title
stringlengths 13
126
| url
stringlengths 49
139
| content
stringlengths 5.78k
31.8k
|
|---|---|---|
All Stakeholders Have a Role to Play in Ridding the World of Chemical Weapons | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/all-stakeholders-have-role-play-ridding-world-chemical-weapons | 26 July 2022
On 29 April this year, we marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention), and the establishment of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as the Convention’s implementing body.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an international, multilateral treaty whose main objective is to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons, with zero tolerance. Its existence is the result of determined international efforts dating back to the seventeenth century, when France and Germany prohibited the use of poisoned bullets.
The Convention is also the product of more than a decade of diplomatic negotiations that commenced in 1980, as well as years of advocacy work involving academia, civil society, industry and governments. Its opening for signature in Paris in 1993 marked the culmination of an exhaustive multistakeholder process. This was a historic achievement in the field of disarmament. For the first time, States agreed never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer or use chemical weapons, and to verifiably destroy their chemical arsenals.
The process of destroying chemical arsenals declared to OPCW will soon be completed. However, current global events have underscored that preventing the re-emergence of chemical weapons is on an agenda that will remain open forever.
Looking back—what has been achieved?
The accomplishments of OPCW in the last 25 years are clear, concrete and lasting. As of today, 193 countries have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, which means that 98 per cent of the world’s population is covered by its protection. In addition, more than 99 per cent of all declared chemical weapon stockpiles have been verifiably and irreversibly destroyed. The last possessor State party to the Convention is expected to complete the destruction of its stockpile in 2023. Likewise, significant progress has been made under OPCW supervision to destroy the chemical weapons abandoned during the Second World War.
OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias addressing the Chemical Weapons Convention @ 25 seminar at OPCW headquarters, The Hague, 20 May 2022. OPCW Additionally, OPCW continues to make strides in tackling another challenge: reducing the risk of dangerous chemicals falling into the wrong hands. Each day, the ever-thriving chemical industry utilizes large amounts of dangerous “dual-use” chemicals for peaceful and entirely legitimate purposes. In this context, OPCW has conducted some 4,232 industry inspections to date in over 80 States parties to guarantee that the production of such chemicals remains solely for authorized purposes.
Beyond its activities in disarmament and non-proliferation, OPCW supports the peaceful uses of chemistry through a wide range of practical programmes for international cooperation. These include activities to strengthen national legislation as well as training programmes to enhance the skills of first responders in chemical emergency response and management, improve the expertise of customs officials and increase preparedness for better protection against toxic chemicals.
The accomplishments of OPCW have not gone unnoticed. In 2013, the Organisation was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its “extensive efforts to eliminate” chemical weapons.
A quarter century after opening its doors, however, formidable challenges to OPCW persist. The Organisation’s response to those challenges is shaping its present focus and will define its future.
Current and future challenges: Preventing the re-emergence of chemical weapons
Over the past decade, the world has witnessed violations of the global norm against the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, Malaysia, Russia, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Kingdom.
The most egregious and widespread breaches of the norm have occurred with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2013 generated a special but unfinished task. This is the ninth year of OPCW engagement on the Syrian chemical weapons dossier, and it is worrisome that this matter is still not closed.
OPCW specialists train to maintain readiness to respond if and when chemical weapons are used. 6 April 2022. OPCW In all of these situations, OPCW has taken action. In the case of Syria, the States parties, through decisions of the OPCW policymaking organs, have resolutely demanded that Syria redress its failure to declare and destroy all its chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities. The OPCW secretariat continues to implement the mandates it has received through these decisions.
Other recent incidents, such as the attempted poisoning of the Skripal family in Salisbury, United Kingdom in 2018 and Alexei Navalny in 2020 are also deeply troubling. The OPCW secretariat provided technical assistance to the United Kingdom and Germany to confirm the identity of the chemical warfare agents used in the incidents.
These cases of chemical weapons use highlight another issue of serious concern: the potential acquisition and misuse of toxic chemicals by non-State actors. It has been well documented, for example, that ISIL deployed chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq on several occasions. To tackle this threat, OPCW has been promoting information exchange and experience-sharing among its member States to counter the dangers posed by non-State actors.
The chemical industry all over the world has been growing, both in the number of plants built and in technical sophistication; this adds further risks. In particular, the management of hazardous substances over their life cycle presents an additional challenge. The goal, therefore, must be to prevent such substances from being diverted to cause harm to people, infrastructure and the environment at every stage of the process: research, development, production, commercialization and transportation, storage and use.
In addressing this issue, our first line of defence remains the strengthening of the implementation of the Convention at the national level. States parties are responsible for enacting and enforcing necessary legislation in line with national constitutional processes. This effort requires the active involvement and commitment of various national actors and institutions, including parliaments and the judiciary, as well as ministries of foreign affairs, defence, the interior, trade, industry and science, among others. Through its assistance and cooperation programmes, the OPCW secretariat supports States parties in this endeavour.
Headquarters of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), located in The Hague, The Netherlands. 30 April 2015. OPCW Keeping pace with scientific and technological progress
At the same time, OPCW is keeping up with the impressive speed of scientific and technological development by constantly strengthening the capacities of its staff to ensure that they can deliver on our mandates efficiently and effectively.
The new OPCW Centre for Chemistry and Technology, currently being built in the outskirts of The Hague, will be an integral part of this endeavour. The Centre, which is broadly supported by OPCW member States, will allow us to conduct research, analysis and training, and to deliver a variety of international cooperation and assistance activities with a view to better implementing the Convention.
The construction of the Centre is expected to be completed by the end of 2022 and the facility will be inaugurated in the spring of 2023. The Centre will serve as a testament to the international community’s commitment to contribute to peace and security, and a demonstration that the OPCW secretariat has continued delivering its mandates despite the difficulties caused by the pandemic.
Looking forward: All stakeholders must play their part
The success of OPCW over the past 25 years is the result of the dedication and efforts of its member States, its staff and other partners.
While the challenges are significant, the presiding norm against the use of chemical weapons has remained strong. The taboo is solid and universal.
Yet we must remain vigilant and, if necessary, ready to take action to address any alleged or proven violation of the norm.
Today, there are fears and threats of the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, in Ukraine. It must be recalled that all 193 States parties to Convention, including the Russian Federation and Ukraine, have solemnly and voluntarily committed to uphold its strict obligations.
The spirit of multistakeholder collaboration and cooperation that led to the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention a quarter century ago is still very strong, and it is critical that all stakeholders—including governments, civil society, academia, the chemical industry and the entire international community—continue to play their part.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Now Is the Time: We Must Find a Global Response to This Most Global of Problems | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/now-time-we-must-find-global-response-most-global-problems | From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", 2007
The lines were drawn as the industrialized nations of the Group of Eight gathered in Heiligendamm, Germany on 6 June 2007. The forces mustered to fight global warming were divided into competing camps.
Germany and the United Kingdom sought urgent talks on a new climate change treaty, to go into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.They spoke of stiff measures to curb carbon emissions and limit the rise in global temperatures to 2˚ Celsius over the coming four decades. The United States, offering an initiative of its own, opposed what it considers to be arbitrary targets and timetables.
As I travelled to Heiligendamm that day, my chief concern was to ensure that all these different and potentially conflicting initiatives come together in a multilateral process within the United Nations framework. And that is precisely what was achieved at the summit. The eight Governments agreed that the United Nations climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action, accepted their responsibility to act on emission reductions and eventual cuts, and called for closure by 2009 on a global agreement, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to ensure that there is no gap between future approaches to climate change and the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.
With this breakthrough, the Group of Eight recognized that certain basic facts are beyond dispute. First, the science is clear. The earth's warming is unequivocal; we humans are its principal cause. Every day brings new evidence, whether it is the latest report on retreating glaciers or the recent discovery that the Antarctic Ocean can no longer absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). Think of that: the world's largest carbon trap, filled to capacity.
Second, the time for action is now. The cost of not acting, most economists agree, will exceed the cost of acting early, probably by several orders of magnitude. The damage Hurricane Katrina inflicted on New Orleans may or may not have something to do with global warming, but it is a useful caution nonetheless on the financial and social perils of delay. It is equally evident that we can no longer afford to endlessly parse our options. Global greenhouse gas emissions have to start to come down. Carbon-trading is but one weapon in our arsenal, even if it does range among the most effective policy solutions. New technologies, energy conservation, forestry projects and renewable fuels, as well as private markets, must all be part of a long-term strategy. Yet, even the most rigorous mitigation efforts today will be unable to prevent all climate changes in the future, since changes in the climate occur only after a long time lag. Current global warming is the consequence of greenhouse gases having been emitted over decades. What is worrying is that this process is accelerating.
There is a third fact -- as I see it, the most important of all. That is a basic issue of equity -- a question of values, ranking among the great moral imperatives of our era. Global warming affects us all, yet it affects us all differently. Wealthy nations possess the resources and know-how to adapt. An African farmer losing crops or herds to drought and dust storms, or a Tuvalu islander worried that his village might soon be under water, is infinitely more vulnerable. Large-scale adaptation and its funding -- on the order of billions of dollars a year -- to manage climate change impacts is essential, particularly in the developing world. The carbon market has the potential to deliver much of what is needed in the way of funding. How would we achieve the Millennium Development Goal of halving world poverty if the developing world's aspirations for a greater stake in global prosperity are not honoured?
A sense of human dimension should govern any issue which we peoples of the world must face together, climate change included. I consider it a duty, an extension of the sacred obligation, to protect that is the foundation of the United Nations.
In a discussion in the Security Council in April 2007, the representative of Namibia spoke out on his perception of the dangers of climate change. "This is no academic exercise", he stated. "It is a matter of life or death for my country." He told of how the Namib and Kalahari deserts are expanding, destroying farmland and rendering whole regions uninhabitable. This made me think of my own country, Korea, more and more often choked by dust storms swirling across the Yellow Sea from the expanding Gobi Desert. Malaria has spread to areas where it was once unknown, the Namibian representative went on. Species of plants and animals are dying out, in a land famed for its biodiversity. Developing countries like his own are increasingly subject to what he likened to "low-intensity biological or chemical warfare".
These are strong emotions, drawn from life and not imagined. For those in the developed world, it is important to hear and to act accordingly. For the entire world, it is important to come together to address this issue now. To build on the current positive momentum and to underline the need for early action, I am convening a high-level meeting on climate change in New York on 24 September 2007, in conjunction with the beginning of the General Assembly. I hope the leaders there will send a message to the Bali negotiations in December under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: business as usual is no longer an option, and concrete agreements must be reached soon. In my consultations with Member States, I am assisted by three special envoys, established international personalities who approach leaders on my behalf about the scope of the United Nations role. I intend to continue to act as a catalyst and facilitator of a global response to this most global of problems.
Climate change, and how we address it, will define us, our era and ultimately the global legacy we leave for future generations. It is time for new thinking, and a new inclusiveness. Leaders need to accept their responsibilities, but look less at their responsibility to their ancestors, and more to their responsibility to their grandchildren. The United Nations is a big part of the solution, and I will do all I can to ensure we play our role to the full.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Know Your Ocean. Love Your Ocean. | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/know-your-ocean-love-your-ocean | May 2017, Nos. 1 & 2 Volume LIV, Our Ocean, Our World
I was woken in the middle of the night by a thud on the hull of our boat. We rushed up on deck to find we were surrounded by pieces of plastic floating in the ocean. It didn't make any sense. We were over 1000 miles from land. The closest people to us were in the International Space Station, in orbit above our heads. And yet here was evidence of human life, and waste, all around us in one of the most remote parts of our planet.
I was just out of university and working my passage to Australia when this incident sparked a new career direction for me: sailing the world on a mission to connect people—scientists and communicators—with the ocean, exploring marine issues from the Equator to the Poles.
At sea I saw first-hand the collapse of fisheries, toxic chemicals accumulating in marine organisms, island communities relying on imported packaged food and the extent of plastic pollution. We would stop at small islands and find that the locals could no longer catch fish to feed their families because commercial vessels had caused their fisheries to collapse. They could no longer grow crops in the ground as the rising sea levels had made their soil too salty. The consequence of this was a new reliance on imported food that comes wrapped and packaged in this strange new material—plastic.
With no system in place to deal with this trash, it ends up getting thrown on the beach and in the ocean, and is often burned. That stench of burning plastic kept getting in my nose. When I started researching what the smell was, I learned about certain chemicals—dioxins—that are formed during incomplete combustion of waste, and how they are carcinogens that can get absorbed into our bodies.
And so this became my first mission: to eliminate the burning of plastic across a group of islands in Tonga.
THE TONGA CHALLENGE
First it was about shifting thinking. As I started learning the Tongan language, I realized there wasn't a word for 'rubbish bin' on these South Pacific islands. The concept of throwing something away into a managed system didn't exist in that culture, as it hadn't needed to exist until very recently-organics can be thrown on the ground without problem. It wasn't only infrastructure that was needed; it was a whole new way of thinking about this new inorganic material.
Six months of working and teaching with the local community culminated in a colossal clean up. Together with 3,000 local volunteers we picked up 56 tons of trash in just 5 hours.
This amount of trash staggered me. We collected what was being produced locally, but also what was washing up on the shoreline each day, including items with packaging labels written in languages I didn't recognize. This got me asking more questions—where was this plastic coming from and why was it ending up on these remote islands in the Pacific?
And so I started to learn more about how we use plastic.
THE DESIGN PROBLEM
It turns out we use nearly 2 million plastic bags, globally, every minute.1 Those bags get used once, maybe twice, probably three times at best. Then they are thrown away. Plastic is an amazing material because it is designed to last forever. We use it to make products such as plastic bags and bottles that are designed to be used once and then thrown away. This mismatch of material science and product design puts us in the situation of having vast amounts of waste that no longer has any use or value.
But that's OK, I thought. Can't we just recycle all that plastic? Well no, apparently we cannot. Less than 10 per cent of plastic used in the United States of America ends up getting recycled.2 A visit to a recycling centre showed me why that number was so low. Plastic is an umbrella term we give to many different materials that all have different properties, and therefore different chemical structures. To recycle them, they first need to be cleaned and separated, a lengthy and expensive process, which in itself consumes enormous amounts of energy and water. There also needs to be a demand for people to pay more for recycled materials rather than opt for cheaper virgin plastic.
Given that we have all this used plastic with no place to go, it is not surprising that we see tons-up to 8 million tons from a single country each year—washing down our streams and waterways and into the ocean.
I learned about where plastic goes when it leaves land, and how it moves with the ocean currents and ends up accumulating in five hot spots—known as the five subtropical oceanic gyres. In the centre of the gyre (the large system of rotating currents) the ocean is calm and everything, whether it is a piece of organic debris or a piece of plastic, is drawn to the centre. I heard about floating 'islands' of plastic, but the more I learned the more I realized how little we collectively knew.
And so this became the next mission: to sail to these accumulation zones and find out what really existed there.
ON A MISSION TO THE GYRES
We went searching for islands of plastic—for areas that could be scooped up and brought back to land for recycling. But we quickly realized that the plastic pieces were smaller than expected. Plastic waste doesn't just float around in big rafts on the surface. Ultraviolet light photodegrades it into tiny fragments. Some sink, and some are ingested by marine life.4 On my extensive voyages across the globe I have discovered that it is the same story everywhere—not only in the gyres, but all the way from the Tropics to the Arctic. Our oceans have become a fine soup of plastic fragments.
Much of it can't be seen from the surface by the human eye, which makes the seas look cleaner than they really are, and makes large-scale clean up an immense challenge. We had to take a fine net through the water to take a closer look. Each time we turned the net inside out, we would find hundreds of tiny fragments of plastic.
When we got the samples on board, we analysed them. I was shocked by how difficult it was to distinguish the plastic from the plankton. I wondered how fish cope figuring out what is plastic and what is food. And so we caught fish and looked inside their stomachs, only to realize that there was plastic there too.
This opened up a whole new series of questions. We were not only concerned about the effect plastic may have on the environment through its physical presence, but what about the chemical impact? Given that plastic is getting into the food chain-our food chain-could this mean toxic chemicals are getting inside us?
THE POISON INSIDE
I decided to have my blood tested, to find out what toxic chemicals I have inside me. Working together with the United Nations Safe Planet Campaign,5 we chose to test for 35 chemicals that are all banned because they are known to be toxic to humans and the environment. Of those 35 chemicals, we found 29 of them inside my body.
This is when things really changed for me. So often when we talk about environmental problems we hear about things that are happening somewhere else, to somebody else, at some point in the future. It seems, however, that you and I already have a body burden, a chemical footprint that we will never get rid of. And while the concentrations of chemicals I currently have inside me are not alarmingly high, it's a chilling indicator of the direction in which our society might be heading.
THE SOLUTIONS
"If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes." Albert Einstein
Exploration, understanding and education are keys to helping us figure out how to restore a healthy ocean. The issues are complex but the more time I spend at sea, the more I realize that the solutions start on land.
There are ways to tackle the problem at every point-from source to ocean and from product design to waste management. But to solve these problems for the long term we need to turn off the tap. We need to work at the source. This upstream action is required across all sectors of society, working with designers in industry, policymakers at a governmental level and all of us as individual consumers.
If we want to continue to count on the ocean as a source of food, energy, transport and minerals for generations to come, we need to stem the flow of waste and devise more sustainable ways of using this vital resource. As I learned on my journey, we care most about things to which we feel connected. We urgently need more awareness of our blue planet to regain that connection and inspire action.
We care for what we love. We can only love what we know.
Notes
1 Earth Policy Institute, "Plastic bags fact sheet", Available from http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/press_room/Plastic_Bags.pdf
(uploaded October 2014).
2 Gaelle Gourmelon, "Global plastic production rises, recycling lags, Worldwatch Institute, 28 January 2015. Available from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/14576.
3 Jenna R. Jambeck and others,. Plastic waste inputs from land into the Ocean, Science, vol. 347, no. 6223 (13 February 2015), p.p. 768-771. Available from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.full.
4 United Nations Environment Programme, "UN declares war on ocean plastic", 23 February 2017. Available from https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-declares....
5 Safe Planet: the United Nations Campaign for Responsibility on Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes, background note. Available from http://networking.pops.lnt/portals/O/VIvolndexltem/lndex2482JSafePlanet_ Body_Burden_backgrounder_21apr2011_rev.pdf (accessed April 2017).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Navigating Our Way Towards a Plastic-Free Ocean | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/navigating-our-way-towards-plastic-free-ocean | 28 June 2022One of the things I love about being at sea is that you must constantly react to changes in the environment around you. If the wind picks up or the waves switch direction, you have to adjust your sails and shift your course. Sometimes your life depends on your response.This idea of reacting and shifting direction has shaped how I’ve lived my life. One morning, during a journey around the world on a biofueled powerboat called Earthrace, I jumped over the side, mid-Pacific, for my daily wash. While in the water I saw a toothbrush, then a cigarette lighter and a bottle top. It didn’t make any sense—we were 800 miles from land!This is what I like to call my “shift moment”—a point in time when everything changed for me and I couldn’t look back. It sparked a new career—leading sailing expeditions on a 72 ft research vessel called Sea Dragon, on a mission to understand the true problem of plastic pollution in our ocean and, ultimately, how we solve it. We visited many small islands to find communities struggling to catch fish and grow food due to pressures on their local resources. This led to a new reliance on imported food, which is often packaged in plastic. With nowhere for the waste to go it ends up on the beach, in the ocean or burned. I saw items made of plastic washing up on the shoreline with labels in languages I didn’t even recognize. In 2010, I set sail in search of the so-called “gyres” or plastic accumulation zones to find out more.Plastic waste and other debris in Cardiff Bay, Wales, 2015. Charos Pix/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 We went looking for “islands of plastic”, but we were surprised to find that plastic doesn’t just float around the ocean in big rafts. That would be something we could easily clean up. It was only when we dropped a fine mesh net across the surface of the water and pulled it on board that we realized what’s really there: hundreds, thousands, and what we now know to be trillions, of microplastics. We find them in every inch of ocean, right down to the seabed.Sea creatures mistake these microplastics for food, which opens up a whole new series of questions. If plastic is getting into the food chain—our food chain—are toxic chemicals also collecting inside us? I decided to have my blood tested to find out what chemicals might be present in my body. We tested for 35 chemicals that are banned by the United Nations because they are known to be toxic to humans. Of those 35 chemicals, we found 29 in my blood.I went on to learn about the impact those chemicals can have on people, particularly pregnant women, and that we can pass them on to our children. This is when, in 2014, we started eXXpedition—a series of multinational, multidisciplinary, all-women sailing voyages to explore solutions to plastic and toxic pollution from the equator to the poles.Ocean-borne plastics found on a Caribbean island beach during eXXpedition Round the World, 2019. eXXpedition/Sophie Dingwall It has become clear that microplastics are fairly impossible to clean up. Instead, we now have to ask ourselves how we can stop plastic from getting into the ocean—and into our bodies—in the first place, and essentially “turn off the tap”. If, through our scientific work at sea, we can identify what plastics are present in the ocean and trace them back to where they came from, we may also be able to pinpoint where the solutions lie.Sometimes we find plastic at sea and the source is obvious or literally written all over it in a brand name or a country of origin. But most of the time, this plastic soup is so fragmented that it no longer resembles what it once was; it has become anonymous. So we work like detectives to pick up on clues that can lead us to the source. We run the samples through our Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) machine, which determines the polymer type. Is it polyethylene terephthalate (the chemical name for polyester, also known as PET), which can be found in food packaging? Or polyamide fibres from our clothing? Or tyre dust shed from our vehicles when we go for a drive?There is still a lot of analysis to be done, but the preliminary data is revealing some interesting facts. Polyethylene stands out, making up the majority of the plastic found in our samples. Polyamide and polypropylene are close behind. On one leg of our voyage, through the coastal waters of Antigua, a yachting haven, our analysis showed completely different results: we found paint fragments, acrylic and resins. Emily Penn (centre) and colleagues analyse samples of ocean plastics aboard the sailing vessel TravelEdge using a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) machine, 2019. eXXpedition/Sophie Bolesworth Our latest Round the World mission came to a halt with the arrival of COVID-19. The impact of the pandemic became apparent while we were halfway between Easter Island and Tahiti! We reacted by shifting our focus to creating change differently—at home, on our doorstep, where the problem begins.Our research has shown that the sources of plastic pollution are endless; this means the solutions are, too. There is no silver bullet: We must tackle the problem from every angle. For many people, this message can feel overwhelming. Producers of goods might ask themselves if they should switch their packaging to biodegradable plastic, or glass, or paper, or if they need to redesign their products completely. Should I put a filter on my washing machine, or make clothes from bamboo, or should we rethink the way we sell clothing altogether? We know that we need all of these solutions and more, but many of us also require help to work out which measures to pursue and when.In 2020, working in partnership with the software company SAP, we built an online platform called SHiFT.how, which is designed to help people and organizations consider hundreds of ways to tackle plastic pollution and find a good place to start. Users apply filters to help find solutions that are right for them, from simple consumer choices to more complex industry action. SHiFT.how has been used in 146 countries so far, and new solutions are added all the time.Emily Penn attaches a tracking device to a floating mass of ocean debris in the North Pacific Gyre, 2018. eXXpedition/Lark Rise Pictures Using technology in this way allows us to scale up our impact by making solutions accessible and relevant to a larger number of people, ultimately helping to drive change “upstream”. By getting businesses involved in innovating and implementing new and diverse solutions, we can build a circular economy and get closer to the source of the problem.Plastic pollution doesn’t know political or cultural borders. We all share one planet, and global problems transcend all boundaries, which means the solutions need to as well.For me, navigating a way through this global problem comes down to embracing diverse solutions; working across boundaries; and being prepared to grasp opportunities and adapt, which is what a decade at sea has taught me to do. We need to shift our sails and adjust our course as though our lives depend on it… because they do.We don’t need everyone to do everything, but we need everyone to do something. It’s time to find your role. It’s time to act.The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Protecting the Tree of Life: The Path Forward | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/protecting-tree-life-path-forward | 21 May 2023
Life on earth is wondrously diverse. It is made up of keystone species that sustain a profusion of ecosystems all over the world. These systems are finely balanced and interdependent. Remove one keystone species and an entire ecosystem will be drastically changed or could even collapse. This structure is shockingly delicate, but when shielded from degradation, it can also be tremendously resilient. The earth’s biodiversity—its flora, fauna and microorganisms—provides the bedrock upon which human existence emerged and on which we now fully depend for our livelihoods, clean air and water, food, energy and well-being. Though we humans share the earth with the rest of its life forms, and we are an integrated part of its biodiversity, we have an outsized impact on the health of the planet. Recognizing our footprint and working earnestly towards sustainable existence within these systems, rather than dominating or destroying them, is the looming challenge of the twenty-first century.
By most measures, we are currently failing to meet this urgent need. The earth’s biodiversity is disappearing at a staggering pace. The 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, issued by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), found that around 1 million species face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken.
Climate change and the rapacious, mismanaged and often corrupt use of our precious natural resources have led to habitat loss; human and animal conflict; wildlife trafficking and poaching; chemical and plastics pollution; rising sea levels, ocean acidification and the destruction of our coral reefs; soil erosion; and deforestation. This destruction affects us all, but mainly impacts the most vulnerable among us. A working paper issued by the Brookings Institute in November 2022 noted that "although climate change is a worldwide phenomenon, poor people and poor countries are more severely affected by its negative effects.” According to the The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022, published by the United Nations, "almost half a billion people depend at least partially on small-scale fisheries, which account for 90 per cent of employment in fisheries worldwide”.
United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for Biodiversity, Edward Norton. Photo: Vava Ribeiro But is there a path forward? On this question, we cannot demur. The answer must be a resounding yes. Our survival depends on it. My hope is not derived from a quixotic belief in a magic bullet, but rather by witnessing and engaging with substantive efforts by conservationists, scientists, indigenous peoples, governments and millions of individuals aiming to preserve biodiversity so that all people and creatures can sustainably share in the earth’s bounty now and in the future.
There are big ideas for addressing these issues, such as the selling of carbon offsets, payments for ecosystem services, the remodeling of conservation finance, and ecotourism. Ambitious programs include The Half-Earth Project of the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, whose founder, E.O. Wilson (1929-2021), stated that “only by setting aside half of the planet in reserve, or more, can we save the living part of the environment and achieve the stabilization required for our own survival.” International treaties are in place, such as the recently negotiated agreement known as the United Nations High Seas Treaty, which will establish marine protections in international waters and set global standards for assessing commercial activity in the ocean, among other long-sought protections. Finally, paradigm shifts are underway that focus on local community engagement, combating green-washing, and investment in community-run initiatives, all of which converge to raise awareness, encourage innovation and pave the way to incremental change. We must accelerate our efforts.
Over sixty years ago, in 1962, Rachel Carson galvanized the grassroots environmental movement with the publication of her book, Silent Spring. In it, she described the unintended consequences of the use of chemical pesticides, particularly the compound known as DDT, on our crops. Carson meticulously illustrated how chemical pesticides did not exclusively affect the insects that were being targeted. DDT entered the food chain through our water, contributing to the collapse of bird and fish populations. Traces of DDT were eventually found in people, even without direct exposure. Despite intense opposition to the book’s findings from the chemical industry, Carson's work prevailed. In the United States, it led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by President Richard Nixon in 1970; the Clean Water Act by Congress in 1972; and the Endangered Species Act, also by Congress, in 1973. Ten years after the publication of Silent Spring, in 1972, DDT was banned for most uses in the United States.
In our technology-driven world, nature provides a refuge and solace from our industrialized existence. But more importantly, biodiversity supplies all humanity with our very sustenance. As we confront the challenges of climate change, we must recognize that we are one of many species in the Tree of Life. As Carson so simply and elegantly expressed in Silent Spring, “In nature nothing exists alone.”
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Secretary-General’s Strategy on New Technologies | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/secretary-general%E2%80%99s-strategy-new-technologies-0 | December 2018, Nos. 3 & 4 Vol. LV, "New Technologies: Where To?"
Technological change in the digital era is transformational, but it does not always advance sustainable development or reduce inequality. In some countries today, more people have access to smartphones than access to clean water or adequate sanitation. Over the past three years, the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) have grown, but so has the number of people living in hunger.
Many argue that global inequality has been exacerbated with a concentration of skill sets and digitally generated wealth in a limited number of companies from only a handful of countries. Access to the digital world is also unequal between men and women since those benefiting most from developments in that world are men. A March 2017 report by the United Nations Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, set up by the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Telecommunication Union, notes that there is a worldwide digital gender gap of 12 per cent in male and female access to the Internet, which rises to almost 31 per cent in the least developed countries. [1]
Today, technological change is driven largely by private companies, making it harder for social scientists, policymakers, Governments and legislators to keep up. Major innovations that occurred earlier in the life of the United Nations, such as the harnessing of atomic energy and manned space exploration, were made under government auspices. During that period, national and international policy kept pace better. One example is the Outer Space Treaty, signed early in the space age, in 1967. Another is the founding document of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which led to the approval of the Statute of the organization in October 1956.
Policy formulation in the digital era is challenging. While we have some clarity on what new inventions are in the pipeline, we have much less understanding of what they imply for humanity.
We know that by 2030, virtually all humans will be connected to the Internet, as will the majority of objects around us. In addition, many of us will have web-connected implants and other medical devices. We know that the combination of big data, machine learning and AI will replace human agency in multiple tasks, from driving cars to the conduct of warfare and police surveillance. We know that progress in gene technology and bioengineering will allow for better screening and treatment of embryos, allowing for the birth only of those with no undesired features.
What we understand far less is what all these changes will mean for us socially, politically and psychologically: what they will mean for the relationship between citizen and State, for the conduct of conflict, for our economies, for our psyche and for our human rights.
Billion-dollar tech companies and the engineers who staff them can be caught unaware of the consequences of their inventions. Social media platforms connect us, but as an increasing body of research is showing, they can also be used to spread hatred, to disseminate misinformation, to fuel conflict and hence to undermine democracy and social cohesion. Social media allows for this on a massive scale at a negligible cost.
A Human Rights Council fact-finding mission report from March 2018 illustrated how social media in Myanmar nurtured hate and ethnic violence.[2] Other studies, such as one conducted by Princeton University and the University of Warwick in 2017 on anti-refugee sentiment in Germany, have also shown how social media can exacerbate racism and xenophobia. [3]
An ever-growing number of children benefit from the use of smartphones and handheld computers at an ever-younger age. For many parents, the tablet has replaced other forms of childcare. Such devices provide useful access to learning tools and entertainment, but how much do we understand what the effect is on the development of a child’s concentration and his or her other cognitive skills?
AI applications are used in ever-expanding areas of our lives, from dating apps to medical diagnosis. We do not know, however, what AI will do for the employment prospects of our children, for warfare, for personal agency in politics or for gender disparities. The Israeli social scientist and historian, Yuval Harari, argues that machine learning and the dominance of algorithms will mean that economic growth and the conduct of war will no longer depend on human labour. Harari also contends that with algorithms and big data-generated access to insights on everything from making appropriate romantic decisions to political choices, the concept of free will that underpins the liberal world order will grow obsolete, and with it, liberalism itself.
Many technologists, on the other hand, argue that the threats are overstated and that there is no challenge posed by new technology that new technology will not be able to solve. The debate over risks and threats can be polarizing; few, however, would disagree with the observation of Secretary-General António Guterres in his 25 September 2018 speech to the General Assembly,[4] that twenty-first century challenges are outpacing twentieth century institutions and mindsets.
To address this asymmetry we need to begin by better understanding new technology and its implications. This is required both to harness it for the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to curtail the potential harm caused by malicious use and unintended consequences.
The Secretary-General has launched a series of initiatives to position the Organization to better address both the enormous potential of new technologies and the associated disruption. The goal of the Secretary-General’s Strategy on New Technologies, the first-ever internal United Nations system strategy on the topic, is to define how the system will support the use of new technologies to accelerate the achievement of its mandates, in particular the 2030 Agenda. The first section of the strategy elaborates on five principles to guide United Nations engagement on new technologies and the second section elaborates on four commitments.
The five principles are related to adherence to global values, upholding transparency, fostering partnerships and maintaining a learning mindset. They are to guide the work of the United Nations as it engages with new technologies such as cryptocurrencies, biotechnology and AI. The four commitments in the strategy are:
1) Deepen the United Nations internal capacities and exposure to new technologies;
2) Increase understanding, advocacy and dialogue around new technologies;
3) Support dialogue on normative and cooperation frameworks; and
4) Enhance United Nations system support to government capacity development in these areas.
The commitments are already being pursued. They have been elaborated in a set of 24 action points. To implement these, an internal working group was established whose members will deliver on the action points over the next 12 months. These action points include, inter alia, new technology training for United Nations staff and Member States, hiring external technology talent, and updating evaluation criteria for senior staff to promote innovation and the innovative use of new technologies.
The Secretary-General has also established an innovation lab in his office—a space to test new ideas, advocate for technology solutions and build partnerships with technology companies to improve our decision-making.
On 12 July 2018, the Secretary-General announced the launch of his High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The Panel, made up of eminent people and co-chaired by Jack Ma and Melinda Gates, will recommend new models for global cooperation in the digital space. The group includes industry vanguards, young tech entrepreneurs, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, government ministers and human rights activists.
At their first in-person meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly in September 2018, the Panel was able to agree on an outline for their report. The Panel will seek to provide recommendations in the areas of digital values and principles, as well as the methods and mechanisms of digital cooperation. It will also identify innovative examples of digital cooperation that are ongoing in areas such as data privacy, inclusive finance and human rights in the digital age.
The Panel is currently gathering views from a broad range of stakeholders and undertaking substantive research. Their next meeting, which will take place in Switzerland in January 2019, will begin the process of formalizing recommendations with a report planned for release in the first half of 2019.
In addition to his work with the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, the Secretary-General has also engaged in a wide-ranging technology advocacy effort. He is increasingly speaking about the use of technology for development and its potential misuse. He is also stepping up his engagement with the technology community to draw attention to the opportunities and risks, and to advocate for the pursuit of progress in line with the values and objectives of the United Nations.
The Secretary-General wishes to bring the United Nations into the digital era and to ensure that it is better positioned to support Member States in making technology work for the benefit of all, and in particular for those against whom it can be used—intentionally or inadvertently—to threaten, to exclude or to leave behind.
Notes
[1] Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, “Working Group on the Digital Gender Divide: Recommendations for action: bridging the gender gap in Internet and broadband access and use” (March 2017), p. 7. Available athttps://broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/WorkingGroupDigitalGenderDivide-report2017.pdf.
[2] A/HRC/39/64. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=23575&LangID=E.
[3] Karsten Müller and Carlo Schwarz, “Fanning the flames of hate: social media and hate crime”, May 2018. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3082972.
[4] Available at: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2018-09-25/address-73rd-general-assembly.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. The views expressed by individual authors, as well as the boundaries and names shown and the designations used in maps or articles, do not necessarily imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations |
The UN Role In Climate Change Action: Taking The Lead Towards A Global Response | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/un-role-climate-change-action-taking-lead-towards-global-response | From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", 2007Over the coming weeks and months, the three Special Envoys on climate change appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be making whistle-stop tours of key capital cities to build a solid and sustainable consensus on action over climate change. Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, Han Seung-soo of the Republic of Korea and Ricardo Lagos Escobar of Chile underline the seriousness with which the Secretary-General takes the threats, as well as the opportunities presented by the immense challenges documented in the recently published reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The United Nations is the only forum in which an agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beyond 2012 can realistically be brokered among the 190 plus countries with different outlooks and economies but of a common atmosphere. The climate change challenge involves every nation and will, if unchecked, touch every community and citizen on a time-scale of decades rather than centuries. In 2007, climate change truly became an issue of highest concern to the United Nations, because there is now the full understanding that the phenomenon will fundamentally affect the way the world operates in the twenty-first century -- from health care, aid and water to economic activity, humanitarian assistance, peacebuilding and security concerns. The United Nations has played a pivotal role in building the scientific consensus, raising the issue to the front pages of the world's media and putting it in the in-tray of Heads of State and Government, as well as the chief executive officers of businesses and industries. Since February 2007, the IPCC has published three important reports, and the more than 2,000 scientists and experts of the IPCC have put an end to any doubts in the science debate. Climate change is happening and the links between rising temperatures and human activities are considered "unequivocal". The IPCC has outlined the likely impacts of climate change in the coming decades if the international community fails to act. These include sea-level rise, which could deprive millions of people from Bangladesh to the small islands of their land and livelihoods, in addition to the melting of mountain glaciers, which are the source of water for millions of people, businesses and farmers around the world. However, the IPCC has also noted other factors that are cause for hope and must be the catalysts for action. The experts in their report issued in May 2007, argued that decarbonizing the global economy to a point where climate change should be manageable could cost 0.1 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP). Indeed, in some sectors, the actual costs of significantly boosting energy efficiency would actually make rather than cost money for managers and homeowners. The United Nations, through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has also been at the cutting edge of assisting in the development of creative new carbon markets. The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows developed countries to offset some of their emissions through clean and renewable energy projects and certain forestry schemes in developing countries. Over the coming years, the CDM funds flowing from North to South will reach up to $100 billion. New high-technology industries and job opportunities are emerging in both developed and developing countries. China and India are now home to two of the biggest wind turbine and power companies. Investment in renewable energy, driven in part by the UN-brokered climate treaties, is expected to top $80 billion in 2007. It is bringing down costs and increasing opportunities for deployment in rural areas. The UN system is helping to accelerate this further. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in partnership with the UN Foundation and Asian banks, has piloted a project that has brought solar power to 100,000 people in India. The idea was to buy down part of the interest rates for loans in order to make them affordable to low-income households. The benefits for the global community may be reduced emissions. But in a world where 1.6 billion are currently without access to electricity, this access to clean power and light is a new and immediate benefit for the local community. Such developments also echo the Millennium Development Goals, as they relate to areas such as poverty eradication, education and health, not the least as a result of lower indoor air emissions that are linked with maternal and childhood diseases and the premature deaths of between 800,000 and up to 2.4 million people. Climate change also represents opportunities to better manage the world's natural and nature-based resources. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost annually and that deforestation accounts for approximately 20 per cent of the global GHG emissions. We undervalue the huge economic importance of forests and ecosystem services -- and biodiversity in general -- but addressing climate change may also recognize some of these issues. Standing forests currently fall outside the carbon markets. A decisive emissions reduction regime beyond 2012 opens up the opportunity to give them greater economic value and thus provide reasons for conservation and sustainable management. The climate change issue, along with such initiatives as the Global Compact, is assisting the restoration of the relationships between the United Nations and other sectors of society, including business and industry. A fascinating feature of recent months and the past year is a call by the private sector for global international regulation. Globalization had looked to the free market, unfettered by "red tape", as a way of liberating economies. But the reality of climate change has led to a rethinking by the leaders of industry and the financial services sector. Indeed, businesses in many parts of the world are publicly demanding climate-related regulations, guidelines, emission caps, etc., partly because many perceive climate change as an economic risk and also a significant market opportunity, but only if the ground rules are in place and a level playing field is operating. The missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle is a universal agreement by Governments over the steps needed to reach the 60 to 80 per cent emission cuts that scientists say are required to stabilize the atmosphere. The UN role as an honest broker will be key over the next two years to realizing trust between nations -- trust based on mutual self-interest and a sense that all are acting for a common cause, albeit at different speeds. The elements are already there. The European Union has committed itself to a 20-per cent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, and up to 30 per cent if others follow. In the United States, there is growing action by cities and states; for example, the Mayor of New York City has announced a pledge to cut the city's GHG emissions by 30 per cent. Also, over 460 mayors in the United States have pledged to cut emissions by 7 per cent below the 1990 levels. California, has announced it will reduce emissions by 25 per cent by 2020. Rapidly developing economies, such as Brazil, China and India, are carrying out voluntary actions to decrease the levels of emissions in comparison to what they would have been without action. The Chinese authorities estimate that around 7 per cent of China's energy comes from renewable sources, equivalent to an emission savings of 328 million tones of carbon dioxide. Targets have been set for an even higher renewable energy use. China estimates that, by 2010, energy consumption intensity -- a measure of the amount of energy used per unit of GDP -- will have fallen by 20 per cent since 2005. Brazil, where a significant level of emissions comes from land-use change, has reduced deforestation in the Amazon by over 50 per cent over the past three years. Some 80 per cent of all new cars sold in the country are flex-fuel and able to run on petrol or ethanol. The IPCC estimates that rapidly developing economies have reduced emissions by 500 million tonnes over the past three decades, equating to more than that of the Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Another way of building trust is through adaptation to climate change, so-called climate proofing of economies from coastal management and health care to agriculture and infrastructure development. This is about good planning as much as financial assistance. Multilateral and bilateral donors, regional development banks and international investment flows into developing countries need to reflect adaptation in their investment decisions. UNEP and the United Nations Development Programme are piloting adaptation in eight developing countries under the One UN strategy. We should look broadly at what can be done, with the United Nations at the central platform, and welcome all initiatives and paths that contribute to reducing climate change, including voluntary sector initiatives and partnerships. We should also look at how other multilateral environmental agreements contribute to the overall goals. The Montreal Protocol, which aims to phase out ozone layer depleting gases, has significantly reduced chlorofluorocarbons -- the chemicals once common in products like hairsprays that are linked with climate change. New studies indicate that the offset level of global warming has been four times higher than that envisaged through the Kyoto Protocol. More ozone-friendly chemicals have a climate footprint as well. Scientists estimate that accelerating the phasing out of these chemicals, along with technical measures, could save emissions equivalent to half a gain of the Protocol. The focus on climate change and the work of the three Special Envoys are now geared towards the next climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007, where the world will be looking for concrete action. The United Nations is also looking at its own backyard. The Capital Master Plan for the refurbishment of the UN headquarters in New York is assessing how to factor green measures into the project in order to create a shining example of an eco-friendly building. It is part of a wider assessment of how UN operations, from building to procurement of goods and services, can echo to the sustainability challenge. The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The United Nations and Disarmament Treaties | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/united-nations-and-disarmament-treaties | December 2014, No. 3 Vol. LI, Conference Diplomacy
Established upon the ashes of the Second World War to represent “We the Peoples”, it is not surprising that both peace and security were fundamental objectives for the United Nations. While many also wanted disarmament, countervailing lessons were drawn by some political leaders, which made it difficult to get multilateral agreements on disarmament for several decades. Debates around nuclear weapons epitomized and sharpened the challenges. Academics in the United States of America led in developing theories of deterrence to provide legitimacy for these weapons of mass destruction, which soon became embedded in the military doctrines and political rhetoric of further Governments, from NATO allies to the Eastern bloc and beyond. Deterrence theory sought to invert the normative relationship between peace and disarmament by arguing that nuclear weapons were actually peacekeepers amassed to deter aggressors rather than to fight them. From there it became a short step for some countries—including permanent Members of the Security Council of the United Nations—to promote ideologies that equated security and peace with high “defence” budgets and military-industrial dependence on arms manufacture and trade. This is the backdrop for understanding how the United Nations System and disarmament approaches have intersected since 1945, and the way in which reframing disarmament as a universal humanitarian imperative has opened more productive opportunities for future multilateral disarmament treaties.
The very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in January 1946, addressed the “problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy”. Despite civil society’s efforts, led by scientists and women’s peace organizations, leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union rejected measures to curb nuclear ambitions. As the cold war took hold, the leaders that had emerged “victorious” in 1945 raced each other to manufacture and deploy all kinds of new weapons and war technologies, especially nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (notwithstanding the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in war) and a variety of missiles to deliver them speedily anywhere in the world.
After early efforts to control nuclear developments floundered, it was the upsurge of health and environmental concerns provoked by nuclear testing that led the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the Japanese Parliament to call for such explosions to be halted altogether. After an egregiously irresponsible 15 megaton thermonuclear bomb was tested in the Marshall Islands on 1 March 1954, Nehru submitted his proposal for a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the United Nations Disarmament Commission on 29 July 1954. Since then CTBT has been the centrepiece of disarmament demands from many States, especially the developing countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Intended as a first step towards disarmament, the driving force behind CTBT was concern about the humanitarian impacts. Early attempts at multilateral negotiations through a newly created Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament made little progress. Although the leaders of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom professed their desire for a CTBT, their talks kept stalling. Obstacles from the nuclear laboratories and security advisors were dressed up as verification problems, but they stemmed from these nuclear-armed Governments’ military ambitions and rivalries, and their shared determination to keep their own weapons options open, even as they sought to limit those of others.
From 1959 to 1961, various resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly aimed at preventing the testing, acquisition, use, deployment and proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1961, for example, General Assembly resolution 1664 (XVI) recognized that “the countries not possessing nuclear weapons have a grave interest, and an important part to fulfil” in halting nuclear tests and achieving nuclear disarmament. General Assembly resolution 1653 (XVI) went further, noting that the targets of nuclear weapons would not just be “enemies” but “peoples of the world not involved in…war”, with devastation that would “exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind…contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity”. And finally, General Assembly resolution 1665 (XVI), unanimously adopted, called on nuclear and non-nuclear weapons possessors to “cooperate” to prevent further acquisition and spread of nuclear weapons. These early resolutions fed into “non-proliferation” talks between the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, viewed as first steps towards disarmament. However, it took the shock of the Cuban Missile Crisis to achieve concrete progress. Deciding not to ban weapons tests conducted underground, American, Soviet and British leaders finally concluded a Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in 1963. This prohibited nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, underwater and outer space, and paved the way for the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Notwithstanding humanitarian aspirations in the preambles, the limited nature of the prohibitions they contained demonstrated the military interests of the dominant cold war nuclear-armed Governments rather than the objectives of civilians and the majority of non-nuclear States.
