly valued and highly paid. The time required to become a consultant [or neurologist] depends upon a number of factors [including training]. Training time is minimum eight to ten years. Most often [they] are PhD/doctorate holders.”What it takes to get this job:To practice as a neurologist or a medical consultant in the Gulf region, one has to complete the registration and licensing process from the respective state council of health. “This is a rigorous process and obtaining a license is difficult,” adds Sindhwani.Note: Some sources, however, claim that certain doctors like cardiologists make more than Dh180,000 a month, but this amount is believed to already include commissions. Small private clinics also tend to offer much lower rates.Source: Naukrigulf6. Senior bankersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh70,000Salary range: Dh63,750 to Dh77,500Salary applicable to: VPs for corporate banking, retail banking, branch network, alternate channels and asset and liabilitiesWhat bank VPs do/ why they earn much:“The VP of the bank is heavily involved in crucial decisions, including long-term large level loans, potential investments that can raise the profile of the bank and, to be honest, the senior level roles within banking are seen as the key decision makers that can transform the image of the bank,” says Campori.“Normally, banking roles are a monthly salary and then an annual bonus that is made up of the individuals performance, the banks overall performance and potentially linked to key investments the individual has been involved in."What it takes to get this job: Senior banking positions are often filled by individuals that have worked their way to the top. “In most cases [they] have started at entry-level roles within the banking industry and worked their way up the ladder,” adds Campori.Other roles that offer the same average monthly pay: Marketing vice presidents, project directors in oil and gas companies, bank chief operating officers (finance and operations)Source: Charterhouse7. Senior mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) engineersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh62,000Salary range: Dh40,000 to Dh68,000Salary applicable to: MEP project directorsWhat MEP directors do/ why they earn much: Responsibilities of MEP directors can vary from one company to another, but they’re mainly in charge of matters that have to do with mechanical, electrical and plumbing installations in construction projects. They may focus on one specific area for a company or they could be the person responsible for all MEP matters for one huge project. “[In contracting and consulting firms] they are responsible for all of the work being completed on time and correctly, and for liaising with the developer and consultancy,” explains Corrina Ford, MEP recruitment consultant at Hays.What it takes to get this job: Candidates should have at least 20 years’ experience with an MEP background starting usually as a mechanical engineer and working their way up through the ranks, says Ford. “[They] must have a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, experience in managing big projects and have worked for a similar company, a contractor, consultancy or developer.”Source: Hays8. Top IT managersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh60,000Salary range: Dh50,000 to Dh80,000Salary applicable to: Chief information officers (CIOs), IT directorsWhat CIOs do/ why they earn much: They lead and manage projects involving design, deployment, testing and support of business solutions. The job involves coordinating, setting up of an information technology department; defining policy and procedure, organizing structure and team management.What it takes to get the job: The candidate should ideally have at least ten to 12 years’ experience in the IT field, working his way up from IT analyst to senior role to managerial level. “Candidates also need to be up to date with the latest technologies and certifications,” says Farhan Khan, IT recruitment consultant at Hays. Minimum qualifications include a bachelor’s degree in computer or IT and at least three to four years in a managerial role. “Leadership skills is a must,” says Khan.Other roles with similar pay: Executive creative directorsSources: Hays, Kingston Stanley, Charterhouse9. Retail head buyers/merchandisersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh55,000Salary range: Dh36,500 to Dh52,500Salary applicable to: Head of planning/merchandising; head of buying for a luxury retail brandWhat head buyers do/ why they earn much: The role of a head buyer of a retail company is crucial in every business. Whatever decisions the buyer takes can impact the brand or image of the retailer, so it is important that the person holding this position is up to date with the latest industry trends and possesses enough insights into the “potential upturns in the customer market.”“At the end of the day, if customers are not buying what is presented, the brand is impacted and of course, this ultimately impacts the bottom line. As this role is key to the bottom line of the business, the salary and level of the position should also be aligned to risk and reward,” says Campori.What it takes to get this job: A candidate should ideally hold a degree either in marketing, business studies or retail management. “You most likely would have started your career on the shop floor and worked your way up to becoming a buyer,” adds Campori.Source: Charterhouse10. ActuariesAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh55,000Salary range: Dh30,000 to Dh80,000What actuaries do/ why they earn much:Actuaries work mostly in insurance companies, where they analyse various data to assess the possibility that an event will occur, such as the risk a car will crash. Evaluating risks are necessary in order to draw up insurance policies that can help lower the cost of that risk.“These are business professionals who deal with the measurement and management of risk and uncertainty, they are in constant demand within the finance sector and demand is always far in excess of supply,” says Ian Giulianotti, director at Nadia Recruitment Consultants.What it takes to get the job:Becoming a fully credentialed actuary requires passing a rigorous series of professional examinations, which usually take seven years. “In some countries such as Denmark, most studies take place in a university setting, others such as the United States, studies take place during employment through a series of examinations,” says Giulianotti. “In the UK and the countries that follow its process, there is a hybrid university exam structure.”Source: Nadia11. PilotsAverage monthly pay: Dh52,500Salary range: Dh30,000 to Dh75,000Why pilots earn much:Pilots are highly sought after especially in the Gulf region, where the aviation industry is fast growing. “There is a worldwide shortage of qualified flight deck professionals and the Middle East carriers are a magnet for applicants. Additional benefits include free housing, utilities , school fees and provident fund investment,” says Giulianotti.What it takes to get this job:A number of exams and trainings, on top of a license, need to be completed. “Commercial pilots require a license which meets the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, and must pass a number of exams both written and oral and crucially pass a medical fitness exam,” says Giulianotti.“Training can either be obtained privately through flight training schools which the individual has to finance at a cost of approximately $ 250,000 (Dh918,000) or through a cadetship with an airline where the student is tied to the airline for a set period of years. Pilot training is ongoing throughout the career path.”Source: Nadia12. Restaurant general managersAverage monthly pay including allowances: Dh50,000Salary range: Dh25,000 to Dh 70,000What restaurant general managers do/ why they earn much:General managers are responsible for the overall operations of a restaurant. They don't just manage staff and day-to-day operations, they also aim to boost sales. They're usually expected to have full control of the budget and know how to prepare "profit and loss statements" which generally show whether or not the company is making money.