The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) was heralded as multilateral, but was largely determined by United States and Soviet interests. Unlike NPT, which, unusually, had designated two classes of treaty parties determined by whether they already possessed nuclear weapons or not, BTWC at least enshrined the same basic prohibitions and obligations on all States parties, including undertakings not to “develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain” such weapons, to “take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery” and to destroy existing stocks. Characterizing their military use as “repugnant to the conscience of mankind”, the objective of BTWC was to “exclude completely the possibility of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins being used as weapons”. It was adopted without verification provisions. Having recognized that it was in their own interests to ban bioweapons because of their indiscriminate and uncontrollable global consequences, the super-Powers chose not to allow lengthy multilateral negotiations on verification to delay the adoption of the treaty, which they believed they could monitor through other means. Their security priority was to achieve international legal prohibitions and embed a bioweapons taboo in norms and practice, before it was too late.
Where mutually convenient, the United States and the Soviet Union produced a few bilateral arms limitation agreements which cemented their own strategic relationship but contributed little to disarmament, as both continued to modernize and add to their nuclear arsenals. With the exception of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) treaty dealing with specific types of conventional weapons deemed to be “excessively injurious” and “indiscriminate”, little progress was possible on multilateral disarmament until the cold war ended. The United Nations First Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD I) in 1978 identified key objectives and established the Conference on Disarmament (CD), but had little impact on the military and diplomatic actions of major States. Though billed as multilateral, CD membership was awarded to fewer than 40 States (rising to 60 a few months before CTBT was concluded). Non-members could observe, but in a consensus-based institution, they lacked full participation and rights.
Multilateral disarmament pressure came to the fore in the 1980s. Although the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was negotiated between United States and Soviet diplomats, it was driven and underpinned by inspirational and internationally diverse civil society actions for peace and democracy, including direct pressure on nuclear bases. While it is necessary to oversimplify the causes and consequences in such a short article, the movements that made the INF Treaty possible also paved the way for the ending of the cold war. This in turn gave a new lease of life to CD, enabling it to finalize negotiations on two long-standing disarmament objectives: the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the CTBT. Environmental and humanitarian considerations, as well as security, were driving forces in getting both treaties ratified, and this was reflected in their preambles. Contending demands of eight nuclear-capable States, however, led to an untenably rigid entry into force provision for CTBT that has prevented it from coming into full legal force in the 18 years since its adoption, despite 183 signatures and 162 ratifications—far more than most treaties that are already in force. Hobbled by a rigid consensus rule, endgame conflicts resulted in CD being unable to adopt the finalized treaty. Some States then took the text of CTBT to the General Assembly, where it was overwhelmingly adopted in September 1996, with only three States voting against.
Although this “leapfrog” tactic was controversial at the time, it is now normal for States that have negotiated multilateral treaties to take them to the General Assembly to be adopted and endorsed by the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has become the preferred depositary for modern treaties. By contrast, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were designated depositary States for NPT, reflecting their interests and status as nuclear-armed States.
The last 20 years have seen mixed results for disarmament negotiations at the United Nations. Nationalist tactics and vetoes from a handful of States with high levels of dependency on weapons production and trade have stymied multilateral attempts to strengthen existing treaties such as NPT, BTWC and CCW, and paralyzed CD since 1998. Two highly effective treaties were achieved through humanitarian processes led by cross-regional groups of enlightened Governments in partnership with transnational civil society exerting pressure and providing information and strategies. By reframing prohibition treaty imperatives in humanitarian terms rather than in terms of control and non-proliferation, it became possible to ban anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions through treaties that entered into force in 1999 and 2010, respectively. Meanwhile negotiations under United Nations auspices developed the 2001 Programme of Action on Small Arms and the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
Drawing on these histories and evaluating the role of the United Nations and the comparative effectiveness of multilateral agreements on disarmament, the treaties with universal humanitarian as well as disarmament objectives have proved more successful in concrete and security terms than partial treaties limited by the military interests of dominant States. Regardless of a treaty’s origins and negotiating process, some Governments will always try to stay outside disarmament agreements. That does not invalidate multilateral disarmament, since hold-out States become increasingly drawn into compliance (whether or not they formally accede) as treaties become embedded and respected in international law.
Treaties that embed disarmament objectives in “universal humanitarian” rather than “partial control ” terms share a number of elements in common:
Whether negotiated in ad hoc or formally constituted United Nations forums, the important requirement for multilateral disarmament success is that negotiations should be open to all United Nations Member States but blockable by none (thereby avoiding the vetoes and consensus deadlock that have paralyzed CD and various cold war treaty review processes.
It is up to individual Governments whether they initiate or join negotiations.
As with all treaties, it is a sovereign national decision to accede or not, but experience shows that even the policies of opponents become influenced and constrained by well-supported agreements as they become embedded in international law.
Relevant United Nations and regional agencies and civil society actors, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, humanitarian and disarmament non-governmental organizations are treated as partners in making these treaties effective.
Regardless of how and where a treaty is negotiated, it has become normal practice for negotiators to present the finalized text to be adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, where all States have the opportunity to register their views.
Early entry into force is encouraged through representative but practical conditions, so that the treaties can build up legal and normative credibility from the very beginning, making it much harder for the weapons-dependent Governments to continue business as usual.
It is not necessary or even desirable to spell out and lock in verification and technical implementation details of the head treaty, given that legal prohibitions and obligations already in place must take precedence. Practical implementation requirements can be agreed upon and adjusted, as the treaties are embedded and more States become parties.
Looking forward, three humanitarian disarmament objectives are being put on the United Nations agenda: a nuclear ban treaty that would prohibit the use, deployment, production, stockpiling and transfer of nuclear weapons and require their total elimination; a ban on autonomous weapons intended to preventively ban “killer robots” before they are deployed and become unstoppable; and a treaty or protocol to prohibit the military use of highly toxic depleted uranium. Momentum is building to achieve all three treaties. Opposition is limited to a handful of weapons-dependent Governments—the same few in most cases. As some but not all are in the Security Council of the United Nations, they are recognized to be influential—but not decisive, as other successful treaties have demonstrated.
The United Nations was founded for “We the Peoples”. Modern disarmament diplomacy has shown that prohibiting weapons that a few dominating States want to deploy is feasible, as long as the humanitarian arguments are persuasive, the ground is prepared well, and an influential cross section of Governments, humanitarian agencies and civil society actors are willing to move forward, initiate negotiations and achieve effective treaties.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Unlayering of the Ozone: An Earth Sans Sunscreen | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/unlayering-ozone-earth-sans-sunscreen | The formation of the Antarctic ozone hole is a graphic demonstration of how rapidly we can change the atmosphere of our planet. There are many other environmental issues facing us today and we must link them together to understand and debate the underlying causes, rather than treat each issue in isolation. Antarctica is a wonderful continent. Glaciers carve their way to the sea where the waters teem with penguins and whales. Although 70 per cent of the world's fresh water resides in the polar ice cap, the continent is a veritable desert, with liquid water in short supply. The frozen ice takes on many shades, from the brilliant white of freshly fallen snow to the deep indigo at the bottom of a gaping crevasse. This land of contrasts is where the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered.
Ozone is a form of oxygen, similar to the gas that we breathe, but with three atoms instead of two. This makes it highly reactive, and in high concentration it is a toxic gas. When formed by air pollution near the surface it can trigger asthma attacks, but high in the atmosphere it forms a protective sun-shield. This is the ozone layer, a region from about 10 to 35 kilometres in altitude, where the natural concentration of ozone is highest. Ozone forms at this level in the stratosphere through the action of ultraviolet sunlight on oxygen gas, and in the process the most harmful ultraviolet radiation is totally absorbed. Some ultraviolet light does reach the surface, and the intensity is controlled by the amount of ozone -- the more ozone the less ultraviolet, and vice-versa. With a thinning ozone layer more ultraviolet light reaches the surface, exposing us to a greater risk of sunburn, skin cancers or cataracts of the eye.
Ozone observation in the Antarctic began over fifty years ago with the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. As part of this scientific endeavour, a network of observatories was set up across Antarctica, several of which measured ozone. One of the first to report was the British research station Halley, and the results from the first year of operation showed a surprising difference to those from the equivalent latitude in the Arctic. This was soon recognized as being due to a different stratospheric circulation in the atmosphere above the two poles: in the north the circulation is relatively complex, whilst in the south it is relatively simple with a strong, long lasting winter polar vortex or a large-scale persistent cyclone.
Ozone observations at Halley continued using the same type of instrument, the Dobson ozone spectrophotometer, designed in the 1920s by an Oxford professor of physics, Gordon Dobson; it remains the standard for ozone observations today. The instrument uses ultraviolet light from the sun coming through the ozone layer to measure the amount of ozone. It is very much a manual instrument, and the calculations required to extract the ozone amount from the observations are quite complex, to the extent that in the 1970s a stack of unreduced observations began to build up.
When I joined the British Antarctic Survey, one of my first jobs was to write computer programmes that would process the observations once they were entered into electronic form. Making sure that the entered data was correct was the first part of the process, followed by verifying the software. At about the same time, concern was growing that spray cans and the Concorde supersonic airplane could destroy the ozone layer. When the British Antarctic Survey held its Open Day, it seemed a good opportunity to reassure the public that the ozone layer above Antarctica had not changed. Surprisingly, the data seemed to show that the spring-time ozone values of that year were much lower than they had been a decade earlier, but in the meantime I had yet to process the intervening data. Once this was done, it was obvious that there was a systematic effect, giving rise to the paper that Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner and I wrote, announcing an unexpected effect over Antarctica.
Elsewhere in Antarctica, other observatories had continued to make ozone measurements on a sporadic basis, but they lacked the long-term continuity of the same instrumental technique that was available at Halley. This was a key factor in our discovery, and set a valuable lesson for monitoring the environment. In addition, the centre of the ozone hole is often offset towards the Atlantic, allowing Halley to start making observations several weeks before the sun rose high enough at the South Pole. Once the paper was published in Nature, satellite data was reprocessed to reveal an "ozone hole" over the Southern continent. Whilst satellites give an excellent overview of the changes within the ozone layer, ground-based observations are still needed to provide them with an accurate calibration.
Today we know that this Antarctic ozone hole is caused by chlorine and bromine from ozone-depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. The reason for the particularly severe ozone depletion over Antarctica lies with its stable polar vortex, which makes the Antarctic ozone layer roughly ten degrees colder than that in the Arctic. This means that unusual clouds form widely in the Antarctic ozone layer during the winter, and chemistry on the surfaces within these clouds conditions the ozone-depleting chemicals. When sunlight returns, very efficient photocatalytic reactions take place which destroy ozone.
The Montreal Protocol has been a very effective response to the shocking and rapid change in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Now ratified by all but one of the UN Member States, it is having a clear effect in reducing the amount of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere. CFCs and allied substances are, however, very stable, so their atmospheric concentration drops very slowly and will not reduce to pre-ozone hole values until at least 2070. It is likely to be several more years before we can be confident that the ozone hole is shrinking and many decades before spring-time ozone levels return to those of the early 1970s. One unintended consequence of the reduction in ozone-destroying substances has been its significant effect on reducing global warming, as the substances are often also powerful greenhouse gases.
Treating the ozone hole was relatively straightforward, with both general acceptance of the need to change and the possibility of alternative products. Another environmental symptom -- that of climate change -- is currently generating much debate, but the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rising at the worst-case rate predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In addition, there are many other global symptoms of environmental stress ranging from water and food shortages and fishery collapses to deforestation habitat destruction, amongst others.
When a doctor treats a patient with an illness, it is essential that all the symptoms are taken into account in making a diagnosis. It must be exactly the same when we are looking after the health of our own planet. My diagnosis is that we must urgently debate and act on reducing our effect on the planet, otherwise evermore symptoms will appear. Such reduction could be achieved through decreasing the consumption of our planet's resources, particularly reducing consumption amongst the developed nations; but we are also likely to need to reduce our own numbers if we are to sustain a healthy planet in the long term. How to do so is the big debate that we must urgently conduct if we are to avoid a fate such as the inhabitants of Easter Island, who used up all their resources. Unfortunately, these warnings, like those of Cassandra, are unlikely to be heeded and it may require a major disaster before action is taken. The United Nations is one forum where the debate should begin.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Tracking Climate Change From Space | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/tracking-climate-change-space | For centuries, rural communities in the high plateaus of the Andes have utilized water from melting glaciers that typify this amazing mountain range. But the retreat of these glaciers is forcing the communities to reconsider their livelihoods and ways to adapt. From a wider perspective, the melting of glaciers is an iconic warning to the larger cities in the Andes that rely on glaciers for potable water. Unfortunately for these communities, the source of this particular problem and its potential solution lie far away from their arc of influence due to the fact that local actions contribute very little to remedy this problem.
As noted in 2003 and 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the melting of glaciers in the Andes, the Himalayas, and the Alps is a consequence of global warming, a process induced by humans, and directly related to industrialization that has fuelled this century, particularly in terms of demand for energy from fossil fuels. The emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and the emission of aerosols have a direct influence on the radiative forcing (the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation energy) in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. Such global warming manifests itself through higher temperatures in the oceans and the atmosphere. In the case of oceans, heat absorption is the main factor leading to the increase in their levels. In the case of glaciers and polar caps, it leads to melting of ice. As expected, the melting of glaciers and ice in continental land masses in Antarctica and Greenland also contributes to the increase in sea level.
Governments recognized the need to address this problem at the global level, and established the IPCC to provide the scientific basis on which to characterize the scale and depth of the problem, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the mechanism to facilitate the political discussion on this issue at the international level. Organizations within the United Nations also play other relevant roles. For example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has long supported the establishment and operation of national meteorological departments or offices which generate the data that are required to monitor the Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) such as air and water temperatures, sea ice, water vapour and salinity, etc. In addition, WMO heads the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) which tracks these essential climate variables. Furthermore, national agencies and regional organizations around the world also contribute to monitor more variables such as ocean levels, the ozone layer and the chemical processes which affect it, and the role of forest fires as sources of some of these greenhouse gases, as a way to contribute to understanding the interactions between the oceans, land, and the atmosphere. For example, information gathered through satellites is ideally suited to track changes in the amount of ice stored in polar caps and glaciers. The capacity of satellites to provide standardized global coverage of all glaciers and ice caps on a permanent basis permits scientists to measure changes in a uniform and periodic fashion. The use of satellite instruments is ideal since harsh climatic conditions make it difficult to have a permanent human presence in all these areas yearlong. In addition, at the polar caps, it would be nearly impossible to measure in a periodic fashion and with sufficient accuracy the extension of ice caps and their dynamics, as there are no landmarks on which to set benchmarks to conduct the required geospatial measurements.
Considering the critical nature of climate change in recent years, space agencies have begun to establish space programmes dedicated to monitor and to track climate change. Dedicated satellites from a variety of space agencies now provide data related to atmospheric chemistry and its dynamics, changes in vegetation cover and the oceans. All this data contributes to a more precise estimation of climate change required by decision makers in Governments who demand such information to make commitments of various kinds along the lines of mitigation and adaptation contemplated in the Kyoto Protocol. Other space applications including assessing the impact of global warming on wetlands that host a variety of ecosystems and species; in the perennially frozen ground (permafrost); and in the oceans targeting plankton, marine ecosystems, and bio-chemical interactions at the surface of the oceans which are influenced by air and sea interactions.
In addition, satellites are being used to acquire the necessary data to track cloud formation and dissipation and convections processes between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The role of clouds on the radiative processes and in the hydrological cycle is essentially not well understood, and therefore, satellite data will allow IPCC to refine models and reduce uncertainties.
Satellites are also finding uses in the assessment of vulnerability to climate change. Space observations are ideal to complement ground-based measurements with the most up-to-date information on types of land-use and changes in land-use practices arising as a consequence of population growth, urban migration, conflicts and poverty. For example, vulnerability of coastal cities will be essential to identify adaptation measures. Assessing the vulnerability of crops in low-lying flood plains in coastal areas can also benefit from space-based information. In the context of risk assessment, space-based tools offer an ideal platform to assess the exposure of vulnerable elements not only to climate change, but also with respect to other hazards.
In the context of the United Nations, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) is the forum where global agreements are reached, among others, on space debris, policies on the use of specific types of orbits, and more recently, global navigation systems and space legislation. In 1999, during the international conference, UNISPACE III, Member States recognized the contribution of space science and space applications to the well-being of humanity and sustainable development in areas such as disaster management, meteorological forecasting for climate modeling, satellite navigation, and communications.
The issue of climate change has been addressed within COPUOS recently in a dedicated symposium organized during the forty-sixth session of its Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee, and more recently during the fifty-second session, which took place in June 2009 in Vienna. Supporting COPUOS in its role as a Secretariat to facilitate the political dialogue among Member States, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) has been doing a variety of work in recent decades to promote the use of space-based information. UNOOSA recently established UN-SPIDER -- Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response. In addition, in recent years, the Space Applications Section and the Committee Services and Research Section of UNOOSA have been conducting a series of conferences and workshops targeting climate change in the context of mountains, sustainable development, agriculture and food security, and on the legal implications of space applications for climate change.
The vision of UNOOSA in the context of climate change is to promote the acquisition and subsequent use of data gathered through satellites to contribute to the understanding and modeling of climate change as a means to identify adaptation and mitigation measures, and as a means to track their impact in the long term. Such a vision may indeed pave the wave for communities in the Andes, as well as communities around the world, to make use of space-based information and become aware of the global extent of this problem, and for decision makers to grasp the full dimension of the problem in order to seal the deal in Copenhagen.
The views expressed in this article may not necessarily reflect the views of UNOOSA.
References IPCC (2001): Third Assessment Report. Climate Change 2001.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.h...IPCC (2007): Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.h...OOSA (2009): Conference Room Paper No. 6. Ref. A/AC.105/2009/CRP.6.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Climate Change and Our Common Future: A Historical Perspective | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/climate-change-and-our-common-future-historical-perspective | I saw at one time
a leaflet that asked people to come together in stopping climate change. It seems that many are not aware that the climate changes all the time and that the change is not stoppable. Climate changes, however, differ in their timing and magnitude and are a result of many factors, such as the distance between the sun and the equator, which contributes to the heat budget of the Earth, and the difference in the temperature of the equator from that of the cooler poles due to deviations in Earth's orbit, or variations in solar radiation.
The differences in temperature lead to air currents which in turn influence rainfall. On the scale of tens of thousands of years, the Earth experienced numerous episodes of glacial cooling, alternating with warmer intervals. Following the last major glaciation which began 110,000 years ago, a transition to warmer conditions from 16,000 to 11,500 years ago was characterized by frequent climatic oscillations. Bands of foragers in climatically sensitive habitats, such as semi-desert regions in Southwest Asia, North Africa and China responded with a variety of social and food-extractive technologies. These included intensive utilization of wild grasses and managing animal games, the manufacture and use of grinding stones, trapping, the use of bows and arrows, as well as food preservation. While some continued to elaborate their hunting gear, others settled down to maximize the gain from wild grain resources. The most successful groups lived in the Eastern Mediterranean where wild wheat and barley were abundant.
The Invention of Agriculture
From 11,600 to 8,200 years ago, the climate became warmer and in the Eastern Mediterranean, wetter. It was during this period that successive generations of foragers, who took advantage of the well-watered habitats, adopted farming as their dominant mode of obtaining food. This marked the most remarkable revolutionary achievement of humankind -- the invention of agriculture.
Life has never been the same since. Villages coalesced to form corporate village communities governed by councils or chiefs. Afterwards, conglomerates of farming communities merged into kingdoms, while those who managed cattle, sheep and goats became herders and roamed the rain-fed grasslands outside the river valleys preferred by farmers.
The effect of climate change on humanity under this new agrarian regime with its politically more complex organization assumed a new turn. This has been mostly due, in part, to the nature of the agrarian ecology and economic growth potential. Agricultural yields fluctuated annually, in part because of interannual variability in rainfall, but more importantly, they also varied responding to decadal and centennial changes in climatic conditions, which influenced both the flow of rivers and rainfall in the grasslands. These problems were tackled by digging irrigation canals to parched lands, drains to dispose of excess water and building dykes to protect fields and settlements from the ravages of floods.
Great Civilizations
As agrarian communities expanded, they developed into complex political States with a hierarchical management. State officials, clerks, and priests who deployed rituals and myths to promote and buttress the policies of the State led to an increase in the demand for greater food production. These demands were met by extracting tributes from the farmers who had to work harder and expand their fields to meet the growing demands of the State functionaries.
By the 5000 B.C. the early agrarian States had developed into the world's first great civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India. But by around 4200 B.C., an abrupt turn of climate led to dramatic changes all over the world. On the banks of the Nile, the Egyptians had established a centralized State. Successive dynasties constructed imposing pyramids for four hundred years from 4600 to 4200 B.C., before a sudden, unanticipated series of reduced Nile flood discharge spelled disaster. The government collapsed. Famines ravaged the rural population, violence erupted and the whole country slipped into a state of chaos.
In Mesopotamia, early state societies emerging by the beginning of the fifth millennium B.C. depended heavily on irrigation to overcome the recurrent droughts and floods of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. They invented the shaduf water lifting device, and used canals, drainage channels, weirs, dykes and reservoirs. Unlike Egypt, the soils of the floodplain were prone to salinization, which reduced productivity. The rulers resorted to warfare as early as 4,500 years ago, which ultimately led to the rise of the militaristic Akkadian Empire 200 years later. The Akkadians extended their rule over rain-fed regions to increase their income from tributary sources. However, the high expenses of keeping a military empire, the loss of productivity as fields and farmers were overworked, and a growing dependence on products from marginal rain-fed lands placed the Akkadian Empire at the risk of collapse from any internal or external perturbations. After no more than a century since its rise, the empire fell prey to three consequences of the global climatic event of 4,200 years ago.
First, the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates was vastly reduced, undermining the productivity from the valleys. Second, the yield from rain-fed farming suffered from droughts. Third, the Gutian nomadic tribes living in the Zagros mountains and suffering from droughts that affected pastures, took advantage of the weakening Akkadian Empire and its internal strife: they made travel unsafe, disrupted the economy and undermined tribute collection, thus depriving the empire from its vital resources.
Further East, in China, rice and millet cultivation became the dominant mode of subsistence since 11,600 years, due to abundant monsoonal rain. However, the droughts of 4,200 years ago led to the abandonment of settlements in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River as those rains were failing. Along the Yellow River, shifts in its course, as well as soil erosion as a result of climatic fluctuations and farming, contributed to the rise of hierarchical complex societies before they were threatened by the climatic cooling event in 4200 B.C., which not only caused droughts, but also led to a decrease in the number of frost-free days, thus hurting agricultural productivity. This is indicated by the decline of the Longshan culture in the Yellow River Valley around 4000 cal. yr BP, and the agrarian societies around Central China. It also seems that the droughts may have encouraged political integration and cooperation to overcome famines, leading to the emergence of the first dynasty to be described in historical sources, the Xia Dynasty of China (about 4,100 to 3,600 years ago) in the western area of Henan Province and southern Shanxi Province.
Since 4,200 years, many kingdoms and empires rose and fell, mostly as a result of the predominance of warfare to secure land and labour in order to expand production. More often than not, in the long run, internal rivalries, the costs of controlling vast territories inhabited by disgruntled heavily taxed peasants, as well the cost of endless military battles, led to a rapid turnover of dynasties.
By the first century A.D., many of the previous kingdoms and empires were overrun by the Roman Empire. But it was not long before this vast empire, almost global in its outreach, began to suffer from the same problems that had previously hastened the demise of earlier empires. Climate change during the third and fifth centuries A.D. provided the final blow. Here again, as in the case of the Gutians and the Akkadians, successive droughts led to the nomadic, horse-mounted archery attacks of the Huns on the Germanic tribes, who in turn attacked the Romans. The effect of climate change on the grasslands of the deserts and semi-deserts was again responsible for the rise of the attacks by the Mongols in the twelfth century A.D., whose ancestors now live in Mongolia, China, (Inner Mongolia), Russia, and a few other central Asian countries. Not only would that climatic instability encourage the Mongol nomads to attack settled communities, but it also weakened the settled kingdoms and empires making them vulnerable.
The climatic events that contributed to the expansion of the Mongols were global -- known as the the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. They had a profound effect on Europe during the medieval period. They were also influential in many other parts of the world, including North America. In Egypt, droughts from the ninth to the early part of the thirteenth century A.D., led to severe famines and political upheaval.
The end of the glorious Tang Empire of China (907 A.D.) is now believed to have been hastened by climate change. Historic shifts in the annual monsoon cycle in China may have pushed the Tang Dynasty into terminal decline: a prolonged drought and poor summer rains fuelled peasant uprisings that brought about the dynasty's end. Archaeologists found evidence of stronger winter monsoon winds leading to migrations of rain associated with the Intertropical Convergence Zone from 700 to 900 A.D. A similar climatic event contributed to the collapse of the Classic Maya in Central America.
It is important to stress that climatic change is only one of the many causes of the collapse of civilizations, and that perhaps more important factors are those related to how societies are governed. Perhaps the effect of climate change on the Tang Empire would have been averted had the aging Emperor Xuanzong not been complacent or indifferent to State affairs; or had he not appointed wicked chancellors who corrupted the political order and by 755 A.D. possibly unable to prevent the enemy troops to menace the empire?
Is not a military imperial system vulnerable to climate change? Would a system without oppressive military rule evaded the rise of separatist forces during the eighth and ninth centuries A.D.? Finally, would a more equitable and charitable policy by the Tang Emperor towards peasants prevented their large-scale uprising in 859 A.D.?
Let us not single out climate change as the principal cause for the rise or collapse of civilizations. Then and now, climate change can be handled by systems of management which ensure that unjust actions do not impair the vitality of the natural habitat, that rulers do not overexploit the masses for the benefit of a few, and do not resort to military power to colonize or plunder the resources and peoples of other nations.
Just like many previous social systems that have become extinct, we are extremely vulnerable. Indeed, the situation is now worse because the economies of all nations are closely interconnected and because the cumulative effect of polluting the planet by industrialization over the last 200 years is now threatening a global climatic upheaval. The planet has also become overpopulated, overcrowded, and over-urbanized. Within the last 50 years, the demand for water, to single out one of our vital resources, has risen, depriving more than the one billion people from access to clean drinking water. In my opinion, there is no solution for resolving our global crisis without putting aside short-sighted, nationalistic policies, and financial enterprises and forging a global managerial institution. Such an institution would unify and coordinate the know-how, the financial and human resources of all nations, to rehabilitate our threatened environments, and promote and disseminate new, safe technologies to reduce hunger and poverty. Global warming -- to which industrial countries have heavily contributed -- is a wake up call, not just to the threats of climate change, but more importantly to the current deficiency in our political and social institutions and values.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Responsible Innovation for a New Era in Science and Technology | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/responsible-innovation-new-era-science-and-technology | December 2018, Nos. 3 & 4 Vol. LV, "New Technologies: Where To?"
Today we are at the dawn of an age of unprecedented technological change. Sometimes referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, this historic moment has inspired a growing consensus that recent developments in science and technology are of a unique nature, and likely to impact almost every facet of our daily lives.
In areas from robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) to the material and life sciences, the coming decades promise innovations that can help us promote peace, protect our planet and address the root causes of suffering in our world. Our enhanced ability to interact through cyberspace is sustaining and reinforcing these broad technological strides, multiplying the opportunities we have to share information and build knowledge across our increasingly networked planet.
As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has argued, these technologies can accelerate the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and promote the values enshrined both in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet along with unique potential, there are unique risks. Mitigating those risks will require new kinds of planning and collaboration.
Today’s revolution differs from previous leaps forward in three fundamental ways, with important implications for our future peace and security.
First, there is an incomparable level of technological diffusion, a democratization of means to create and access new technologies. Second, technological change is accelerating as combinations between innovations beget further advances and developments at speeds beyond historical precedent. Third, this revolution covers an unparalleled swath of human inquiry, bringing breakthroughs to disciplines from biology to computer science to materials technology.
The possibilities for improving the human condition through these developments are vast. Consider the field of medicine, where our burgeoning grasp of synthetic biology could someday help physicians tailor treatments to the needs of individual patients with extraordinary precision. This growing understanding is mirrored in outer space, where technology allows us a glimpse of distant worlds, even as it binds us closer together through our communication and transportation infrastructures back on Earth. Meanwhile, the on-demand production of customized parts and devices through additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, promises to tear down additional barriers in engineering and industry, accelerating progress even further.
These new characteristics, however, are also producing unique threats that are, sadly, as much a part of our current revolution as any that preceded it. History is replete with technological innovations created for humankind’s benefit only to be applied for less benevolent enterprises.
New tools for biological modification and synthesis, designed to help scientists better understand disease, could be misused to increase the potency of infectious agents that could be used as weapons. In outer space, robotic systems designed to refuel or repair orbiting satellites could conceivably be used to carry out attacks, inflicting damage on other spacecraft. 3D printing has already been used to manufacture aircraft and missile components for militaries, and to produce handguns, causing serious concerns about proliferation among State and non-State actors. Vulnerabilities in cyberspace can also pose threats to banking systems, hospitals, electrical grids and other parts of our Internet-connected critical infrastructure.
In each of these areas, the weaponization of scientific and technological breakthroughs could have unintended, unforeseen and dangerous consequences. Additionally, advances in big data and AI have raised concerns about the emergence of machines with the power and capacity to take human lives without human control.
Lethal autonomous weapons systems—or, more colloquially, “killer robots”—could create new threats to international and regional stability. They could, for example, produce difficulties for the attribution of various hostile acts; create new risks for unintentional escalation of conflict; and, by promising casualty-free warfare, lower government thresholds for using force. Non-State actors, such as terrorist groups and transnational criminal networks, could harness related technology in service of their own agendas.
The Secretary-General has staked out a firm position on this issue, stating that autonomous weapons capable of killing people without human involvement would be “politically unacceptable and morally repugnant” and should be banned.
The key question is how we diminish these many and varied risks without stifling our era’s flourishing technological creativity and advances. A vital first step for policymakers—particularly those tasked with negotiating multilateral treaties and international standards—is to build lasting partnerships with technical experts: scientists, engineers and doctors. These very different actors must learn how to talk to one another.
To understand the importance of these communities as advocates, consider the disarmament efforts of the cold war. Nuclear physicists, acting through new organizations and established institutions, helped to educate policymakers and the wider public about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, including the “nuclear winter” that could result from their exchange. Bringing this type of advice and activism inside the policymaking “tent” is even more crucial for today’s innovations in military technology, which generally originates in the private sector.
Scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs possess unique authority when discussing the emerging threats in their areas of expertise. We have already witnessed this, as many have begun to raise their voices against the potential dangers posed by the weaponization of AI.
By cultivating a broad and enduring dialogue with these actors, policymakers can develop essential skills and insights around the technologies they hope to manage. Secretary-General Guterres has pledged to help, engaging and working with scientists, engineers and industry to encourage responsible innovation and dissemination of knowledge.
Innovators, for their part, should strengthen their focus on the social and security implications of their work—to “think before they code”. Peace and security considerations must come to the forefront of scientific discourse, including in classrooms and in early discussions on developing new technologies.
Ensuring our security and safeguarding today’s revolutionary innovations are not competing priorities. In fact, considering them together can help us succeed at both. We see this in the technological strides that could help hold Governments to account on their disarmament and arms control commitments. Advancements in X-ray technology could aid in the detection of nuclear weapons materials, for example, and globalized access to satellite technology could allow certain verification processes to be crowdsourced.
It is only through building lasting partnerships between Member States and these groups that we can create the necessary foundations for the responsible genesis and stewardship of technological revolutions. By working together to address how developments in science and technology can affect international peace and security, we can further support innovators and policymakers in helping to create a safer and more secure planet for all.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
In the Beginning | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/beginning | In the beginning, the AIDS epidemic struck like a thief in the night -- suddenly, terrifyingly, and deadly. At first, there were a few cases of a rare malignancy, Kaposi's sarcoma; then came the appearance of Pneumocystis pneumonia; and finally a plethora of opportunistic infections including systemic candidiasis, cryptococcal meningitis, and Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare -- all rare diseases associated with this new mysterious, unknown, and unnamed spectre.Infectious disease doctors had been predicting that mankind would completely conquer all infectious diseases, and that these ancient plagues would be eliminated at the end of the twentieth century. In just one generation from Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, the scientific community was able to develop antibiotics and antiviral medication to treat most of the world's known infectious agents. Suddenly, out of Africa came a new infectious disease heretofore unknown and deadly. Society had just experienced and conquered Legionnaire's disease and toxic shock syndrome, and most of us felt that the identification and elimination of this new scourge would occur quickly and decisively. None of us anticipated that 30 years later we would still be battling one of the most lethal infectious agents known to man.As with every epidemic, this one went through the four seminal stages of societal response:First, as always, was denial. Some countries, such as South Africa, denied that AIDS was even happening. Most countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Japan, felt it was something only happening to other people, and would not happen to them. But, of course, with every epidemic, it did happen to them.Then came blame: it was the fault of gay men; it was the fault of promiscuity; it was God's punishment for immoral behaviour. Some people thought that it would never happen to them because they did not have "those kinds of people" in their society. To their surprise, they did have those kinds of people, and it did happen to them.Inappropriate legislation always follows a new epidemic. As one of the countries first and hardest hit by the epidemic, the United States passed laws to exclude HIV-positive individuals from entering the country -- a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. United States Senator Jesse Helms championed legislation which prohibited American scientists, paid for by the United States Government, from attending international meetings dedicated to understanding and treating the disease.And finally, as in all epidemics, society lost faith in its institutions. Suddenly the American people found that the Food and Drug Administration was not doing its job to bring life-saving drugs to those in critical need of these treatments.Institutions that had been established to address this very type of catastrophe were thwarted by bureaucracy, ignorance and fear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were supposed to identify new diseases and take immediate action to ameliorate the spread of a new risk to society. These efforts were totally crippled by the Reagan Administration, which treated this disease as a criminal problem, rather than a medical one. The National Institutes of Health were supposed to devote funds to seek new treatments for emerging diseases: it took congressional investigations years of advocacy to remind them of their mandate. Blood banks in America were staffed by physicians who were hired extensively to protect the nation's blood supply. Instead, these blood bank physicians joined hands and for four years denied that "those kinds of people" would even come to blood banks to donate blood. As a consequence, 28,000 Americans were infected with HIV through transfusion, and untold numbers of foreign haemophiliacs were killed by the export of American blood products.Thirty years later, we have treatments for HIV, but the United States still has 56,000 new infections every year. Education and prevention programmes remain unchanged since the early 1980s, and are woefully inadequate. The United States Congress has vowed to cut funding even for the meagre education programmes that exist. Annually, 27 per cent of all new cases of HIV infection occur in women -- a harbinger of a heterosexual epidemic still in its infancy.To stop the AIDS epidemic in the United States, we need to acknowledge that the entire society is at risk and take the appropriate steps to stop the spread of this fatal disease. Everyone who comes into contact with the health care delivery system should be tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted, and potentially fatal, diseases. When an individual tests positive, he or she should be educated and offered life-saving medications, which have the additional societal benefit of reducing the transmission of the disease and, eventually eliminating infections from society. Finally, public health authorities should follow up with those individuals who are known to be positive and who are not taking antiretroviral medications, to educate and persuade them of the need to protect themselves and their intimate contacts.Is there a lesson in this sordid history? Yes. The lesson is that social and political activism by individuals who clearly see a threat is essential in mobilizing local and regional governments to respond. Governments are necessary, indeed essential, and yet they are always mired in tradition. They suffer from the notion that the way we have always done it is the way it should always be done in the future. History has shown us, over and over again, that this approach will lead to disaster, and will change only if clear thinking, progressive individuals stand up and speak out. How many men died in World War I because the generals were unwilling to acknowledge that warfare had changed? How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because the military failed to acknowledge that carpet bombing and killing women and children cannot win a guerrilla war? Why did people die from HIV-tainted blood? Because the blood banks were certain that their procedures were fail-safe and immutable. We will never win the war against HIV/AIDS by employing the same tired tools that have failed us in the past. We must stand up, speak out, and demand meaningful and compassionate government action.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Scope and Limits of Humanitarian Action in Urban Areas of the Global South | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/scope-and-limits-humanitarian-action-urban-areas-global-south | May 2016, No. 1 Vol. LIII, Humanitarian Action: A Shared Responsibility
Our rapidly globalizing and urbanizing world presents a host of complex challenges for humanity and the living environment. These developments pose threats to, as well as opportunities for, ongoing and future humanitarian action. Rather than be limited by unprecedented changes in the global South, for example, where cities are growing at record rates, humanitarian action should, in the future, be at the forefront of new approaches to reimagining and redesigning just and sustainable human settlements.
As we approach the first World Humanitarian Summit, to be held in Istanbul in May 2016, the world urgently seeks an agenda for humanitarian action that will address the various vulnerabilities associated with urbanization. Nearly 50 per cent of the world’s population, or an estimated 3.5 billion people, already live in urban areas, with projections suggesting an increase to 70 per cent by 2050. With the majority of the fastest-growing cities located in the global South, the future of urban areas in an increasingly globalized economy and networked society assumes greater significance when we take into account the scale of vulnerabilities associated with natural phenomena and human-induced processes.
The future demands solutions to urban crises of unprecedented scale and impact, which are likely to pose formidable challenges for humanitarian organizations and developing communities, as well as urban planners and dwellers. How can we best address growing vulnerabilities within the continuum of disaster prevention and response based on current urban institutional, governance and structural mechanisms? What actions are likely to prevent the reoccurrence of urban disasters? Through which kinds of creative solutions, new social movements and political coalitions can we best confront and address emerging problems?
How can we apply lessons learned from dealing with recent natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, climate change-related flooding and droughts, which have contributed to worsening living conditions for large swaths of humanity in coastal cities across Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America?
While urbanization is one of the results of accelerated human mobility and the search for better opportunities, life in cities may be under threat from the effects of climate change, as well as poor governance and violence, which often arise following large-scale conflict. Since the end of the cold war, the world has experienced new forms of conflict involving State and non-State actors, targeting the most vulnerable civilian populations and turning cities into zones of refuge as well as zones of active warfare. Cities such as Bangui, Beirut, Goma, Maiduguri, Mogadishu, Mumbai, Nairobi and Tripoli have suffered some of the worst consequences of these “new” wars, including terrorist attacks in urban areas, while also hosting a steady stream of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from war-ravaged hinterlands and neighbouring countries. The destruction and post-conflict reconstruction of cities, leading to displacement and massive waves of migration across borders, test the very limits of survival, resilience, creativity and humanity itself.
According to recent studies, over 35 million people were displaced by violent conflict within their countries in 2014, with similar numbers seeking refuge abroad. Many of the world’s refugees and IDPs remain in refugee and IDP camps in urban areas, some of which are already blighted by poor planning, overcrowding, and lack of social services, amenities and jobs. This is the situation in cities such as Baghdad, Damascus, Goma, Juba, Kinshasa and Maiduguri, among others.
Urbanization in the global South also contends with high levels of inequality, criminality, unemployment and poverty, leading to the marginalization of vast numbers of people and contributing to high levels of social disharmony and political instability. The scope of the challenge facing humanitarian action in the context of the growing urban crisis in the global South is immense. As noted in the report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for the World Humanitarian Summit, entitled One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, “rapid unplanned urbanization combined with natural hazards, pandemics and aerial bombardments are placing even more people at risk”.1
TOWARDS AN AGENDA FOR HUMANITARIAN ACTION: URBANIZATION AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
The situation with regard to the ongoing urban crises in the global South can be characterized as “urbanization without development”. Breaking the current impasse with humanitarian action in that part of the world requires an understanding of decades of failed and misplaced urban development planning. The growth of cities has in many cases outpaced or overwhelmed planning capacities, leaving authorities unprepared to deal with exploding urban populations and placing urban dwellers at great risk in the face of mounting pressures and unpredictable disasters.
An agenda for change will require that humanitarian action be based on the recognition of the equal rights of citizens. Transcending the current urban crisis calls for new and innovative ideas, and bridging the gaps between the knowledge and practice of urbanization and equitable development. This will also involve working with urban planners at the municipal and national levels, as well as regional and global actors. A new foundation must be laid by mainstreaming urbanization into participatory national development planning.
Many have called for interdisciplinary and integrated approaches to pre-emptive plans designed to deal with natural and human-induced urban disasters and crises. Such measures would have to connect national efforts to a worldwide commitment to building socioeconomic bulwarks against inequality, poverty, corruption, youth unemployment and marginalization, and other vulnerabilities underlying urban crises.
An alternate future lies in actions directed towards building and recreating more egalitarian, secure and liveable urban settings in the global South. It also calls for equal access to efficiently delivered sanitation, adequate and sustainable shelter, clean water, good education, health care and security. It is time for a new global impetus that goes beyond the usual rhetorical and short-term, technocratic “fixes”, which tend to be elitist and exclusionary. Lessons from the past century make it clear that urban development in the global South is fundamentally a people’s rights issue. We should embrace a holistic, humanistic approach in taking actions that exhibit a new awareness of what is really at stake: the future of human existence and civilization. The world stands at a critical juncture, at which the present and future of our cities ultimately depend on outcomes across the global South. The time to chart a new, people-centred course for humanitarian action is now upon us.
Notes
Report of the Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit, “One Humanity: Shared Responsibility”, 2 February 2016 (A/70/709, para. 3).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Secretary-General's Agenda: Progress On Disarmament Required For Global Security | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/secretary-generals-agenda-progress-disarmament-required-global-security | It is an honour to suggest agenda items and top priorities in international security for Ban Ki-moon's first term in office as Secretary-General of the United Nations. However, it is also a daunting prospect, given his special expertise in foreign affairs and international security policy.I will consider four overarching themes that are likely to affect the ability of the United Nations to deal with these critical issues, rather than attempting to describe the complete international security agenda it is likely to face. These themes are: the need to reinvigorate the international security and disarmament agenda; the requirement for a strong institutional structure supporting disarmament; the danger of relying on consensus decision-making; and the importance of being engaged in an active partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).The international security and disarmament agenda requires urgent attention. Crucial treaties are in danger of unravelling and threats to global security require the Secretary-General's leadership. Preserving the non-proliferation regime is critically important. UN Member States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have expressed significant concern about the prospect of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran developing nuclear weapons. If they continue to do so or deploy nuclear weapons, there may be pressure on other countries in the region to follow suit. Convincing them to step back will require extensive global diplomacy, with economic and political "carrot-and-stick" policies. In addition, India, Pakistan and Israel remain outside the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Even if they desired to join the Treaty, they could only do so as non-nuclear-weapon States. And despite creative proposals to develop a parallel regime for them, they have been reluctant to constrain their nuclear weapons programmes.The non-proliferation regime has been further weakened by the failure of nuclear-weapons States to meet their commitments within the Treaty and those made during the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT. These pledges included continuing the ban on nuclear tests, working towards the implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, seeking a fissile material cut-off treaty and a renewed agreement to seek nuclear disarmament. While not a panacea, the steps agreed to at the Review Conference still represent a blueprint for progress on nuclear-weapons issues. The NPT and the entire non-proliferation regime are in grave danger because of the failure of nuclear-weapons States to make good on their promises.Small arms and light weapons (SALW) are also a threat to global security. The Small Arms Survey estimates that more than 600 million firearms are currently in circulation and are being used to kill approximately 1,000 people each day.1 In 2005, Project Ploughshares documented 32 ongoing conflicts in the world.2 Although these conflicts were not necessarily caused by SALW, few would contest the proposition that these conflicts were exacerbated by the widespread availability of such weapons. Global progress depends on the UN Secretary-General's leadership.Regional initiatives on SALW are moving forward. Several regional and subregional arrangements focus on small arms, including the 2006 Economic Community of West African States Convention, the 2004 Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of SALW, the Central American System of Integration's Code of Conduct for Central America, and the 2001 Southern African Development Community's Firearms Protocol. But action at the global level is also critical.UN support will be necessary in aiding the group of governmental experts that will consider the prospects for a global arms trade treaty, which is an ambitious undertaking, bringing together different efforts to limit the damage done by the uncontrolled transfer of conventional weapons. It could also enhance attention to human rights and humanitarian standards while reducing weapons transfers to regions in conflict. The expert group is charged with establishing "common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms". An arms trade treaty is a promising step forward and deserves the Secretary-General's full support.There is a need for a strong institutional structure for disarmament . The UN Department of Disarmament Affairs' vision statement sets a powerful framework for this work: "We believe that disarmament will advance the self-interests, common security and ideals of everybody without discrimination. Yet despite these benefits, disarmament still faces difficult political and technical challenges that can only be surmounted by deliberate human action, strong institutional support, and understanding among the general public. We call this combined effort sustainable disarmament -- our fundamental goal."3It will be difficult, if not impossible, to make progress on these issues without a substantial infrastructure at the United Nations supporting disarmament. The UN disarmament staff provides professional expertise and technical assistance on an enormous range of disarmament and non-proliferation issues, from SALW to major conventional weapons, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The staff provides the core structure for international security work for the Organization and serves as a valuable source of information for the broader community of analysts and activists working on these issues. This institutional structure must be strengthened, not merely maintained. The international security community is at a critical juncture, and weakening this structure would likely decrease the prospects for achieving disarmament and raise questions about UN commitment to this issue.Consensus should not require unanimity. UN meetings and conferences often proceed on the basis of consensus -- an admirable goal. Unfortunately, many UN fora have effectively defined this consensus as requiring unanimity. This interpretation gives even a single State the opportunity to block progress. In his September 2005 report, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote that consensus "has become an end in itself" and that "it prompts the [General] Assembly to retreat to generalities, abandoning any serious effort to take action".4 Consensus requiring unanimity was leading to watered-down proposals. The risks of this approach have also been shown by the disappointing results of recent international conferences. For example, principally because of United States intransigence, the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference ended without even reaching agreement on an outcome document.Even in fora in which unanimity is not required, the United States has attempted to obstruct progress, albeit with less effect. Michael Spies of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy Inc. documented United States "no" votes on nearly half of all resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in 2006, including texts on developing standards for a prospective arms trade treaty and on proposing a follow-up process on small arms. Only the United States and DPRK voted against the resolution supporting a Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and condemning the apparent North Korean nuclear test.5 Even so, the General Assembly was able to make significantly more progress than had occurred during meetings such as the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference and the 2005 NPT Review Conference, in large part because the Assembly did not require unanimity. Seeking consensus is admirable; seeking unanimity is unrealistic. To make progress, the United Nations will have to move beyond this procedural choke point.Establishing productive relationships with NGOs is important. Another concern is that the United Nations is extremely inconsistent in the extent to which it takes advantage of the assistance offered by NGOs that have significant expertise on issues of UN concern. Many expert groups and conferences have been structured in ways that inhibit the participation of these organizations. In some fora, NGOs have had to struggle to even be part of the proceedings and have often been restricted to making presentations at a single session of weeks-long conferences. In contrast, the collaboration between the United Nations and NGOs on disarmament and non-proliferation education is an example of the enormous rewards than can result from full partnerships with these organizations.The United Nations and NGOs have participated in a fully collaborative effort on disarmament and non-proliferation education, in an impressive example of the potential inherent in this relationship. This effort began with the work of the Governmental Expert Panel on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education, established in December 2000 by the General Assembly. The Panel received contributions from more than 70 research institutes, educational institutions, NGOs and museums from over 40 countries, and circulated its draft report for outside peer review, with UN staff working intensively to integrate the varied responses and suggestions. This collaboration began while the Panel was still in planning stages and has continued well beyond the submission of its report.NGO representatives were especially concerned that the Panel balanced programmes designed for the short, medium and long term, as well as those requiring a range of resources. This approach was accepted and utilized by panel members to structure their recommendations. Representatives and panel members also stressed the importance of dealing with conventional weapons, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It was clear from the beginning of the process that the results must be accessible to countries in the global north and south. The Panel's report accomplished each of these objectives.The effort to enhance disarmament and non-proliferation education is still continuing, although obtaining the resources necessary for full implementation of the Panel's recommendations has been difficult. For example, there has not been sufficient funding for the establishment of an international consortium "of scholars and representatives of civil society, to work in parallel with and as a complement to international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts". To prosper, this and related ventures will also require the financial and institutional support of the United Nations.Member States, international organizations, academics and NGOs are essential actors in the effort towards global disarmament, the success of which will depend on their partnership and the Secretary-General's leadership. With his support, I am confident that we can make progress on each of these issues. I join with citizens around the world in wishing him every success in this effort.Notes1 www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/home/FAQ.html#FAQ72 Project Ploughshares, "Armed Conflicts Report 2006" (www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-TitlePageRev.htm#Preface)3 UN Department for Disarmament Affairs' Vision Statement (http://disarmament.un.org/dda-vision.htm)4 In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All (www.un.org/largerfreedom/chap5.htm)5 Michael Spies, "Growing U.S. Isolation at the United Nations on Disarmament and Security", Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy Inc. (http://lcnp.org/disarmament/unga2006.htm)
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Collective Action:The Private Sector's Interest and Role in Collaborating to Address Water Challenges in Urban and Rural Areas | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/collective-actionthe-private-sectors-interest-and-role-collaborating-address-water-challenges-urban | April 2013, No. 1 Vol. L, Water
WATER CHALLENGES: SHARED RISK AND SHARED INTEREST
As many of us are aware, water poses one of the most critical sustainable development challenges of the twenty-first century. Overall demand for water worldwide has increased steadily over the last century and is expected to continue to do so. Increasing water demand, limited supplies, pollution, inadequate infrastructure and lack of management capacity have led to water scarcity in many regions. Overallocation of surface water has led to insufficient instream flows and therefore damage to important riparian habitats and aquatic systems. Growing cities struggle to build infrastructure that keeps pace with population growth, while those in rural communities do not have enough water to fuel their livelihoods or must travel many miles to access clean water, exposing them to harm and hindering their economic productivity.
Historically, access to water has been an important strategic concern for many businesses. However, recent global trends suggest increased threats to the supply, quality and reliability of water services as well as changing stakeholder expectations, thereby making water a much greater risk to business viability than in decades past. Growing demand and competition mean that there may not be enough of the key resource to maintain production. Water pollution is significantly increasing the cost of pre-treatment for numerous industries. Aging infrastructure and a lack of government management capacity are leading to insufficient and inconsistent water deliveries, sometimes stalling industrial activity. As these challenges and demands escalate, governments tighten controls on water use and wastewater discharge as a means of mitigating depletion and degradation of resources, while communities and civil society groups are more likely to hold companies accountable for unsustainable practices.
At the same time, governments and civil society are having great difficulty in effectively advancing the goals of integrated, sustainable water resources management for the public good due to lack of resources and political will, particularly in the Global South. Both public and private actors have begun to recognize that solving global water challenges is not a solitary endeavour. This awareness has led to increased interest in undertaking coordinated, collective action that leverages the technical strengths, resources, and convening power of the public and private sectors, as well as civil society, academics, communities and others, to achieve more sustainable water management.
WATER-RELATED BUSINESS RISKS: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE COMPANY FENCE LINE
Traditionally, corporate water management has consisted of implementing operational improvements (e.g., water use efficiency) at a company's own facilities. This process has resulted in notable water savings and pollution reduction, mitigating environmental and social impacts and often reducing water and related costs (i.e., energy, chemicals) to the business. However, while wasteful or polluting operations certainly create risk for companies, water-related business risks are driven as much, if not more, by unsustainable watershed conditions over which companies have limited influence, such as water scarcity, pollution, or weak water governance.
For example, the hydrologic context is perhaps, not surprisingly, a key factor in determining water risks. A region's physical water availability often has bearing on the functioning of ecosystems and access to water services for industry and local communities. As water scarcity becomes more pronounced, there is less water supply to meet the range of human demands as well as the instream flows needed to support aquatic habitats. As water scarcity worsens, the likelihood that companies will have insufficient water supplies to maintain operations increases, as does the likelihood that industrial water use will result in negative social or environmental impacts that ultimately jeopardize companies' legal or social licence to operate.
The sociopolitical context and the extent to which people have access to water services is another key component of corporate water risk. Limited community access to water and/or inequitable allocations increase the likelihood that industrial presence in an area will, in reality or perception, contribute to social unrest. An industrial facility with plentiful water allocations and an area where marginalized communities do not have sufficient water services can lead to challenges for the company.
The political and institutional context also plays a key role in determining a region's ability to adapt to ensuing water challenges, such as climate change and therefore the extent to which they pose risk for businesses. An industrial facility's exposure to risk thus depends on the ability of public water policy and management to deliver water services, to address water-related risks over the long term, to create effective allocation regimes, and to develop and enforce water quality regulations. Failures in water policy and its implementation can lead to insufficient or inconsistent water deliveries to industry, among other challenges.
SHARED RISK AND THE ROLE OF BUSINESS IN CROSS-SECTORAL COLLABORATION ON WATER
The reality of water risks stemming from both company practices as well as watershed conditions means that companies have an interest in ensuring the efficacy of water management in the watersheds in which they operate—an interest which governments, civil society, communities and others share. As such, many companies are seeking to encourage and facilitate improved water management by:
Encouraging and underwriting efficient water use practices across a watershed.
Assisting with finance of local water supply and sanitation, infrastructure, and/or operating infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment) for community and municipal uses.
Working with communities to improve access to water services.
Establishing or engaging in participatory platforms and other democratic processes for water governance decision-making or oversight.
Advocating for or contributing to the development of effective and equitable policy and regulations.
Sharing or gathering data related to water resources, and/or supporting research, advocacy and monitoring.
Advancing public awareness of water resource issues.
However, many companies are realizing that such projects are most efficient and transformative when conducted in collaboration with governments, civil society, communities and others. Companies seek out partnerships with other organizational actors in order to gain other perspectives, build on internal competencies, increase leverage, enhance credibility and pool resources to address shared water risks. Specifically, from a business perspective, collective action allows for:
Clear articulation of problems, shared ownership of solutions, and clarity of joint purpose.
More informed decision-making by the business initiator and other parties to the engagement.
Broader scope and depth of motivation and momentum in support of water-related improvements.
An expanded pool of expertise, capacity, or financial resources focused on fostering change.
More durable outcomes with strong support by the engaged parties.
Establishment and maintenance of credibility and legitimacy with critical interested parties resulting in a stronger social licence to operate across all aspects of community relationships.
Stronger, more sustainable water governance by engaging multiple stakeholders.
From the perspective of non-corporate actors, collaboration with the private sector on shared water goals can offer many advantages such as technical expertise, significant monetary resources, improved data, heightened visibility and access to decision-making, and state-of-the-art technology.
CROSS-SECTORAL COLLABORATION IN ACTION: CURRENT EXAMPLES OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
Good examples of mutually beneficial cross-sectoral collaboration are emerging all over the world in both urban and rural settings. For example, Intel Corporation operates one of the world's most sophisticated semi-conductor manufacturing facilities in Chandler, Arizona, located in the southwestern desert region of the United States. When planning this facility, Intel engineers knew that operating in an arid climate would require them to look beyond Intel's own "fence line" for other sustainable water-related opportunities and solutions. As a result, Intel teamed up with the city of Chandler to devise a comprehensive and collaborative approach to water management. That approach included building an advanced reverse osmosis facility to treat clean rinse water from Intel's manufacturing facility to drinking water standards before being returned to the municipal groundwater source. Since 1996, this strategy has replenished more than 4 billion gallons of water into the aquifer. Intel also established an agreement with the local water authority to reclaim millions of gallons of processed wastewater for the company's cooling towers, pollution abatement equipment and onsite landscaping in order to irrigate nearby farmland each day.
Sasol, a global integrated energy and chemicals company with its main production facilities in South Africa, has recognized water security as a material challenge to its operations, which are highly reliant on the inland Vaal River system. Sasol uses about 4 per cent of the catchment yield, while municipalities use approximately 30 per cent, of which water losses can be as high as 45 per cent due to the aging infrastructure. Sasol approached municipalities to implement water conservation initiatives. One such project used Sasol funds to repair pressure management with a township, thus reducing water use and boosting water supply. Funded by Sasol, this project saves 28 megalitres per day at a cost of $500,000. By comparison, a project to improve internal water use efficiency at a Sasol plant, which was also being considered at the time, would have required $50 million and saved only 18 megalitres per day.
Suez Environnement has sponsored and moderated efforts in several watersheds to convene a wide range of stakeholders in discussions about water quality, water quantity and overall watershed health. Included in these discussions, among others, were agricultural operators, a community of stakeholders not previously engaged by Suez Environnement. Initial discussions focused on the substantial monitoring data collected by Suez Environnement. This information pointed to the critical role agricultural operations played in water quality in the affected watersheds and identified a set of agricultural practices that could lower water-quality impacts.
FOSTERING INCREASED CORPORATE ACTION ON WATER AND PREVENTING PERVERSE OUTCOMES
Though companies, non-governmental organizations, communities and governments have a shared interest in sustainable water management broadly, there are many specific elements where interests might diverge. For example, while the system as a whole benefits from water allocations that prevent wasteful use, specific actors have an interest in maximizing their allocation in relation to other users. Indeed, these short-term conflicts have informed many corporate water strategies and policies for the last several decades, leading to widespread scepticism of corporate motivations and criticism of undue corporate influence on water policy decisions, despite the potential benefits of such strategies. An exhaustive presentation of how companies can work to responsibly engage with external interests on shared water challenges can be found at http://ceowatermandate.org/files/Guide_Responsible_Business_Engagement_W....
While these potential conflicts are certainly very real, emerging practices from leading companies have suggested that companies are increasingly pursuing water strategies that prioritize long-term viability by investing in sustainable water management over short-term profit. To encourage more companies to engage meaningfully in water management, there remains a need to (1) raise awareness in the business community about water-related challenges; (2) promote the ability of groups facing similar water-related challenges to communicate with one another (a role that is beginning to be filled by the CEO Water Mandate's recently launched Water Action Hub); and (3) improve the ability of stakeholders to independently assess the effectiveness of corporate collaborations such that good practices are rewarded and irresponsible practices are disincentivized.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Challenges to Biosecurity from Advances in the Life Sciences | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/challenges-biosecurity-advances-life-sciences | August 2013, No. 2 Vol. L, Security
“Ring farewell to the century of physics, the one in which we split the atom and turned silicon into computing power. It's time to ring in the century of biotechnology.”1
This article summarizes the results of a qualitative risk assessment project on the biosecurity implications of developments in synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology carried out by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI).2
Since the anthrax letter scare in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, attention in security policy discussions has shifted away from biological weapons and bioterrorism. It became increasingly clear that the acquisition of the necessary expertise and resources, as well as the successful execution of a biological attack, are far more complex than previously thought. Future advances in the field of biotechnology, however, might have the potential to change that. Even though the possible features and true potential of the coming biological revolution heralded by many observers is still a matter of controversy, it seems prudent to assess the security policy challenges of progress in biotechnology at an early stage, while allowing for the unhindered development of beneficial applications.
Forecasts for our future suggest that the revolution in biotechnology will bring about a transformation of society with the potential to yield enormous benefits. Nowhere is this development more visible than in the cutting-edge fields of synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology. The stated aim of these disciplines is both ambitious and controversial—the transformation of biology from a natural science into an applied engineering discipline.
ENGINEERING BIOLOGY
Largely owed to the development and ongoing advancement of automated machines that can sequence (i.e., read) and synthesize (i.e., write) genetic material such as DNA from chemical precursor substances, synthetic biology promises to enable the modification or creation of microorganisms for the production of pharmaceuticals, the remediation of polluted sites and the generation of biofuels. Although there is no single, agreed upon definition of “synthetic biology”, it can be broadly understood as “the deliberate design of biological systems and living organisms using engineering principles”.3
Within synthetic biology, a number of approaches can be distinguished. One basic possibility is to synthesize the entire genome, or parts thereof, of a known microorganism. Today, many scientists order DNA fragments via the Internet from commercial DNA synthesis providers. In another approach, attempts are made to construct a minimal genome reduced to the essential genes required for life in order to serve as the chassis for mounting genetic modules. At the same time, there is intense research into the development of such standardized genetic modules or biological circuits that can be added to the minimal genome in order to carry out predefined tasks—a long the lines of modular construction in many industries. That would allow the chassis organism to generate specific metabolic pathways or other desired characteristics.
Should synthetic biology evolve into a full biological engineering discipline, it could prompt a qualitative shift in capacity compared to standard recombinant DNA approaches. Of particular note would be the dramatic increase in the number of potential users, significant improvements in the reliability of biology-based technology, a substantive reduction in the time taken to translate science into application, as well as distinctly lower resource requirements. Correspondingly, there is already a growing community of amateur biologists or biohackers in context of modern day biology who conduct biological work outside of conventional research institutions, similar to the beginnings of the information technology industry. The potential of synthetic biology to deskill the art of genetic engineering, by making the design and construction of living systems easier and more widely accessible, is deemed to pose new opportunities and risks. Whether or not synthetic biology will achieve its stated aims and become a true engineering discipline remains to be seen.
Nanotechnology can be described as an array of fundamental knowledge and enabling technologies resulting from efforts to understand and control the properties and function of matter at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology is not a specific determinate homogenous entity, but a collection of diverse capabilities and applications. Nanobiotechnology, as the name suggests, refers to the interface between, and convergence of, nano- and bio-technology. Nanobiotechnology can be broadly described as “a field that applies the nanoscale principles and techniques to understand and transform biosystems and which uses biological principles and materials to create new devices and systems integrated from the nanoscale”. 4
Nanobiotechnology is expected to provide new and improved systems for medical diagnostics, targeted drug delivery, as well as enhanced therapeutics and pharmaceuticals. In particular, therapies are researched that facilitate the targeted delivery and controlled release of drugs and genes to affected cells, where the impact is most effective and precise, without harming neighbouring cells or tissue. Another application includes so-called “ lab-on-a-chip” technologies that could be used for the real-time detection and analysis of diseases, cells, and microorganisms, including the detection of pathogens used in a bio- weapons attack.
THE DUAL- USE DILEMMA
As with every new technology, predictable and unforeseeable risks for society are created, ranging from unintended consequences that are harmful to human health and the environment (biosafety) to the deliberate misuse to cause harm (biosecurity). The same advances that could bring so many benefits could also enable the development of new and improved biological weapons. The so-called dual-use problem in synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology, as in biotechnology in general, is virtually universal. Almost every potential security risk can be derived from completely legitimate research endeavours and developments. Every major breakthrough in science has been applied for malign ends and the life sciences are no exception.
The application of synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology for nefarious purposes is unlikely in the short to medium term. As the stated aim of synthetic biology is to make biological technology more reliable, easier, cheaper and faster, there could be a significant risk for hostile application in the longer term, should its potential be realized. The risk or threat posed by a malign actor with access to a full-fledged biological engineering capacity would be quite different from that which we face today.
As an enabling tool, and in addition to assisting in many beneficial applications, synthetic biology could, in the future, facilitate the work of those attempting to acquire and use biological weapons. More dangerous and controllable pathogens could be engineered t hat lead to novel possibilities in designing bioweapons. Metabolic pathway engineering might confer new qualities and attributes upon biological agents and offer options for new types of weapons. The ability to manipulate pathogens systematically for specific ends could also assist in overcoming current operational hurdles to an effective attack, such as detection modalities, challenges to effective release, and environmental instability. This could have t he negative effect of making bioweapons cheaper and easier to acquire, eventually making their use more likely; more reliable and controllable, making them more desirable; and more effective thereby increasing their potential impact.
Such misuse of applications does not inherently depend on specific developments in synthetic biology and could also be achieved by way of alternative biotechnology options. Advances in synthetic biology might, however, make them available sooner, and facilitate acquisition of the necessary capabilities.
Nanobiotechnology also offers a multitude of potential risk scenarios of varying likelihood and potential consequence. In particular, nanocarrier and nanoencapsulation technologies, which are being developed in t he pharmaceutical industry for the efficient and targeted delivery of medicines, might be misused for the development of improved bioweapons by loading the carriers or capsules with a biological agent instead of beneficial drugs. Nanomaterials might facilitate the weaponization of pathogens by enhancing their environmental stability; they may be used to transport and/or target a pathogen to specific cells or organs; they may help to avoid the timely detection of a pathogen release or its rapid identification; and they could considerably improve the efficacy of delivery systems. Many of these possibilities would remove previous operational obstacles to biological weapons attacks and could make an attack more controllable, harder to detect, and hence more attractive.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the ability to respond to an attack is also a function of risk. Synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology will offer just as many, if not more, opportunities to develop prophylactics and therapeutics as it will with regard to weapons. It is too early to establish t heir net effect with regard to compounding as well as mitigating biological risks and threats.
In addition, both disciplines are still in their infancy, and the majority of work that is being done is on the level of basic research. The technical hurdles are considerable, and the required know-how is still concentrated in a relatively small scientific community. While it is theoretically possible for non-state actors to develop a synthetic biology or nanobiotechnology-based approach to acquire or use biological weapons, such a scenario is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. Alternative acquisition routes and weapons systems will likely remain prevalent. While they currently would likely resort to easier and cruder means of developing and employing a biological weapon, technical progress in the coming decades might actually reverse this situation, and the vast field of biology might become more accessible to non-experts.
Nonetheless, the tools, techniques and approaches that currently lie outside the grasp of small groups are within the capabilities of states and large organizations, should they choose to invest sufficient time, resources and money. They would likely be in a position to use synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology to facilitate their acquisition or use of biological weapons. Over the longer term, synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology could significantly lower the hurdles such actors face. In this context, however, it is important to note that any application of synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology for acquiring or using biological weapons would be covered under the terms of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Many would fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention as well and, therefore, be inconsistent with international law.
TOWARDS A CULTURE OF AWARENESS IN RESPONSIBLE BIOTECHNOLOGY
The nature of progress in biotechnology will, if it has not already, negate the ability to control the technology with traditional means. Synthetic biology and nanobiotechnology might constitute initial steps towards a qualitative and quantitative paradigm shift in biotechnology and may revolutionize the manner in and scale at which biological work will be conducted in the future. Unlike the case of nuclear technology, expertise, materials and equipment are already available in varying degrees around the globe and, accordingly, the proliferation of knowledge and expertise, although not necessarily weapons-related, has already taken place. Due to the problem of dual use, it is nearly impossible to even identify, let alone control bioweapons-related activities.
While international arms control agreements and norms such as BWC should be strengthened in order to continue to play an important role, the increasing penetration of society by biotechnology clearly warrants a broader policy response to tackle the wider societal impacts. In addition to controlling access through international arms control measures and strengthening established norms against bioweapons development and use, the international community should complement traditional approaches with innovative concepts. The focus should be shifted towards creating a web of prevention based on the shared responsibility of politics, industry, science and society to reinforce a culture of safety and security in biotechnology and minimize the risks by engaging relevant communities and empowering various actors to detect and report abuses. This requires fostering a worldwide culture of awareness and responsibility in biotechnology as well as building a network of relevant public and private actors, top-down and bottom-up measures, initiatives and checks on the national and international levels covering relevant activities and linking all levels of society in a systematic way.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not those of FDFA or UNICRI.
Notes
1 Isaacson, W. “The Biotech Century”, Time magazine, 11 January 1999.
2 UNICRI, Turin, Italy. Security Implications of Synthetic Biology and Nanobiotechnology – A Risk and Response Assessment of Advances in Biotechnology (2012). See http://www.unicri.it/in_focus/on/Syntethic_Biology. (sic)
3 Balmer, A. and Martin, P., Synthetic Biology: Social and Ethical Challenges. Institute for Science and Society (University of Nottingham, 2008), p. 3.
4 Roco, M.C., “Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine”, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 14 (2003) p. 337.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Keeping Food Safe, Even in Unexpected Situations | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/keeping-food-safe-even-unexpected-situations | 7 June 2024
Food safety hazards do not recognize borders. In today's interconnected, global food supply, risks posed by unsafe food can quickly escalate from a local issue to an international emergency. Humanitarian crises generated by conflicts and climate change around the world contribute to food insecurity and compromise food safety. The strength of the global food system is dependent on the strength of its weakest link, and food safety remains an essential component of food security, as only safe food can adequately meet nutritional needs.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that every day, 1.6 million people on average worldwide get sick due to the consumption of unsafe food. Unsafe food causes more than 200 diseases, ranging from diarrhoea to cancers, due to eating food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites or chemical substances such as heavy metals. Additionally, unsafe foods contribute to other poor health conditions, including impaired growth and development, micronutrient deficiencies, non-communicable or communicable diseases, as well as mental illness. Food safety incidents have a greater impact on vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, pregnant women and individuals with compromised immune systems, as these groups are at higher risk of experiencing severe health issues from food-borne illness.
In a world with increasing health threats, when the unexpected happens, preparedness and the rapid exchange of information are key to reducing illness and related costs, the impact on livelihoods, and saving lives. Preventing food safety incidents involves a complex interaction of local, national and international regulations and authorities; continuous monitoring and testing of food products; and the education of food handlers and consumers on proper food safety practices.
Handling these incidents effectively is essential not only to protecting public health but also to maintaining trust in the food supply chain. A single large-scale incident could erode consumer confidence in safe and nutritious foods. Therefore, understanding the dynamics of food safety incidents and drawing lessons from past events is essential for improving food safety standards and practices globally.
Farhad Valiyev of the Azerbaijan Food Safety Authority inspects a load of apples for export using a remote inspection camera at an export facility in the Khachmaz region, 18 September 2023. WHO / Sue Price The International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN), established by WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2004, serves as a key platform for uniting food safety authorities from 187 countries to effectively address and communicate information on food safety events that have the potential to cross borders. Hosted by WHO, this global network plays a critical role in managing food safety emergencies worldwide. It facilitates rapid information exchange and cooperation among international food safety authorities, helping to manage and mitigate incidents more effectively. As INFOSAN marks its twentieth anniversary this year (2024), its global influence and connectivity continue to expand.
In 2022, INFOSAN was essential in managing a multi-country outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium linked to chocolate products, with identified cases in Europe and in the United States, and with distribution of the implicated products to more than 113 countries and territories. INFOSAN rapidly disseminated detailed information about the contamination, including the specific chocolate products involved, the identified source and distribution details. This timely exchange of information enabled national food safety authorities to quickly implement recalls, remove contaminated products from retail outlets and conduct thorough investigations.
In another instance, in 2021, INFOSAN took part in the management of a multi-country outbreak of Salmonella Braenderup linked to the consumption of Galia melons. When the outbreak was identified, INFOSAN quickly disseminated detailed information regarding the contamination, including the specific types of melons implicated, the pathogen detected through whole-genome sequencing, and the possible source of the outbreak in one production facility. Again, this enabled national food safety authorities across various countries to promptly take risk management measures such as issuing public safety advice notices regarding melons in the market.
Tshering washes her hands before starting work at Chuniding Foods in Thimphu, Bhutan, 10 August 2023. WHO / Sue Price Through the coordinated efforts of INFOSAN in these emergencies, further cases of illness were prevented, showcasing the network's effectiveness in mitigating food-borne outbreaks and protecting public health across international borders. By sharing real-time alerts and detailed reports, INFOSAN ensures that comprehensive preventive measures are swiftly implemented, highlighting the importance of international collaboration in managing food safety risks in a globalized food supply chain.
Food safety is everyone’s business and all of the players along the production chain can do their part.
Governments should prioritize the development and regular updating of national food safety emergency response plans, ensuring a coordinated approach across government agencies and national authorities, including updated risk communication plans.
Food operators should place emphasis on establishing and regularly updating food safety management plans, as well as providing ongoing staff training.
Consumers should be aware of how to ensure food safety before, during and after emergencies such as floods, fires and natural disasters, as well as how to report poor hygiene standards and misleading food labelling.
This World Food Safety Day, WHO and FAO draw attention to the importance of being prepared for food safety incidents, whether mild or severe, raising awareness about what everyone—no matter the role—can do to be ready for the unexpected. This year’s campaign theme, “Food safety: prepare for the unexpected”, not only underlines the importance of being prepared to manage food safety incidents so that they don’t become emergencies, but also the importance of taking time to plan, prepare and be ready to act in an emergency context.
For more information, visit https://www.who.int/campaigns/world-food-safety-day/2024.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the UN. |
United Nations Agencies Forward Together in the Response to Violence Against Women | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/united-nations-agencies-forward-together-response-violence-against-women | Momentum is building to eliminate the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights abuse in the world -- violence against women. Studies show that 70 per cent of women experience some form of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. Everywhere, communities, civil society and governments are mobilizing to end practices that harm the health, dignity, security and autonomy of women and negatively impact society as a whole. The United Nations system is working together to support partners in this effort.NETWORK OF MEN LEADERSOn 24 November 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched the Network of Men Leaders who have taken a public stance to eliminate violence against women. Members of the Network include Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, and many other distinguished men who will add their voices to the growing global chorus for action.This new network is part of the Secretary-General's UNiTE to End Violence against Women campaign, launched in 2008, which is galvanizing action across the UN system and the world. It calls for all countries to put in place, by 2015, strong laws, multi-sectoral action plans, preventive measures, data collection and systematic efforts to address violence against women and girls. It is a unified effort of the UN system to generate momentum and concrete action, building on the work that has been done by women's groups in many countries.Over the years, we have seen mounting efforts by governments, non-governmental organizations, women's groups, community groups and other networks to eliminate violence against women. Today, there is better understanding of the nature and scope of violence and its impact on women and society. Legal and policy frameworks have been established at the national and international levels. But much more needs to be done to end impunity and change discriminatory attitudes that allow such violence to continue.To this day, violence against women remains largely hidden in a culture of silence. One in three women has either been beaten, coerced into sex or abused in some other way -- most often by someone she knows. Such violence violates human rights, undermines development, generates instability and makes peace harder to achieve. There must be accountability for the violations and survivors must be listened to and supported.The UNiTE campaign and many other efforts are breaking the silence surrounding this issue and ensuring that violence against women is not just a woman's issue, but a political, social, economic and cultural issue that deserves a comprehensive response.10 PILOT COUNTRIESThe UN, with its wide-ranging mandates and diverse entities, is well equipped to support a response that is comprehensive, backed by strong political clout and adequate financial resources. As part of its ongoing efforts, the UN system identified 10 pilot countries* for a coordinated and cross-sectoral response. In these countries, joint programmes have been developed on the basis of a thorough assessment of existing initiatives and capacities, especially in the areas of law, providing services, prevention and data collection. Efforts are also taking place in many other countries. Beyond UN programmes, the United Nations Trust Fund on Violence against Women has distributed more than $44 million to almost 300 initiatives led by governments, civil society and local authorities in 119 countries and territories.The organization I head, the United Nations Population Fund, is closely involved in these initiatives, supporting programmes in pilot countries and beyond: in Indonesia and Honduras, for example, police and faith-based organizations have been trained to respond sensitively to cases of violence against women; in Guatemala, progress has been achieved simply through the improved coordination and synergy between national and local governments; in India and Nepal, national partners worked together to institutionalize a response with a special focus on using the health system as an entry point; and in Cambodia, a national law to address domestic violence was adopted in 2007. Addressing ¬gender-based violence is now part of the country's national development plan, which includes a domestic violence indicator to track progress in achieving Millennium Development Goal 3, to promote gender equality and empower women.At the global level, the UN is strengthening data collection and analysis to monitor progress and identify gaps in countries. A database on violence against women was launched in 2009 as the first global "one-stop site" for information on measures undertaken by UN Member States to address violence against women. It will also help identify promising practices that can fight impunity and put an end to attitudes and stereotypes that permit or condone violence.The UN is also on the verge of significant changes in its internal gender architecture. The proposals being discussed by the General Assembly call for the replacement of several current structures with a single dynamic UN entity that will significantly bolster our work to promote gender equality and address violence against girls and women. This is all the more important in conflict settings, where women's bodies often become battlegrounds and rape a method of warfare to humiliate, dominate or disrupt social ties.A SECURITY RESPONSEIn resolution 1325 adopted in 2000, the Security Council, for the first time, addressed the impact of war on women, stressing the importance of women's inclusion in conflict resolution and their essential role in peacebuilding. Resolution 1325 has been translated into more than 100 languages. Eight years later, the Security Council, in resolution 1820, acknowledged that sexual violence was a security issue and therefore required a security response. In 2009, the Security Council deepened accountability to women and girls in situations of armed conflict by passing two resolutions, 1888 and 1889, that strengthen women's protection and address their exclusion from peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts. The Security Council also requested the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative to provide coherent and strategic leadership to address the issue.All these resolutions provide a strong framework to engage women in conflict resolution, peacemaking and peacebuilding, to protect sexual and reproductive health, prevent violence against women in conflicts and protect them when violence does occur. The campaign "Stop Rape Now: UN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict" is also galvanizing action. There are a growing number of grassroots initiatives by civil society, government institutions and other partners to speak out against violence against women in conflicts.I am encouraged by all these initiatives but recognize the urgent need to do more. Ending violence against women must be given greater priority at all levels, and this includes more intense efforts to support community interventions. The need for greater political commitment remains, as does the need for a substantial increase of resources. More than sixty years ago, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed their faith in "We the Peoples", in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human being, and in the equal rights of men and women. Eliminating violence against women is a crucial step towards realizing this vision. This is not just an issue for women. It is an issue for everyone -- for men and boys, for families, for communities. It is both a global and a national issue. From common to rare, from accepted to unacceptable, from impunity to justice, from suffering to support, we must build a world where violence against women belongs to the past.
* Burkina Faso, Chile, Fiji, Jamaica, Jordan, Kyrgyztan, Paraguay, Philippines, Rwanda and Yemen.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Women and HIV | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/women-and-hiv | What is it with women and girls? Why are we always left behind? Why can't we choose the things we want to be a part of? Why must we always race to the front, rather than be left peacefully alone when we would rather not partake? Is it because, as women, we are strong, powerful, and the foundation of our society?When we started hearing about HIV in Motherland Nigeria, it was about men dying at the mines or long-distance truck drivers going home to die. But before you could form the words to thank God that women weren't acquiring the nasty virus, common sense reminded you that whatever a man acquires -- good or bad -- will surely come home.About a decade ago, when I came onto the AIDS scene as a young woman who was left behind and uncertain as to whether I wanted to be a part of this, most of those who were involved and at the forefront were men. The boys were everywhere -- fighting like crazy, giving Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical lobby) a hard time in order to ensure access to life-saving antiretroviral drugs, raising their voices to bring about change, and claiming a space for people living with HIV. The few women I saw on the global scene were Amazons, and I wondered, where did this breed emanate from? They dared to tread where angels trembled; they were forceful and powerful; they, too, laid claim to that space for people living with HIV.Today, women are everywhere. Their duty shifts have doubled from caring for sick husbands, lovers, fathers, children, friends, sisters, and grandchildren to taking the fight to the streets, to parliaments, and on stage. With access to life-saving medication, we stopped dying and found a new spirit and passion for living, allowing our forebears to take a rest and hand over the baton. Together, we women and girls marched on like tireless soldiers as we became the men of our households, bearing the physical, financial, and emotional burdens in our now women-headed homes.As mothers, grandmothers, daughters, and sisters in the AIDS movement, we started educating the people, formed community centres and support groups, asking for nothing, but getting more than we had bargained for. The burden of this epidemic was placed firmly on our backs as we worked -- and in many cases still do -- as unpaid volunteers in clinics and home-based uncompensated care providers, travelling the world as exotic exhibits and voices in the show titled "The feminization of HIV." We sang and danced before visiting presidents and dim-witted denialists, and in front of courtrooms when our access to drugs was threatened. Those of us with HIV took our pills and our frail backs got stronger, while our beautiful bodies changed shape and form. The life-saving pills stole our beautiful femenine figures. We watched our faces, legs, and arms thin out, while our stomachs and backs grew bigger. But it didn't matter; we were alive, and the lack of our wonderful figures was better than being buried six feet below in a wooden box. Well, that was then, and this is now.The catch phrase is "getting to zero:" zero new infections, zero AIDS-related deaths, and zero discrimination -- an admirable, yet challenging vision. The bile-tasting words "mother-to-child" leave a sour taste in my mouth; they are words intent on weakening our strengthened backs. I am glad to see UNAIDS move away from the toxic mother-to-child transmission, but many other organizations and agencies have chosen to continue blaming us for infecting our babies. I insist on using the phrase "parent-to-child transmission," because it takes two parents to ensure that all four prongs of Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) are effective:Prong 1 | There will be no HIV in women and girls of reproductive age if our partners paid some attention to us.Prong 2 | We most certainly can stop unintended pregnancies in women living with HIV if men are given a role to play.Prong 3 | The intervention of PMTCT is in dire need of support from both parents, who must accept joint responsibility. Why are entire programmes still named and, once again, balanced on the backs of women? Using the phrase "Mother-to-Child Transmission" implies the mother is to blame for HIV in an innocent child. It's of little wonder that mothers feel guilty, responsible, and unable to forgive themselves when their babies test HIV-positive.Prong 4 | Support for mothers, babies, and families obviously needs the help and empowerment of both parents.As the world of AIDS advocacy races on to ensure zero new infections, priorities change while our epidemic lives on, so we must send an invitation to memory and a challenge to amnesia. We have to remember the countless women who cannot negotiate safe sex or protect themselves from the sexual transmission of HIV, as well as from other sexually transmitted diseases. We should scream in outrage as raping women and girls becomes an acceptable weapon of warfare, and remind ourselves of the physical and sexual violence that far too many of our sisters endure because they dared to say no. We should remember the women who are locked up and denied their rights, simply because they are sex workers who dared to make their bodies their business. We should ensure that our comrades who are rehabilitated and denied clean needles or substitution therapy be given space on the bus, as we race to zero.In a world of changing priorities, can we spare some change for female-initiated preventive technologies, such as microbicides and female condoms, to support HIV-positive women and not just to protect women who are HIV-negative? Can we dare take a look at those national laws and policies which make women second-class citizens? Is it conceivable -- and that is no accidental pun -- that women's rights can include sexual, reproductive, inheritance, and property rights?Recently, the heads of UNAIDS, UN Women, and the United Nations Population Fund collectively stated that the sexual and reproductive rights of women living with HIV is non-negotiable. So it is; it will and has to be -- because it is not only what we deserve, but what we demand:
We demand laws that protect us from violence, abuse, and discrimination.
We deserve to have our hard labour adequately compensated.
We demand to have a say and a vote at the table when decisions affecting our lives are made.
We need increased funding to support initiatives led by women living with HIV.
We need programmes that empower us to take charge of our lives and health, not just help others meet their project goals.
We demand access to formal education and training programmes so we can earn degrees and certificates and move from being unpaid volunteers to salaried workers.
We demand laws protecting our right to inherit property and own land.
We deserve financial support and demand to keep our children when our marriages or partnerships fall apart.
We believe it is our right to choose when, how, and with whom to birth or not.
We demand that programmes for young people be designed to meet the needs of our adolescent daughters and young women with HIV.
I end with a special tribute to my wonderfully brave sisters: Temitayo Oyedemi, Yinka Jegede, Vuyiseka Dubula, Beatrice Were, Alice Welbourn, Kate Thomson, Shaun Mellors and Gregg Gonsalves.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Peace Is Synonymous With Women’s Rights | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/peace-synonymous-women%E2%80%99s-rights | This year’s International Day of Peace, observed on 21 September, should start by honouring all the lives that have been lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peace is not only the synonym of harmony, security and well-being, but also a product of equality and non-discrimination. Peace, as we understand it, simply cannot exist if we exclude the welfare of women and girls, who comprise half of the world’s population.
Historically, women have been the most affected by war and conflicts. Yet they have also been among the most engaged in fruitful peace processes. In 1915, long before the Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom was shaped as a response to the horrors of the First World War. At the time, more than 1,200 women were advocating for the right of women to take part in decision-making in peace and security affairs.
In 1969, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), questioned whether women and children should be afforded special protection during conflicts. Five years later, in 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. Between 1975 and 1995, a series of United Nations World Conferences on Women marked a significant turning point: women were recognized as powerful agents for peace. In 1975, the first demands for greater women’s participation in security were formally presented at the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held in Mexico City. Ten years later, in Nairobi, women’s perspectives were considered in multidimensional operations aimed at strengthening world peace. Finally, in Beijing in 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women demanded that more women be placed at the highest levels of decision-making in peace and security.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 (2000): The landmark of women’s rights in maintaining peace and security
Women are disproportionately affected by the proliferation and use of weapons. While men are overwhelmingly responsible for the misuse of small arms and account for 84 per cent of violent deaths, including homicides and in armed conflicts, every two hours a woman dies due to gender-based domestic and sexual violence, especially through the use of small arms.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security was one of the crowning achievements of the global women’s movement, and one of the Council’s most salient decisions. The resolution, adopted in 2000, recognizes the impact of conflict on women and girls, and reaffirms their important role in peace and security, addressing four intertwined pillars: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery.
Gender equality is a stronger predictor of a State’s peacefulness than its level of democracy or gross domestic product.
Over the next 15 years, seven1 further Security Council resolutions addressed critical issues on women, peace and security. These helped to recognize conflict-related sexual violence as a tactic of warfare; increase women’s participation in peace operations; demand zero-tolerance for peacekeepers with regard to gender-based sexual exploitation and abuse; deploy Women Protection Advisers; and acknowledge the critical role of women’s organizations in the protection of human rights.
Yet despite great progress in the last 20 years, there are still implementation gaps at the regulatory and budgetary levels. Today, only 41 per cent of United Nations Member States have adopted a National Action Plan for Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), and only 22 per cent of these plans included a budget at the time of adoption. Fewer than 20 per cent of all Security Council resolutions in 2018 contained references to the importance of women and the need to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms for civil society, women’s groups and women human rights defenders. The continued marginalization of women in these discussions is a major shortfall that affects the quality, swiftness and sustainability of decisions regarding peace and security.
There is no sustainable peace without the full and equal participation of women
We are acutely aware that peace is more than the absence of war. Sustaining peace encompasses not only activities aimed at preventing the outbreak and escalation of violence, and the continuation and recurrence of conflict, but also addresses the nature of exclusion, discrimination, injustice, inequality and structural violence.
Today, women make up only 4.2 per cent of military personnel in United Nations peacekeeping missions and only 29 per cent of recent peace agreements include gender-related provisions, compared to 45 per cent in 2013. While 35 million women need humanitarian aid, at least 1 in 5 refugee women experience sexual violence and only 28 per cent of humanitarian needs assessments articulate a gender-based differentiated impact.
Gender equality is a stronger predictor of a State’s peacefulness than its level of democracy or gross domestic product. Where gender equality is the guideline, a State is less likely to use violence, abuse human rights, commit torture, experience civil conflict or go to war. According to the Global Peace Index, over the past year, peacefulness deteriorated the world over for the ninth time in the last 12 years. Thus, it is not a coincidence that countries like Iceland remain the most peaceful and champions on gender equality.
Twenty-five years after the landmark Beijing Declaration, and despite significant progress, women’s political participation remains the greatest gender disparity. Today, women comprise less than a quarter of the world’s elected politicians. Eighty-five out of 193 countries have never had a woman as Head of State or Government; women represent only 21 per cent of ministers in cabinets; and in some countries, women are still not represented.
María Fernanda Espinosa, President of the 73rd session of the General Assembly, briefs the press on the high-level event on ‘Women in Power’. United Nations, New York, 12 March 2019. UN Photo/Mark Garten Although women’s participation in parliament has increased from 11.2 per cent to 24.9 per cent in the last two decades, it is still far from the one-third threshold considered the minimum needed to shape law and policy for gender equality. At these rates, the global gender gap would not close for 100 years.
Objectives for women’s representation are far from being achieved, and the political participation of women continues to be highly discouraged. Women are doubly targeted by record levels of political violence. The rise of misogynistic, sexist and hate speech in political environments contributes to increasing violence against women.
From COVID-19 to the climate crisis: Women, peace and security agenda challenges
Amid the most profound and devastating crisis since the Great Depression, we have witnessed women’s leadership in action. From decision-making to frontline services, women have tackled the COVID-19 outbreak more efficiently. First-hand evidence has shown that there are fewer cases of contagion and lower death rates when women are involved and empowered. Yet while the world battles this pandemic—and despite a call for a global ceasefire—we continue to see high levels of conflict, violence and instability. We are also still fighting the existential crisis of climate change which, if unaddressed, will increase the risk of violent conflict, create threats to human security, and challenge conflict recovery and peacebuilding.
As the world strives to rebuild in the post-COVID era, it is time to address the root causes of gender inequality and “build back better” with an equality and women’s rights lens.
In 2015, for the first time, the Security Council linked climate change to the women, peace and security agenda.2 Pandemics, increasing numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as the rise of violent extremism, were considered key factors in the rapidly changing global landscape for peace and security. The connection is evident. Climate change undermines human security. Violent conflicts caused by climate change can exacerbate poverty, discrimination, inequality, gender-based violence, food insecurity and forced migration. These challenges require a more comprehensive approach with the meaningful participation of women at all levels, from preventing climate-related risks to the climate negotiation processes. While women are, and will be, the most affected by climate-related conflicts—especially indigenous women and women with disabilities—they are and should be agents of resilience-building and transformation.
As the world strives to rebuild in the post-COVID era, it is time to address the root causes of gender inequality and “build back better” with an equality and women’s rights lens. To do so, we need to prioritize conflict prevention and actions aimed at emerging threats to sustaining peace. We need to ensure a true implementation of the women, peace and security agenda as one of the main global commitments to conflict prevention, sustaining peace, sustainable development and human rights.
COVID-19 is a setback for the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Growing inequalities are exacerbated, gender equality and women’s rights have been disproportionately affected, and fragile States could be devastated by conflicts and civil wars. This stormy scenario, however, can be seen as an opportunity to redouble efforts to counter the impacts of inequality and exclusion, a chance to push the reset button in the fight against poverty and end the climate crisis. It is not a matter of volunteerism but rather of concerted, firm, committed action on the transformative redistribution of wealth and power, and investment in a wiser and greener environment, to mention a few. To make sure that we rise to the challenges, old and new, we need a “New Social Contract" that ensures women’s equal and meaningful participation at the forefront of peace, security and humanitarian action, not only to protect women’s rights and dignity but also to ensure that they are key actors in building and sustaining peace.
Three international milestones converge this year: the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations; 25 years since the adoption of the Beijing Platform for Action; and 20 years since the women, peace and security agenda was established with the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), reinforcing the critical role of women in preventing conflict and sustaining peace. The best way to honour these historical landmarks is to close the implementation gap and ensure that we walk the talk; and that women’s voices and agency are part of every effort to build back better, to construct a world that is more peaceful, fairer and free of injustice, violence, poverty and inequalities. Peace should not be simply an ideal or a utopian dream, but rather an inspiring and driving force for action and transformation.
Notes
1 S/RES/1820 (2008); S/RES/1888 (2009); S/RES/1889 (2009); S/RES/1960 (2010); S/RES/2106 (2013); S/RES/2122 (2013); S/RES/2242 (2015);
2 S/RES/2242 (2015).
18 September 2020
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Soils, Where Food Begins | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/soils-where-food-begins | 2 December 2022
Human beings, like microorganisms, plants and animals, need sufficient food to survive. But beyond the provision of basic energy and nutrients, food must also be safe in order to prevent disease and the intake of harmful toxic substances.
Soils not only give us 95 per cent of the food we eat, but also silently provide us with almost all ecosystem services and functions that enable life to exist on Earth. This thin skin of the planet, on which humans stand up every day, is also responsible for cleaning, filtering and storing water; recycling nutrients; regulating the climate and floods; and removing carbon dioxide and other gases from the atmosphere, all while hosting about a quarter of the animal species on Earth.
Balancing the many ecosystem services provided by soil with the need for enhanced food production is the central challenge of sustainable soil management.
Today we celebrate the ninth United Nations World Soil Day under the theme “Soils, Where Food Begins”. This celebration aims to raise awareness of the importance of healthy soils, but also to engage citizens around the world to stand up for soils.
Advocacy of soils is more important than ever given that we are facing a food and fertilizer crisis due to the challenges of post-COVID-19 recovery, ongoing conflicts and the ever-increasing evidence of the impact of climate change. While food security is a global goal that requires consideration of multiple factors, soil fertility status is the fundamental building block on which all agricultural production systems are built. And healthy and well-nourished soils are central to achieving it.
One of the main dimensions of food security is sufficient food production, which can be supported by improving inherent soil fertility. Our concept of fertility has broadened with time and is now recognized as the ability of soil to support plant growth by providing not only the essential nutrients, but also the adequate chemical, physical and biological conditions as a habitat for plant growth.
Soils have the extraordinary capacity to store, transform and recycle nutrients that we all need to survive, allowing life to continue. Of the 18 nutrients essential to plants, 15 are supplied by soils—if they are healthy. A lack of basic nutrients, including macro- and micronutrients, leads to the underdevelopment of plants and reduced crop yields and nutritional value. The chronic lack of micronutrients—those derived from nutrient-deficient soils and crops—causes hidden hunger, which already affects over 2 billion people worldwide.
A key challenge in achieving balanced soil fertility is to find a sustainable role for fertilizers in plant production. The overuse and misuse of fertilizers lead to harmful nutrient surpluses in agricultural fields and cause a number of environmental problems, including the deterioration of water quality and the eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems, exacerbation of climate change due to increased release of greenhouse gases and soil pollution, and crop failure. In other parts of the world, undersupply of nutrients causes plants to mine existing nutrients, leading to lower yields and micronutrient deficiencies in crops.
So yes, our soils are in danger, mostly because of human activities. One third of global soils are already degraded, and the trend is rising because of 10 threats: soil erosion by wind, water and tillage, loss of soil organic carbon, nutrient mismanagement, salinization and sodification, soil pollution, compaction, acidification, loss of soil biodiversity, and soil sealing and waterlogging. The severity of the threats differs across regions. Soil erosion and nutrient mining continue to be major issues in Africa; soil compaction, soil sealing and soil pollution dominate in Europe; soil acidification, soil erosion and nutrient mismanagement are the major threats in Asia; soil erosion, soil salinity and nutrient mismanagement are dominant in Latin America and North America; soil salinity threatens plant production in the Near East and North Africa and parts of Eurasia; and acidification of soils associated with fertilizer additions and the growth of legumes is a major threat in Asia and Australia.
Soils have become one of the world’s most vulnerable resources. Their degradation leads to poverty by triggering rural to urban migration. Food security, climate change adaptation and even sustainable development are jeopardized when people are forced to flee because they cannot cultivate their land for food or income.
Several of these threats are intimately associated with human-induced climate change. Soils constitute the largest terrestrial carbon pool and play a crucial role in the global carbon balance by regulating dynamic biogeochemical processes and the exchange of greenhouse gases (GHGs) with the atmosphere. The top one metre of soil contains an estimated 1,460 billion tonnes of organic carbon, which is nearly twice the quantity of atmospheric carbon (840 billion tonnes) and over twice as much as is stored in vegetation (650 billion tonnes).
If soils are managed sustainably, this organic carbon will continue to be stored in the soil and will help to both build resilience and further adaptation to climate change. If unsustainably managed, soils will instead accelerate climate change by releasing not only carbon dioxide but even more potent greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane.
Healthy and well-nourished soils are central to achieving food security. Ronald Vargas The re-carbonization of global soils constitutes a viable option to address the global challenges of this time. Sustainably managed soils have the potential to offset as much as 34 per cent of global agricultural GHG emissions annually, sequestering up to 0.56 billion tonnes of carbon—or 2.05 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Farmers can be agents of change if they adopt good practices. However, they cannot be charged with this task alone, as there should be provision of incentives and an enabling environment for this to happen. We need to support farmers to adopt sustainable soil management practices that are adapted to the country and are the result of a combination of scientific and local knowledge. This will restore the balance and harmony of our soils.
Investing in healthy soils brings many benefits, including these climate-related ones. It will increase productivity, healthier food production, water storage and biodiversity conservation, making agrifood systems more sustainable and resilient.
It is an everyday job to raise the voice of soils, our silent ally. But we are optimistic, as there are now many global, regional and national initiatives taking place to safeguard this important resource and, ideally, enhance soil health.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been taking the lead on the promotion of sustainable soil management through its Global Soil Partnership. Members and multiple stakeholders work together as a coalition of the willing for soils. Actions vary from normative tools, capacity development, generating soil information, developing activities on the ground, raising awareness and advocacy. Many recent synthesis studies have demonstrated that the sustainable management techniques that we have in place are successful, preventing further degradation and even regenerating soil health.
FAO is determined to catalyse this momentum and ensure that the sustainable management of soils grows through time. It is time to scale up sustainable practices and increase investments in sustainable soil management.
We all need it now—more than ever—if we want our children to continue to enjoy the extraordinary array of services that soils provide to us. After all, soils are inherent to our origin, and as such, healthy soils should constitute the legacy of our future.
Happy World Soil Day!
To find out more about World Soil Day and to register for official events, please visit www.fao.org/world-soil-day/en/.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Next Steps to Universal Nuclear Disarmament | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/next-steps-universal-nuclear-disarmament | The control of nuclear weapons so far It is almost 65 years since the development of the first nuclear bomb, and yet we have had only two cases of use of nuclear weapons in war, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we have been spared the horror of a large nuclear war during this period when more than 130,000 nuclear weapons were built. This is a very unusual event in the history of mankind: so many weapons built, never to be used. Why has this happened? First, the leadership of the two nuclear superpowers and of the smaller nuclear States behaved as rational decision makers, as far as the control of nuclear weapons and the decision not to initiate their use were concerned. In others words, deterrence worked, but we have to recall that the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and other lesser crises pushed the risk of a nuclear confrontation very close to the abyss. Moreover, the system of nuclear deterrence worked and still works now on the basis of the capability of each nuclear superpower to react promptly if they receive information that they are under nuclear missile attack from their opponent. The idea is that each nuclear superpower should react against the opponent before its own nuclear missiles are destroyed while still on the ground or in their silos. With this system, known as nuclear reaction alert or "launch on warning", we have had numerous incidents of false attack that risked accidental nuclear war. Among the factors that spared mankind from the horror of a nuclear war, one was good luck, in not taking wrong decisions at critical moments, and in keeping technical mistakes and failures ultimately under control.We know that the probability of having a catastrophic event depends on the number of critical events: the higher the number, the higher the probability. In our case, the probability of a nuclear conflict depends clearly on the number of crises which could possibly induce a nuclear war and on the number of technical failures of the nuclear control systems. These numbers in turn depend on the number of existing nuclear arsenals, on the number of nuclear weapons in those arsenals, and on the number of people who have access to the nuclear button.In avoiding a nuclear catastrophe we have been helped by the fact that contrary to the expectations of the early nuclear age, most nations have remained non-nuclear; in other words proliferation was contained.The non-proliferation regime The basic instrument which helped contain the spread of nuclear weapons is the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), generally considered to be the corner-stone of nuclear stability. The NPT distinguishes its parties between nuclear-weapon States (NWS) (States which conducted a nuclear test before 1967) and all the other States that, in order to be a member of the NPT, are classified as non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS). The Treaty has basically three pillars:The Principle of Non-Proliferation: The non-nuclear-weapon States refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons or from seeking the control of nuclear weapons, while the nuclear-weapon States agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or parts of them to others. Moreover, all Parties to the Treaty should refrain from transferring (un-safeguarded) fissile material to non-nuclear-weapon States.The Principle of Disarmament: Parties to the Treaty, and particularly the nuclear-weapon States, commit themselves to negotiations in good faith aimed at achieving an early stage nuclear disarmament and the cessation of the nuclear arms race.The Principle of Access to Peaceful Nuclear Technology: All Parties to the NPT have the right to develop and be assisted in the development of nuclear energy for civilian purposes.The cold war ended with a significant effort in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Between the second half of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the United States and the Russian Federation dramatically reduced the size of their arsenals. Moreover, for some time around the end of the cold war, no non-nuclear State decided to acquire nuclear weapons, leaving the set of countries possessing nuclear weapons unchanged, namely the five permanent members of the Security Council -- China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States -- and -- unofficially -- Israel. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 sparked a negative picture of civilian nuclear activity, and for some time, interest in nuclear energy dropped worldwide, as did interest in proliferation problems associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and the spread of nuclear energy technology. The NPT itself was extended indefinitely in 1995, contributing to what seemed to be a bright prospect for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.Managing disarmament and non-proliferation in the last two decades In the mid-1990s, the three pillars of the NPT experienced a significant shift. First, the Russian Federation and the US basically froze their disarmament agenda, with the last signed treaty leaving some 1,700 to 2,200 deployed strategic weapons on each side and an unspecified number of tactical, as well as other retired -- but not destroyed -- nuclear weapons on each side. Moreover, the other, smaller, nuclear powers, France, the People's Republic of China, and the United Kingdom, stood clear of the complete nuclear disarmament threshold. The total number of functioning nuclear weapons remained and still is in the range of 25,000. In 1998, two newly declared nuclear powers arose -- though unofficial from the standpoint of the NPT. And later, for the first time, one country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), exited the NPT and conducted a nuclear test.Moreover, some remarkable initiatives -- such as the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibiting nuclear tests hence hindering the development of new types of nuclear weapons -- basically failed to become a reality, thus contributing to the feeling that the era of nuclear disarmament ended. Some other important initiatives [such as the 13 steps] aimed at reinvigorating nuclear disarmament, were discussed and approved at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, but were not even mentioned in the 2005 NPT Review Conference, which ended without any final document. Finally, an interest in civilian nuclear energy returned in various parts of the world. Questions about the possibility of an effective control to prevent the covert utilization of civilian technology for military purposes became more and more relevant; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna elaborated stricter constraints to be applied to countries developing civilian nuclear programs, notably the so-called "additional protocol".1 These stricter constraints have been received with mixed responses. Many countries critical to proliferation risks declined to sign the additional protocol. One specific country has been under extensive scrutiny and has been accused of developing an indigenous fuel cycle with the undeclared purpose of taking steps forward in the direction of building nuclear weapons.In article VI of the NPT, explicit mention is made not only to nuclear disarmament as a final goal, but also to the pursuing of negotiation leading to an early cessation of the arms race among nuclear powers, as an intermediate step. Contrary to this we have seen in the past two decades worrisome signs of the unraveling of the arms control regime as we know it. The cessation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; the threat by the Russian Federation to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in response both to the new proposed deployments of missile defence systems in Europe by the US, and to the increased intermediate range missile capabilities in many Asian countries -- all present a gloomy picture of the status of the arms control regime. It is thus clear why the NPT is increasingly considered to be in critical condition. No country supports nuclear proliferation. No government is buying the argument that "more is better" when speaking about nuclear-weapon States, but individual countries may decide that they need to possess nuclear weapons. Moreover countries differ in the strategy for enforcing non-proliferation, and in their individual perceptions of the threat posed by different cases of proliferation.Countries may decide that they want to acquire nuclear weapons for two basic reasons:1. The presence of an external threat, especially, but not exclusively, when the external threat is represented by nuclear-weapon States (whether official or de facto).2. The prestige and the power which is associated with nuclear weapons.The NPT up to now has done a remarkably good job in inducing countries to refrain from the acquisition of nuclear weapons by addressing, albeit in an imperfect way, both of the above motivations. The principle of non-proliferation in the NPT helps in creating an environment partially free from nuclear threats, while the principle of disarmament aims at decreasing both the relevance of nuclear weapons and the prestige associated with their possession. The NPT, as is well known, discriminates between the haves and the have-nots. This discrimination was meant to be temporary, as it was understood that the only way to move towards a stable equilibrium would be to resolve the distinction between the haves and the have-nots by eliminating nuclear weapons, namely, by making them illegal as in the case of chemical and biological weapons. Advancing towards such stability is tantamount to having manifest, unequivocal and sustained progress in nuclear disarmament. The lack of disarmament initiatives is not the only way the non-proliferation regime has been endangered by the nuclear- weapon States. One of the most significant problems facing the NPT is that some nuclear-weapon States, most notably the US, have sidetracked the NPT, while paying formal tribute to its role; their fight against proliferation took a more unilateral approach and included the following points:♦Nuclear proliferation threatens the present system of international relations, but serious differences have to be considered depending on who is in fact acquiring or attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Some States were very bad nuclear proliferators and others were considered not so bad. The relatively good ones like Israel and India of course have been treated very differently from the so-called bad ones.♦Progress in nuclear disarmament has not been deemed to have de facto influence on the decision of another country to acquire or not to acquire nuclear weapons. Token reference has been made to previous achievements in nuclear disarmament, but with little or no consequence on the political decisions that are to be taken.♦ The fight against proliferation has been primarily based on containment and repression of countries that have been deemed to be both hostile and possible nuclear proliferators. Instruments of repression ranged from different types of sanctions to actual (preventive) war.♦ The need to control fissile material and to prevent its unauthorized use by potential proliferators or terrorists has been acknowledged in principle, although questions arose as to their actual position on the priority list to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.Let us elaborate more on the trend described above and on its consequences. One should not underestimate the degree of resentment that has been induced by real or perceived unfair treatment, and the ensuing political consequences. Israel was not subjected to any pressure to renounce its possession of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan were subjected to sanctions, which were later removed. In the end India and the US signed the so-called US-India Nuclear Cooperation Initiative. DPRK, which withdrew from the NPT, is under severe sanctions. While we do not want to deny here that there may be serious motivations and reasonable considerations behind these unequal treatments, the overall impression is nonetheless that nuclear disarmament lost its character of being a shared ideal or value of the international community and instead became one of the many instruments of partisan foreign policy. We should recall that the NPT itself was not meant to involve only countries with common foreign policy goals, but rather it was an agreement among countries with different, if not antagonistic views of the world, which agreed to some common constraints in the area of nuclear weapons.While it is true that there is no immediate correlation between the pace of nuclear disarmament by major nuclear powers and the development of nuclear ambitions among non-nuclear-States, it is also true that if a general trend supporting nuclear disarmament is in place, then the global environment is less threatening to potential proliferators, who would find it more difficult to become nuclear without losing credibility and influence. While the lack of disarmament may not be the immediate motivation for proliferation, it nevertheless has an overall influence on encouraging proliferation. In other words, if nuclear powers keep telling others to "do as I say and not as I do", there is no guarantee that this message will be listened to indefinitely.Creating an environment where powerful countries impose independent, autonomous non-proliferation constraints might even be considered necessary to effectively limit the transfer of dangerous nuclear technology and materials. One might thus appreciate a complementary role between individual countries and international institutions in the battle against proliferation (see the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or Security Council resolution 1540). Problems arise when the non-proliferation campaign is used as an excuse to impose sanctions or wage war against a country that is labelled evil, and where the main aim is not to stop proliferation but to induce a regime change. The problems become bigger if the intervention does not result in the restoration of peace and order but in the creation of civil unrest. Even if we have no time to address the complexity of the problems related to the last conflict in Iraq, we want to point out that, from the point of view of nuclear proliferation, the Iraqi war had the effect of greatly diminishing the significance of the non-proliferation issue, reducing it to a mere excuse for some other goal. Moreover, the war on Iraq sent two other sets of messages: first, that big powers can bypass international institutions such as the UN; and second, that countries much closer to reaching military nuclear capability are punished far less than countries which are classified as "evil" but are further away from that capability. This attitude creates an objective incentive for nuclear proliferation.The present prospect for managing non-proliferation and disarmament Since 2008 and, subsequently, with the climate created by the new US administration, a different approach to disarmament and non-proliferation has begun to appear. A group of four prominent American former high level officials published on 30 June 2009 a widely read article in the Wall Street Journal2 followed by groups of politicians in some European countries,3 all arguing for a renewed call for nuclear disarmament. On 5 April 2009 President Barack Obama said: "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." He also restated clearly the goal of the NPT: "Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy".4 At present there is a clear interest in the US administration to restart dialogue with Russia over the renewal or replacement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and make further progress in arms control and disarmament.Expectations will run high at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Either there will be a very clear message that the three basic pillars of the NPT should be rigorously respected viz., that disarmament should not be disconnected from the enforcement of non-proliferation; and that assistance to develop nuclear energy should be given without undue restrictions or discriminations, yet within a framework of serious and effective monitoring and control of nuclear activities, or the non-proliferation regime itself risks serious trouble. The entire international community and particularly the most powerful countries such as the G8 -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States -- should take steps to preserve the essence of the NPT, and to make it more effective and stable as President Obama suggested in his speech in Prague.What follows is a list of problems that should or could be addressed, and a list of steps that should be undertaken by the entire international community in preparation for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Obviously the responsibilities of States vary according to their involvement with military or civilian nuclear programmes For instance, the arms reductions of the US and the Russian Federation concern those two States only. Still it is important that the concrete actions aimed at developing disarmament and at curbing non-proliferation be included in a framework strengthening all the obligations that are at the basis of the NPT. All countries could and should contribute to this framework.Nuclear-weapon States should reduce their nuclear arsenals to the "minimum" possible level. This line of thinking has been already made clear by the Presidents of the US and the Russian Federation. Some of the concrete decisions in this area will become clear when a replacement of the START Treaty is discussed. Together with the reduction in nuclear weapons, there is the problem in the role or the salience of nuclear weapons in military planning. The key phrase here is to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in military planning. Also nuclear weapons should be taken off alert: no nuclear weapon should be launched within minutes of notification of a missile attack. Avoiding a nuclear war by mistake is a task as important as ever.♦ The development of the Ballistic Missile Defense should be carefully considered. If the effectiveness of such systems is, as it appears, to be highly doubtful then countries should be very careful with the political and strategic implications of the deployment of such systems. It is not worth jeopardizing the reduction of nuclear weapons and the preservation of past arms control agreements, by deploying defensive systems of very dubious effectiveness.♦Tactical nuclear weapons should clearly be included in the list of nuclear weapons considered for reductions and/or elimination.♦ Eliminated weapons should be destroyed or dismantled. They should not be put in deposits and left ready to be used should there be a need to again increase those nuclear arsenals.♦The problem of nuclear weapons deployed on other countries' territories should be carefully considered. Only US nuclear forces are currently deployed in other countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey. Other official or de-facto nuclear powers might in the future decide to do the same, creating the possibility for very dangerous situations. It is then reasonable to forbid deployment of nuclear weapons on other countries' territories. ♦Nato should de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its military planning and strategy. ♦The entry into force of the CTBT is bound to the ratification by 44 specific countries (Annex 2 of the Treaty). The entry into force of the treaty will give a powerful signal to the international community that no further modernization of nuclear weapons will be possible. The countries that should sign and ratify Annex 2 are India, Pakistan and the DPRK. The countries that should ratify the Treaty are: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and the US. The new US administration is clearly supporting the ratification of the CTBT, but it may have problems with the Senate as the ratification process requires a qualified majority of the US Senate. The international community should encourage the missing Annex 2 countries to sign and ratify the CTBT. As for the nuclear-weapon States, their technical activities to ensure weapons reliability should not interfere with the CTBT. This is technically possible and warhead reliability issues should not be used as a motivation to postpone or sidetrack the CTBT. ♦Another important instrument for pushing ahead the agenda of nuclear disarmament is the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (fmct) that will forbid the production of new fissile material for military purposes. ♦It is apparent that all the five nuclear countries irrespective of the size of their arsenals, viz., the US, the Russian Federation, China, France and the UK share a legal and political responsibility in promoting disarmament, and none of them should be exempt from taking appropriate steps in the direction of reducing their weapons and their reliance on them. ♦Nuclear-weapon States that are not signatories to the NPT (India, Israel and Pakistan) and the DPRK should be induced to take appropriate steps to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons and the number of their weapons; to sign all the possible arms control agreements compatible with their status as non-NPT members; to enforce strict control of nuclear material, respecting all the relevant agreement with the IAEA, and ultimately to join the NPT. ♦Finally the creation of new nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) and the expansion of the old ones is an important instrument to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons in specific areas. The Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone should be constantly pursued, despite the obvious difficulties. The possible use of nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes has been discussed for some time. Fortunately, up to now, no possession of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups has been detected and no terrorist group has been able to manufacture a nuclear explosive device.5 The proper strategy to address potential nuclear terrorism is to reduce the relevant risks. First, by controlling all fissile material and eliminating excess fissile material from dismantled weapons (ie, blending the excess of highly enriched uranium and disposing and/or utilizing in mixed oxide in the excess plutonium). Second, it is important to get the agreement of all States, irrespective of their political orientation, to control any amount of fissile material produced with the strictest available safeguards. The international community is lagging behind on both counts. There is still a large amount of excess fissile material to be disposed of mainly in the Russian Federation (about 20 years after the INF Treaty) and, as mentioned above, international consensus about new stringent measures to control nuclear activities is still relatively limited. In any case, international control (by the IAEA) does not concern fissile material for military use. The causes for this state of affairs are manifold, from commercial problems, which slowed the disposal of fissile material in the former Soviet Union, to the perception that stringent safeguards are at times an instrument of discrimination rather than an instrument aimed at protecting the security of every country. Failing a vigorous effort -- both technical and diplomatic -- to control and dispose of fissile material, the threat of nuclear terrorism will be with us for some time. Again, one has to expect that the new US administration will be very sensitive to the argument of controlling nuclear material and protecting it against terrorist use, but the burden goes well beyond the US and is, in fact, a responsibility of the entire international community. The final issue we have to discuss is the problem of preventing proliferation. As mentioned earlier, an effective battle against nuclear proliferation cannot be separated from clear progress towards disarmament. Another important point to consider is that the battle against nuclear proliferation will be much more effective if the constraints required to enforce control and monitoring of nuclear activities will be seen as an impartial instrument required by the international community, not as an instrument aimed at discriminating between various countries on the basis of their political or strategic orientation. As we said before, the NPT was born as an agreement between States having a very different vision of the world. In the NPT, the US cooperated with the USSR in keeping proliferation under control and, for some time, in dramatically reducing the nuclear arsenals. Different visions of the world did not impede the NPT from working; this should be true even now when States antagonistic to the US are not as powerful as the USSR was, but may still in general be unlikely to yield to pressures. Fairness and non discrimination (beyond the accepted discrimination between nuclear and non-nuclear States as defined by the NPT) should be the key to the safe preservation and improvement of the non-proliferation regime. In order to improve the collective security in nuclear affairs, there is an urgent need to revisit the safeguards and constraints placed on the production of fissile material. The "additional protocol" not yet adopted by a sufficiently large number of States is probably not enough, and more stringent, international control on the production of fissile material for civilian purposes should be established. New ideas along these lines have been put forward by the IAEA, in particular as far as the internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle is concerned, but more ideas are needed. IAEA membership could easily become universal, as even countries outside the NPT are members of the IAEA. There is moreover no objective reason why all countries which are members of the IAEA should not be induced to sign and ratify the additional protocol and other stringent measures, without exception. The IAEA should be strengthened and positioned to perform what looks to be an increasingly wider and demanding activity in the control of nuclear activities. The issue of addressing alleged violations of the non-proliferation rules came up in the past and will most likely come up again in the future. The principle should be clear: violations should be met with sanctions aimed at reversing the behaviour that originated the violations. The civilian benefit derived from NPT membership should be revoked from violators and possibly the use of force could be considered. Problems arise when sanctions are unfair, when credibility of "international justice" is low and when the definition of the alleged violations of the non-proliferation rules become mixed with other political or strategic controversies. Soft approaches may be better suited than hard pressures, but there is no general rule. Dialogue may be very difficult at times, but can go a long way and should be the principal instrument for resolving disputes. The effectiveness of sanctions depends on many factors: long-term large-scale sanctions, for example, are generally less effective, as countries tend to adjust to a prolonged sanction regime. The resulting isolation fosters nationalistic attitudes and cuts off the political and economic leadership from the international arena. Moreover, authoritarian regimes tend to be strengthened by isolation and, if there is a determination to build nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, sanctions strengthen nuclear ambitions. Military force has recently been used against countries suspected of violating the non-proliferation rules. Leaving aside for a moment the important issue of the legitimacy of these actions, the results have been altogether a failure. In general terms, it may be true that some military actions slow down the construction of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction by destroying some specific infrastructure, but then what comes next? If, after the destruction of some specific nuclear infrastructure, the country is able to restart the programme, then nothing has been "gained", except possibly some time. And if military pressure on that country goes well beyond the destruction of nuclear plants, then the recent history of Iraq shows that the end result may create an intractable problem.Conclusions Facing the 2010 NPT Review Conference there is a need to strengthen the three pillars of the NPT itself. Nuclear disarmament should be pursued in a clear way by all nuclear-weapon States. Additionally, monitoring systems should be improved for all civilian nuclear activities, without further discrimination with respect to those that are already within the NPT. The development of nuclear energy should happen in a framework that must guarantee and strengthen security for all and foster a sense of collective responsibility. It is a clear task of the most developed countries to lead the international community towards a more cooperative and less discriminatory environment, where the danger of nuclear annihilation will be drastically reduced and ultimately brought to zero. Nuclear weapons should soon be declared illegal as much as all the other chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction are. This will require a nuclear weapons convention similar to the chemical and biological weapons convention. Countries should clearly and unequivocally do their best to signal that they are moving in that direction. This article is an adaptation of a presentation prepared for ISPI (Istituto Studi Politica Internazionale) of Milano, Italy and first published in the UN Chronicle.
Notes 1. The additional protocol: http://www.IAEA.org/Publications/Documents/infcircs/1997/infcirc540c.pdf 2. Kissinger, Nunn, Perry, Schultz : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036422673589947.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries 3. Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson, "START worrying and learn to ditch the bomb" The Times (London), 30 June 2008. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4237387.ece ) F.Calogero, M. DíAlema, G. Fini, G. La Malfa, A. Parisi, "Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World", Il Corriere della Sera, 24 July 2008. Helmut Schmidt (SPD), former German President Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU), former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher (FDP) and SPD politician Egon Bahr, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and International Herald Tribune, 9 January 2009. Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach, "UK does not need a nuclear deterrent: Nuclear weapons must not be seen to be vital to the secure defence of self-respecting nations", Letter, The Times (London), 16 January 2009 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5525682.ece) 4. Prague speech http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html 5. Often confusion is made between a so-called dirty bomb (which entails the dispersal of radioactive material in the environment) and a nuclear explosive device, where the explosion is caused by a nuclear chain reaction. We deal only with the possibility of terrorists acquiring or building nuclear explosive devices.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
We All Must Take Action | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/we-all-must-take-action | 23 October 2020 We live in turbulent times. Most countries are still battling the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused so much suffering and loss of life and has disrupted global economies. In addition, there is a far worse threat to our future—the climate crisis. Unfortunately, we have brought these nightmares upon ourselves by our violence against nature and animals.We have destroyed forests and polluted air, land and water, including our oceans, with agricultural, industrial and household wastes. We are building dams and roads and an endless number of shopping malls. Our reliance on fossil fuels has led to the release into the atmosphere of unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide, a major component of the greenhouse gases that are trapping the heat of the sun. A warming planet has caused changes in weather patterns everywhere. Polar ice is melting; sea levels are rising; and devastating hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, floods, droughts and fires have become more frequent and destructive.Intensive farming is poisoning the environment with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, destroying wildlife habitats to grow grain. Irrigation in places not suitable for farming is draining the great aquifers. Much water is used to transform vegetables into animal protein. The billions of animals involved in factory farming produce methane, another major greenhouse gas. Moreover, factory farms along with the wildlife markets of Asia, the bushmeat markets of Africa, and the trafficking of animals and their parts around the globe to sell as food and medicine, or to drive the trade in exotic animals as pets, are all creating ideal conditions for a pathogen to jump from an animal to a person, where it could become a new zoonotic disease such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, MERS, SARS—and COVID-19.More and more people are realizing that as we emerge from the pandemic—as we shall—and go back to business as usual, abusing mother nature and plundering her finite natural resources, we could end up joining the ranks of those animals and plants that have gone extinct at an unprecedented rate. Our disrespect for the natural world, of which we are a part and on which we depend, threatens our own survival So how can we avert disaster? We must alleviate poverty, for the poor will fell the last trees in order to grow food or make money from charcoal. The urban poor cannot afford to question whether the things they buy caused harm to the environment, or are cheap because of child slave labour or inappropriate wages. They are merely trying to survive. A thirsty child near Gujrat City, Pakistan. © Asim Ijaz We must change the unsustainable, materialistic lifestyle that most of the rest of us follow. We can afford to make ethical choices and ask, “how does what I do now affect the health of the planet and future generations?” We must bring discussion of the growth of the human population and their livestock into the open. There are some 7.2 billion of us on the planet today, and already in some places we are consuming the planet’s finite natural resources faster than nature can replenish them. It is estimated that there will be some 9.7 billion of us by 2050. And as we help raise people from poverty, they will understandably seek to emulate what they see as the desirable but sadly unsustainable lifestyles of the rest of us. We must work towards a new relationship with the natural world and a new “green” economy that will provide many jobs. If we fail, conflicts between people will worsen—already people are fighting for water rights as freshwater supplies dwindle, and climate refugees are swelling the numbers of the millions fleeing armed conflict.I have faith in the resilience of nature if we give it a chance. When I began studying chimpanzees in Tanzania in 1960, the tiny (35 sq. km) Gombe National Park was part of the forest belt that stretched across equatorial Africa. By 1990, Gombe was a tiny island of forest surrounded by bare hills. There were too many people for the environment to support and they were too poor to buy food elsewhere. They were forced to cut down trees on even the steepest slopes to grow more food or make charcoal, causing erosion and mudslides in the process. I realized that if they did not find ways of making a living without destroying their environment, we could not hope to save the chimpanzees. So the Jane Goodall Institute initiated a holistic, community-based conservation programme that we call Tacare. In addition to restoring fertility to the degraded farmland, it includes introducing permaculture and water management projects, improvements to health and education facilities, scholarships to give girls a chance to move into higher education, and microcredit programmes for people to take out loans for environmentally sustainable projects. We provide workshops to train villagers to use smartphones to monitor and protect their village forest reserves—home to most of Tanzania’s remaining chimpanzees. Knowing that protecting the environment is not only to protect wildlife, but their own future, the people of this region have become our partners in conservation. Today there are no bare hills around Gombe. Animals on the brink of extinction have been given another chance. There are so many projects of this type around the world.A large piece of ice breaks off of the Alaskan Fjord glacier during an unusually warm summer (2019). © Shumaila Bhatti Then there is the extraordinary human intellect. Scientists are coming up with amazing new technologies to help us live in greater harmony with nature, and we, as individuals, are working out ways to reduce our own environmental footprints.Finally, we see the energy, commitment and enthusiasm of young people once they understand the problems and are empowered to take action. The Jane Goodall Institute’s environmental and humanitarian youth programme, Roots & Shoots, enables its young members from kindergarten through university to choose their own projects to make the world a better place for people, animals and the environment—for all are interrelated. This movement, in partnership with other youth programmes with shared values, is now operating in more than 65 countries. As it began in 1991, many of the original members of the programme are now adults, some in decision-making positions. Young people are growing organic food in their school gardens, learning about permaculture and regenerative agriculture, recycling and reusing, collecting trash, and spreading awareness about the illegal trade in wild animals and their body parts. They are volunteering in shelters for abandoned or rescued animals and in soup kitchens. They are raising money to help victims of natural disasters. Older members are educating younger children about the importance of protecting the environment and how animals are not merely things but sentient beings, individuals who can feel fear, despair—and pain.A wild male (silver back) gorilla, Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park, Uganda.© Joe Shelly It is encouraging to see the growing trend towards a plant-based diet, which is better for our health and the health of the environment, and alleviates the horrible suffering of millions of sentient, individual animals.In response to consumer pressure for sustainably produced products, many companies are changing their practices. And big business often has the power to influence government policies.Around the world millions of people are planting millions of trees and protecting and restoring forests and other habitats.All of the measures set out above are reflected in the ambitious United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Among the Agenda’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are serious, practical objectives for maintaining the planet, its wildlife and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations. As the Organization celebrates its 75th Anniversary this year, which has been marked by a global pandemic and global fear, we are all called to renew our sense of solidarity and hope.The world’s children and youth are no longer passive beneficiaries of hope but are often also its motivated ambassadors. A new United Nations photography exhibition, now also offered virtually, celebrates the last 75 years of the pursuit of a healthy and peaceful planet. It features images of life and resilience, and the role of our incredible youth. A few of these stunning photographs are featured in this article. I would encourage anyone seeking a sense of hope for our future to experience this exhibition however they can.Perhaps the most important message is that each one of us can play a role in creating a better world—every day. The photographs featured in this article are part of #TheWorldWeWant, a global photo contest hosted and organized by mobile app Agora in support of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations.The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Conference on Disarmament: Injecting Political Will | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/conference-disarmament-injecting-political-will | The Conference on Disarmament (CD)* has met in vain for years. After the successful negotiation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 and, more recently, the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1992, the forum increasingly stagnated. The last time the Conference agreed to negotiate was in 1996 -- this time for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly but has yet to enter into force.
Ever since, the so-called "single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community" has been unable to undertake substantive work. In 2009, a Programme of Work was approved, but the CD failed to implement it.
WHAT'S WRONG?
Serious institutional problems in the CD derive from a cold war inheritance:1 the CD's rules and agenda have made it almost impossible to enable transparent and multilateral decision making.2 The lack of review mechanisms prevents accountability and institutional reform. The consensus rule, however, remains the greatest obstacle in the CD. In fact, in an increasingly multipolar world, this rule allows individual states to preserve the status quo at the expense of collective progress towards disarmament.3
Sergio Duarte, the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament, has stressed the lack of political will. When Member States have been willing to negotiate, the argument goes, the CD has produced results. Perhaps it is the minimal prominence given to disarmament in domestic politics that explains why governments seem to care little about the CD.4 There are jokes about the fact that, while speeches at the UN Human Rights Council are closely monitored by foreign ministries, those at the CD usually go unchecked. These two dimensions are closely interlinked: good institutions can help enable decision making by providing incentives and accountability, which translate into political will. The opposite also holds true.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
The problems of the CD are part of a learning process towards sustainable governance, linking international and domestic spheres at the global level. While diplomats and policy makers stand at the forefront in tackling the problem, roots run deep into local politics. Global institutions have difficulty crafting sound policies while at the same time satisfying national and, sometimes, parochial constituencies. When bargaining at international fora, governments remain largely dependent on domestic coalitions, public opinion, and, in the case of democratic countries, voters.
And when was the last time that nuclear policy, rather than unemployment or health care, dominated election campaigns within any of the democratic nuclear powers? Not surprisingly, disarmament is not a primary concern for electorates or for their representatives. The lack of high-level political involvement means that experts and bureaucrats are often left to deal with the issue, and they often excel at perpetuating old practices and ideas in which they have been trained.5 Take, for example, the regrettable taboo imposed on debates on security and disarmament. Behind the label of "national security," military plans and diplomacy go unaccounted for. Let civil society contribute to human rights, development, or humanitarian issues, but not to disarmament-one can almost hear the experts say. However, this mentality shelters experts from public scrutiny and limits their capacity to think "outside the box."
Indeed, contrary to common practices in many Geneva-based United Nations bodies, including those working on the disarmament of conventional and biological weapons, such as the Governmental Expert groups on the Convention on Conventional Weapons and on the Biological Weapons Convention, the CD does not welcome the substantive participation of civil society. In 2010, for the first time in history, a non-governmental organization was allowed to address the Conference during official proceedings. If governments are ever going to move towards disarmament, greater public awareness, civic engagement, and civil society participation are required.
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?
The September 2010 High-level Meeting on Revitalizing the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations, convened by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, recognized many of these issues. The meeting emphasized the role of weak structures and mechanisms, and the lack of commitment and political will, both of which were sustaining the deadlock in the CD. Governments suggested reviewing the rules of procedure, setting a deadline for the CD before taking negotiations elsewhere, calling for a Fourth Special Session on Disarmament, and broadening civil society participation. These proposals reflect biased and diverging priorities regarding the content of possible negotiations, yet they constitute an important step in openly acknowledging the problem.Given the far-reaching implications of the current situation, I will propose four major changes that are required for sustainable progress in the CD:
Increased civil society participation. Greater visibility and political leverage derived from more open debates and participation can push governments to allocate more effort and resources, as well as political will, to multilateral bargaining. Civil society has contributed in the past to mobilizing public opinion and consolidating political support, for example, in the negotiation of international legal instruments banning landmines and cluster bombs.6
Broadening the agenda from national to human security. Disarmament nego-tiations continue to legitimize a vision of national security based on zero-sum gains and an overly-militaristic scope. Issues such as the underlying costs of weapons systems (and their negative effects on economic performance and development),7 the serious environmental threat implicit in nuclear deterrence strategies,8 and the incongruence between weapons of mass destruction and international humanitarian law should be brought to the forefront of the debate.9
Strengthening accountability mechanisms among governments, domestic constituencies, and legislatures. Increasing dialogue and engagement among parliamentarians, government officials, and civil society, for instance through ad hoc conferences, can contribute to holding governments accountable for their performance in disarmament negotiations.
Reforming the CD or seeking alternative multilateral avenues. The disproportionate weight given to the priorities of individual States is at odds with the legitimacy that the UN Charter places in majorities and with the current need for multilateral decision making. In cases of deadlock, the UN General Assembly, as the world's foremost multilateral body, has successfully facilitated bargaining processes. Given the legitimacy the CD derives from the UN General Assembly, a new Special Session on Disarmament could push the CD towards reform.10
Pursuing disarmament through multilateral engagement is difficult. As global problems become increasingly complex and intertwined, we must urgently learn from the failures of existing global governance institutions and mechanisms. Amidst the challenges of disarmament and international security, we must learn to make multilateralism work in order to "complete our education," as Arnold Toynbee said in 1933, "and we cannot do this at our leisure, for time is of the essence of the problem.a race between belated wisdom and premature death by suicide."
Notes
1 M. Krepon, "The Conference on Disarmament: Means of Rejuvenation," Arms Control Today, 36 (2006).2 J. J. Gómez Camacho, "From Aspiration to Reality: Nuclear Disarmament after the NPT Review," (Remarks during the Middle Powers Initiative Conference, Geneva, 14 September 2010).3 L. Cannon (Statement at the High-Level Meeting on Revitalizing the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations, New York, 24 September 2010).4 J. J. Gómez Camacho (Middle Powers Initiative Conference, Geneva, 14 September 2010).5 M. N. Barnett and M. Finnemore, "The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations," International Organization, 53, 4 (1999): 699-732.6 N. Short, "The Role of NGOs in the Ottawa Process to Ban Landmines," International Negotiation, 4: (1999) 481-500. The Oslo Process led to a Convention on Cluster Munitions adopted in Dublin by 107 States on 30 May 2008: J. Borrie, Unacceptable Harm: A history of how the treaty to ban cluster munitions was won, (UNIDIR, December 2009).7 Report of the UN Secretary-General, "The relationship between disarmament and development in the current international context," (2004), and the Sustainable Disarmament for Sustainable Development Program (2005-2010) of the International Peace Bureau.8 E. Harrel, "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment," Time, 22 January 2009; see also A.H. Joffe, "Environmental Security and the Consequences of WMD Production: An Emerging International Issue," Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 54, February 2001 (Acronym Institute).9 J. Borrie and M. Randin, Alternative Approaches in Multilateral Decision Making: Disarmament as Humanitarian Action, (UNIDIR, 2005); and J. Borrie and M. Randin, Disarmament as Humanitarian Action: From Perspective to Practice, (May 2006).10 Discussion with Miloš Koterec, Geneva, 31 August 2010.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
“Bee Engaged with Youth” to Safeguard Bees and Other Pollinators | https://www.un.org/en/%E2%80%9Cbee-engaged-youth%E2%80%9D-safeguard-bees-and-other-pollinators | 19 May 2024
Pollination is a fundamental process that is necessary for the survival of our ecosystems. It plays a crucial role in food security and agrobiodiversity. Pollinators support vital ecosystem functions for nature, agriculture and human well-being, acting as the invisible cornerstone of functioning and sustainable agrifood systems. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that about three quarters of the food we eat depends, at least in part, on pollinators and that around 10 per cent of the total economic value of agricultural output for human food is dependent on insect pollination. This is no small feat considering that the total value of agriculture’s contribution to human food globally can be measured in trillions of dollars per year.
Unfortunately, pollinators are facing multiple challenges that put their capacity to provide ecosystem services at risk. Human activity, such as intensive monoculture production, poses serious threats to bees and other pollinators by limiting their access to food, such as wildflowers, and to their natural habitats and nesting sites. Additionally, detrimental agricultural practices, such as chemical treatments and overuse or improper use of pesticides, including insecticides, acaricides, fungicides and herbicides, can be very harmful to bees and other pollinators, affecting their cognitive abilities, impairing their performance and even killing them.
In addition to greatly contributing to the production of our food supply, pollinators serve critical functions in safeguarding our ecosystems by enhancing soil health and guaranteeing working fauna-flora interactions. Protecting pollinators and preserving their precious ecosystem functions are paramount to bolstering global food and nutrition security and thus supporting our very existence. Whether it is the Himalayan bumblebee, which pollinates flowers at altitudes above 4,000 m, or the ground-dwelling digger bees in Texas, all pollinators need our support.
By promoting nature-positive and agroecological approaches that protect pollinators and their habitats, such as diversifying agricultural landscapes, minimizing pesticide use, and establishing pollinator-friendly habitats within and around crop production areas, we can actively support bees and other pollinators in playing their critical role in the ecosystem and our food systems.
Over 200,000 animal species function as pollinators, including more than 20,000 species of wild bees. Pollinators include bumblebees, bats, wasps, butterflies and certain birds and mammals. Domesticated bees are likely the best-known pollinators, but it is important to underline that most pollinator species are wild. Therefore, it is imperative for us to pay particular attention to human activities that continue to encroach on and threaten the natural habitats of pollinators.
Bees and other pollinators are so crucial that, in 2017, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 20 May as World Bee Day, to be celebrated by United Nations agencies, Member States and stakeholders around the globe. However, dedicating just one day each year is insufficient to raise awareness about the importance of pollinators and pollination services. This heterogenous group of animals that pollinates our crops and ensures our food security deserves more recognition and praise.
Beekeepers of Yeruu soum (Selenge aimag) in Mongolia, members of the Supreme Council of Mongolian Beekeepers Association. Pierre Ferrand The future of food security and sustainable food systems depends on the decisions we make today. As temporary inhabitants and custodians of our planet, we must recognize that countless plants and animals, including humans, will continue to inhabit this space long after we are gone. Our young people are the focus of our hopes that, we humans have already learned from our missteps over the past decades and that future generations will be supported in making better choices. These choices should entail the restoration of degraded habitats for pollinators, the practice of pollinator-friendly agriculture, reduction of environmental pollution, and halting or reversing climate change. It is through the co-creation of knowledge and capacity-sharing today that we lay the groundwork to guide the informed actions of tomorrow.
We are betting on the fact that young people have the vigour and vision to continue to advocate for pollinators and provide innovative and technological solutions that will catalyze the efforts initiated by FAO and partners. Such work is aimed at fostering pollinator conservation and sustainable production and consumption, valuing ecosystem services, and promoting ecosystem-friendly agriculture such as agroecology.
A quick scan of social media platforms will reveal that millions of young people are engaging in discussions about apiculture (beekeeping) and pollinators’ protection. Those of us who are old enough to remember when social media was invented in the 1990s never anticipated this level of uptake. In 2024, these platforms serve as powerful tools to amplify the voices of young advocates and activists who are creating a sense of solidarity while spreading the message of bee conservation to their peers and communities. They are also motivating and influencing decision makers to prioritize protecting bees and other pollinators. Young people don’t just talk about pollinators; they also take concrete action by planting pollinator-friendly gardens, setting up “bee hotels”, and participating in citizen science projects to monitor the populations of bees and other pollinators. Such activities not only directly benefit bees but also promote a sense of environmental stewardship among youth.
These actions are not solely altruistic—there is collective interest in bees and other pollinators. Social media influencers can attract annual revenue in the millions of dollars if they can keep their followers engaged, but the business of apiculture itself can also be a lucrative endeavour. There is high demand for natural and organic honey products, creating a tangible financial incentive to invest in sustainable beekeeping and honey production. With proper training and equipment, this can become a genuine business opportunity for young entrepreneurs.
To make the creation of sustainable bee-related businesses a real possibility for young people, we need a dedicated, global, peer-to-peer youth educational programme centred on the importance of bees and other pollinators, and on the ways in which they can be integrated into farming systems and in various landscapes. There are numerous success stories of youth in “bee-businesses”, especially from the global South, that can serve to attract more young people and inform them about the importance of pollinators’ protection and existing business opportunities.
Domesticated bees are likely the best-known pollinators, but it is important to underline that most pollinator species are wild. © FAO/Tofik Babatev The power and potential of youth as agents of change are reemphasized by the fact that the events of World Bee Day 2024 are centred on the theme “Bee engaged with youth” to highlight the importance of youth involvement, recognizing that they are the future beekeepers and stewards of the environment. The theme focuses on attracting the attention of younger generations and sharing fascinating facts about bees, beekeeping and pollination ecosystem services.
This year’s events will demonstrate that beekeeping—a profession that embraces the use of locally available materials, limited resources and home-grown innovation—can offer employment and income opportunities to those in extreme poverty, landless individuals, women and young people. It will emphasize the need to provide an opportunity for young people to engage with beekeepers and experts in the field, and to learn about the latest technology used in beekeeping.
FAO is mandated to organize World Bee Day to serve as an annual reminder to the world about the importance of bees and other pollinators for food security and biodiversity. It’s the right occasion to increase awareness among all stakeholders, Governments, United Nations system entities, other international and regional organizations, civil society, the private sector and the wider public about the importance of protecting bees and other pollinators.
FAO is also supporting the development of its Global Action on Pollination Services for Sustainable Agriculture to promote sustainable agrifood systems through pollinators’ protection, ecosystem services resilience and agroecology mainstreaming. Building on past FAO interventions, this renewed action aims to provide evidence-based entry points for initiatives in support of pollinators’ protection and agroecology enhancement, and will demonstrate how pollinators’ protection can enhance sustainable and resilient agrifood systems and create business opportunities. The Global Action will also contribute to greater knowledge-sharing and scaled-up, pollinator-friendly agricultural practices globally.
As we celebrate World Bee Day, let us remember how crucial it is to prioritize efforts to protect bees and other pollinators. FAO is committed to supporting youth, who have a key role to play in fostering the transformative changes as well as future initiatives and activities needed to save our bees and other pollinators.
Further reading
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production, S.G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca and H. T. Ngo, eds. (Bonn, Germany, IPBES Secretariat, 2016). Available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3402857.
Matthew R. Smith and others, “Pollinator Deficits, Food Consumption, and Consequences for Human Health: A Modeling Study”, in Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 130, No. 12 (December 2022). Available at https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/epdf/10.1289/EHP10947.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the UN. |
Atomic Power—Saving Lives | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/atomic-power-saving-lives | December 2015, No. 3 Vol. LII, Sustainable Energy
The Problems We Face
In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the world. These are summarized broadly as ending poverty, ensuring access to food, clean water, energy, global health and education, achieving gender equality, securing decent work for all, building resilient infrastructure, reducing income inequality, promoting urban development, sustainable consumption and production, finding climate change solutions, preserving the oceans, preventing deforestation, and implementing frameworks to reach these goals, including the creation of a global partnership for sustainable development.
There is no doubt that these are lofty goals. The question arises, however, of how the United Nations and Member States approach these issues, and how to assign relative importance to potential solutions.
I would propose that the development of small modular molten salt reactors (MSRs), including the denatured variety, would have the potential to advance several SDGs simultaneously.
Atomic Power Concepts
One of the seemingly unlikely solutions to these pressing problems may in fact be atomic power, although not in its current form. The key principles of nuclear power generation are based on the force that holds the parts of an atom together. If an atom is unstable, it will try to reach a more stable state by breaking apart. The atom can be naturally unstable or can be made unstable when additional neutrons are added to the nucleus.
When an atom becomes more stable and releases particles, it also releases immense amounts of energy that can be used to generate enough heat in a closed system to power a turbine. Radiation, which is often misunderstood, is largely naturally-occurring. There are several types of radiation that all have different effects and uses.
Concerns with nuclear power stem from three major sources: nuclear warheads and their proliferation, core meltdowns and system failures, and nuclear waste. These are all valid points that may be addressed through a conceptual and fundamental rethinking of the way atomic power is generated.
Small Modular Molten Salt Reactors: A Solution for Our Times
MSRs were pursued in the United States largely between the 1950s and 1970s. Unlike current reactors they offered unique solutions to many challenges that conventional reactors face.
Salts were already in a molten state, making the term “meltdown” irrelevant. If the system is overheating, the salts are passively drained into a cooling tank.
Radioactive materials form stable bonds in the system. Volatile materials are constantly removed.
MSRs operate at atmospheric pressure, making incidents such as the 2011 nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima, Japan, impossible.
Many MSRs have the ability to break down existing nuclear waste in their converter design.
MSR systems can utilize fissile material much more efficiently than standard nuclear reactors.
MSRs can be used for load following without excess reactivity due to strong negative void and temperature coefficients.
Terrestrial thorium, a potential fertile material for MSR use, is about three times as abundant as uranium in the Earth’s crust. Thorium, which is currently treated as a waste product in rare earth mining and has relatively little commercial value, can be extracted using dredge mining (as opposed to more invasive means) or even extracted from the oceans.
MSR systems can potentially operate in a denatured form, making them more proliferation-resistant than other MSR or traditional designs.
These designs can operate in a completely closed-loop form with a Rankine or Brayton turbine, eliminating the need to be near large bodies of water such as with current reactors.
The technology is scalable, potentially modular, and can be deployed on a large scale once commercialization efforts are underway.
There are many variations of this design, but this is the model that has undergone the most research and experimentation.
One of the designs that deserves closer examination is the Denatured Molten Salt Reactor that can operate as a fuel source for several years without human interference. This would also allow for a quicker, safer deployment of the technology around the globe with fewer concerns for proliferation.
The basic design of the MSR looks like this:
Applications of MSRs
The variety of applications of MSRs is perhaps the most important reason to develop this technology, which has the ability to provide electricity, water, medical isotopes and energy for food production, diminish current stockpiles of nuclear waste, and provide power in remote locations, among other uses.
Power and Water for All
Due to the nature of the challenges that Earth faces, it is necessary first and foremost to ensure adequate access to electricity, water and sanitation for all. MSRs have the unique ability to do this. Since the types of fuels that can be used in the system vary greatly, the efficiency and fuel utilization are orders of magnitude higher than with standard uranium reactors, and the technology is widely applicable across a range of uses, it is hard to discount the plausibility of MSRs in the future development of mankind.
Additionally, since radioactive materials are completely removed from the power generation system, operating at over 100° C, it will be possible to purify water and sterilize waste with excess heat. This can be done in places near the ocean, such as California, and provide clean water for human consumption.
Disaster Response and Microgrids
Since these reactors can be modular and scalable, they can be reduced to a size that can be manufactured and deployed on a large scale to power operations that do not have access to traditional infrastructure. This would include military bases, developing nations, and disaster response facilities in places where the infrastructure has been damaged. The nature of these reactors is that they are able to match their loads, making them an ideal candidate for short-term grid operation.
Medical Isotope Production
As a by-product of reactor operation and some of its fuel decay chains, medical isotopes are also created. These can be used as medicine, in research for advanced Alpha Particle Targeting treatment, for radiographs, as well as a number of other medical uses. Thorium has already been a subject of research in the United Kingdom. Additionally, current radioisotope production is concentrated in aging reactors in South Africa and Canada. Having a local source for these isotopes would prove to be beneficial for affordable use across many nations.
Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste and Preventing Proliferation
As mentioned earlier, various MSRs have different capabilities, and some of them are uniquely suited for nuclear waste and proliferation. Some companies in the United States are focusing on creating “burner” reactors. These systems are able to maintain a higher power density and use nuclear waste as a fuel source for the reaction. This would allow us to deplete current stockpiles into transuranics that have a fraction of the reactivity of current waste. We would not have to worry about mining, separating, and manufacturing additional fuel and could instead use up the existing energy stored in it that traditional reactors are unable to use.
Other MSRs, however, want to focus on preventing nuclear proliferation. In standard MSRs with chemical processing for a two-fluid design, there is a separation of some of the isotopes to increase the neutron economy of the reactor. This step, however, allows for the potential to separate out this material and use it in radioactive armaments. Although difficult, it is still possible. To remedy this, the denatured MSR was developed in 1979-1980. This system may be modified to use a single tank of fuel without separation, have a small hindrance to the conversion ratio of fertile to fissile material, and would have enough denatured uranium to maintain a composition that is unsuitable for nuclear bombs. This design, once tested and completed, could be sent anywhere in the world with much less concern for proliferation. This could help to provide power and water to some of the nations that most desperately need it.
Beyond Earth
Finally, applications of this technology can be expanded beyond Earth. MSRs could become a strong candidate for power systems used to sustain human life or robotic missions in space. Energy, heat and water purification systems could be streamlined and the reactor could potentially operate for several years without human intervention. Waste water could be processed and sterilized, allowing its use for a sustainable system supporting life outside Earth.
There are many problems and issues facing the planet and its inhabitants. Finding solutions for any one of them can be a daunting task, let alone solutions that could help to achieve several development goals. Properly utilized atomic power can save lives and resources, and it is time for a fundamental re-examination of its applications and further development of peaceful atomic research. MSRs represent a revival of an old idea that proved to be one of the single best ways to provide safe, clean energy for millennia to come.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Women's Participation in Transforming Conflict and Violent Extremism | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/womens-participation-transforming-conflict-and-violent-extremism | April 2015, No. 4 Vol. LII, Implementing the 2030 Agenda: The Challenge of Conflict
Few countries in the world match Pakistan in its political, social or economic complexities and securityrelated challenges. It is a country of nearly 200 million people, from over a dozen ethnic and minority groups, and myriad tribes who have coexisted peacefully for decades. It is the same country, however, that has been grappling with violent extremism in different shapes and forms for the past 15 years. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), violent extremism is most acute, and women are on the front lines of warfare. They are the widows, victims and survivors of the suicide bomb blasts, the displaced and the traumatized. Their male relatives are either fighting or gone, and therefore many women are de facto household heads, shouldering the responsibility for feeding, nursing and sheltering the old, the young and the injured.1 Yet their mobility, access to education and health facilities, and ability to fully care for their families are severely impacted. Extremists have exploited women in the name of religion, forcing them to raise funds and send their own sons and those of other members of their families and communities to work with and for extremists, particularly in the Swat District. Often women have supported extremists in their own ways by stitching suicide jackets, collecting gold and money, serving as informants and providing shelter.
For those women whose sons serve in the militias, the suffering is profound. They worry for their children's lives, yet live in communities that may shun, isolate and even attack them for their familial associations. They have little or no recourse to protection from anywhere.
"Talking to my son about extremism and extremists is impossible for me," said Zargula, in response to our conversation about engaging her radicalized son in a dialogue.
It was in 2008 when the PAIMAN Alumni Trust (PAIMAN) embarked upon the "Let's Live in Peace" initiative. One important aspect of this programme was to empower mothers of extremists and other women in the community to help in the prevention of radicalization.
FROM UNTHINKABLE TO THINKABLE
The situational analysis led us to focus upon the most challenging and unthinkable solution to address this menace by engaging mothers. PAIMAN realized that it is the innocent mother who needs to be sensitized and educated to counter the extremist ideology. We developed our strategy of engaging mothers with the belief that they shape the morals and values of their children and instil a sense of responsibility for creating positive human relationships within the family and community. It was a gigantic task to coax women and mothers out of their homes and involve them in our initiative countering violent extremism. We started building relationships with mothers in each community and invited them to learn livelihood skills in order to start earning some money for their families. At the same time we held dialogues and built trust with community elders and influential male relatives, paving the way for them to come out of their houses. It was successful.
Focusing on the concepts of self-confidence, competence and empowerment, we started our ambitious programmes of engaging mothers in two phases.
In the first phase we gave them marketable livelihood skills as per their aptitude because they needed to establish a position of authority within their families. A child only respects the mother when her position is not challenged by her husband, friends or society as a whole. This also helped in contributing to their family's income within a short time and infused confidence in these mothers.
In the second phase we equipped them with the necessary knowledge and self-confidence to become active players in their family and community. We built their capacity for critical thinking, allowing them to recognize indicators of violent extremism in an individual and in their communities, and to find ways to address these early warning signs by promoting dialogue and community peacebuilding. We made women aware of their potential in influencing and guiding their children's lives, and in preventing them from engaging in extremist activities. In almost all cases the extremists used the text of the Quran to attract youth and communities towards the concept of violent jihad or convince them to act in an extremist fashion. We used the Quranic verses in their appropriate context to help transform the mindset of these mothers. Our transformative methodology is based on the Quran and Sunnah, as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) insists that a mother's role is vital in the upbringing of her children in accordance with the values of true Islamic teaching, which does not preach hatred or violence.
Generally, the transformation process was slow, but steady and firm. The newly gained knowledge and economic empowerment gave them the confidence to communicate openly with their sons and to help foster deeper mother-son relationships. Through these transformed mothers, PAIMAN approaches their sons who are then encouraged to join the PAIMAN deradicalization programme.
The metamorphosis of mothers from ones celebrating their sons' martyrdom in suicidal attacks into agents of positive change in the community was a tedious and uphill process. It was extremely difficult for mothers in a patriarchal and conservative society to convince others to embrace their approach amidst the negative impact of violent extremism or exploitation by certain groups in the name of religion. Following PAIMAN training, these women became members of PAIMAN mothers' peace groups called Mothers TOLANA ("together" in Pashto) and started reaching out to other mothers. To date, PAIMAN has trained 745 mothers, who have formed 30 TOLANA in KP and FATA.
Today, Mothers TOLANA hold sessions with other mothers in their respective communities and teach and preach nonviolent ways of addressing the menace of extremism.
Mothers TOLANA, along with Youth TOLANA, are instrumental in identifying vulnerable and extremist youth for PAIMAN's positive youth engagement and deradicalization programme. They are actively involved in the challenging task of reintegration of extremist youth transformed by PAIMAN. They hold sessions within their communities, stressing the importance of preventing violent extremism and emphasizing the positive impact of the community's attitude towards reintegration of transformed youth. Today, it is these Mothers TOLANA who are bringing their communities together, while encouraging reconciliation through community networks by building connections and sharing information. They have educated and sensitized 15,000 female community members of KP and FATA, who ultimately realized that they have a role to play in the prevention of radicalization and countering violent extremism in their area, thus sustaining the whole process of community peacebuilding.
Mothers TOLANA keep an eye on their surroundings, staying alert for early signs of violent extremism within the family and in the community. One such story of exemplary courage involved PAIMAN Mother TOLANA member, Sheeba. She noticed that her younger brother, Gul Zareef, was coming home late and had grown very quiet. She inquired repeatedly about his recent schedule and noticeable silence, but he refused to respond. Recalling early warning signs of behavioural changes in youth from her PAIMAN training, she started observing his movements and behaviour more closely. One night she followed him and found he was visiting a house in a nearby street. She discussed the situation with other women and Youth TOLANA. Some members of Youth TOLANA started visiting the same house and found out about strangers who were coming and delivering lectures, luring youth to join them in their mission. Sheeba, along with other Mothers TOLANA, reported this to the local police, who then raided the house, seized extremist propaganda material and arrested three strangers who had already lured five young men from that community. This early warning by a women community peace group helped in saving many local boys from falling prey to an extremist group.
WOMEN'S ROLE IN INTERFAITH HARMONY
In Pakistan, the leaders of mosques, churches, temples, and other religious establishments, which play a powerful role in shaping attitudes, opinions and behaviours, are dominated by men. In the same context, female madrassa teachers, political and religious female leaders and non-Muslim activists have a large constituency of women and female youth. They also have outreach networks and are credible to their constituents, but they remain largely unnoticed.
Building on the notion that women have the ability to reach across lines of difference in tense environments, lead non-violent protests, and mobilize communities, as well as the ability to engage with the theological aspects of gender roles in peace, holds the promise to change discourse and preconceptions about how women of faith can be involved in establishing social cohesion across religious divides.
PAIMAN built the capacity of madrassa teachers, women activists of other faiths and female leaders of religious political parties, and formed a coalition known as "Women of faith building social cohesion in Pakistan". Through this platform women of different faiths overcame three major obstacles to their participation in interfaith dialogue: the lack of access to education in non-Islamic religious faiths; their inadequate representation and poor communication. Through sharing and discussion, they discovered similarities and differences in their respective positions as women and as believers. Today, the members of the coalition are working together to promote inclusion, equality and interfaith dialogue in their communities, providing a platform for all voices to be heard, regardless of personal religious belief. They celebrate one another's religious festivals, and support each other in cases of violent acts in their different communities.
Zareen, a member of the PAIMAN Interfaith group, has a son, Adil, who would always be involved in extremist acts against the Shia procession in Peshawar during the month of Muharram. Committed to transforming her son's behaviour, Zareen, along with other group members, guarded the annual Shia procession so as to avert the attack planned by her son and his friends. Upon seeing their mothers, they left the area without harming anyone. Later, mothers carried out dialogues with their sons and helped them in overcoming their prejudices against Shia. Adil is now one of the most active members of Youth TOLANA and leads the campaign for interfaith and intersectarian harmony, tolerance and social cohesion in Peshawar.
To build influence at the national level, PAIMAN organizes women to conduct advocacy activities such as peace rallies, appear on radio and television talk shows, participate in round-table discussions, and produce and disseminate publications on the impact of violent extremism on women, and on women’s role in addressing it.
RECOGNITION FOR WOMEN'S ROLE IN MITIGATING CONFLICT AND PREVENTING VIOLENT EXTREMISM
The lesson learned is that women can be very effective in transforming conflict and addressing issues of violent extremism, provided that they are economically empowered, are knowledgeable about the issues and have the necessary discussion and negotiation skills.
Women's peace groups such as TOLANA act as agents of change by raising awareness, preventing radicalization, supporting other women, and speaking out and lobbying for the inclusion of women in key peace and security structures and committees, including those that influence laws and policies.
PAIMAN mothers' peace groups contribute immensely to community reconciliation, trauma healing and stabilization during these most difficult and uncertain times in the area because of the trust that they build within their communities. They work with school management committees, teachers and parents in disseminating peace messages and organizing student peace groups in madrassas and schools.
Notes
1 Bushra Khaliq, "Rising extremism, war on terrorism and women's lives in Pakistan", International Viewpoint, (February 2010).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Towards a Planet-wide Culture of Non-Violence | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/towards-planet-wide-culture-non-violence | From times immemorial, humankind, in its brief history on planet Earth, has caused and experienced for itself unimaginable horrors and carnage. Violence is commonly used to settle disputes or to gain advantage over others. This is amply documented and evident even today as I write. Not only have we humans annihilated the lives of hundreds of millions of other humans, but we have eradicated precious creations such as art, architecture, sculptures and monuments representing the finest products of human civilization, remnants of which adorn museums around the world. During this same brief history, humans have also demonstrated unsurpassable acts of love, kindness, mercy, empathy, compassion, forgiveness, sacrifice and benevolence towards others, and such deeds are evident even today. Hence, we confront a dilemma. We have evidence of the best and the worst behaviour that humanity is capable of.
This essay is an attempt to propose a long-term approach to respond to this challenging dilemma: how to minimize—if not eliminate entirely—the use of physical and mental violence among humans. Some will argue that this is impossible because violence is so deeply embedded in the human psyche that it is unchangeable. I disagree because history proves the opposite. I am not a psychologist, neurologist, anthropologist or any other “ist” but a mere observer of human behaviour and a student of history.
I believe that human progress is undeniable and unstoppable in practically all spheres of life. Clearly, in this long evolutionary journey, there are and will always be episodes, eras and epochs of unconscionably large-scale violence, such as that currently seen in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Syria and the Middle East, and other parts of the world, but the direction is always towards reaching the higher plane and the betterment of humankind. This may seem counterintuitive because negative aspects of human behaviour saturate today’s news media, and we tend to obsess over the here and now. We must evaluate human progress from an evolutionary and historical perspective. Melinda Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made a very astute observation in a recent interview with Bloomberg Businessweek: “The future will surprise the pessimists”.1 I am sure Ms. Gates meant the long-term future and I happen to agree, without assigning a date.
Let us stop for a moment and take a look at the Charter of the United Nations—a monumental achievement among disparate nations and cultures on Earth. It is remarkable that 193 nations have signed on to this extraordinary treaty over the course of its brief existence, regardless of the fact that some Member States may not pay it due attention today. These 193 Member States, comprising almost all nation States on the planet, have voluntarily ceded a segment of their sovereignty to the United Nations. To my knowledge, no Member State has voluntarily withdrawn its membership from the Organization; why? Even those Member States that have been castigated repeatedly by one or another instrument of the United Nations have not dared to withdraw. This to me represents human progress and the need for cooperation among nations where necessary and possible. It should be noted, however, that the Charter does not completely prohibit the use of force by Member States. Indeed, it explicitly recognizes the right of self-defence (Articles 39 through 51) under clearly delineated circumstances and conditions. The basic principle of the Charter, however, remains the non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Let us look at another shining example of human ingenuity and social invention: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This year we will celebrate the seventieth anniversary of this magnificent accomplishment, even if not everyone on this planet agrees with it wholeheartedly. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris, France, on 10 December 1948, by 48 of the then 58 United Nations Member States (with eight abstentions and two non-voting participants), this Declaration epitomizes the highest aspirations of humankind. It is composed of 30 articles affirming wide-ranging fundamental rights of individuals. While not legally binding on nation States, it has played a foundational role in developing subsequent treaties and conventions pertaining to human rights, including the International Bill of Human Rights, the Bangkok Declaration and the Convention Against Torture. In 2009, Guinness World Records proclaimed UDHR as the most translated document in the world (370 languages and dialects). To date, the Declaration's impact on humankind has been immeasurable.
This brings me to the central point of this essay: A Long March Towards a Planet-wide Culture of Non-violence.
At the outset, let me clarify that this essay is geared to the concept of the entire range of violence by humans: from, by and among children to that practiced by nation States and in world wars. According to a report released by the United Nations Children's Fund,2 about half of the world's teens experience peer violence in and around school; globally, about 720 million school-age children live in countries where they are not fully protected by law against forms of physical punishment and bullying at school.
It is instructive to note how the preamble to the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization begins: “That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”. This one simple, declarative sentence sums up the challenge before Homo sapiens: how do we change the minds of humans, wherefrom violence may be instigated to non-violent methods to accomplish human objectives.
It is my view that the long road starts at conception—the environment in which a mother conceives a prospective child and gives birth. Of course, genetics and biological imperatives count, but the mother's state of mind and the general environment in which the baby is grown inside the womb also play a significant role. Similarly, beginning with birth through to adulthood—preschool, kindergarten, middle and high school—the socioeconomic-political environment the child experiences has a long-term impact on their mindset. Much has been speculated and written about this developmental issue. At the individual level, there are so many factors that it is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate the ones that result in violent behaviour or its opposite.
The human brain is a marvelous organ but also one of the most complex. Studies of the human brain are ongoing in various academic and scientific institutions around the world. To the best of my knowledge, nothing about it is set in concrete. Our brain is the central organ of the human nervous system as well as the primary control centre for the peripheral nervous system. It is made up of more than 100 billion nerves that communicate in trillions of connections (synapses). But this essay is not about the human brain. That topic is best left for another essay. However, a reference to the human brain is indispensable if we are to speak about human behaviour and behavioural change, which is what this essay is about. The fundamental point is that human behaviour is changeable depending in part on external stimuli received by the brain.
In the interest of brevity, I refer you to two excellent works by a highly regarded cognitive scientist—Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard professor, Steven Pinker: Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined 3 and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.4 In The Blank Slate, Pinker makes a strong case that we have all moved beyond the simplistic dichotomy between heredity and environmental factors to a realization that all behaviour comes out of an interaction between the two. In Better Angels of our Nature, Pinker brilliantly shows that in the world of the past, human behaviour was much worse and more violent; he contends that we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species' existence. For example, he cites some amazing data showing that tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the twentieth century, and that the murder rate in medieval Europe was more than 30 times what was in 2011. Yes, it would seem that we Homo sapiens have come a long way over millennia. So what needs to be done to ensure that this march of civilization continues in the direction that it has taken so far?
My one answer—and not the only answer—is a planet-wide, grass-roots educational campaign using every available and conceivable tool and technology to make the use of violence as an absolutely last resort at every level in human relations—between any two individuals, within families, among small groups and other organized entities such as hamlets, villages, cities, and states (within nations), and among nations on planet Earth. This is obviously a tall order, but I believe it is achievable if we believe in it and if we invest adequate resources over the long term. Let me cite examples of two universally acclaimed twentieth century leaders who had a huge impact on human behaviour and culture: Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. I don't need to write a treatise on them. We know that Gandhi almost single-handedly brought down the British Empire and delivered independence to India and Pakistan in 1947. He didn't have an army with guns, tanks and bombs. His principle weapon was Satyagraha (force of truth) operationalized as non-violence: leading long protest marches, accepting repeated jail sentences, using boycotts and mobilizing millions of people in British India to emulate his non-violent methods, which finally led the British Government to yield to his demands for freedom and independence. In 2019, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Gandhi's birthday.
Following in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, using every non-violent means known to humans, brought about revolutionary change in the treatment and condition of African Americans in the United States, and by extension all minorities. Dr. King was revered for his work for the poor and powerless throughout the world, which continues today. Sadly, both Gandhi and Dr. King gave their lives to the bullets of extremists. So how do we build on the work of these two great souls?
At the global level I have a proposition to suggest: that the United Nations Secretary-General prepare a resolution for the General Assembly (coincidentally, it is meeting in its 73th session as I am writing this) to establish a small, special mechanism within the United Nations Secretariat solely charged with creating, defining, monitoring, measuring, analysing and publishing metrics on the use of violence or violent behaviour within Member States. This special group would also be charged with providing technical assistance to United Nations Member States in collecting uniform and comparable statistics on violence. This may even lead to setting goals at the national and international levels to measure progress, as we do for many other aspects of life, such as hunger, poverty, climate change and inequality. Human ingenuity is limitless. There must be several other ways to effect gradual change in human attitudes and culture broadly, and violence as a behavioural trait is no exception.
This brings me to the concluding section of this essay. In early human history the use of violence in human relations did not threaten our planet. Violence was localized. Geography limited the spread of wars to unreachable territories. Oceans and mountains served as major barriers to the expansion of conflicts. Today, the situation is different. With so many nuclear powers now in existence, all of human civilization is at stake. Wars by miscalculation, escalation, technological malfunction and other situations are not entirely inconceivable. A small skirmish or battle can spread and grow into a global conflagration. This makes it imperative that we learn to control our tendency to resort to force.
We are living in a very unstable and unpredictable era. With so much access to and availability of weapons of mass destruction, one cannot be too sure that a demented leader will not press the wrong button. Humankind must embrace non-violence. Our planet is unique among 3,700 extrasolar planets discovered by NASA research, which continues. The search for the existence of extraterrestrial “intelligent life” also continues, but so far without success. Shouldn't we do everything possible to preserve our beautiful planet?
Bloomberg Businessweek, "Q&A: Melinda Gates on the World’s Missing Data About Women", 14 February 2017.
United Nations Children's Fund, An Everyday Lesson #ENDviolence in Schools (New York, 2018). Available from https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_103153.html
Steven Pinker, Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined (New York, Viking, 2011).
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York, Viking, 2008).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Girls in War: Sex Slave, Mother, Domestic Aide, Combatant | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/girls-war-sex-slave-mother-domestic-aide-combatant | "The attackers tied me up and raped me because I was fighting. About five of them did the same thing to me until one of the commanders who knew my father came and stopped them, but also took me to his house to make me his wife. I just accepted him because of fear and didn't want to say no because he might do the same thing to me too." This is the testimony of a young girl of 14 from Liberia as told to the Machel Review in a focus group conducted jointly by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (OSRSG/CAAC).
This story shows how vulnerable girls are in armed conflict. Actually, they can be affected by war in five different ways. Firstly, they are often direct victims of violence -- killed, maimed or sexually violated as war crimes are committed against them. Secondly, they can be recruited and used as combatants for fighting in the battlefield. Thirdly, as refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), they remain in insecure environments, often deprived of basic amenities. Fourthly, they are frequently trafficked and exploited, as perpetrators abuse their vulnerability. Finally, when they become orphans, some of them have to manage child-headed households, eking out a living for themselves and their siblings.
Direct violence
The number of children who are victims of direct violence, especially killings, has greatly increased in the last few years. Many have lost their lives in the confrontation between terrorism and counter terrorism. We have seen the phenomenon of children being used as suicide bombers and we have seen children as victims of aerial bombardment, a part of what is euphemistically called "collateral damage".
In Afghanistan I met Aisha, a girl whose home had been destroyed during an air raid which killed many of her family members, and whose school had been attacked by insurgents opposing education for girls. But Aisha was determined to go on with her studies so that she could become a school teacher.
Sexual violence
Girls are often raped or violated in situations of conflict. Raping girls and women is often a military strategy aimed at terrorizing the population and humiliating the community. At other times, the climate of impunity in war zones leads to rape and exploitation by individual soldiers who know they will not be punished. Eva was a young girl I met in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She and her friend were walking to school when they were waylaid by armed members of the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda. They were taken to the camp, repeatedly raped, compelled to live in a state of forced nudity and assigned to domestic chores for the members of the group. Eva finally escaped and found shelter in Panzi hospital, a refuge for victims of sexual violence, where she found out that she was pregnant. She was 13 years old. When I met her, Panzi hospital was taking care of her child while she was attending school. They were trying to trace her family, even though they knew that girls who are victims of rape are often shunned by their next of kin.
Girl soldiers
Increasingly, girls are being recruited into fighting forces as child soldiers. Some are abducted and have to play the dual role of sex slave and child combatant. This was particularly true in the wars of Sierra Leone and Liberia. In other cases, girls join the fighting forces for a multitude of reasons because they identify with the ideology, they want to run away from home or they have no other option for survival. Maria was a former girl child soldier whom I met in Colombia. She joined the rebel groups because her brothers had joined before her. Subjected to domestic violence at home, she ran away. She fought with the rebels and was then captured during one of the confrontations. Today she feels very lost. She does not want to go back home and she feels she has neither the education nor the skills to survive alone. When I met her, she was being taken care of by a foster parent. She felt boys were frightened of her because of her past. She also told me that many girls who had left the movement finally end up in sex work as a survival strategy.
Internally displaced
Eighty per cent of the world's refugees and internally displaced are women and children. Displaced children are perhaps one of the most vulnerable categories. In many parts of the world they are separated from their families while fleeing, becoming orphans overnight. And living in camps, they are often recruited into the fighting forces. Displaced children also suffer from high rates of malnutrition and have little access to medical services. Many girls are victims of violence in the camp or when they leave the camp to gather firewood and other necessities. For those who advocate for the rights of displaced children, the first priority should be security. The objective is to ensure that children are safe, protected from sexual violence and recruitment, and that there are child-friendly spaces in the camp. The second priority is education. Recently, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have partnered to advocate strongly that education is an integral part of emergency response and not a luxury development. This was one of the key messages of the General Assembly debate on Education in Emergencies, in March 2009. It is important to plan for schools and play areas for children as the camp is constructed and provisions are made for families to be settled. It gives children a sense of normalcy and routine when they live in the camps.Trafficking and sexual exploitation
Another concern we have for girl children in situations of armed conflict is that they are often trafficked and sexually exploited. At the international level, commentators have always pointed to "waves" of trafficking: that is, particular groups being trafficked in large numbers at a particular time. These waves often occur in areas of armed conflicts; women flee in large numbers, and being sex workers is their only survival strategy. They become victims of terrible exploitation by ruthless international criminal gangs. So many of these stories have been chronicled and a great deal of effort has been made over the last two decades to tackle the phenomenon. Nevertheless, the ground realities of conflict still lead to the sexual vulnerability of girls and women. Our own peacekeepers have not been immune to these situations. The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations has made it a priority through their zero tolerance policy and code of conduct and discipline to ensure that this type of activity ceases and that peacekeepers will only be seen as protectors.
Orphans and child-headed households
The terrible toll of war also makes many children into orphans overnight. In many parts of the world, we are seeing child-headed households where children have to fend for themselves as well as for older children. This happens especially to girl children who have to take over the role of parents. Parentless children often live in deplorable conditions such as broken-down buildings with leaky roofs, or no roofs at all. They sleep together under torn plastic sacks and cook with old rusty cans and broken pottery. They are susceptible to all manner of diseases and their situation is terribly vulnerable and heartbreaking. UN agencies are trying ways of giving these children a future without institutionalizing them in centres. It is their aim to keep children in the community and make it the responsibility of the community to take care of its children. Through schemes that find foster homes and foster mothers, they hope to let the children enjoy the benefit of family life.
The international tribunals and the fight against impunity
How has the international community responded to these devastating descriptions of what girl children suffer during war time? Recently things are slowly beginning to change, especially in the fight against impunity. The first breakthrough for children was the establishment of international tribunals which began to hold perpetrators accountable for international crimes. The cases before the tribunals of the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda that dealt with sexual violence, created a framework of international jurisprudence that will help us in the future. Individual women found justice, and there is always the deterrent effect that cannot be measured in an empirical manner. Recently, the Special Court for Sierra Leone found several commanders of the Revolutionary United Front guilty of 16 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity including conscription and enlistment of children under 15 into the fighting forces. The setting up of the International Criminal Court was the culmination of this trajectory. Their first case, the Thomas Lubanga case, involved the recruitment and use of children as child soldiers, strengthening the cause for children. Our office submitted an amicus curiae to the court in that case, arguing that girl children should be brought into the ambit of protection. We advocate for the young, abducted girls who play multiple roles in camps, to receive the protection of the law against being recruited, used, as well as forced to participate in the hostilities. We hope to get our day in court to argue this point of view so that the enormous suffering of girl children does not remain invisible.
Involvement of the Security Council
In the area of children in armed conflict, another mechanism that has begun to chip away at impunity is Security Council resolution 1612. The resolution, passed in 2005, created a Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict. It also established a monitoring and reporting mechanism involving a Task Force at the national level made up of all the UN agencies, assigned to report on the violations. The Task Force is chaired by either the Resident Co-coordinator or the Special Representative and is often co-chaired by UNICEF. Through this mechanism, OSRSG/CAAC receives bimonthly reports on grave violations against children in war zones. The Security Council process is informed by the Annual Report of the Secretary-General to the Council which lists parties that recruit and use child soldiers. Resolution 1612 recommends the prospect of targeted measures against persistent violators of children's rights. The hope in 2009 is to extend these measures, beyond the recruitment and use of child soldiers, to include sexual violence against children, such that those who persistently use sexual violence in war be listed, shamed and face the possibility of sanctions. Having received the full support of the UN system, it is hoped that Member States, especially those in the Security Council, will help our office deliver on this promise.
In a world where there is so much abuse against women and children, one may become cynical about these small steps that the international community has begun to take to fight impunity, but we must not underestimate their effects. Recently, I was in the Central African Republic and met three generations of women in one family who had been raped when Jean-Pierre Bemba's troops attacked the capital, Bangui. They were getting ready to go to The Hague to testify against him. Their elation at the possibility of justice, and their gratitude that these things have come to pass has convinced me that we are on the right path. Grave violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity must be taken seriously, so that the culture of impunity that often hangs over warfare be broken.
Reintegration of former child soldiers
Another area where the international community can help is the field of rehabilitation and reintegration. Reintegrating children affected by war is a major task facing Governments, UN agencies and NGO partners working in the field. The Paris Principles give us a framework on how to reintegrate children associated with armed groups, but these principles are also a guide to reintegrating all children. The call for community-based programming that works with the child, while developing the family and the community in an inclusive manner, must be the starting point for child-based programming. And yet, some children need special attention. Research shows that children who were forced to commit terrible crimes and children who were victims of sexual violence need special care and attention. Girl children often have different needs from boys. Treating children as important individuals while, at the same time, developing the community in a holistic manner, is the only sustainable way forward.
Finally we cannot even begin to speak of the psychological toll that war takes on children. When I was in Gaza, I went to a school and entered a classroom of nine year-old girls, who were drawing in an art class. I moved from one to the other, and then I just looked down at one girl's drawing, Ameena's. She had drawn a house and she explained to me that the two figures in the house were her mother and herself. Above the house there was a mangled object which I gather was a helicopter gunship; to the left of the house there was an imposing looking tank and to the right of the house, a soldier. All these were firing at the home. Her sad, dull eyes on her beautiful face told the rest of the story. Meeting the day to day reality of war is a terrible calling for all of my colleagues working in the field. But rebuilding the shattered lives of children is an even more daunting task; to make them smile again, care again and live with purpose is the challenge of the hour.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Towards Cyberpeace: Managing Cyberwar Through International Cooperation | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/towards-cyberpeace-managing-cyberwar-through-international-cooperation | August 2013, No. 2 Vol. L, Security
The ubiquitous use of information and communication technologies (ICT) serves both as an enabler of growth and innovation as well as the source of asymmetrical cyberthreats. Around the globe, about 2 million people are connected to the Internet, and the use of the Internet and ICT-enabled services is becoming more and more an indispensible part of our everyday lives. With the increasing dependence on ICT and the interlinked nature with critical infrastructure, we have become alarmingly vulnerable to possible disruption and exploitation by malicious cyberactivities.
Malicious cyberactivities have been affecting individuals, private entities, government institutions and non-governmental organizations for years. We have witnessed large-scale cyber-incidents such as in Estonia in 2007, with numerous sophisticated targeted attacks, hacktivism and countless instances of identity theft and malware. Due to the unpredictable nature of cyberthreats, an incident that may appear in the beginning as an act of hacktivism or financially motivated cybercrime may rapidly escalate into something much more serious and reach the threshold of national security, even cyberwar.
Despite the lack of consensus on exactly what constitutes cyberwarfare or cyberterrorism, governments need to ensure that their infrastructure is well protected against different types of cyberthreats and that their legal and policy frameworks would allow to effectively prevent, deter, defend and mitigate possible cyberattacks. Not being able to agree on common definitions of central terms such as “cyberattack” and “cyberwar” should not prevent states from expressing the urgency of preparing their nations for possible cyberincidents.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
The logic of international cooperation and collaboration lies on why, when, and how to collaborate, and generally takes place in order to follow one’s interests or to manage common aversions.1 In the context of cybersecurity, the need for international cooperation between states, international and regional organizations and other entities is emphasized by the borderless and increasingly sophisticated nature of cyberthreats. Principally, any actor, whether it is a country or a non-governmental organization, following its objectives in cybersecurity requires cooperation from a wide range of international partners. In fact, much of the international collaboration will occur outside specific national frameworks, emphasizing the Whole of System approach that stresses the need to take into account all relevant stakeholders.2
Thus, from a national perspective, advancements in cybersecurity depend to a large extent on the political will of different actors. Areas such as information and intelligence sharing and mutual assistance may become essential in responding to a cybercrisis, but the effectiveness of such cooperation depends greatly upon strategically aligned policy goals and bilateral and multilateral relations. In many domains, such as international criminal cooperation, there are several preconditions that need to be in place in the cooperating countries, such as substantive national law as well as procedural law and international agreements, before the dialogue on the possibility of any sort of international cooperation can grow into further discussions on the efficiency of such cooperation.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN CYBERSECURITY
National policies, international agreements as well as other initiatives addressing cybersecurity that are being proposed and launched by different international, regional and national actors may vary considerably in their scope, aim and success, but they all underline the international dimension of cyberspace.
For example, the United Nations First Committee has been actively examining the Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security for years. The African Union has published the Draft African Union Convention on the Establishment of a Credible Legal Framework for Cyber Security in Africa. The European Union (EU) has recently published a Joint Communication on the Cyber Security Strategy of the European Union, which is the first attempt for a comprehensive EU policy document in this domain to reflect the common view on cybersecurity of all its 27 member states.
Even though in recent years the wider debate has intensified on the development of possible norms of behaviour or a set of confidence-building measures in the cybersecurity domain, it should not be forgotten that most of the pressing issues and challenges in areas related to cybersecurity have roots in the adoption and review of national legislation and the implementation of multilaterally agreed principles.
PRINCIPLE DEVELOPMENTS
The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCD COE) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) accredited international military organization that focuses on a range of aspects related to cybersecurity, such as education, analyses, consultation, lessons learned, research and development. Even though the Centre does not belong to the direct command line of NATO, its mission is to enhance the capability, cooperation and information sharing among NATO, NATO nations and partners in cyberdefence.
Determined that international cooperation is key to the successful mitigation of cyberthreats worldwide, the Centre invests not only in broader collaboration with NATO and EU entities but, more specifically, focuses on improving practical cooperation within and among its sponsoring nations by hosting a real time network defence exercise known as Locked Shields. It also participates in many other similar simulations, thereby allowing the participants to put national coordination and cooperation frameworks to practise, and to learn and test the skills needed to fend off a real attack.
Regarding the legal and policy aspects of cybersecurity, NATO CCD COE has identified two main trends. Firstly, a growing number of countries are adopting national cybersecurity strategies and the majority of these documents confirm the role of cybersecurity as a national security priority. To further analyse such a development and the concept of national cybersecurity strategies, the Centre has conducted a comparative study called the National Cyber Security Framework Manual. The research asserts that a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy needs to take into account a number of national stakeholders with various responsibilities in ensuring national cybersecurity. The national stakeholders include critical infrastructure providers, law enforcement agencies, international organizations, computer emergency response teams and entities ensuring internal and external security. Importantly, instead of viewing cybersecurity as a combination of segregated areas or isolated stakeholders, the activities of different subdomains and areas of competence should be coordinated. Secondly, there are ongoing discussions about the applicability of international law to cyberactivities. Whereas it is widely accepted that cyberspace needs to be protected like air, sea and land, and is clearly defined by NATO Strategic Concept as a threat that can possibly reach a threshold setting threatening national and Euro-Atlantic prosperity, security and stability, there are only a few international agreements that would directly address behaviour in cyberspace.
Agreeing on a common stance even in matters regarding well-established norms of customary international law, such as the prohibition of the use of force codified in the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4), together with the two exceptions of self-defence and a resolution by the Security Council, in the context of their applicability to the cyberdomain remains a challenging task for the involved parties.
Therefore, amid the complex legal issues surrounding these debates, in 2009 NATO CCD COE invited an independent International Group of Experts to examine whether existing international law applies to issues regarding cybersecurity and, if so, to what extent. The result of this three-year project, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, focuses on the jus ad bellum, the international law governing the resort to force by states as an instrument of their national policy, and the jus in bello, the international law regulating the conduct of armed conflict. The experts taking part in the project concluded that, in principle, jus ad bellum and jus in bello do apply in the cyber context but this may be altered by state practice. This and other opinions expressed in the Tallinn Manual should not be considered as an official declaration of any state or organization, but rather as the interpretation of the group of individual international experts acting solely in their personal capacity. The Manual does not, however, address cyberactivities that occur below the threshold of a use of force, and for that purpose NATO CCD COE has launched a follow-on three-year project entitled Tallinn 2.0.
In order to prepare nations for possible cyberincidents and ensure a solid ground for international cooperation, both comprehensive national cybersecurity strategies and a common understanding on the applicability of the international law are required.
Even though it has been argued that multilateral treaties are the most practical vehicles for harmonizing national legal systems and aligning the interpretation of existing international law, discussions about moving towards such an agreement on a global level appear to be at a very early stage. Given the current normative ambiguity surrounding international law in the context of cybersecurity, international cooperation between different actors is deemed to be the cornerstone of effective responses to cyberthreats.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and should not be considered as the official policy of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, NATO or any other entity.
Notes
1 Choucri, Nazli. Cyberpolitics in International Relations (MIT Press, 2012), pp. 155-156.
2 Klimburg, Alexander (ed.). National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO CCD COE, 2012).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
HIV/AIDS: Will We Win and When? | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/hivaids-will-we-win-and-when | It is very apt that the evolution of the HIV/AIDS epidemic should be considered in the context of global health. One of the critical aspects of global health as a field of study and practice is that it seeks not only the general improvement of health in the world, but more importantly seeks to reduce the inequalities between peoples -- inequalities that in essence represent inequities. There will be no substantial improvement in global health unless there is concomitant international health in the sense of nations and their component actors working together. Success in addressing the problem of HIV is, and indeed will be, a marvellous test case of the ability of nations to work cooperatively, and the characteristics of the infection bring out clearly the inequities that exist within and between countries, which must be eliminated.But we should pay more attention to the message of the title, which implies that either we win, or lose. A possible interpretation is that it is an "all or none" scenario and the approach used in combating HIV, like so many other diseases, is that of a battle, using military analogy. The implication is that a battle is being fought against the enemy agent and victory will imply the complete vanquishing of the agent. Yet, battles are not chronic: they end in victory for one side and defeat for the other. So far, the history of public health has only one example of a battle won, in the sense of eradicating a disease from the face of the earth: smallpox. The difficulty in eliminating two other viral diseases -- measles and poliomyelitis -- for which there are good tools, must bring some caution to the hope that there can really be an eradication of HIV, although like smallpox there is only a human host. The danger of this approach for many diseases, and particularly for HIV, is that it sets up a scenario in which, unless there is absolute victory, there is the sense of failure. I have been concerned at some of the rhetoric which implies that the efforts to control the HIV epidemic are a failure. They are not.The best way to evaluate the progress against the spread of HIV/AIDS is through examining various milestones and specific targets, demonstrating that they are being achieved. Preventing mother-to-child transmission is an example of a target that is eminently achievable, as has been shown, for instance, in some countries in the Caribbean. In this region as a whole, prevention rates of transmission from mother to child have moved from 22 per cent in 2003 to 52 per cent in 2008, with countries committing to reducing this form of transmission to less than 5 per cent by 2015. The elimination of HIV transmission through blood and blood products in the Caribbean is another simple but specific example of a target met. Coverage with antiretroviral therapy, which was about 1 per cent in 2003, has increased to 51 per cent in 2008. Perhaps the most critical indicator of progress has been the possibility of prolonging the life of AIDS patients. As Dr. Anthony Fauci, a renowned immunologist from the United States who has made substantial contributions to research in the areas of AIDS, puts it: "In the period since HIV emerged, we went from a twenty-six week lifespan to a forty-year lifespan."Much of the focus on winning has arisen from the possibility of creating an effective vaccine that would prevent infection. Some of the euphoria about a possible vaccine is no doubt based on the hope that by chemical means, human beings could be relieved from the need for responsible action in sexual relations. Sex would then be "safe". This would be somewhat analogous to the liberation that attended the availability of the birth control pill. An effective vaccine has not materialized yet and the prospects appear to be remote. Given the oft repeated numbers that for every person placed on antiretroviral drugs there are six new infections, and the inescapable fact that the potential treatment pool continues to increase, the possibility of control -- rather than winning immediately -- will depend on the application of effective preventive measures. Winning and losing will have to be established in relation to the degree of application of the preventive measures, even if they are imperfect, and even if the science of prevention is not glamorous nor its funding secure.But there is tremendous enthusiasm among HIV health workers that feasible prevention targets can be established and achieved in the short and medium term, and that the continuum of prevention, treatment, care, and support is more than a slogan. But if this continuum is going to be effective, then there has to be more concerted international action, and the acceptance that no one aspect of the continuum is intrinsically more important than another.An international consortium of partners, called aids2031, analyses the possible scenarios that may occur from now until 2031, marking fifty years since the first report of HIV/AIDS. It paints a sombre but realistic picture of what is necessary to face the HIV epidemic. There will be need for more funding, for newer antiretroviral drugs, for the wide application of those preventive measures that are known to be effective, such as condom use and male circumcision. There will be need to advocate more vigorously for the human rights of persons with HIV, and to reduce the stigma and discrimination that attend the infection. It will be critical that we not bow to the tyranny of numbers. These are daunting, but not impossible tasks, for a world which has shown its power for good or evil through cooperative action.Thus, I would suggest that our "victories" may be small and incremental, but the categorization and management of HIV infection as just another chronic illness will certainly take place soon, and this may be the win we will celebrate in the not too distant future.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Sustainable Development Goals and a Substantial Reduction in Illicit Arms Flows | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/sustainable-development-goals-and-substantial-reduction-illicit-arms-flows | A substantial reduction in the illicit financial arms flows is another benchmark in achieving shared goals of global agendas of disarmament and development for dealing with the changing threats to international peace and security. Underdevelopment, maldevelopment and lack of development is a non-military threat to international peace and security in the disarmament agenda for diversion of additional assets from military to non-military investments to narrow the gap between the developed and developing countries. Without a measurable reduction in its global burden, a growing threat of armed violence is a major obstacle for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 as it was for the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
For achieving measurable reductions SDG 16 target 4 is committed to “significantly reduce illicit financial arms flows, and strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets”. That wording endorses the disarmament agenda’s bifocal concentration on return and recovery (R&R) of a subcategory of weapons used as primary tools of armed violence and on illicit traffic as the major mode of their unauthorized acquisition. The development agenda’s addition of stolen assets to R&R and focus on the financial dimension of illicit arms flows widens the resource base for meeting the target by 2030 with measurable benchmarks.
Customarily, an arrival at a benchmark is preceded by a baseline assessment. For SDG 16 target 4 several benchmarks were reached prior to 2015, both in the return and recovery of more of the weapons in unaccounted circulation and in collecting broader-based information for installing new instruments to monitor illicit arms flows. Including but not confined to those led by the United Nations, bulleted below are some benchmarks reached by 2018:
United Nations-led installation of multiple instruments to monitor and report official arms transfers.
United Nations establishment of a coordinating mechanism for system-wide activities on small arms.
United Nations programme of action to curb illicit arms traffic with situation specific incentive packages for return and recovery of weapons in unaccounted circulation.
United Nations determination of indicators of trends in supply and demand of illicit arms flows.
United Nations-made estimates of inventories, sources and modes of procurement for the weapons recovered through disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation of former combatants.
Private sector’s calculations of the direct financial loss to global economy due to illicit arms flows by itself and as linked with illicit trafficking of drugs, precious metals and humans.
Multinational development institutions’ tabulation of the indirect human costs of armed violence through internal displacement and outflow of refugees.
A more proactive role in violence prevention by the global civil society with an exponential increase in the number of its cross-sectoral participants to protest against the human casualties of armed violence in conflict and non-conflict settings.
Predated by post-conflict operations for Disarmament, Demobilization and Rehabilitation (DDR) of former combatants, the R&R of weapons from conflict and non-conflict settings is an ongoing measure of practical disarmament in pursuit of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (POA) since 2001. In addition to those surrendered for DDR and recovered by the POA, more weapons were also returned to or confiscated recently by national law enforcement and crime prevention agencies in response to public protests against increased firearm shootings outside conflict settings. A conservative estimate in post-conflict and conflict settings for the last decade and half is an average R&R of over 50,000 weapons a year. With a rate of each R&R varying between as low as 3 and as high as 57,000 so far the number of weapons available for illicit arms flows would need to be revised downwards as a percentage of the weapons in unaccounted circulation worldwide by nearly 1.4 million in 2030.
The addition of a financial dimension to illicit arms flows in SDG 16 target 4 enables faster detection of origins and choking points already monitored by functioning mechanisms for curbing organized crime, illicit trade and money laundering. To stem the links between human, drug and arms trafficking, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is training law enforcement personnel in investigating such activities within and across some regions. In an operation to combat illegal drugs and weapons for organized crime that was led by the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), 422 arrests were made in 10 days with participants from 35 countries in Central America and the Caribbean. Movement of money and capital from one country to another are under a closer scrutiny for money laundering by bankers and others private investors affected by an annual loss of $1 trillion to global economy due to illicit financial transactions of which $1 billion is calculated as resulting from illicit arms flows.
Compared with a calculated baseline of the value of assets stolen by illicit financial arms flows, estimates of the number of weapons in the supply line for illicit transfers continue to be essentially an exercise of running in place to discover what is intended to remain hidden. Situation specific data, anecdotal information and methodologically impeccable estimates leave room for unpredictable swelling of supply lines for which over 95 per cent of the weapons still originate with authorized manufacturing by over 1000 companies in 100 countries worldwide. To avoid the long-distance transport costs for returning and storage back home, some departing external powers just abandon in situ what they used or armed the local militias and armed forces with. Private manufacturing of crudely assembled weapons and ammunition in backyards goes through upward spikes for self-defense and illicit barters of human, drug and arms traffic in some conflict-prone sub-regions. Countries en route to locations of armed conflicts keep stumbling upon stocks of usable and dysfunctional weapons that they never bought or transported. Coastal countries hiring private security guards during the peak of maritime piracy have yet to get rid of all the weapons left in their storage for use elsewhere in return for concessional rates for protecting their commercial liners. Of the three authorized categories for buyers of all manufactured weapons, registered civilians account for more than the combined total bought by the other two that do not provide public information of what and how many they buy i.e. the armed forces and law enforcement agencies. Among those bought by all three but filling the illicit arms flows are a category of easy to conceal and carry weapons (CCWs) that is popularly known as the real weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for the death and destruction they can inflict. There are enough of these CCWs in unaccounted circulation to fight low-intensity warfare for two decades with sufficient ammunitions and improvised explosives to destroy the world twice over.
Every single country in the world is a partner in the legitimate acquisition of CCWs through domestic manufacturers or authorized arms trade because half of all the countries in the world still rely solely on arms imports while a quarter of those that manufacture domestically also come among the top importers of arms. An early detection of one or more points of diversion would go a long way in following the most frequently relied routes for illicit arms flows of CCWs. The possibility of doing so showed up in the situation room of the Ammunitions and Explosives Unit of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) through a world map with 50 dots across four of the five continents to chart the transit route of a single illicit flow of arms. Intelligence agencies in Central America routinely find children with no criminal intent but travelling through secluded ravines and crowded markets for carrying harmless parts of different weapons bought by multiple buyers for assembly before being put in the supply line.
Limitations on a baseline data about the number of illicit arms flows notwithstanding, there are greater possibilities of substantial reductions for SDG 16 target 4 in 2018 as compared to 2015. Hitting the target in 2030 would be an occasion for a relay of a global torch lit by bonfires in each of the countries that participate in bringing about those reductions. Induced or voluntary, each bonfire would symbolize a highpoint in benchmark convergence of global agendas for disarmament and development with more proactive participation by the global civil society.
Registering a twentyfold increase in its number and a tripling in the number of countries of origin in a decade, the global civil society occupies the largest ever space now between the family and the state as the basic unit of governance. International financial and developmental institutions are encouraging the global civil society to become its own chartered accountant with the heaviest stakes in preventing armed violence. With armed conflicts changing fast from inter to intrastate, to State vs. non-State actors to societies at war with themselves, up to 90 per cent of the lives lost now to armed violence are those of civilians. A more proactive accountancy role for the global civil society carries with it a responsibility to reduce the engagement of un-civil society in illicit financial arms flows and illegitimate use of CCWs. From lone wolves to martyrs looking for a cause to fight for, uncivil society also includes fence sitters. With protection measures for whistle-blowers and amnesty for wavering offenders, some may be induced to jump fence to escape self-destruction by a 2 per cent increase in suicide rates for users of CCWs to harm, displace and kill the civil society.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Applying the Law of the Sea to Protect International Shipping | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/applying-law-sea-protect-international-shipping | 28 February 2024
In recent decades, global shipping—carrier of 80 per cent of world trade—has faced numerous threats that challenge the long-established right to freedom of navigation for all merchant ships. Piracy, hijackings, armed robbery, regional conflict and the COVID-19 pandemic have put seafarers’ lives and well-being at risk—and, by extension, threatened to disrupt world trade and supply chains. More recently, a new danger to international shipping has emerged: uncrewed aerial devices aimed at ships that are simply going about their lawful business.
The world’s nearly 2 million seafarers are trained to operate ships safely, ensure protection of the marine environment and respond to emergencies on board. This is part and parcel of operating a ship in normal circumstances, responding to the perils of the sea, extreme weather and anticipated issues, such as engine breakdown. Yet the examples listed above point to wider menaces beyond routine ship operation. Seafarers become innocent victims, collateral damage in a bigger picture, in which global supply chains are imperilled and the spectre of a major casualty with loss of life and harm to the marine environment looms large.
Since November 2023, the Red Sea area—a key strategic shipping lane, gated by critical chokepoints at the Gulf of Suez and the Tiran and Bab-al-Mandab Straits—has seen numerous attempted and successful attacks by uncrewed aerial devices on international shipping.
On 26 January 2024, the maritime community and the world watched with horror as the tanker Marlin Luanda, carrying flammable naphtha in the Gulf of Aden, was struck by an uncrewed aerial device, causing an explosion and fire on board. Fortunately, the crew, supported by French and Indian naval assets in the locality, were able to extinguish the fire after several long hours, without casualties.
On 19 November 2023, the Bahamas-flagged, Japanese-chartered car carrier MV Galaxy Leader and its multinational crew were seized in the Red Sea in a horrifying helicopter raid later seen in videos that were shared on social media and news platforms. At the time of writing (February 2024), the crew members, including nationals from Bulgaria, Mexico, the Philippines, Romania and Ukraine, were still being held hostage. They must be released immediately. Seafarers are innocent victims—they are key workers, with families to support.
In 2023, 15 per cent of international shipping traffic passed through the Suez Canal. The Canal and the Red Sea remain open, but trade volume going through the Canal has fallen by 42 per cent over the last two months.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the United Nations specialized agency tasked with ensuring safety at sea, the prevention of marine and air pollution from ships, the efficiency of shipping and maritime security. As IMO Secretary-General, I have underscored the paramount importance of protecting seafarers’ lives. I continue to call for the de-escalation of tensions and the preservation of freedom of navigation of ships in the Red Sea area.
In 2023, 15 per cent of international shipping traffic passed through the Suez Canal. The Canal and the Red Sea remain open, but trade volume going through the Canal has fallen by 42 per cent over the last two months, according to estimates by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Given the risk of attacks, many shipping lines have opted to take a longer route via the southern tip of South Africa. Some 540 container ships have been rerouted. Shipping is resilient and adapts, but closing an entire strategic shipping lane is not an option, since local ports and populations need shipping as well.
Legal framework
On 10 January 2024, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2722 (2024) condemning attacks by the Houthis on merchant and commercial vessels; affirming the importance of the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms of merchant and commercial vessels of all States in the Red Sea; and taking note of the right of Member States, in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms.
International law, and in particular the law of the sea and relevant international maritime conventions (i.e., those adopted under the auspices of IMO), provide the legal framework applicable to the situation in the Red Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allocates the rights and obligations of States with respect to maritime zones under their jurisdiction. The Red Sea is a semi-enclosed sea within the definition of Part IX of the Convention, being surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea by a narrow outlet, and also by virtue of consisting entirely of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States.
Given this configuration and the presence of key outlets at its northwestern and southeastern areas, which provide access to the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, different passage regimes apply to ships navigating the Red Sea: innocent passage in territorial sea areas, transit passage in straits used for international navigation, and freedom of navigation in exclusive economic zones (EEZ) are governed in Parts II, III and V of UNCLOS. Consistent with resolution 2722 (2024), the exercise of these rights and freedoms, especially for commercial vessels that are not used for governmental purposes and bear no warfighting functions, must be safeguarded.
Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). International Maritime Organization While UNCLOS primarily addresses itself to States parties and not, strictly speaking, to non-State armed groups, the Convention sets out the framework for investigative and enforcement action by States with respect to acts inconsistent with the applicable regimes of passage or which relate to criminal activity. As UNCLOS is a peacetime framework convention, other legal questions, such those concerning the right of self-defence at sea, may be addressed by general international law, international humanitarian law or the law of naval warfare.
Complementary to the law of the sea and operating under its framework are several conventions that have been adopted under the auspices of IMO, such as the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (the SUA Convention) and its 2005 Protocol. The SUA Convention provides a basis for States to establish jurisdiction over acts of terrorism at sea, including, among others, the seizure of a ship by force or intimidation, and damage to ships from acts of violence against persons on board that likely endanger the safe navigation of such ships. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) includes maritime security provisions, notably the mandatory application of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which provides for ships and port facilities to have in place security plans approved by the flag State or national Administration and applied at varying levels of security threat risk, which is set by the national authorities for the ports and by the flag States for ships.
Practical measures that ships can apply to ward off piracy threats and armed robbers are outlined in guidance known as “Best Management Practices”, circulated by IMO. These are especially relevant in the light of recent reports on the resurgence of piracy in the Red Sea, with actors taking advantage of the current volatile security situation.
Protecting lawful navigation by international shipping in strategic sea lanes requires concerted action.
In past decades, IMO has worked successfully with Member States and the shipping industry to combat and reduce incidents of piracy and armed robbery, including through building the capacity of countries in the relevant regions to enhance their maritime domain awareness, information-sharing and collaboration. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP), formalized in 2004, was established in response to increased occurrences of maritime piracy incidents in the Asian region and has served as a successful model of cooperation. IMO also supports Gulf of Guinea States in west and central Africa to boost their capacities to mitigate piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, through the framework established in the Yaoundé Code of Conduct.
IMO continues to support the implementation of the Djibouti Code of Conduct (DCoC), adopted in 2009 to counter the threat of piracy and armed robbery against ships in the Western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden—in particular to respond to piracy off the coast of Somalia. As incidents of piracy near Somalia fell from their peak in 2011, countries adopted the Jeddah Amendment, which expanded the Code’s remit to address broader maritime security threats and tackle root causes. The 20 regional signatory States, including countries bordering the Red Sea, share a network of Information Sharing Centres. Maritime domain awareness (MDA) has been enhanced and thousands of people in government administrations have benefited from regional maritime security training. With the ongoing conflict-related attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea area, the DCoC forum plays a critical role in bringing States together to ensure freedom of navigation and protection of seafarers, cargoes and ships, to maintain global supply chains.
Protecting lawful navigation by international shipping in strategic sea lanes requires concerted action. The deployment of missiles and drones aimed at international shipping represents a new, alarming threat that we must work together to address. Ultimately, in the Red Sea, we need a cessation of hostile activity that targets innocent seafarers. And we need regional and international efforts for peaceful resolution.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Industrial and Rural Energy in China: Innovative Private-Sector Initiatives Lead the Way | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/industrial-and-rural-energy-china-innovative-private-sector-initiatives-lead-way | From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", June 2007China's massive industrial sector is an economic juggernaut, helping to drive national gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates of around 10 per cent per year. But while the country's highly productive factories and plants may be boosting national prosperity, their rapid expansion carries with it a serious environmental burden and costly energy inefficiencies that are increasingly becoming a barrier to China's sustainable development, thus contributing to climate change.As Wang Yanjia, a scholar at Tshingua University, pointed out in his presentation at an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) event in 2006, national industrial expansion has become a mixed blessing for China. On the one hand, industry accounts for nearly half of its GDP, with revenue increasingly being generated by the private sector, which is nurtured by State policies, shifting toward a market-based economy. On the other hand, the industrial sector is responsible for about 70 per cent of national energy consumption and 61 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions, rapidly becoming a major contributor to global warming. It may not be prudent to suggest that China should curb its industrial growth entirely, simply that one adverse by-product of the growth of energy-intensive industries, particularly during the tenth "five-year plan", has not been matched by a necessary improvement in energy efficiency of those industries. While there has been improvement in the past, technology used by China's major industries still lags behind in efficiency standards compared to more advanced technology being used in other countries.Fortunately, the Government has acknowledged the capital wasted on such inefficiencies and the dubious honour of being the second greatest emitter of energy-related carbon emissions in the world as an issue to be addressed.Entrepreneurial VisionChina's rising entrepreneurial class is taking up the challenge to meet energy efficiency goals laid out in the most recent five-year plan, such as the target of reducing energy consumption by 20 per cent per unit of GDP. Entrepreneurs in the energy-related sectors, especially in thermal energy, are pushing for groundbreaking and profitable innovations that promise to help control the country's ravenous industrial energy consumption while maintaining, or even increasing, high levels of output.Beijing Shenwu Thermal Energy Technology Company, founded in 1999 by Wu Dao Hong, is a prominent example of the success entrepreneurs are finding in implementing business models that combine environmental and economic goals. It manufactures equipment that reduces industrial fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions. In addition, the company generates major energy and cost savings for its clients in the steel, petroleum, chemical and other sectors. Shenwu utilizes a proprietary patented combustion technology that the World Bank has recognized as one of the world's best energy-saving solutions. Its products, based on high temperature air combustion and other technologies, reduce energy consumption by 30 to 60 per cent while increasing output by 10 per cent -- a competitive edge that has generated over $50 million per year in revenues. The technology also reduces carbon emissions by 30 per cent, ensuring the company's long-term viability in a carbon-constrained economy.The fact that Shenwu was the first Chinese company to be listed on the Chicago Climate Exchange shows the new direction the industrial sector is taking. The success the company is experiencing speaks volumes to the value energy-sector entrepreneurs are finding in an approach that lowers burdensome energy costs, while reducing carbon emissions and contributing to environmental benefits. As the Government wisely pursues sustainable development goals alongside industrial growth, public officials seem intent on increasing support for companies that seek to fulfil the demand for industrial energy efficiency.Rural EnergyMore than 25 years ago, Hao Zheng Yi had the foresight to recognize the formation of a large untapped market for clean-energy services in rural China. Statistics from the World Energy Council show that in 1970, not long before Mr. Hao founded Yunnan Zhenghong Environmental Protection Co., less than half of China's rural population had access to electricity. Since then, electrification projects and sweeping government policies have come quite a distance to fill this daunting gap. Still, the fact that around one fifth of China's rural population still lacks access to electricity is a testament to the inadequacy of public-sector projects and programmes alone in addressing the energy needs of underserved rural households.The challenges that this unmet need poses in terms of lowered productivity and environmental damage become apparent when one observes the reality of life for families in regions like Yunnan. Insufficient infrastructure has forced the province's 8.7 million agriculture-based households to depend largely on wood and straw burned in conventional ovens for heating and cooking. These resources, while inexpensive and locally available, release harmful pollutants, provide a low level of thermal efficiency and are known to cause serious long-term health problems. Mr. Hao's pioneering design for a sustainable heating and cooking stove, based on cleaner and more effective technology, shows how vital private-sector solutions are in supplementing government efforts to address environmental and social challenges.The Efficient Gasification Burning system used by Zhenghong ovens is a hybrid design that utilizes traditional fuel and natural gas sources, incorporating five patented technologies that allow the end-user to improve efficiency and reduce capital costs -- ideal for low-income consumers in rural areas. While these cleaner substitutes for conventional ovens are beneficial to communities, entrepreneurs are also attracted to the market for rural clean energy services by the untapped profit potential to be discovered. A World Resources Institute's report, The Next Four Billion, identifies a purchasing power parity of $350 billion in the energy market among "Base of the Pyramid" consumers in Asia. The success of Zhenghong ovens proves the value low-income consumers place on clean energy services; more than 50,000 high-efficiency Zhenghong ranges have been sold in Yunnan Province alone.The added benefit of private-sector energy initiatives is that, in order to be successful, entrepreneurs must create marketable products by engaging underserved communities in a participatory fashion. Zhenghong has been exemplary in this area as well, working directly with local farmers in the oven design phase to obtain proper feedback and ensure that the final product minimizes energy costs for agriculture-based families. As a result, Zhenghong ovens run for five to eight years on the amount of wood and hay that traditional ovens consume in one year.As long as there remains a substantial gap in clean energy access for rural families in China, enterprises like Zhenghong will find a compelling market opportunity even among the poorest consumers. By marketing energy-related services that the Government does not have the capacity to provide, businesses will continue to tap into the blended value proposition of market-based solutions, which combine profit-making with poverty relief and environmental protection. The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Achieving Zero New Victims of Landmines | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/achieving-zero-new-victims-landmines | As we think about how to reduce and eliminate new victims of landmines, we are reminded of the remarkable advances during the evolution of mine action work which began with the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan in 1989. Our determination to live in a world free from the threat of landmines and explosive remnants of war is fortified, as we remember those lost and those affected. It is my fervent hope that a world with zero new victims of landmines will become a reality in my lifetime.
Mine action activities make a considerable strategic contribution to lasting peace in post-conflict situations. The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), was established in 1997 as the United Nations focal point for mine-related actions through an amalgamation of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) Demining Unit and the Mine Clearance and Policy Unit (MCPU) of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA). UNMAS is now located in DPKO's Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions. Last year, over 200,000 landmines were cleared around the world. In Afghanistan alone, over 82,000 anti-personnel mines were removed during 2008 by over 8,000 national staff. Meanwhile, to date in the Sudan, collective efforts have cleared over 28,000 kilometres of road, thereby increasing freedom of movement, reclaiming productive land and reviving trade.
However, there are still formidable challenges: landmines continue to kill and injure every day, hinder social and economic development, and represent a serious obstacle for delivering humanitarian aid in critical areas of the world. UNMAS will continue to work with agility and determination, until we put our operations out of business. Until this happens the mine action sector will continue to navigate new terrain, adjust to new ideas and remain vigilant to face the challenge of ever-changing methods of warfare.
To achieve our goal of zero new victims of landmines, two key areas must be targeted: local communities and national Governments. The ownership of mine action operations by national Governments and the strength of the partnerships they build with donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), humanitarian agencies and local communities is crucial. The United Nations plays an immediate catalytic role in the coordination of global mine action efforts. I am convinced that mine action operations, particularly those which are nationally managed and run, build confidence among the population and Government in the context of peacekeeping, and foster additional programmes to ensure the successful rebuilding of post-conflict States.
National Ownership
Mine action is ultimately the responsibility of individual national governmental authorities. It must therefore be integrated into national reconstruction and development plans at the earliest opportunity. In countries affected by explosive remnants of war, landmine removal is a necessary precursor to post-conflict reconstruction and development. This is also why transitioning UN-led operations into sustainable national operations is a critical element of our work.
Fostering local ownership of mine action operations is a continuing challenge, which is why the transition to national ownership is a key component of the United Nations inter-agency mine action strategy for 2006-2010. Having had success in Croatia and Afghanistan, UNMAS is currently in the process of transition in the Sudan.
Strength of Partnerships
Mine Action Coordination Centres are frequently cultivated under the direct auspices of local authorities. Our role at the United Nations is to provide assistance at the local levels and to support international cooperation. Strengthening local capacity will ensure the sustainability of the operations at the national level. Local NGOs have proven time and again how vital they are to mine action efforts in countries such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan. The United Nations could not presume to achieve a forward agenda without the cooperation of the broader international community. After all, it was civil society and forward-thinking countries such as Canada and Norway, that led the way to the Ottawa Convention. Non-governmental organizations and the mine-affected countries are doing much of the work and continue to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for achieving a mine-free world. Although we have a vision for what the future should look like and a plan for doing our own part to get there, we rely on all of them to lead the way. The strength of these partnerships at the national level also creates a solid foundation for coordinating the global response to mine action.
United Nations Coordination
Over the past 12 years, UNMAS has managed unprecedented coordination through the Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Mine Action (IACG-MA). In 1998, the General Assembly welcomed the establishment of UNMAS in its role as a system-wide focal point and "its ongoing coordination with and coordination of all mine-related activities of United Nations agencies, funds, and programmes."[1] That endorsement has been consistently reiterated in subsequent resolutions. In one of the first major tasks as a focal point, UNMAS coordinated the development of the 2005 policy document "Mine Action and Effective Coordination: The United Nations Inter-Agency Policy", which was intended to provide overarching policy guidance and to delineate responsibilities amongst the 14 UN departments, agencies, funds and programmes involved in the sector. The policy also identified five key pillars within mine action: advocacy, mine risk education, stockpile destruction, victim assistance and mine clearance. This policy was subsequently updated in 2005. UNMAS has also coordinated the development of two five-year strategies covering the periods 2001-2005 and 2006-2010.
Since the initial Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan in 1989, the United Nations has been involved in humanitarian mine action in many countries. In the early 1990s, mine action activities were an integral component of UN Peacekeeping Operations in Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique. By the mid-90s, a number of countries reached a consensus about the global scale of landmine threats and a broad coalition of civil society actors formed the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). This resulted in the adoption of the landmark Ottawa Convention in 1997, ICBL's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, and a transformation to a friendlier landscape in which UNMAS operates. As 1 March 2009 marked the twelfth anniversary of the APMBT, targeted advocacy efforts are required to ensure the Treaty's further implementation.
In addition to dealing with the anti-personnel mine problem, UNMAS operations address the threat posed by anti-vehicle mines, other explosive remnants of war, and the needs of survivors requiring assistance long after clearance has been completed. Since 2002, UNMAS has lobbied intensively for legally binding instruments that address these issues: Protocol V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), the first multilaterally negotiated instrument to deal with unexploded and abandoned ordnances, entered into force in 2006. More recently, 98 States signed, and 10 of those ratified the new Cluster Munitions Convention (CMC), which opened for signature in Oslo on 3 December 2008. The Convention prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions and further addresses topics such as assistance to victims, clearance of contaminated areas and destruction of stockpiles. As the DPKO focal point for the Inter-Agency Support Group for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNMAS closely followed the Convention enter into force on 3 May 2008 and is starting to integrate it into its work at United Nations Headquarters and in the field. These new instruments will reinforce the overarching legal framework under which UNMAS operates.
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of DPKO and Department of Political Affairs (DPA)-led operations with mine action components as either specified or implied tasks within the mandate. UNMAS currently provides direct support and assistance to ten peacekeeping missions, and technical advice to an additional four. In these operations, UNMAS is dealing with the full gamut of mine action activities, including assistance to countries with legacy problems from long-term conflict situations, such as Afghanistan, the Sudan and Western Sahara; the implementation of victim assistance programmes, such as in the Sudan; the destruction of ammunition stockpiles and caches, as carried out in Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo; the clearance of routes and other essential infrastructure, as in the Sudan, Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo; large-scale explosive remnants of war contamination, for example in Chad, Lebanon and Western Sahara; and the destruction of explosive remnants of war as an essential element of a peace settlement, as performed in Nepal. These examples highlight the range of activities and the number of players involved in the mine action sector. They also underscore the fact that coordination is a prerequisite to the effective implementation of mine action operations at the country level.
The Way Forward
As mine action moves forward, opportunities present themselves to enhance the role that UNMAS and its partners can play in supporting existing processes, as well as emerging issues that are of concern to the mine action community. UNMAS will continue to hone its strategies and programmes to maximize the impact of its work. Transitioning mine action operations to national ownership will improve its integration both within and beyond the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and facilitate the development of a coherent inter-agency policy. Each of these elements will play a key role in advancing our vision of a world where individuals and communities live in a safe environment conducive to development, where the needs of victims are met and where survivors are fully integrated into their societies.
My line of work is one that too infrequently makes the evening news headlines. However, it is work that is essential to the daily lives of millions of people around the world who rely on our efforts to remove landmines and explosive remnants of war, so they can safely walk their children to school in Kabul, Afghanistan or transport their crops to markets on mine-free roads in El Fasher, the Sudan.
The events of the last two decades have not resolved, but have sharpened the challenges for mine action operations. These global challenges affect millions of people in nearly 80 countries who still live in daily fear of landmines and explosive remnants of war. As the worldwide mine action community evolves to address the continued challenges posed by these munitions, UNMAS will respond with appropriate alacrity. The active participation and support of national authorities and local and international NGOs is the only way to truly attain the goal of zero new landmine victims. Such a global challenge demands a global response, agreed and coordinated through this most universal of institutions, the United Nations.
NOTE[1] A/Res/62 (1999)
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Goal 6—Rising to the Challenge: Enabling Access to Clean and Safe Water Globally | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-6-rising-challenge-enabling-access-clean-and-safe-water-globally | April 2015, No. 4 Vol. LI, Beyond 2015
Access to clean, safe and secure water resources is an essential prerequisite for communities to prosper. While access to water and sanitation is often taken for granted in developed countries, this basic right is denied to many across the globe every day.
Sustainable development goal (SDG) 6, as formulated by the United Nations Open Working Group, presents an ambitious, yet achievable mission for the next two decades: “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” We propose that this goal can be achieved by applying four principles: 1) Separating drinking water from wastewater; 2) Accessing and treating drinking water to remove chemical and biological contaminants; 3) Protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems; and 4) Guaranteeing water access and water rights.
1. Separating drinking water from wastewater
Historically, the single biggest factor contributing to the increased longevity of humans was the separation of drinking water from wastewater. Building sanitary infrastructure has enabled communities—and in turn, economies—to flourish, free from the burden of waterborne disease. Yet, today a staggering 1 billion people still do not have access to improved sanitation, in spite of the fact that it would reduce disease and infant mortality. There are many examples of successful sanitation projects in the developing world when financial resources and engineering are available. They demonstrate that it is possible to separate water for drinking from wastewater in regions that traditionally have lacked this infrastructure. Although many challenges remain to ensuring adequate sanitation for all, building sanitary infrastructure is a critical step needed to achieve SDG 6.
2. Accessing and treating drinking water
Having water available at home or within short distances obviates the need to cart it from other sources, often over long distances. A direct result of greater water accessibility is a substantial increase in time available for productive work, attending school, developing a business, or raising a family. This is particularly relevant for women and children who spend significant time gaining access to water when it is not piped to their home. Ultimately, water will require treatment before drinking, but this challenge can be overcome with adequate resources for filtration and disinfection. In particular, point-of-use devices that are robust, reliable, require low maintenance and are widely available are needed to enable treatment for small drinking water systems. In tandem with principle 1 above, this will ensure there are multiple barriers to pathogens, offering greater protection to consumers.
3. Protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems
We must also be cognizant of the relationship between ecosystem well-being and human health. Most of the world’s fresh waters have already been degraded due to unsustainable withdrawal, contaminants, climate change, nutrient pollution (eutrophication), and other human activities. The net result of human misuse and mismanagement of fresh waters is decreased water quality and inadequate quantity for consumption. Preserving and enhancing the ecological integrity of our freshwater lakes, rivers, wetlands and groundwater is critical for ensuring that pollutants and pathogens do not contaminate drinking water supplies. Functioning freshwater ecosystems have many built-in mechanisms that help naturally clean water that we need for drinking (e.g. riparian buffers that absorb stormwater run-off). As with principles 1 and 2 above, developing sanitary infrastructure is pivotal for protecting fresh waters from eutrophication, which is one of the greatest challenges to functioning freshwater ecosystems. Balancing the maintenance of natural capital and the provision of ecosystem services with development and increased productivity is the key to ensuring the future sustainability of our water resources.
4. Guaranteeing water access and water rights
Economic development inevitably requires water resources. However, it is imperative that planners and Governments are considerate of the needs of diverse water users, including communities, agriculture, industry, mining and the environment. All development and land use changes have consequences. For example, land clearing will alter river flows, increasing the risk of flooding. Similarly, deforestation will decrease evapotranspiration, reducing precipitation needed for agriculture downwind. As the need for water for agriculture and industry increases, it is critical that we develop water-sharing agreements to ensure equitable access for all water users, including the environment. These agreements will require negotiations across local, regional and national boundaries and must include participants representing all stakeholders, such as community and industry leaders, and scientists. While these discussions may be difficult, they are not impossible and will help ensure adequate water access for all.
Implementing the United Nations Post-2015 Development Agenda
Tremendous progress has already been made towards meeting SDG 6. As nations have become more prosperous, they have undertaken sanitation and drinking water improvement programmes. Nevertheless, the astonishing statistics regarding the number of people who still lack sanitation and access to safe drinking water emphasizes that this problem remains one of the greatest humanitarian challenges.
Leadership is required at every level to implement water reform: within the household, within municipalities and within Governments. The solutions for supplying potable water and sanitation vary depending upon the available resources, the size of the communities and the scale of the desired improvement. We advocate both “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. Top-down water quality improvement and water allocation may appear as an imposition, but are often accompanied with more resources and provide the legislative framework necessary for sustainable development. “Bottom-up” improvement is also desirable as communities take responsibility and stewardship for the water resources and land for which they are custodians.
Education is the common prerequisite for water quality improvement. In developing nations, educating women and children in every household on the benefits of hygiene and sanitation is a fundamental first step for building awareness and implementing change. Advancing water quality in villages, towns and cities requires engineering, but also understanding of the close links between water quality and quantity, and land management. In developed nations with more advanced water treatment infrastructure, the educational focus should be on improving water sustainability and developing policies required for water reform.
Human water use across the globe is coupled with social and natural systems, both by the globalized economy, trade and capital, as well as by the global water cycle and climate systems. Therefore, local and regional water use cannot be managed in isolation. The responsibility of developed nations is not just to provide financial aid, but also to assist developing countries in building human capital with the skills necessary to improve water quality and sanitation. Developed nations can help research and advance new water treatment technologies, providing sustainable solutions for water management. Investment of time and resources to the development of low-cost, robust and reliable point-of-use devices is urgently needed.
Water reform needs to address the protection of water quality through prudent land management and the allocation of water between different users. Equitably sharing water resources between human consumers, the environment, industry, and agriculture is complex and requires strong water governance and policy so that the needs of both upstream and downstream users are met. This is further complicated by the fact that rivers flow across local, regional and national boundaries. Integrated water-trading markets are one tool that enables water to be bought and sold as a tradable commodity. This practice, however, does not consider water for the environment, which needs protection through policy and legislation.
Conclusion
Water sustains life, but clean, safe drinking water defines civilization. Achieving SDG 6 promises dramatic improvement to the quality of life and longevity in some of the world’s poorest nations. If we declare that access to clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right, then providing the necessary education, infrastructure and support to ensure the success in achieving SDG 6 is the responsibility of us all.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Goal 12—Ensuring Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns: An Essential Requirement for Sustainable Development | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-12-ensuring-sustainable-consumption-and-production-patterns-essential-requirement-sustainable | April 2015, No. 4 Vol. LI, Beyond 2015
Goal 12 of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) proposed by the Open Working Group (OWG) of the General Assembly of the United Nations is aiming at ensuring sustainable consumption and production (SCP) patterns. Why is this an imperative for sustainable development?
The Importance of SCP
By 2050, the world population will reach 9.5 billion,1 70 per cent of which will live in resource-intensive urban areas. Three billion middle class consumers will join the global economy by 2040. While the global poverty line of US $1.25 a day in 2010 was less than half the 1990 rate, 1.2 billion people are still living in extreme poverty.2 To respond to these challenges within the carrying capacity of the Earth system, the adoption of sustainable patterns of consumption and production is an imperative, as it conserves through resource efficiency the basis for future development.
This has been a consistent message from the international community since 2002. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), and “The future we want” outcome document of the Rio+20 Conference in 2012, both recognized that “poverty eradication, changing unsustainable and promoting sustainable patterns of consumption and production and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development are t he overarching objectives of and essential requirements for sustainable development”.3
Today, the inclusion of SDG 12 in the proposed SDGs recognizes the essential and cross-cutting role of SCP in sustainable development. Targets in 12 of the other SDGs are also oriented towards the achievement of SCP patterns.
The High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, commissioned by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2013, designated SCP as one of the four key areas on which progress is needed to achieve their post-2015 vision: “to end extreme poverty in all its forms…and to have in place the building blocks of sustained prosperity for all”.4 The High-level Panel recognizes that transforming economies for jobs and inclusive growth requires a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production.5 The Panel found that the world’s consumption and production patterns need to be managed in a more sustainable and equitable way and that only by mobilizing economic, social and environmental action together, can we irreversibly reduce poverty.6
Indeed, SCP, by its cross cutting nature, addresses inter-linkages and adopts a holistic approach, taking into account the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development in a balanced and integrated manner. Consumption and production activities are the basis of the global economy, but current patterns are fast depleting natural capital, degrading ecosystem services and undermining the capacity of countries to meet their needs in a sustained way. The shift to SCP patterns implies increasing efficiency and productivity throughout the supply chain and the life cycle of the products, now and over the long-term.
Goal 12 on SCP and SCP in Other Goals
SDG 12 covers both the efficiency in use and management of natural resources (target 12.2), environmental impacts such as waste management (target 12.5), and release of contaminants, especially chemical substances (target 12.4). The goal engages all actors to contribute to sustainable development, including the private sector (target 12.6). The importance of consumer information and education for sustainable development and lifestyles is highlighted (target 12.8). The role of the public sector through sustainable public procurement (target 12.7), as well as the shift towards SCP in the food system (target 12.3) and the tourism sector (target 12.b) are identified too. The need for policies for SCP is underlined through the implementation of the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns (10YFP) (target 12.1), while finance and capacity-building (target 12.a) are presented as means of implementation, including by addressing fossil fuel subsidies (target 12.c).
Consumption and production are at the core of the global economy. Yet current unsustainable production and consumption patterns lead to deforestation, water scarcity, food waste, and high carbon emissions, and cause the degradation of key ecosystems. Accomplishment of the SCP goal will create synergies and support attainment of other goals on food, water and energy, while also contributing to climate change mitigation.
What is SCP?
Everything we produce and consume has either a positive or negative impact on the economy, the environment and social development. Achieving sustainable consumption and production patterns secures efficiency and productivity gains, ensuring that human activities remain within the carrying capacity of the planet, while respecting the rights of future generations.
SCP means doing more and better with less. It is about “the use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations”.7
SCP encompasses the objective of a systematic decoupling of economic growth from escalating resource use and environmental degradation, in order to do “more with less”. Decoupling will be achieved through reduction of material/ energy intensity of current economic activities and reduction of emissions and waste from extraction, production, consumption and disposal. By using the life cycle approach as a tool to achieve SCP, actions will be taken to influence both supply and demand of sustainable products, and avoid burden-shifting between different stages of product life cycles.
How to implement SCP?
The 10YFP was adopted at Rio+20, and is a global framework for collaboration and capacity-building for the shift towards SCP. The 10YFP will enhance international cooperation to accelerate the shift towards SCP patterns in both developed and developing countries, delivering that support at regional and national levels in accordance with local needs and priorities. The current six programmes of the 10YFP are on: Sustainable tourism, including ecotourism; Sustainable lifestyles and education; Sustainable public procurement; Consumer information; Sustainable buildings and construction; and Sustainable food systems. Implementation of the 10YFP is included as target 12.1 of the SCP goal.
In conclusion, SDG 12 is essential in achieving the SDGs, as it enables many of them and is a requirement for sustainable development. The shift towards sustainable consumption and production patterns has already started in many parts of the world, and urgently needs to be accelerated and scaled up, through the 10YFP and other broad and sustained initiatives and policies.
Notes
1 Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Vol. I (ST/ESA/SER.A/336) and II (ST/ESA/SER.A/345) (New York, United Nations Publications, 2013).
2 World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Global Monitoring Report 2013: Rural-Urban Dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals (Washington, D.C., 2013), p. xi, 22, 25.
3 United Nations General Assembly resolution (A/RES/66/288), 11 September 2012.
4 Communiqué: Meeting of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, in Bali, 27 March 2013, p.1. Available from http://www.un.org/sg/management/pdf/Final%20Communique%20Bali.pdf.
5 Report of the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development (New York, United Nations Publications, 2013).
6 Ibid.
7 Norwegian Ministry of Environment, Oslo Symposium on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), 1994; this has become the widely accepted definition of sustainable consumption and production.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Saving Water, Saving Lives | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/saving-water-saving-lives | Water is a basic necessity of life, and it may seem inconceivable to imagine living without it. But the stark reality is that many people around the world do. The availability of fresh water for drinking and sanitation poses an urgent and challenging problem, particularly in many developing countries.The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in March 20101 that over 2.6 billion people, or about 39 per cent of the world's population, live without improved sanitation facilities; in other words, without a proper latrine. Furthermore, WHO estimated that about 1.1 billion people across the globe -- approximately 17 per cent of the world's population -- lacked access to safe and improved sources of drinking water.The scarcity of potable water sources and the absence of adequate sanitation in many rural areas have led to a host of potentially fatal health problems such as dysentery, cholera, and other diarrhoeal diseases causing an average of 1.6 million deaths per year. Children under the age of five are especially vulnerable and account for about 90 per cent of these deaths.2 In fact, diarrhoeal diseases kill more children than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined.3 Other problems from unsafe drinking water, such as trachoma-related blindness and intestinal parasitic worms, are rife in developing countries, totalling several hundred million cases annually.4According to the United Nations Millennium Development Goal 7, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation should be halved by 2015;5 in numerical terms, 88.5 per cent of the world's population should have accessible drinking water by 2015. It bodes well that we are prepared to achieve this goal with sustained effort, but it must also be acknowledged that this progress is not uniform across the globe. Our goal for improving sanitation is further from attainment. Compared to the current 61 per cent of the world's population currently living with improved sanitation facilities, our target of 75 per cent would require a momentous effort as 2015 draws near. In addition to introducing and supporting inexpensive systems and technologies that are environmentally friendly, WHO is working towards this goal through the monitoring of global water supplies and sanitation facilities. An innovative example is water disinfection, using ultraviolet radiation from the sun to deactivate diarrhoea-causing organisms in plastic water bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, commonly known by its acronym PET, which is a cheap and effective solution viable for many developing countries facing a shortage of potable water.6As the world's population increases, the rising demand for food would accompany a corresponding need for fresh water for agricultural purposes. Many equatorial regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa,7 face an acute water scarcity and extended drought which are known to be exacerbated by climate change and deforestation, thereby adversely reducing short-term crop yield. Even more worrisome, over the long term, droughts transform arable farmland into large barren areas, further squeezing the already limited food supply. This chain of cause and effect illustrates that human activities are environmentally linked and, therefore, environmental conservation is our only hope to lessen the seemingly never-ending cascade of problems.It is unforgivably grim that something that is sorely needed by so many people in the world is taken for granted by others. Many live under the misconception that fresh water is an abundant resource, but the reality is that fresh water is finite and susceptible to depletion. Water scarcity cannot be ignored. What triggers more concern is that our high water consumption, partly due to both the growing world population and ever-increasing consumer needs, necessitates massive energy consumption for water treatment and purification.Higher water consumption, combined with its wastage, is not the only link between water and other environmental issues. The high-profile case of the BP oil spill crisis in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico once again brought the issue of water pollution back into the limelight. The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig resulted in widespread and disastrous effects on marine habitats in the Gulf. The vast amount of petroleum that leaked into the sea has directly harmed marine creatures such as fish and seabirds, while the digestion of oil by microbes has contributed to lower oxygen levels in the water. Researchers also discovered the presence of massive oil plumes in the sea that were not visible on the surface. These are only some of the many ecological consequences of the BP spill. Families dependent on the fishing and tourism industries around the Gulf have also felt the economic fallout of this accident.Media-worthy catastrophes like the BP oil spill are not the only causal agents of water pollution. With increasing urbanization and industrialization, water bodies such as the Ganga River in India are being severely polluted. Defiling the river considered holy by millions of Indians, tanneries in Kanpur, for example, channel sewage and toxic chemicals into the Ganga.8 The water of the Ganga, once a symbol of life, and where many Indians still drink and bathe, has become a turbid and toxic vexation for India.Yet, countries have responded to address the world's energy and environmental concerns by using water in more innovative ways. Hydroelectric dams produce electricity through the force of water flow, in most cases involving a turbine and a generator. In China, the construction of the Baihetan and Wudongde dams to accompany the soon-to-be operational Three Gorges Dam represents the country's push towards renewable energy by harnessing the power of water. The dams are slated to be completed by 2015.9As the most widely used form of renewable energy, hydroelectric power just might be the energy wave of the future, provided that governments exercise care with regard to the potential alteration of ecosystems resulting from the creation of artificial reservoirs. The difficult circumstances we face today are inextricably linked to other societal and environmental problems related to resource allocation, energy consumption, and pollution. The lack of access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation that many people experience on a daily basis illustrates the problems with building infrastructure, preventive health care, and proper resource allocation in many parts of the world. And with our world population growing, the negative impact on our environment is similarly amplified. The habits of modern man, including water wastage and pollution, have already led to disastrous consequences for the environment and, in turn, for us. Water is a resource that we must learn to regard with sanctity. The future, however, is not necessarily bleak. We have responded with solutions to achieve our goals through spreading awareness, humanitarian aid, and the production of clean energy.Our dependence on water underscores the need for conserving it, not just in terms of reducing wastage, but also in terms of saving our rivers, lakes, and seas from further harm. Throughout history, water scarcity has symbolized the ebb of life for many great civilizations. Water will always be a basic necessity of man, regardless of era and creed, and our collective future depends on its sustainability today. Water, in essence, represents life. By saving water, we save lives.Notes 1 WHO, "Health through safe drinking water and basic sanitation." http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.html. 2 Water.org, "Water facts." http://water.org/learn-about-the-water-crisis/facts. 3 WaterAid, "Second biggest killer of under-fives being ignored." http://www.wateraid.org/uk/about_us/newsroom/7655.asp 4 WHO, ibid. 5 UNESCO, "Facts and Figures: The Millennium Development Goals & Water." http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/facts_figures/mdgs.shtml. 6 IDRC, "Water Disinfection Using Solar Radiation." http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26972-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. 7 UN, "Water Scarcity." http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.html. 8 J. Thottam, "How India's Success Is Killing Its Holy River," Time, 12 July 2010: 16-21. 9 "Hydropower Stations Dot Yangtze River." http://www.china.org.cn/english/news/190253.htm.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Challenge Of Building Consensus Beyond The Scientific Community | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/challenge-building-consensus-beyond-scientific-community | From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", 2007The imminence and severity of problems posed by the accelerating changes in the global climate are becoming increasingly evident. Heatwaves are increasing in severity, droughts and downpours are becoming more intense, the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, sea levels are rising and the increasing acidification of the oceans is threatening to disrupt the marine food chain. The window of opportunity for keeping atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases within an acceptable range is closing, while the costs of mitigation and adaptation are rising relentlessly. At the same time, there is also an increasing convergence of science, economics, technology and finance to guide joint international action to address climate change. A sustainable energy future is clearly both possible and affordable, but increased political will and greater collaboration between developed and developing countries are required. These steps must be built on a foundation of public understanding and support. Scientists worldwide have spoken conclusively. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is one of the most sweeping and successful scientific collaborations in history. Its fourth assessment of climate change science could not be any clearer: human activities are altering the atmosphere, and the planet is warming. Unless we act now, with a great sense of urgency, there is significant risk that the Earth's environmental systems will cross a tipping point, beyond which costly and disruptive impacts all over the world will be inevitable. According to IPCC, if current emission patterns are not altered, global temperatures are expected to rise an additional 1.8° to 4° Celsius. Such warming would prove extremely harmful, if not catastrophic, for our environment, economy and society, and would disproportionately affect the world's poor, whose livelihoods are most closely tied to agriculture and other natural resources. Climate change is certainly the greatest environmental challenge facing humanity and may also be the greatest economic and political challenge. Forging global consensus on cooperative strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change is a formidable challenge. But the world's scientific community has spoken unambiguously. If we fail to act with urgency and forthrightness, global climate change will have dangerous effects on the world economy and security. It is now time to hear from the world's policymakers, particularly on the issue of energy. We need to change the way we produce, use and conserve energy. We have the technology to do it. Transforming the global energy economy to harness new technologies can be the engine that drives a new era of international economic development. The benefits of seizing this enormous opportunity would be significant for all countries, especially for the poorest in the world, many of which have lacked the modern energy services they need to compete in today's economy. Making better use of available energy and increasing the use of clean, renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and biofuels, are the future. By developing those opportunities, we will create new economic growth and start to heal the planet. The scientific research society Sigma Xi cogently outlined such a road map in a 2007 report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, titled Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. While all nations must help to avoid catastrophic climate change, those that have contributed most to the problem have special responsibilities. The United States, which is responsible for almost 25 per cent of global emissions, will have an influence on how the world's energy future transforms. But, to date, despite its ratification of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States Government has rejected the Convention's implementing agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and has blocked further progress on international climate negotiations. However, the domestic political support for action on global warming has increased dramatically in the past year. It appears inevitable that the next President of the United States, who will take office in 2009, will bring the country back into the global process. The reasons for this political shift are threefold: increased understanding of the issue, driven substantially by former Vice President Al Gore's superb film, "An Inconvenient Truth"; increased recognition of the risk, brought home by the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina; and a remarkable upwelling of activity at the state and local levels and among constituencies not normally thought of as environmental -- especially businesses, investors and farmers. The signs of support for a new approach to climate and energy are numerous. Seven northeastern states are using a regional cap and trading system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. California's legislature has required the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued an executive order requiring California's petroleum refiners and gasoline sellers to cut their global warming emissions by 10 per cent by 2020. The United States Climate Action Partnership, an important new group of business leaders, is calling for mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. They see the risk of global warming, as well as the enormous economic opportunities that will be created by a fundamental change in the world's energy systems. The economic impact of the energy revolution of the twenty-first century will be as significant as the digital revolution of the twentieth century. In 2004, General Electric set a goal of reaching $20 billion in annual sales of energy-efficient products by 2010; by 2005, it was already halfway there with sales reaching $10.1 billion. Giant retailer Wal-Mart recently set goals of increasing the energy efficiency of its vehicle fleet by 25 per cent over the next three years and doubling its efficiency in ten, by reducing energy used in their stores by 30 per cent, and investing $500 million in sustainability projects. Economic gain and environmental protection go hand in hand. Numerous other companies are pursuing similar goals in sectors as diverse as banking (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup), chemicals (DuPont, Dow) and insurance (Swiss Re, AIG). In addition, venture capital is suddenly flowing to clean energy companies in such areas as biofuels, wind and solar energy, whose sales are accelerating from an existing base of double-digit growth. All of these are win-win strategies for business and society; they are good for the bottom line, for investors, consumers, the company's image, national security and the environment. In March 2007, dozens of institutional investors, responsible for more than $4 trillion in assets, called on United States lawmakers to enact strong federal legislation to curb pollution-causing climate change. Joined by a dozen leading American companies, the group emphasized the need for greater investment certainty, as they called for a strong national policy to reduce emissions enough to avoid the dangerous impacts of global warming. More than 400 organizations-farm and environmental groups, and major businesses-have endorsed an agriculture-based initiative that calls for producing 25 per cent of United States energy from renewable resources, such as wind, solar and biofuels by 2025. Farmers and other landowners realize that producing more energy from biomass and wind will benefit them directly and spur rural economic growth. The American people overwhelmingly support this vision of "25x'25" -- 98 per cent of voters say it is an important goal for the country. This success in forging new partnerships offers a template for global action. Toward that end, the Global Leadership for Climate Action initiative has been launched by the United Nations Foundation and the Club of Madrid, an independent organization comprised of 66 former Heads of State and Government from some 50 democratic countries around the world. This partnership will attempt to forge consensus on a new framework that could help guide future negotiations toward a practicable and enforceable international agreement for the post-2012 period, after the Kyoto Protocol expires, which is built around national commitments to constructive change in the production and use of energy. Internationally, responding to climate change presents opportunities to achieve common economic aspirations. For example, there is a huge and growing unmet demand for farm products that can be made into biofuels to substitute gasoline and diesel. Even more exciting prospects involve the use of non-food crops, such as fast-growing grasses and non-edible oils. Because the demand for transportation fuels is so large, biofuels offer farmers huge market opportunities. If transportation fuels are produced in an environmentally sustainable way, they can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions. While all nations and farmers will profit, poor countries stand to benefit most, because they suffer disproportionately from the high price of oil. This price increase in recent years has cost poor countries three to five times as much as they gained from hard-won debt relief. By investing in biofuels, these nations could produce their own transportation fuels, cut energy costs, create new jobs in the rural economy and ultimately build export markets. However, impediments to this course should not be ignored, including the difficult issues of land ownership, governance and infrastructure. But bioenergy development offers poor countries the chance to reduce their costly oil dependence and better attract the kind of foreign investment that can modernize their farming practices and increase their food production. Energy efficiency improvements are an example of "low-hanging fruit" of greenhouse gas reductions. With a fresh approach and concerted effort, it would be possible to double the rate of energy-efficiency improvement in such sectors as transportation and buildings, by accelerating deployment of existing technologies and altering incentives to make energy efficiency a bigger consideration in consumer and business decisions. This would not only result in environmental gains, but also in reduced energy costs-one reason why some prefer to call this approach investing in energy productivity. We believe there is hope for protecting the earth's climate if we aggressively and collaboratively pursue innovative opportunities to transform the world's antiquated and inefficient energy systems. Building public and political support for such action, beyond the scientific and environmental communities, is possible if the ancillary economic and social benefits are recognized and celebrated. But we cannot afford to wait any longer. For the good of the planet, and to give our children and grandchildren the kind of world that we have enjoyed, we must take action now. The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Feeding the World Sustainably | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/feeding-world-sustainably | June 2012, No. 1 & 2 Vol. XLIX, The Future We Want?
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was memorable for its landmark agreements to guide sustainable development worldwide. The first principle of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states: "Human beings are at the centre of concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature." Twenty years later we have yet to deliver on this fundamental principle -- too many people in this world are still not living healthy and productive lives in harmony with nature. Approximately 925 million people are suffering from hunger. We cannot call development sustainable if one out of every seven persons is left behind. At the same time there is hunger, which is senseless in a world that already produces enough food to feed everyone. Hundreds of millions more suffer from obesity and related medical problems.
It follows that eradicating hunger and improving human nutrition must be central to the Rio+20 debate. The upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development can and should provide the impetus for the world to feed itself more sustainably and more equitably.
The starting point must be the awareness that agricultural systems, which include non-food as well as food products, livestock, fisheries, and forestry, are the main source of food and income for most of the world's poor and food-insecure people, around 75 per cent of whom live in rural areas. Further, the millions of people that manage agricultural systems -- from the very poorest to commercial producers -- constitute the largest group of natural resource managers on the face of the earth.
Thus, agriculture is at the heart of the solution of the sustainability issue, contributing from the environmental, economic, and social sides. If we improve agricultural and food systems, we can improve the livelihoods and health of people, and produce healthier ecosystems as well. The dominant agricultural model we inherited from the Green Revolution of the 1960s, with its emphasis on a narrow range of crops and its heavy use of chemicals, energy and capital, cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium.
Cereal production doubled between 1960 and 2000, but at a huge cost. Collateral damage includes land degradation and deforestation, over-extraction of groundwater, emission of greenhouse gases, loss of biodiversity, and nitrate pollution of water bodies.
As well as affecting the environment and contributing to climate change, agriculture is also one of the sectors most affected by climate change, a phenomenon that isolates farmers, mainly small-scale ones, from formerly agricultural lands.
According to estimates compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), by 2050 we will need to produce 60 per cent more food to feed a world population of 9.3 billion. Doing that with a farming-as-usual approach would take too heavy a toll on our natural resources. Thus, we have no choice but to embark on a greener revolution. We can sustainably increase crop production by using a range of techniques that are more in tune with ecosystems by minimizing the use of external inputs and by helping farmers cope with the weather extremes that increasingly accompany climate change, thereby enhancing their resilience and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a kind of farming that is useful and accessible to small-scale farmers by being adapted to the conditions they face with emphasis on local crop varieties, and harnessing traditional knowledge to sustain, rather than fight, natural ecosystem processes.
At the same time, we need to encourage intensive, industrial-scale farmers to greater environmental awareness. This can be done by providing the right incentives for sustainable practices, and penalties for unsustainable ones.
There is no doubt that we can increase food production to 60 per cent by 2050. However, we should not consider the 60 per cent number a foregone conclusion. We must work in ways to feed the world with less.
The truth is that the way we produce, process, distribute, and consume our food is profligate. Roughly one third of all the food produced in the world for human consumption every year -- approximately 1.3 billion tonnes -- is lost or wasted. Industrialized and developing countries squander roughly the same quantities of food -- respectively, 670 and 630 million tonnes.
Food losses occur mainly in developing countries, but this can be reversed by improving infrastructure and increasing investments in the production, harvest, storage, post-harvest, and processing phases.
Food waste is a problem mainly in industrialized countries, with retailers and consumers throwing away perfectly edible foodstuffs. Per capita waste by consumers is between 95 and 115 kilogrammes a year in Europe and North America. In sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia, consumers throw away only 6 to 11 kilogrammes a year.
Saving part of the food we squander means we would no longer have to produce 60 per cent more. If we could reduce food waste and loss by roughly just 25 per cent, we would have additional food for about 500 million people a year. A move towards healthier, more sustainable diets would have multiple benefits for public health and environmental sustainability.
We cannot have nine billion people on an animal protein rich diet in 2050. It takes 1,500 litres of water to produce a kilogramme of cereal and 15,000 to produce one kilogramme of meat. Healthier diets will help reduce the pressure on our natural resources and respond to the problem of obesity, which is a growing concern around the world.
However, producing enough food to feed the world does not guarantee food security. Hunger exists today although there is enough food for all. Even if we increase agricultural output in 60 per cent by 2050, we will still have 300 million people going hungry due to lack of proper access to food. Access is central to hunger. Most often the reason people are undernourished is because they cannot grow enough food for themselves, or do not have enough money to buy it.
Intervening against hunger at the global level is important, but we must also act powerfully at the local level because that is where people live and eat. They do not eat in global markets. Over 70 per cent of the world's poor live in rural areas, and improving their livelihoods would be a giant step towards universal food security. If they produce, they can feed themselves and provide food for local markets. Strengthening cooperatives and farmer associations can help them better organize themselves, allowing them more access to opportunities than they would have as individuals.
One innovative approach that is being used increasingly is linking small-scale farming with cash transfers and cash for work programmes. This way, poor families can buy food locally from farmers. It also injects cash into local rural economies, helping to jump-start a virtuous circle in which people previously outside the economy become consumers thereby generating further growth.
It's a win-win solution, such as linking small-scale production with food purchase programmes like school meals. These initiatives provide a new perspective on rural development and food interventions, and move away from traditional emphasis on technology transfer and food aid. Rio+20 must result in transformational changes of mindsets, priorities, policies and investments, in order to put us on a sustainable development path in which the objective of food and nutrition security and a reformed agriculture and food system play a central role. This is a quest that is much bigger than FAO, the Rome-based United Nations agencies or the United Nations as a whole. A more sustainable and food secure future needs to be constructed by all of us, through a dialogue involving international organizations, Governments, the private sector, civil society, and other actors. There is a convergence in the agendas of food security, climate change, and sustainability which is key for a healthier future and one we must explore. Rio+20 offers us the opportunity to do so. We cannot let it slip between our fingers.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Promise Of Solar Energy: A Low-Carbon Energy Strategy For The 21st Century | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/promise-solar-energy-low-carbon-energy-strategy-21st-century | From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", 2007In an increasingly carbon-constrained world, solar energy technologies represent one of the least carbon-intensive means of electricity generation. Solar power produces no emissions during generation itself, and life-cycle assessments clearly demonstrate that it has a smaller carbon footprint from "cradle-to-grave" than fossil fuels. Of the more than 10,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity generation produced by the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), solar currently accounts for just 8 TWh. Yet solar technologies, including photovoltaics, concentrating solar power and solar thermal constitute the fastest growing energy source in the world. With clear market signals from Governments, these low-carbon technologies could provide more than 30 per cent of the world's energy supply in aggregate by 2040. Photovoltaics (PV) are perhaps the most well-known and fastest growing sector of solar technology. PV devices generate electricity directly from sunlight via an electric process that occurs naturally in certain types of material. Groups of PV cells are configured into modules and arrays, which can be used to power any number of electrical loads. PV energy systems have very good potential as a low-carbon energy supply technology. A September 2006 joint paper by scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Utrecht University and the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands demonstrates that crystalline silicon PV systems have energy payback times of 1.5 to 2 years for South European locations and 2.7 to 3.5 years for middle-European, while thin film technologies have energy payback times in the range of 1 to 1.5 years in South Europe. Accordingly, life-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for PV are now in the range of 25 to 32 g/kWh. In comparison, a combined cycle gas-fired power plant emits some 400 g/kWh, while a coal-fired power plant with carbon capture and storage, about 200 g/kWh. Nuclear power emits 25 g/kWh on average in the United States; only wind power is better with a mere 11 g/kWh. For silicon technology, clear prospects for a reduction of energy input exist, and an energy payback of one year may be possible within a few years as silicon growth processes become more efficient. As a result, this could decrease the life-cycle CO2 emissions to 15 g/kWh. The global photovoltaic sector has been growing at an average of over 40 per cent in the last eight years, manufacturing over 2,200 megawatts in 2006. PV have become competitive in all market segments, particularly grid-connected applications, as more investment in the sector has produced major advances in automation, manufacturing efficiencies and throughput. Several leading countries -- Germany, Japan and the United States, representing two thirds of the global market -- have provided market support programmes to drive down costs. The growth of PV has driven a very classic "experience curve" decline in manufacturing prices. Data fairly clearly demonstrate an 18 to 20 per cent "progress ratio" -- for every doubling in the cumulative production of solar cells, prices come down about one fifth. Currently, solar modules are selling globally from $3 to $5 per watt, while installed systems are generally sold at between $6 and $10 per watt. Solar energy is the cheapest option for providing power to locations more than half a mile from existing electricity and is generally competitive without subsidies in regions with high energy prices. The PV industry is striving to reduce system costs by 50 per cent by 2015, at which point PV will be cost-competitive with retail electricity costs in most of the United States and other developed countries.As PV technology becomes increasingly affordable and available, its potential as a major source of low-carbon energy grows. In a 2004 report entitled Solar Generation, Greenpeace and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) estimated that, by 2020, PV could provide 276 TWh of energy -- equivalent to 1 per cent of the global demand projected by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The study assumed that the PV market would grow at a compound annual growth rate of 30 per cent until 2020, well below the 45-per cent growth that the industry averaged from 2002 to 2007. This would replace the output of 75 new coal-fired power stations and prevent the emission of 664 million tons of CO2 annually. Moreover, the report found that with a 15-per cent growth rate from 2020 to 2040, the solar output could be more than 9,000 TWh, which would be 26 per cent of the projected global demand. Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants are utility-scale generators that produce electricity by using mirrors or lenses to efficiently concentrate the sun's energy. Two principal CSP technologies are parabolic troughs, which use rows of curved mirrors to drive conventional steam turbines; and the dish-Stirling engine systems, which are shaped much like large satellite dishes and covered with curved mirrors that heat liquid hydrogen to drive the pistons of a Stirling engine. Life-cycle assessment of the emissions produced, together with the land surface impacts of CSP systems, show that they are ideally suited to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and other pollutants, without creating other environmental risks or contamination. According to the European Solar Thermal Industry Association, 1 MWh of installed solar thermal power capacity results in the saving of 600 kilograms of CO2. The energy payback time of CSP systems is approximately five months, which compares very favourably with their lifespan of 25 to 30 years.During the 1980s and early 1990s, developers built nine concentrating solar power plants in California's Mojave Desert for a total of 330 MW. Then, for nearly two decades no new plants were built due to the weakening of the United States federal support for renewables and plummeting energy prices. However, CSP has experienced a renaissance in the last two years. An 11-MW plant in Spain -- the first in Europe -- became operational in March 2007, while a 64-MW plant in Nevada is in its final stages of construction. Currently, over 45 CSP projects worldwide are in the planning stages, with a combined capacity of 5,500 MW.With more than 200 GW of resource potential in the American southwest and thousands more throughout the world, CSP offers a rapidly scalable means of low-carbon electricity generation. A September 2005 report by the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF), Greenpeace and the IEA SolarPACES found that "there are no technical, economic or resource barriers to supplying 5 per cent of the world's projected electricity needs from solar thermal power by 2040". The authors calculated that CSP could produce 95.8 TWh/year by 2025, avoiding 57.5 millions tons of CO2 annually for a cumulative 362 million tons in the next 20 years. By 2040, they found that CSP could produce as much as 16,000 TWh per year. Solar thermal systems provide environmentally friendly heat for household water and space heating. Simple collectors, usually placed on the roof of a house or building, absorb the sun's energy and transfer the heat. In many climates, a solar heating system can provide a very high percentage (50 to 75 per cent) of domestic hot water energy. Since, on average, water heating accounts for around 30 per cent of a home's CO2 emissions, a solar water heater can reduce its total emissions by more than 20 per cent. Many countries are encouraging increased use of solar hot water technology. Worldwide, installations grew 14 per cent in 2005 to an installed base of 88 GW thermal equivalent, with 46 million houses equipped with the systems. China leads the way, with 62 per cent of the installed capacity, while Israel has the highest per-capita usage, with 90 per cent of all homes taking advantage of the technology. The IEA Heating and Cooling Program in April 2007 calculated that this global installed solar thermal capacity reduces CO2 emissions by approximately 30 million tons each year. In January, ESTIF proposed an ambitious target of installing 1 square metre of collector area by 2020 for every European -- 320 TWh of installed capacity. Meanwhile, in March, the United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory calculated the current technical potential of solar water heating in the United States at 1 quad of primary energy savings per year, equivalent to an annual CO2 emission reduction of about 50 to 75 million metric tons.Solar energy is an obvious choice for a carbon-smart, reliable energy future. Greater reliance on this comparatively untapped energy resource will help mitigate climate change while stimulating economies, creating jobs and increasing grid integrity and security. However, without robust international and national policy support for solar and other renewable energy sources, society will continue down the path of over-reliance on highly price-volatile, insecure and carbon-intensive energy sources. Incentives for early adopters, regulatory policies and education initiatives must all be in place to jump-start the mass-market adoption of solar energy. With clear market signals, the industry can build up low-carbon solar energy on a scale large enough to help solve our global energy challenges.Giving Life With the Sun: The Darfur Solar Cookers Project For the 200,000 displaced citizens of Darfur living in refugee camps in Chad, the simple task of cooking a meal poses serious risks. Since wood for cooking is scarce in the desert region, refugees must travel several miles outside the camp to gather firewood, where they are highly vulnerable to attacks by the Janjaweed militia and other predators. A 2005 report by Médecins Sans Frontières found that 82 per cent of rape attacks occur when women are outside the populated villages, usually while searching for firewood. But in the Iridimi camp with 17,000 refugees in eastern Chad, families have cut their firewood use by 50 to 80 per cent, using simple solar cookers to prepare their meals. Most solar cookers work on sunlight being converted to heat energy that is retained for cooking. While there are many successful designs, the most adaptable to the needs of refugees is CooKit, from Solar Cookers International, which is made of cardboard or other local material and is cut into a specific shape to effectively reflect the solar light rays toward a black metal pot. The pot, when painted black on the outside, absorbs and retains solar heat. A clear polypropylene bag tied around it creates an insulating barrier and allows the pot to easily reach 250? Fahrenheit (about 121? Celsius), which is more than enough to cook several litres of food in a few hours. The KoZon Foundation, a Dutch non-governmental organization that trains women in developing countries to solar-cook, brought the devices to the Iridimi camp for the first time in February 2005, after it obtained funding from the Dutch Foundation for Refugees and a project approval from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). KoZon volunteer, Derk Rijks, and Chadian trainee, Marie-Rose Neloum, provided 100 cookers to several women refugees for a demonstration, which proved to be a success. A second demonstration was organized in April 2005, in which KoZon trained and tested the ability of the refugees themselves to manufacture 120 cookers, emphasizing the creation of a self-sustaining economic activity. A basic workshop, completed in February 2006, provided the necessary tools and space for the manufacture of the cookers. Several refugees were also trained as "auxiliary trainers", who would teach others how to solar-cook. The Solar Cooker Project accelerated in May 2006, when a coalition of 55 synagogues in southern California in the United States, the Jewish World Watch (JWW), stepped in to fund the large-scale introduction of the cookers throughout the Iridimi camp. The coalition works to combat genocide and other human rights violations worldwide, and its women's committee takes on volunteer projects that particularly impact women. "The only way you fight death is by giving life, and the only way that you can overcome genocide is to ameliorate the suffering", said JWW founder, Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis. "In this case you have defenseless women without any protection, subject to the sadism of the Janjaweed. To be able to give them the smallest amount of protection and security is of primary significance." The Project has so far trained 4,500 women and supplied 10,000 cookers to refugees. The Iridimi camp now manufactures approximately 1,000 solar cookers a month as replacements (the cookers typically last for six months), while supplying excess cookers to the 22,000 refugees in the nearby camp in Touloum. The Project has also reduced the number of foraging trips by approximately 70 per cent, thus lowering the risk of attacks on women and girls. The cookers also provide economic opportunities, not only in their direct manufacture, but also by giving refugees some free time for other activities, rather than cooking and collecting firewood. Many of the women are now engaged in basketry, knitting and other handiwork selling in Europe, by special arrangement with UNHCR and the airlines. The Project has also reaped significant environmental benefits for the people and the region. By reducing firewood consumption, it has slowed down the deforestation process. The zero-pollution cookers have reduced smoke in the camp, consequently providing health and quality-of-life benefits for refugees. Project partners believe that with the support of the United Nations, the Project could bring solar cookers to the rest of the 200,000 refugees in Chad. "As important as it is to alert the world, there is nothing that alerts the world more than action", said Rabbi Schulweis. "For the United Nations to adopt this would be a reinvigoration. It's illustrative of what can be done even in impoverished countries, even in countries that are divided and scared to death because of internal warfare, that at least we can shield them and give them protection. It raises the solar industry into something that has a moral character, as well as an entrepreneurial character. In this age, we need not only high technology but also high morality." -Rhone Resch and Noah Kaye The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Protecting Ocean Health Will Protect the Health of Humankind | https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/protecting-ocean-health-will-protect-health-humankind | 8 June 2020 World Oceans Day is celebrated on 8 June, usually with gatherings of experts and decision makers dedicated to protecting marine ecosystems. This year, many of us planned to spend the preceding days at the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, assessing progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 on “Life below water”. Instead, the conference halls and corridors have fallen silent, as have United Nations buildings all over the world. World Oceans Day 2020 has gone virtual, but the threats to ocean health become more real every day.As countries battle the COVID-19 pandemic and begin to chart their courses out of the crisis, we must learn a crucial lesson: human health does not exist in a bubble. Our lives depend and have an impact on the Earth’s natural systems, and on other species sharing the planet with us. With 99 per cent of Earth’s living space under water, those systems very much include the ocean. The interconnected global crises of climate change, species extinction, ocean decline, and now COVID-19—on top of pre-pandemic health challenges—can feel overwhelming. But they all demand the same essential response: transformational change through solidarity, science and a commitment to a sustainable, fair future.We may not be able to gather to celebrate the ocean right now, but the global health crisis should sharpen our resolve to protect our blue planet.The ocean’s ability to support human health is at riskA healthy ocean is a prerequisite for a healthy planet and healthy human communities. Eighty per cent of all life on Earth is found in the ocean. It is the world’s biggest biosphere and home to great biological and carbon pumps and food webs that control our climate and sustain us all. Some of the ways the ocean supports human health are highly visible. Fish provide 3.2 billion people with almost 20 per cent of their animal protein, a proportion that rises to 50 per cent in some small island developing States, and countries including Bangladesh, Indonesia and Sierra Leone.1 Over-exploited fish stocks and the migration of key species due to climate change can mean loss of livelihoods, food insecurity and instability. The ocean is also a source of lifesaving biomedical breakthroughs. Tests currently being used to diagnose the novel coronavirus were developed using enzymes found in deep-sea microorganisms, which could also be key to identifying new agents to combat antibiotic drug resistance. 2, 3Other ways that we rely on the ocean are invisible and too easily taken for granted. The ocean provides 50 per cent of our oxygen and has absorbed 93 per cent of excess heat,4 as well as 20-30 per cent of the carbon emissions5 humanity has produced in the last 50 years. This is shielding us from even worse impacts of global warming, but at what cost to the ocean? How long will the ocean be able to protect us in the face of unprecedented changes to its own physical and chemical state?In addition to asset-stripping its fish, humanity is now responsible for the ocean becoming warmer, more acidic and devoid of oxygen. A new ocean heat record was set in 2019.6 Marine heatwaves are more frequent; ocean acidification is dissolving the shells and skeletons of corals and shellfish; and oxygen minimum zones have expanded by 4.5 million km2 since the 1960s.7 At this rate, rather than supporting life, the ocean itself will need to be put on life support. But the prognosis is not hopeless. A new study predicts that our ocean could be restored to health in a single generation if we combat climate change, address unsustainable fishing, and protect huge expanses of the ocean to allow biodiversity to recover.8 Achieving this goal demands urgent, international interventions to strengthen ocean governance. Multilateral action for ocean governance and protectionTo meet the targets for the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean set out in SDG 14—several of which have a 2020 deadline—we need bold, multilateral action on multiple fronts. Fortunately, the coming months offer key opportunities to make a healthy ocean a central pillar of a more sustainable, healthy post-COVID-19 world. SDG target 14.6 calls on States to prohibit fisheries subsidies, which contribute to overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, by 2020. The arena for agreeing on the terms of this ban are the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on fisheries subsidies, now the only active multilateral negotiations at WTO.9 Governments spend $22.2 billion a year on these harmful subsidies that threaten food security and undermine ocean health.10 After years of talks, a deal could still be reached even without more face-to-face meetings, provided that Member States have the will.Another global commitment scheduled to be met in 2020 is the negotiation of a new, legally binding international instrument on marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as agreed by the General Assembly in 2015. A strong High Seas Treaty would make the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea fit for purpose in the 21st century, reflecting the reality that there is virtually no place beyond the reach of industrial fishing fleets or safe from the impacts of climate change and pollution. The coronavirus pandemic has postponed the final negotiation session, but there is a draft treaty text on the table. Governments can use this extra time to resolve remaining disputes, craft solutions and raise ambitions. Crucially, the treaty must include mechanisms for creating marine protected areas (MPAs) on the high seas to build a global network of marine reserves to help restore fish stocks and build resistance to climate change.Today, just 5.3 per cent of the global ocean—and 1.2 per cent of the high seas—are protected in actively managed MPAs.11 This is well short of SDG target 14.5, to conserve 10 per cent of marine areas by 2020, and shows the need to accelerate action if we are to protect 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030—a science-led target attracting widespread calls that it be enshrined in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The Framework itself is being negotiated by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.No other area would benefit more from strong marine protection than the icy international waters surrounding Antarctica, which are so essential to the entire planetary system. The 25 States plus the European Union that are members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources must agree to expanding the protection of the Southern Ocean to cover 7 million km2 at their annual meeting in October. That would be a truly historic milestone for multilateralism in a year when temperatures on the frozen continent spiked to a record 18.3 degrees Celsius.12RISE UP for a healthy futureWe need to demand visionary multilateral actions like these on World Oceans Day. That’s the goal of a unique new collaboration between non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk and scientists calling for governments and other stakeholders to RISE UP for the ocean as a prescription for its urgent restoration. Everything is in place for transformative change. SDG 14 gives us a framework, the science clearly backs marine protection, and there is a rising wave of citizen engagement. The risks of ignoring the acceleration of ocean decline are too great. It’s time to choose health, for the ocean and for ourselves.A spider boat on a beach in Denpasar, Bali, June 2018.. ©Ajit Rana Notes1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018:Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (Rome, 2018), p. p. 2, 70. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf.2 Elise Hugus, "Finding answers in the ocean: in times of uncertainty, the deep sea provides solutions", Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 19 March 2020. Available at https://www.whoi.edu/news-insights/content/finding-answers-in-the-ocean/.3 Florida Atlantic University, "Deep-sea marine sponges may hold key to antibiotic drug resistance", ScienceDaily, 19 June 2018. Available at www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180619123013.htm.4 Dan Laffoley and John M. Baxter, eds., Explaining Ocean Warming: Causes, Scale, Effects and Consequences (Gland, Switzerland, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016), p. 61. Available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf.5 Hans-Otto Pörtner and others, eds., "Summary for Policymakers", Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019), p. 9. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/03_SROCC_SPM_FINAL.pdf6 World Meteorological Organization, WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019 (Geneva, 2020), p.10. Available at https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21700#.XsVfEmhKg2x.7 Denis Breitburg and others, "Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters, Science, vol. 359, No. 6371 (5 Jan 2018). Available at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240?intcmp=trendmd-sci.8 Carlos M. Duarte and others, "Rebuilding marine life", Nature, vol. 580 (April 2020). Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-79 World Trade Organization, "Negotiations on fisheries subsidies". Trade topics. Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/fish_e.htm.10 Ussif Rashid Sumaila and others, "Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies, Marine Policy, vol. 109 (November 2019). Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695.11 Atlas of Marine Protection, Global MPAs. Available at http://www.mpatlas.org/map/mpas/ (accessed on 16 May 2020).12 United Nations, "Climate crisis: Antarctic continent posts record temperature reading of 18.3°C", UN News, 7 February 2020. Available at https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/02/1056902.The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Gates of Paradise are Open…but Who Benefits? Experiences from Post-War Sri Lanka | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/gates-paradise-are-openbut-who-benefits-experiences-post-war-sri-lanka | October 2017, No. 3 Vol. LIV 2017, Prevention
This article is written in response to the theme of “eradicating poverty as a means of conflict prevention”. By asking whether the eradication of poverty prevents conflict, we reflect upon its complexity and interdependence with other aspects of modern day life. To focus solely on poverty reduction as a means of conflict prevention is somewhat reductive. Empirical work done on post-war Sri Lanka shows that the symbiotic relationship between poverty and conflict falls beyond the scope of simplistic analysis. After all, poverty is only one of many contributing factors to conflict. On the other hand, poverty itself is a multidimensional phenomenon. Similarly, conflict exacerbates poverty in many ways, by stunting growth, destroying investments and breaking down service delivery. Firsthand experience provides countless stories of deprivations that people suffer during war. This article looks beyond these binaries to emphasize that conflict and poverty remain interlinked even after armed warfare ends, highlighting the fact that structural inequalities hinder both conflict prevention and poverty reduction. Conflict prevention, we argue, must position itself intersectionally and holistically, with an eye to transforming these structural inequalities.
It is difficult to resist the promise suggested by economic development. At the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, the A9 highway,1 which had been closed for several years, was reopened. S. Sivananthan, a government executive officer, commented that “the gates of paradise [were] now open to the people of Jaffna” (Parameswaram, 2009). What Sivananthan meant was that the connection between the north and the rest of the country would improve infrastructure, transportation, enhance commerce and bring a host of other economic opportunities. At that time of endless possibilities, entrepreneurs, aid agencies, corporations and government bodies rushed to ‘build back better’, and provide the much-needed boost to livelihood and economic recovery deemed necessary at the end of the three-decade long civil war, opening up communities to reconstruction and economic rehabilitation. The Government of Sri Lanka at the time equated economic development with poverty reduction and in fact touted economic development as the mantra to resolve all grievances.
The rush towards economic development, especially in post- war contexts, is linked to the established idea that economically stable and thriving communities are less likely to find themselves in a conflict situation (USAID, 2006; Galster, 2015). ‘Building better’ is understood as prevention, and extant scholarship argues that fragility stemming from chronic poverty and associated inequalities exposes and sustains deep structural vulnerabilities to violence, especially in communities that experience continuous cycles of conflict (Chandler and Sisk, 2013, p. xx). Similarly, the 2011 World Development Report: Conflict, Security and Development and a policy paper of the Department for International Development entitled “Economic Development Strategy: prosperity, poverty and meeting global challenges” argue that stagnation and under- development in the post-conflict phase can easily push countries back into violence (2017).
The investment—both government and private—in Sri Lanka has proved beneficial on paper. “The Sri Lankan economy has seen robust annual growth at 6.4 per cent over the course of 2003 to 2012” (Peiris, 2014). During the period from 2009 to 2013, Sri Lanka achieved a 6.7 per cent target of annual growth, with public investment in infrastructure coming in at an average of 5.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Poverty rates fell from 22.7 per cent in 2002 to 6.7 per cent in 2012. The World Bank Systematic Country Diagnostic proclaims that Sri Lanka is a development success story (2016, p. 21), and the country seems on track for a long-term period of sustained economic growth.
The challenge that the country faces, however, as it attempts to grow further, is to ensure that the projected growth is inclusive, especially for populations that were directly affected by the armed conflict, which resulted in their limited and unequal access to essential services. Additionally, certain challenges to livelihoods limit growth of certain sectors or groups. Even in today’s post-war context, conflict still exists, although it is not necessarily violent. Conflict is seen now in limited access to essential services, when schools are underinvested, and hospitals are overburdened. The civil war left open many social wounds, and current moves towards reconciliation have not addressed pre-existing realities of caste and class that can exacerbate communal conflict. The intense militarization of the immediate post-war years also compounded a variety of social injustices.
Evidence suggests that the principal cause of the internal struggles in Sri Lanka in the north, east and south have been inequality and exclusion. The Household Income and Expenditure Survey by the Department of Census and Statistics in Sri Lanka in 2012-2013 notes that the administrative divisions within the Northern and Eastern Provinces that had been most affected by the conflict are also among the poorest in the nation. The unresolved nature of the causes of conflict and ongoing political uncertainty have resulted in government investment being a principal economic driver rather than private and foreign direct investment. Hence, employment remains in the construction and service industry, with very few employment avenues for the excess labour in the agricultural sector. This results in extremely low agricultural productivity and the high poverty levels among those who continue to work in this sector.
Empirical cases provide challenging stories for post-war development. “The increase in income inequality does not necessarily mean that the poor are getting poorer and rich are getting richer. It is rather, the rich getting richer, at a faster rate” (Nanayakkara, 2016). One example comes from a study conducted by the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) in one particular village in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. It was found that the structural conditions of poverty pre- and post-date the war, resulting in the perpetuation of the economic conditions experienced (Jayasekara and Najab, 2016). Limited resources available or accessible to the vulnerable communities affected their ability to change their situation. Another CEPA study found that although internally displaced persons were able to return home after the war, they experienced conditions of debt when constructing their houses and rebuilding their lives. These were not directly associated with construction-related expenses, but rather were due to the limited livelihood opportunities available to them to meet their daily and basic household expenses (Romeshun, Gunasekara, Munas, 2014).
Even with the extent of investment in infrastructure and housing in the Northern Province, limited opportunities to earn a livelihood still account for one of the highest incidences of poverty indicators nationwide. State spending intended to help populations out of poverty is dependent on the types of investments made. The CEPA report noted that 86 per cent of households studied were in debt due to a lack of financial literacy and poor financial management (Ibid., p. ix). This is conflated by the existence of a young, unskilled and relatively uneducated population without the means to increase their earning potential (Ibid.). It could be argued that it is more productive to invest in the future of the population through education, which would have a long-term impact (multiplier effect), with the general understanding that education provides a stepping stone to upward mobility. Arguably, due to limited investment in services such as education and health during the war, a generation has been deprived of the ability to move out of poverty. A 2015 CEPA study noted the positive impact of technical officers and community mobilizers who assisted housing beneficiaries by providing financial counselling and construction advice, working in a participatory manner with the most vulnerable households, allowing for more bespoke housing support (Gunasekara, Najab, and Munas, 2015).
Horizontal inequalities also trouble concrete development, especially in the case of accessing basic services. CEPA recent work on caste hierarchies in the north and east of Sri Lanka ably demonstrates how reconstruction efforts that have not taken seriously the deeply embedded structures of marginalization, discrimination and exclusion within that political culture are in danger of perpetuating power hierarchies and silencing marginalized groups (Lall, 2016, p. 28). This is especially the case when we examine the school system, where children leave good schools because of what is perceived as caste-based bullying. The same study also noted how those providing services to the community under observation reinforced the virtues of their own ‘middle classness’ to distance themselves from those they considered to be from a lesser social stratum (Ibid., p. 23). Therefore, the development markers such as basic services and schools may exist, but what could be said for the quality of care and service if the recipient is already in a place of alterity to the provider? Such attitudes perpetuate inequalities in access to services that can and do challenge the ability of a group to move itself out of poverty.
The fostering of a culture of prevention must also consider psychosocial issues when rushing to ‘build better’. Among the many schemes for development, the encouragement of entrepreneurship has been very popular, with the Government of Sri Lanka proposing an allocation of Rs.500 million to small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs in its 2016 budget. Universities now offer courses to cultivate the necessary technical skills, and a variety of projects to boost entrepreneurs now exist under the National Enterprise Development Authority and the Information and Communication Technology Agency, and the Sri Lanka Association of Software and Service Companies. In March 2017, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation also launched an Enterprise Based Village Development Project. However, studies note that targeted communities are not yet ready or willing to be entrepreneurs (Mallet and Pain, 2017). They may have different aspirations when it comes to their livelihoods, or are still traumatized from the war. The assumption that the opportunity to be productive will be seized upon is certainly challenged in terms of capacity and ability to take on such work (Van Kooy and others, n. d). Additionally, other entrepreneurs may already have a fixed hold on the market space.
What is the lesson from the stories that have been recounted here? The road to paradise may be open, yet it is laced with potholes. What is required is not only to build back better, but to think radically about inequality. The examples highlighted for this article all point to a variety of inequalities: of access, of social perception, of education and of voice. Reconceptualizing the problem as a focus on reducing inequality may prove to be a more robust method for fostering a culture of conflict prevention.
With many thanks to Karin Fernando and Gayathri Lokuge for input and edits.
Notes
1 The road that links the capital Colombo in the Western Province to the Northern Province, via the Central Province.
References
Chandler, David, and Timothy D. Sisk, eds. (2013).The Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding. Oxon, New York: Routledge.
Galster, Kirk (2015). Poverty and conflict: can economic development prevent conflict? Journal of Interdisciplinary Conflict Science, vol. 1, No. 1 (Fall), pp. 7-29. Available from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jics.
Gunasekara, Vagisha, Nadhiya Najab, and Mohamed Munas (2015). No Silver Bullet: an assessment of the effects of financial counselling on decision-making behaviour of housing beneficiaries in Jaffna and Kilinochchi. CEPA Study Series 9. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis. Available from http://www.cepa.lk/content_images/No-Silver-Bullet-20151014173642.pdf.
Jayasekara, Prashanthi, and Nadhiya Najab (2016). Researching livelihoods and services affected by conflict. The political economy of violence: women’s economic relations in post-war Sri Lanka. Working paper, No. 50. London: Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium and the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA). Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5901f79de5274a06b0000238/....
Lall, Aftab (2016). Researching livelihoods and services affected by conflict. “Don’t tell them where we live”- Caste and access to education in Northern Sri Lanka. SLRC Working Paper, No. 49. London: Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium and the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA).
http:// securelivelihoods.org/publications_details.aspx?resourceid=441.
Mallet, Richard, and Adam Pain (2017). Markets, conflict and recovery: findings from the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium. Research report. London: Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium.
Nanayakkara, Wimal (2016). Can Sri Lanka eradicate poverty and reduce income inequality by 2030? The Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS). Talking Economics Blog. 3 June. Available from http://www.ips.lk/talkingeconomics/2016/06/03/can-sri-lanka-eradicate-poverty-and-reduce-income-inequality-by-2030/.
Parameswaran, Navaratnam (2009). After 19 years the A9 road opens for public transport. Sunday Times (Sri Lanka), 20 December 2009. Available from http://www.sundaytimes.lk/091220/News/nws_23.html.
Peiris, Dilinika (2014). Sri Lanka: transforming into a middle income country. 16 April. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Available from http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2014/04/16/sri-lanka-transforming-middle-income-country.
Romeshun, Kulasabanathan, Vagisha Gunasekara, and Mohamed Munas (2014). Life and Debt: Assessing indebtedness and socio-economic conditions of conflict affected housing beneficiaries in Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu Districts. Study Series No. 7. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis. Available from http://www.cepa.lk/content_images/0d6e1cc768f1d5f53cdc8ee970a71672-2014-Romeshun-Life-and-Debt.pdf.
Sri Lanka, Ministry of Policy Planning Economic Affairs, Child Youth and Cultural Affairs, Department of Census and Statistics (2015). Household Income and Expenditure Survey-2012/13. Final report. Battaramulla.
United Kingdom, Department for International Development (2017). DFID’s Economic Development Strategy: prosperity, poverty and meeting global challenges. London. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfids-economic-development-st....
United States Agency for International Development (2006). Democracy and Governance: Sri Lanka Assessment. Washington D.C.: Management Systems International. Available from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadi157.pdf.
Van Kooy, John, and others, (unpublished), Micro and Small Enterprise Development Research Project: Phase 1 Report, Palmera Study.
World Bank (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. Washington, D.C. Available from https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/4389.
World Bank (2016). Sri Lanka—ending poverty and promoting shared prosperity: a systematic country diagnostic. Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/02/15/sri-lanka-a-systematic-country-diagnostic.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Partnerships for Progress: Non-traditional Resources for Peacekeeping Technology | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/partnerships-progress-non-traditional-resources-peacekeeping-technology | With a birds-eye-view over the palm trees, perched on an 11-metre (36-foot) tall tower, Chhetra Rana, Field Communications Manager, CITS Bukavu (also pictured right) and Omer Bulambo, Radio Technician, CITS Bukavu (yellow helmet) connect the scanner to the main processor unit of the Rohn 25 radar system during the initial installation of the MONUSCO (United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) Radar Station. Three such stations are situated around the shore of this African Great Lake to provide the mission’s military with a full view of Lake Kivu traffic between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. ©MONUSCOAs a global company that sees the problems of the world, we believe that we have a responsibility to help solve them.
– Brad Smith, President of Microsoft
Information and communications technologies (ICT) are expanding at an exponential rate, greatly affecting how the United Nations conducts its peace operations in the evolving digital age. This ICT revolution is occurring at precisely the same time as the United Nations faces renewed pressures on its peacekeeping operations to do more with less. It also comes as the Security Council give missions enhanced mandates, which now include the protection of those most vulnerable during internecine warfare and peacekeeping locations where there is often no peace to keep, operating in complex and insecure environments where daily threats of violence are a common occurrence.
Funding for ICT within peacekeeping has been almost exclusively through the peacekeeping budget, which is currently in a downward trend. While limited areas of peacekeeping operations have been augmented recently by gracious bilateral partnerships and have been highly successful and effective1, more can still be done, and should be done, utilizing and leveraging novel ways to attract such vital funding and support. It is time, now more than ever, for a fresh approach, a new appeal to the philanthropist sector, and like-minded groups in civil society and the private sector to help ICT in peacekeeping. Indeed, in line with the recent Secretary General’s report, “government and civil society decision makers, as they adapt to the variety of the demands of the digital economy, expect quick solutions”2.
The Information and Communications Technology Division (ICTD) of the Department of Field Support (DFS) in New York Headquarters is evolving as the natural conduit for transforming such technology on the ground, for harnessing and engaging non-traditional sources of funding, reaching out into new areas such as public-private partnerships, leveraging advances in corporate research and development programmes and establishing technology think-tank dialogues. Non-State actors, third parties in the form of philanthropist groups and like-minded institutions may wish to help, and such non-traditional funding sources could make an invaluable contribution to some of the most helpless people in the world.
With the host of activities to monitor—from elections to disarmament to sanctions and a myriad of threats—the world organisation needs to broaden its technology base and explore innovative monitoring strategies. Monitoring technologies are legitimate tools—legal under international law—that host states and conflicting parties should welcome because these tools allow the United Nations to do more effective job as an impartial observer of commitments. These devices can also enhance the safety of UN civilian and military personnel. Finally, technology could help United Nations take a more proactive approach—moving from a ‘culture of reaction’ towards a ‘culture of prevention’.3
Peacekeeping is enshrined by international humanitarian law and, as such, has a legitimate right to minimize the loss of life or damage to civil property. Central to today’s peace operations is the protection of civilians (POC). The High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO)4 now makes POC a core obligation and central tenant of peacekeeping operations. Such a role is so crucial to peacekeeping that if the operation is not able to stop an atrocity, it will be blamed for its failure. It can also suffer from a commitment-capability gap, and an image problem. The popular perception may be that an operation is a large deployed military force under the United Nations flag with soldiers wearing blue berets, but the actual reality on the ground is very different. The means are usually not sufficient to operate over large areas with complex mandates such as saving people, alleviating their suffering and coming to the aid of children, women and men at times of crisis, in some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
There are many areas where new technologies could help peacekeepers, and in some cases, even solve problems. These new technologies do not necessarily have to be expensive, nor do they have to be in the form of direct funding, rather they could be gifted or loaned technology platforms or capacities by certain ICT groups who possess a commercial proportion of the ICT market or have a comparative advantage—just sharing such capabilities would be a massive step forward and could be provided at little cost or burden by the benefactor group. Simple solutions can go a long way, from ‘off the shelf’ hardware/software products and services, to niche technologies, which could be used directly or adapted to ICT operations in peacekeeping operations.
Some solutions do not have to be complex, for example, offering free training in person, virtual training or through e-learning to United Nations staff could go a long way, and high-tech e-learning companies might be key in this regard. Other solutions, even though harder to accomplish, could be applied to assisting with basic human needs, such as gifted pioneering geospatial mapping for hydrology to continue the excellent work already completed on water source location in field operations. Technologies for the movements of internally displaced people, and the tracking and identification of their tormentors, the guerilla groups, could be enhanced through ever increasing technologies such as mapping simulations and spatio-temporal visualizations such as 4D.
Moreover, when talking about simple solutions to complicated problems, keeping the solution as simple as possible is normally the right approach; by using a smartphone, for example, the user is empowered to merge many functions inside a single device: calling, messaging, GIS internet, cameras/video, GPS (satellite), and having the possibility of expanding its use by ways of applications (apps) and gadgets, such as night vision, besides the ability to gather information through social media and crowdsourcing. Another case of cheap and efficient technology to complement a smartphone is an external satellite antenna. The hardware has the ability to turn a regular phone into a satellite phone, radio and GPS for when cell service is not an option. Such off-the-shelf technologies could be donated by phone companies or philanthropist groups, which could be used by vulnerable groups, especially community-based groups comprised of women and children, to be worked in conjunction with the peacekeeping forces on the ground5.
One pioneering initiative the United Nations took to raise awareness about the plights of human beings around the world was the Virtual Reality short films “Clouds Over Sidra”, “Waves of Grace”, and “My Mother’s Wing”. As part of a renewed and strategic outreach campaign, these films follow the lives of regular citizens in different parts of the world and show their everyday struggle, exploring options to use virtual reality more in depth to provide an emotional connection that can help potential donors to empathize with the challenges on the ground for peacekeeping. Gabo Arora, United Nations Senior Advisor and creator of these films explains that “one of the things I hear a lot after someone has watched the film is that how powerful eye contact is. When you look someone in the eye in virtual reality, you feel like you are connecting in a way that you do not in film. Unlike in film and video, you can’t look away”6. This is a good opportunity to open the world’s eyes to what is happening every day in the deployed countries and show the stark reality on the ground.
The introduction of Goal 16 to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)7, to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels, has increased awareness of transformative importance of technology. In September 2015, the United Nations launched a massive publicity campaign using radio spots, social media, advertisements and concerts in New York to highlight the importance of these goals. The objective of this publicity was to get the public involved in what is happening and invite them to participate in the cause. Filmmaker Richard Curtis, one of the organizers, said that publicity is essential to getting the goals adopted, implemented and funded, “the first thing is to get them known, get them discussed, so the politicians know there is a global ambition for global citizens to fight for these goals for the next 15 years”.
Another suggestion to raise non-traditional sources of funding is to further explore new channels and get the general public involved in these causes. An excellent example has been the noteworthy support and awareness campaigns led by Goodwill Ambassadors. The support and donations to foundations such as the UN Foundation and the Better World Campaign have increased significantly; and certain information technology (IT) companies have become more involved in helping, as is the case for Microsoft8; even academia and think-tanks are assisting by means of projects and initiatives to use their skills to work on an open-source software project, which contributes to the SDGs, and the UN Global Pulse, a partnership with “experts from UN agencies, governments, academia, and the private sector to research, develop, and mainstream approaches for applying real-time digital data to 21st century development challenges”9.
“Technology-centred innovation has the potential to be a transformative force in implementing the Organization’s field based mandates. We are working to establish a field focused innovation and technology framework, aimed at facilitating innovation in an integrated manner at all levels and fostering the inclusion of all field mission components. In the areas of force protection, situational awareness, medical and protection of civilians, appropriate technologies can save lives. In other areas it leads to efficiencies and increased effectiveness. Our relevance as technology solutions providers will depend on how successful we will be in the coming years in providing the best tools and solutions to support our field operations”.10
It is crucial that the United Nations leverage technology as both a catalyst and as an enabler, to transform itself into an organization that is at the forefront of the technological revolution. Attracting and harnessing alternative funding sources for ICT in peacekeeping operations, outside of the more traditional budget sources, will be key for future success. As the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation11candidly remarked, the peacekeeping strategy should “include leveraging technology to improve the safety and security of both civilian and uniformed personnel, especially by enhancing situational awareness to enable better threat detection and early warning, including protecting women and girls”12. Partnerships, dialogues with interested third parties, academic institutions, philanthropists and similar minded groups are crucial to bridging the technology and funding gap between IT capability and resourcing. Fostering and coordinating new partners in technology will tremendously enhance the technological component of field operations. There are existing mechanisms in place to accept, utilize, monitor, and report the use of extra budgetary funds13 and it is beholden upon all to do something practical and useful to advance ICT in peacekeeping missions. This should be a two-way process: for the United Nations to reach out and engage philanthropic groups, and for such groups, in return, to have representatives participate and assist the United Nations. Should this partnership move forward with true vigour and seriousness, this process will have a major bearing on the current operating environment. Bridging the two parties and such an investment will help solve systemic global problems and ensure that we are successful in our collective efforts to implement our mandates for peace, development and human rights.
Notes
[1] These are just a few examples: one Member State has signed with Airbus Defense and Space to lease drones for assisting peacekeeping operations. Available from http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israels-Heron-drone-completes-first-successful-mission-in-Mali-471961; another resource by a separate Member State has been the introduction of Modular Command Centers (MCCs), introducing better situation awareness and enhanced incident management systems, resulting in a greater analysis and sharing of critical mission incidents/events information, available from https://vimeo.com/214188991; as well as the donated money under the Triangular Partnership Project, available from http://www.gpaj.org/2016/08/06/14517 to establish a UN Signals Academy by another Member State, available from https://www.un.int/news/un-signals-academy-aims-empower-women-through-technology.
[2] A/72/492, para 43.
[3] Walter Dorn, Keeping Watch: Monitoring, technology and innovation in UN peace operations (Tokyo, Japan, UNU Press, 2011), pp. 208-209.
[4] A/70/357-S/2015/682.
[5] This technology is being used now with a novel form of innovation and has been applied to the Community Alert Network in United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), which employs mobile telephone technology as an early warning system for local communities. Such technology is indicative that the United Nations has evolved its peacekeeping operations over the last decades and has demonstrated substantial technological process.
[6] John Gaudiosi, “UN Uses Virtual Reality to Raise Awareness and Money”, Fortune, 18 April 2016. Available from http://fortune.com/2016/04/18/un-uses-virtual-reality-to-raise-awareness-and-money/.
[7] Available from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16.
[8] Available from https://news.microsoft.com/2017/05/16/technology-for-human-rights/#1h6ZbHCIZvrGqsXA.97.
[9] UN Global Pulse (2016). Available from https://www.unglobalpulse.org/.
[10] Brazier, David. Interview with Anthony O’Mullane, Director, Information and Communications Technology Division (ICTD), Department of Field Support, United Nations.
[11] Jane Holl Lute, “Cover Letter” in Performance Peacekeeping: Final Report of the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping, 22 December 2014. Available from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/download_9.pdf
[12] A/70/749, para 54.
[13] These are embedded in Umoja—the United Nations enterprise resource planning system based on SAP, which allows for transparent, customized reporting, and is able to meet demands of the donors. Such reporting technology can be utilized to measure the impact of investments, in terms of meeting performance measures and contributing to the overall objectives/mandate of the mission.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Role of Fossil Fuels in a Sustainable Energy System | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-fossil-fuels-sustainable-energy-system | December 2015, No. 3 Vol. LII, Sustainable Energy
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Equally important, however, is the need to ensure access to energy for quality of life and for economic development. It is therefore critically important to address climate change as part of the sustainable development agenda. Ongoing progress in the development of new technologies has brought confidence and hope that these objectives will be met in the energy system. Dramatic price reductions and technological advancement of wind generators and solar photovoltaics have shown that these renewable energy resources can be important players in global electricity systems, and that the long-anticipated breakthrough in cost-effective storage technology would shift primary energy mixes substantially.
These developments have led invariably to an assumption that we are “done” with fossil fuels across the energy system, that there is no need for further development of new resources, and that we have to stop using them as soon as possible. This assumption has also led to a perception of “good” renewables-based technologies in global energy systems today, on the one hand, and “bad” fossil fuels-based technologies, on the other. The reality is that this debate is much more nuanced and requires more thorough investigation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and managing methane emissions throughout the fossil energy value chain can help meet ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets, while fossil fuels remain part of the energy system. This will thereby allow fossil fuels to become "part of the solution", rather than remain "part of the problem". All technologies have a role to play in an energy system guided by rational economics.
Fossil fuels comprise 80 per cent of current global primary energy demand, and the energy system is the source of approximately two thirds of global CO2 emissions. Inasmuch as methane and other short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) emissions are believed to be severely underestimated, it is likely that energy production and use are the source of an even greater share of emissions. Further, much of the biomass fuels are currently used around the world in small scale heating and cooking. These are highly inefficient and polluting, especially for indoor air quality in many less-developed countries. Renewable biomass used in this way is a problem for sustainable development.
If current trends continue, in other words, if the current share of fossil fuels is maintained and energy demand nearly doubles by 2050, emissions will greatly surpass the amount of carbon that can be emitted if the global average temperature rise is to be limited to 2oC. That level of emissions would have disastrous climate consequences for the planet. There are a number of emission reduction opportunities for the energy sector, notably reducing the amount of energy consumed and reducing the net carbon intensity of the energy sector by fuel switching and by controlling CO2 emissions.
The need to reduce emission does not preclude the use of fossil fuels, but it does require a significant change in direction; business as usual is not consistent with decreasing emissions in global energy systems. Energy efficiency and renewables are often positioned as the only solutions needed to meet climate goals in the energy system, but they are not enough. Including an expansion of the use of CCS will be essential, and this technology is expected to result in 16 per cent of annual emissions reduction by 2050. This assertion is supported by the Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which estimates that limiting energy sector emissions without CCS would increase the cost of climate mitigation by 138 per cent.
Renewables cannot be used uniformly across the energy system to replace the use of fossil fuels today, mostly because of the variance in the ability of different energy subsectors to switch from fossil fuels to renewables. For example, in some industrial applications such as cement and steel production, emissions come from both the energy use and the production process. Alternative technologies that can replace current production techniques are not yet available at the scale needed, so it is expected that these techniques will persist in the short to medium term. In these cases, CCS can provide a solution consistent with current demands and give the time needed to develop future alternative approaches.
Scenarios that foresee the use of CCS are in all cases associated with a significant transformation of the energy system in response to climate change. Hence, such scenarios are not “business-as-usual”, and show a significant decrease in total global fossil fuels consumption, as well as a significant increase in efficiency across electricity production and industrial processes. This transformation of the energy system is supportive of all technologies that are instrumental for the development of a sustainable energy system.
In this vein, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) member States endorsed a set of recommendations on CCS in November 2014 following extensive consultations with experts from around the world. The recommendations emphasize that an international climate agreement should:
• Accept a broad array of fiscal instruments to encourage CCS.
• Address capturing and storing carbon dioxide from all industrial sectors, including cement, steel, chemicals, refining and power production.
• Ensure that Governments work together to sponsor and support multiple demonstration projects at scale.
• Allow carbon dioxide injected into reservoirs for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery to be treated and calculated as storage if stored permanently.
These recommendations, if implemented, allow United Nations Member States that still depend heavily on fossil fuels to engage in global efforts to reduce the consequences of climate change, instead of being seen as only contributing to the problem. The technology has been proven at scale in Canada, Norway and the United States of America, and there are some 40 projects at various stages of development around the world today. Near-term efforts on CCS are essential to improve efficiency, reduce costs and better map storage options in order to ensure that this technology is available for large-scale deployment starting in 2025.
CO2 emissions are not the only issue that needs to be addressed in the use of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel value chain, across natural gas, coal and oil production and use, is estimated to emit 110 million tons of methane annually. This represents a large share of all methane emissions. As a powerful greenhouse gas, methane emissions must be significantly reduced.
Methane is a primary component of natural gas, with some emitted to the atmosphere during natural gas production, processing, storage, transmission and distribution. It is estimated that around 8 per cent of total worldwide natural gas production is lost annually to venting, leakage and flaring, resulting in substantial economic and environmental costs. During the geological process of coal formation, pockets of methane get trapped around and within the rock. Coal mining-related activities (extraction, crushing, distribution, etc.) release some of the trapped methane. As with coal, the geological formation of oil can also create large methane deposits that are released during drilling and extraction. The production, refinement, transportation and storage of oil are also sources of methane emissions, as is incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. No combustion process is perfectly efficient, so when fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, heat or power vehicles, they all contribute as sources of methane emissions.
The key challenges for methane management are to monitor and record emissions accurately using the best monitoring and measurement technology and then to apply the best fixes to minimize leaks and emissions. This will offer economic benefits, while decreasing health impacts, increasing safety and reducing global warming. The multiple benefits of managing methane emissions are compelling, but still more work is needed to demonstrate adequate progress in this space.
Addressing the issue of sustainable energy requires the engagement of the broadest possible group of stakeholders, while ignoring the role of fossil fuels will have a negative effect. Many developing countries have large untapped fossil fuel resources that they intend to use to develop their respective economies. Insisting that they incur significant costs and forego the use of these resources in favour of renewables is likely to create unneeded tensions. The argument is made that the developed world built its existing economies on fossil fuels and still heavily relies on them. Rather than a “non-fossil” only agenda, a more pragmatic approach that encourages all to use the broad range of resources available to them (i.e. energy efficiency, renewables and fossil fuels in a sustainable manner) will create a more balanced approach.
The other stakeholder group that is often vilified is the private sector, especially actors in the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the private sector holds the expertise and often the financial resources to support the needed change to the inclusive green economy that the world is seeking. Using the balance sheets of the big players along with their knowledge and know-how can facilitate the transition; treating them like pariahs will make the journey harder and more expensive.
The persistent critical challenge is to ensure an improved quality of life and economic growth, while reducing the environmental footprint of the energy sector. The transition to a sustainable energy system is an opportunity to improve energy efficiency from source to use, minimize environmental impacts, reduce energy and carbon intensities, and correct energy market failures. Seizing the opportunity will require coordinated policy review and reform across many sectors. The UNECE region has the potential for competitive economic advantage compared to other regions of the world, given the relatively modest distances between energy supply sources and energy demand centres. Full integration of the region’s energy markets within an efficient framework would significantly improve the technical, social, economic and environmental contribution that energy could make.
Building a sustainable energy system for the future in the UNECE region will involve a substantial transition from what is in place today. Improving efficiency relates not only to consumer-level energy issues (such as energy-efficient housing, vehicles and appliances), but also to upstream energy efficiency in production/generation, transmission and distribution. It is an opportunity to accelerate the change from the traditional model of selling energy commodities to one of providing energy services based on innovation.
The development of smart energy networks with common rules of operation provides an important opportunity to enhance the collaboration among technologies, thereby enhancing the cost-effective penetration of the broadest range of low-carbon technologies and improving the resilience of the energy system. Fossil fuels will be part of the global energy system for decades to come—whether we like it or not. It will continue to underpin social and economic development around the world. From that perspective, it is essential that we have an open and transparent discussion on the role of fossil fuels in sustainable energy systems globally in the creation of practical climate strategies. It is especially important to engage emerging economies and developing countries in the context of the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This could change the political dynamics and help to shape a strong climate agreement in Paris.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Academic Impact and Education for Sustainable Development: The Contribution of Black Sea Region Universities | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/academic-impact-and-education-sustainable-development-contribution-black-sea-region-universities | The Black Sea region has been defined as a cradle of human civilization. Among its past historical riches, the region is home to the Legend of Jason and the Argonauts and their search for the Golden Fleece, and the biblical account of Noah's Ark. Athens, Istanbul, Odessa, Sevastopol, Troy, and Yalta are just a few of the names on the Black Sea coast that have a place in world history.
In antiquity, the concept of university as an arena for free debates, and profound analyses on subjects of major concern for individuals and communities, has been conceived and developed in the Black Sea region. From the crusades and the Golden Hoard to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the region has witnessed multiple religious and political changes. In the face of countless conquests through the ages, the people of the region have endured and today represent a remarkable mixture of cultures and religions. With a large stockpile of oil, gas, and mineral resources, with excellent conditions for agriculture and located at the crossroads of east-west, northsouth transport corridors, the Black Sea region has large economic potential. According to the World Bank, with 336 million inhabitants populating 19 million square kilometres the region had a growth rate of 7.3 per cent in 2006 generating a combined gross domestic product of $1.3 billion.
However, the Black Sea region still suffers from several unresolved conflicts in Trans-Dniester, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ossetia, and Kosovo. Industrialization, extensive and intensive farming, and regional population explosion have caused irreversible soil degradation, overfishing, eutrophication, and the flow of chemical and radioactive poisons into the Black Sea. As a consequence, the sea is in danger of becoming a toxic and nearly lifeless ecosystem -- an ecological disaster with few equals. In order to address these challenges, following a recommendation of PABSEC or the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, the Black Sea Universities Network was established in 1998 at the second Conference of Rectors from the Black Sea Region.
The region's academic community welcomed the Network with enthusiasm and it has grown to 117 universities representing 12 member countries of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, namely, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine.
Since its establishment twelve years ago, the Network has promoted the mobility of students and academic staff, organized scientific meetings, summer schools, and workshops in different fields. Today it is an extremely valuable platform for cooperation, professional exchanges, and long-lasting human connections.
The fundamental pillars of the Black Sea Universities Network are:
Active involvement in the sustainable development of the region.
Promoting the role of universities from passive organizations into active engines of social, economic, and cultural development.
Involving universities in scientific research, knowledge transfer, and innovation in order to facilitate the emergence of high-value economic sectors.
Direct contribution to energy security and integration of renewable energy sources.
Conceiving innovative solutions for social cohesion and prevention of conflicts in the region.
I shall present a few achievements facilitated under the framework of this Network. The Black Sea region witnessed environmental disasters like Chernobyl, spills in the Azov Sea, and industrial complexes that look like landscapes from other planets. Since its establishment, the Black Sea Universities Network has concentrated on the sustainable development of the region. The Kiev Declaration of the University Rectors for the Sustainable Development of the Black Sea Region, signed on the occasion of the Network's 2008 Congress, states: "We believe that urgent actions are needed to address these fundamental problems and reverse the trends. Equilibrated demographic policies, eco-innovation by adoption of environmentally sound industrial and agricultural technologies, reforestation, and ecological restoration are crucial elements in creating an equitable and sustainable future for all citizens of our region in harmony with nature. Universities have a major role in the education, research, policy formation, and information exchange necessary to make these goals possible."
The outcome of this Declaration is visible in the many universities in the region which have introduced new programmes on sustainable development at the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate levels and more environmental curricula both leading to a more active involvement by students. New cooperation has been recently initiated with the Baltic University Programme, a regional university network, to generate synergies between the Baltic and Black Sea regions on education for sustainable development.
The second example of the Network's activities is in the preservation of minority languages. During the centuries of clashes between military and political powers in the Black Sea region, the local communities suffered complex processes of relocation, division, or reconsideration of their political, economic or religious rights. A typical case is that of the Crimean Tatars whose relocation from Crimea started at the end of eighteenth century. But the most dramatic phase had been under Joseph Stalin whose directive on 18 May 1944 led women, children, and the infirm to be loaded onto trucks, taken to the nearest train station, loaded onto cattle wagons, and shipped off to Central Asia, the Urals, and other remote areas of the Soviet Union. After fifty-five years, the survivors have succeeded in obtaining the right to return to their homeland. But, overlapping with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and without any political, legal or economic support, the reintegration of the Crimean Tatars opened a new drama in the region which may turn explosive in the future.
The Black Sea Universities Network has addressed this issue very carefully. The Taurida National University and the Technical and Pedagogical University of Crimea (TPUC), in cooperation with the National Technical University of Ukraine (NTUU), developed advanced quantitative models and are offering decision makers and civil society tools for analyses and simulation of economic, political, legal, or environmental outcomes in the Crimean subregion. A working group at TPUC dedicated to the reform of the Crimean Tatar language is currently working with Ovidius University of Constanta in Romania and Sakarya University in Turkey. In addition, the Network, in cooperation with the European Council and European Commission, organized an International Conference on the Protection of Minority and Regional Languages in Bucharest in December 2008, which evaluated the status of implementation of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages.
As a case study, the status of the Crimean Tatar language used in Bulgaria, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, and several other countries was assessed and a report presented at the First World Congress of Crimean Tatars held in Simferopol in 2009. This was followed by a special committee from TPUC and other organizations to reform the Crimean Tatar alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin, and the first draft of the proposed reform has been distributed to the Network's member universities in Azerbaijan, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine. In parallel, a programme to teach the Crimean Tatar language in Romania and Ukraine has been developed by TPUC and Ovidius University of Constanta with the support of the ministries of education of Romania and Ukraine. Under the agreement, workshops, seminars, training courses, and debates about the curricula, lesson planning, teaching technologies, and support activities were organized using information and communication technology tools and a dedicated website. Recently, a group of four teachers and thirty Tatar pupils between the ages of eight and sixteen from Romania participated in a summer camp in Staryi Krym, together with their colleagues from Crimea, Ukraine. Coordinated by TPUC, the camp aimed to test the final curriculum, teaching plans, and methodologies that would be used as standard reference for teaching the Crimean Tatar language in Romania and Ukraine.
The third example of activities developed by the Black Sea Universities Network is in the area of energy security and renewable energy sources. The Black Sea region has large energy resources and is an important transit platform for oil and gas flowing to the European Union countries.The environmental problems in the region however have a direct impact on the exploitation of renewable energy sources, which is possible only with cross-border cooperation. Unfortunately, with conflicts and clashes between different communities over investment projects, including the exploitation of renewable energy sources, the region has inherited a noncooperative mentality.
In order to address this, in 1998, the Black Sea Universities Network, with the support of the NATO Science Program, Duke University, USA, and a large group of scientists from different universities in the Black Sea region and worldwide, established the Centre for Advanced Engineering Sciences (CAES) to exchange ideas and initiate joint research projects. In 2006, at the Network's Congress held in Varna, Bulgaria, a sustainable energy strategy for the region emphasized the role of universities in promoting solutions. Soon the Network established various partnerships: with the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies, a project of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in Istanbul, for cleaning up the river waters and wetlands; with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre in Petten, Netherlands for development of a regional Summer School on Fundamentals of Fuel Cell Technologies; and with the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development in Rome for the preparation of multimedia training on energy management and renewable energy sources. As an exploratory project, five member universities, namely, Istanbul Technical University, Taurida University, Technical University of Moldova, Technical University of Varna, and Ovidius University of Constanta decided to harmonize their master's degree programmes on energy management and prepare a future regional joint degree programme.
Even if the main focus of the Black Sea Universities Network is cooperation in education, the participation of its member universities in research and innovation activities is of equal importance. In 2008, CAES represented the Network in a pilot project on knowledge and innovation communities called SUCCESS or Searching Unprecedented Cooperation on Climate and Energy to ensure Sustainability that defined requirements for future knowledge and innovation communities. Following this, CAES was selected as a partner in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) sustainable energy project -- InnoEnergy. The EITInnoEnergy Consortium is coordinated by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, grouping leading universities, research institutions, and innovative companies, and "envisions paving the way for an independent and sustainable energy system enabling a climate-neutral Europe by 2050.by successful commercialization of innovations."
In 2010, the Black Sea Universities Network, the Eurasian Universities Association, and the Association of Universities from the Caspian Sea Region organized a forum on higher education at Moscow State University. With more than one thousand participants, the event captured the attention of the larger region's academic community. Speakers said that the Black Sea region universities should take into account the social demands of their communities when considering the creation, development, and transfer of and inquiry into scientific, technological, and cultural issues. Likewise, universities should think about the scientific and technical support they can provide their communities in their cultural, social, and economic development. But more than ever, the speakers argued, universities should assume a leading role in society and participate actively in crucial decisions by providing innovative solutions for the sustainable development and welfare of their communities.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Gender Equality and Sustainable Development | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/gender-equality-and-sustainable-development | June 2012, No. 1 & 2 Vol. XLIX, The Future We Want?
Championed by a wide range of stakeholders from civil society and the Women's Major Group, to Governments and United Nations agencies, the Rio+20 Conference in June will no doubt include gender equality in several places of its outcome document. What will this mean for the achievement of true gender equality and sustainable development? The two are inextricably linked, but the discourse on gender equality and sustainable development within the context of Rio+20 cannot be fully understood without looking back at some remarkable events which shaped the first Rio Conference 20 years ago.
History: A Look Back Over Two Decades
A glaring lack of reference to women in the preparatory drafts of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 motivated Bella Abzug and Mim Kelber, founders of the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), to address the issue. To this end, the 1991 World Women's Congress brought some 1,500 women together who hammered out the Women's Action Agenda for the twenty-first century, an important part of the preparatory process to the Conference, at the national and regional level, and ultimately in Rio at the 1992 Earth Summit itself. It is worthy to recall that the only text that went to Rio without a single bracket was Chapter 24 of Agenda 21: Global Action for Women Towards Sustainable and Equitable Development.
Principle 20 of the Rio Declaration, Chapter 24 of Agenda 21, and the formation of the Women's Major Group and Caucus are all worthy legacies of this historic encounter that brought women from all walks of life and from all parts of the globe to inform each other, including those attending the negotiations process, about the realities of women's lives. Perhaps the most profound result was the network of activists who have continued to fight to ensure that women's voices and experiences impact policy in all fora, not just at the United Nations.
WEDO co-founder, Thais Corral, together with the Brazilian non-governmental organization Rede De Desenvolvimento Humano, spearheaded a new round of consultations before and during the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to assess not only the progress of Governments, but also of civil society itself during the 10 years following the Earth Summit. The Women's Action Agenda for a Healthy and Peaceful Planet defined the new and emerging issues of the twenty-first century. It recognized the growing evidence of climate change and the threat of increased militarism as perhaps two of the greatest challenges of the planet, as well as the need for women to add a new set of instruments to traditional advocacy and action in order to avoid rolling back even the most modest gains that had been achieved since Rio in 1992.
Looking back on these 20 years, WEDO has tried to draw on the lessons learned since those visionary women transformed negotiations at the United Nations in addition to, as it turned out, many other places. Following the path of environmental activists, such as the late Wangari Maathai, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and WEDO board member, Vandana Shiva, a leading advocate at WEDO who positively impacted many poor farmers through the fight she helped wage in her native India, and the many other dedicated women who made a difference -- big or small -- in their own communities and worldwide, WEDO feels obliged to confront the Rio+20 preparations with no less determination.
Today: Challenges in the Run-up to Rio+20
In 2012, funding for spectacular meetings like the 1991 Conference is scarce. WEDO and women all over the world have embraced new technologies, working virtually to spread information quickly. Today they are able to organize, agree on and take action with speed. Stopping there, however, does not do justice to the intent and spirit of Principle 20 of the Rio Declaration: "Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development."
The space readily available for women to make their realities and experiences, much less their aspirations, a part of policy making is still limited in most countries -- even within the very same international organizations that helped birth the Rio commitments. In 1991, a tribunal of women judges gathered evidence on the hazardous work and environmentally threatening conditions they endured. Have these conditions changed sufficiently?
Women identify numerous areas in which they have not seen progress, or in which progress is being reversed. Women continue to hold the vast majority of non-professional jobs; are in the lower income bracket; live in homes and areas vulnerable to climate change threats; sacrifice education in order to provide food, water and fuel for their families; face violence in the home as well as in society; encounter discrimination when trying to access productive and financial resources; encounter roadblocks to their sexual and reproductive health and rights; contract illnesses from burning biomass in their homes; lose access to communal and traditional land, as both local and international interests take over; and face environmental hazards such as chemical spills and poor sanitation that have long-term health effects. Yet, women are not helpless victims. Women are leaders and organizers; they raise awareness and fight for change and for strong roles in planning and decision making.
The Task: What Must We Do at Rio+20?
The house of sustainable development cannot stand on an uneven foundation. Not only do the three pillars -- the social, the environmental and the economic -- have to bear equal weight, they have to intertwine to further strengthen the foundation for a more sustainable world. The groundwork has already been put in place in 1992 and 2002: the precautionary principle, common but differentiated responsibilities, and free, prior, and informed consent -- especially in indigenous and women's communities and spaces -- must be upheld. Voluntary commitments need to be strengthened with legislative teeth, accountability and financial mechanisms. Political will is a key ingredient.
As evidenced by the many men and women affected by the food, fuel, and financial crises, we have seen that economic viability cannot be gained at the expense of humanity, nor at the expense of sustainable ecosystems. Any new financial frontiers must be embedded in a rights based approach.
Social equity and environmental justice must remain at the heart of sustainable development, as should the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference. As countries confront the challenges of providing food, fuel, shelter, healthcare, and employment for growing and shifting populations, their Governments must find ways to preserve and protect vital ecosystems to support life and human livelihoods in an equitable manner, with an emphasis on human rights, gender equality, and environmental justice. They must find ways to limit climate change and its destructive impact that disproportionately affect the poor and women. Addressing gender equality in tandem with environmental and economic issues presents an opportunity to meet sustainable development goals more effectively.
Rio+20 places strong emphasis on a green economy, which must be sustainable and equitable in all its aspects, with an aim to transform economies and not simply rename them. A green economy for sustainable development and poverty eradication will improve equitable distribution of wealth and will respect planetary boundaries, some of which have already been surpassed, but a green economy alone will not achieve sustainable development.
Women are making their voices heard and are fighting to ensure that Rio+20 marks real progress for all people. A successful Rio+20 will enhance women's rights and their access to and control over resources and decision making spheres. It must go beyond the gross domestic product to include indicators that measure women's contributions and consider externalities; ensure that gender budgeting is used for sustainable development implementation; initiate financial mechanisms that target women: include them in the design of and promotion for innovative initiatives; provide social protection measures (for example, basic services such as education and health); address access to safe, sustainable energy technologies; include women in food and agriculture priorities (related to land rights, speculation, extension services); provide for capacity building and appropriate technologies that have undergone assessment for health and environmental impacts; recognize and protect indigenous and women's traditional knowledge; and protect water rights.
Sustainable development governance systems will have to be exemplary in fostering and requiring participatory decision making and inclusion, mainstreaming gender equality and providing adequately for the many, instead of protecting the mighty few. Green governance is empty of meaning while women continue to be at the sidelines of decision making processes in too many governments and most boardrooms.
As we approach Rio+20, we must take a closer look at what sustainable development and a green economy really mean. We must do so with the same drive and energy with which we confronted the overarching paradigm of development 20 years ago when honing the Women's Action Agenda 21 at the World Women's Congress. We must, once again, listen to those who are experiencing the ravages of the current development paradigm, we must be guided by the science that informs the climate change debates, and we must disaggregate the economic data through the eyes of poor women who are unable to participate in person.
Above all, we must show through rigorous analysis what the new jargon, the new environmental lexicon, really means: What is a green economy? What does carbon neutral mean? Who is trading greenhouse gas emissions credits and why? What does this economy offer to indigenous and traditional women who continue to bear the brunt of so-called development strategies? What are we doing when we protect areas? Finally, we must also assess our own progress and leadership and be transparent in our plans to ensure that those mechanisms we have established, including the entity UN Women, are funded and empowered by women's realities to bring about the paradigm shift that is necessary to usher in sustainable development.
WEDO has sought to focus its work over the past decade since the World Summit on Social Development on two areas: building global alliances and addressing climate change through a gender perspective. In spite of the fact that natural disasters have plagued the lives of many across the globe (particularly in those countries that can least afford it), nations are approaching the end of the Kyoto Protocol with a giddy nonchalance that is difficult to understand, given the frightening effect on the long-term outlook. Rio+20 will need to outline the responsibilities of all in order to reach true sustainable development.
Rio+20 will lay out the process for numerous actions that will shape development in the coming decades. Women, especially poor women, have a right to demand that those of us (women and men) privileged enough to be at the table, do not shirk our duty to ensure justice, nor pass them only the crumbs of a new economy.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Health and Food Security: Benefits from Climate Change Mitigation | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/health-and-food-security-benefits-climate-change-mitigation | June 2012, No. 1 & 2 Vol. XLIX, The Future We Want?
Societies must find a way to stop the rapid growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to avoid a disastrous future for our planet. As the greatest contributor to global warming, CO2 is the natural focus of current climate negotiations. Unfortunately, one of the very properties that makes CO2 so problematic—the long time it stays in the atmosphere—creates high barriers to efforts aimed at reducing its emissions. First, the benefits of limiting CO2 emissions present themselves only after many decades, which is well beyond the focus of most politicians or corporations. Second, nations disagree over how much responsibility for reductions should be based on historical emissions or on current levels.
However, CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are not the only drivers of climate change. Pollutants with shorter lifespans also contribute. Black carbon (BC) is emitted during incomplete burning in sources such as brick kilns, coke ovens, diesel engines, stoves burning biomass for cooking and heating, and outdoor fires. These sooty particles absorb sunlight and warm the Earth. Another short-lived cause of warming is ozone in the lower atmosphere. Ozone is a potent greenhouse gas, but it is not emitted directly. It is produced by chemical reactions usually involving carbon monoxide (CO) or methane.
Thus, emissions of these precursors contribute to warming. The same sources that generate BC produce carbon monoxide. Methane is emitted by sources including coal mines, gas flaring, venting and transport, landfills, rice agriculture, and manure. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, in addition to leading to ozone formation. Though long-lived in comparison with ozone or BC, which last for only days to weeks in the atmosphere, methane's lifetime of about a decade means that, relative to CO2, it is still short-lived.
Together, emissions of methane, CO and BC have contributed approximately the same amount to global warming as CO2. Though uncertainties for BC are larger than for the others, it likely contributes substantially to both global warming and to larger regional climate shifts. So these lesser known pollutants are not merely a small part of the climate problem. Furthermore, ozone and BC also degrade air quality; ozone is toxic to both humans and plants, and BC particles are particularly damaging to humans as, being typically quite small, they can be inhaled deeply into the lungs where they lead to cardiovascular disease and lung cancer. Hence reductions in emissions of BC and ozone precursors will improve human health and food security, in addition to mitigating climate change.
Thus, while air quality and climate change have traditionally been regarded as separate problems with independent solutions, these two environmental issues overlap strongly where methane, BC and CO is concerned. Our recent research has identified emissions control measures for these pollutants that lead to substantial benefits in both reducing the rate of near-term climate change, and improving air quality. The measures consist of reducing methane emissions from coal mining, oil and gas production, long distance gas transmission, municipal waste and landfills, wastewater, livestock manure, rice paddies, and of reducing emissions from incomplete combustion in diesel vehicles, biomass stoves, brick kilns, coke ovens, and agricultural waste burning.
These measures, all using existing, proven technology, will reduce projected global warming by nearly half over the next three decades, while leading to between 1 and 4 million fewer premature deaths per year from outdoor air pollution, and to increased crop yields by 30 to 135 million tonnes per year. They would prevent many additional premature deaths from indoor pollution exposure, roughly 400,000 per year in India and China alone. They would also provide strong regional climate benefits by reducing disruption of traditional rainfall patterns, such as the South Asian monsoon or Sahel rainfall, with the greatest benefits found in the avoidance of regional climate change and regional deaths occurring in developing countries where emission controls are put in place.
The emissions control measures are also cost effective. For example, many of the methane emissions control measures pay for themselves as the captured methane can be sold (methane is the primary component of natural gas). Capturing gas during oil or gas extraction and separating and treating biodegradable waste from municipalities, instead of sending it to landfills, are particularly attractive measures in that respect. Looking at cost per tonne, most of the methane measures cost less $250, with many below $100 much less than the estimated health, climate, and agricultural benefits of $700 to $5,000.
Similarly, many of the BC emissions control measures are economically favourable. The control measures on brick kilns, coke ovens and stoves reduce emissions primarily by burning fuel more efficiently. Therefore, small industry recoups the cost of the more efficient kilns or ovens as they pay less for fuel. Similarly, more efficient stoves require less fuel, leading to reduced time spent gathering biomass, thereby leaving time for activities such as education for women, as well as reduced deforestation.
These health, agriculture, and development benefits make these measures substantially more appealing when taking a more holistic view than would be apparent from focusing solely on their climate impact (e.g., as in a Kyoto-type mechanism that compares CO2 and methane based solely on their long-term climate impact).
Although barriers to action are lower than for CO2, reducing emissions of short-lived warmers still requires a concerted effort. Methane financing could help small stakeholders implement emissions reduction technologies. As noted, these sometimes pay for themselves, but upfront costs can be prohibitive. Local efforts to reduce BC and CO could be greatly boosted by increased international cooperation, technology transfer, and awareness of the climate benefits produced. Such efforts are in each nation's own interest, as they would produce large air quality benefits, as well as serve the global community via reduced global warming. Encouragingly, efforts to boost emission controls of these pollutants have already begun with the announcement on 16 February 2012 of the Climate and Clean-Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. This group, which consists of three developed countries (Canada, Sweden, and United States) and three developing countries (Bangladesh, Ghana, and Mexico) along with the United Nations Environment Programme, aims to foster widespread implementation of the measures described in our studies.
Some may worry that taking a broader view, which elevates the importance of those emissions that are damaging to both air quality and the climate, may distract from the real problem of dealing with CO2 emissions in order to avoid long-term climate change. I believe that societies can and, in fact, must handle multiple problems simultaneously. Science argues for separating long-term climate change, governed primarily by CO2 emissions, from near-term climate and air quality, governed by particulate and ozone precursor emissions, because both the emission sources and the impacts are generally distinct. There are good reasons to address both of these issues rather than only one or the other.
Picture someone going to the hospital with a broken leg, and the doctors discovering they also have treatable cancer. Would anyone argue that the broken leg should be ignored and all treatment be focused on the cancer since it's the more deadly problem over the long term? Of course not. It should be no different for climate change, and a balance between emissions control measures targeting CO2, with a long-term benefit for future generations, and those targeting methane and BC, with rapid benefits over the next decades, is sensible.
Moreover, targeting only CO2 could potentially lead to what we've seen in the past: failure to sufficiently reduce emissions. Our new research does not change the conclusion that CO2 reductions are vital, but we've known that for decades now and yet remain in gridlock on lowering global growth. If we keep worrying only about CO2 and its emissions continue to climb, we might get the worst of both worlds -- minimal CO2 controls and minimal methane/soot controls. In addition, there are the millions who will die along the way from air pollution without enhanced methane/soot controls, and those who will suffer from greater climate disruption during the next few decades if we don't put these controls into place. While climate change in 100 years may have more dramatic effects, climate change in the next few decades has consequences, too, and for poor farmers struggling now or low-lying islands, the near-term may be all they have. More optimistically, the multiple benefits of reducing BC and methane could lead to increased international cooperation on emissions mitigation compared with CO2. Governments and corporate boards may find it easier to take action when one of the dividends will be cleaner air on their watch. Furthermore, the effect on the climate of short-lived pollutants is primarily a result of their current emissions. Thus disputes about historical responsibility versus present day share of emissions are largely irrelevant. Success in reducing short-lived pollutants might even help inspire confidence in our ability to cooperate in limiting climate change, thereby building confidence among countries trying to negotiate CO2 reductions.
For CO2, those reducing emissions pay the costs, while the whole planet shares the benefits—the familiar recipe for a tragedy of the commons. While the situation is similar for methane in terms of environmental benefits, it is different in that the economic value of the captured methane goes to the one reducing emissions. For BC and CO, the situation is starkly different for the air quality benefits and the reduced disruption of regional rainfall, which is greatest in the regions where emissions are reduced. For areas reducing short-lived emissions, local crop yields increase and premature deaths due to air pollution decrease most strongly.
We are not yet on a path to avoiding the worst effects of climate change, with CO2 emissions reaching new highs year after year. Additional actions are clearly needed. Reducing emissions of methane, BC and CO is not enough and cannot substitute or buy time for CO2 reductions, which needs to begin quickly due to its long lifetime. However, together with CO2 reductions, controls on short-lived pollutants could greatly improve our chances of keeping global warming at manageable levels while simultaneously saving millions of lives and helping feed the world's growing population. By slowing near-term warming, they would also allow for substantially greater time for adaptation to climate change over the next several decades.
Further information including links to scientific papers, the UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, and interactive visualizations showing the impacts of the emissions controls measures are available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell/
The author thanks all his colleagues who contributed to the Science paper "Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security" and the United Nations Environment Programme/World Meteorological Organization (UNEP/WMO) "Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone" that provide the scientific underpinning for this article.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Fostering Peace and Sustainable Development | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/fostering-peace-and-sustainable-development | April 2015, No. 4 Vol. LII, Implementing the 2030 Agenda: The Challenge of Conflict
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015, recognizes not only that peace and security are prerequisites for achieving sustainable development, but that sustainable development provides the pathway to peaceful societies.
This new peace-centred agenda is inclusive and ambitious and could usher in a new spirit of global solidarity. With its five pillars of peace, people, planet, prosperity and partnerships, it opens a new era of development. Translating its 17 goals and 169 targets into concrete action on the ground will only be possible with the support and engagement of all major stakeholders, including Governments, civil society, business, academia, parliaments, and international organizations. As the world's largest regional security organization under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is ready to do its part to contribute to this critical global effort.
The OSCE comprehensive concept of security, which embraces politico-military aspects, the economy and the environment, as well as human rights and democracy, is fully compatible with the 2030 Agenda. Indeed, already in 1975, the organization's founding document, the Helsinki Final Act, recognized key economic, social and environmental issues that are fundamental to sustainable development as we understand it today. In the decades since then, the OSCE participating States reached consensus on a number of other relevant political commitments, including the 2003 Maastricht Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension which puts a strong focus on sustainable development and defines specific actions and areas for cooperation. These are among the key building blocks of the OSCE efforts to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
PEACE
The 2030 Agenda's focus on "peace, is not a coincidence and comes at a critical time for global and regional security. In the OSCE region, armed conflict is once again a reality and divisions are growing, undermining the very foundations of both regional and international security. A range of new transnational and global threats, that are also addressed in the 2030 Agenda, further aggravate these security challenges.
The OSCE is first and foremost a security organization. Its comprehensive security concept and its broad membership of 57 participating States provide a solid basis for promoting sustainable development. Since the 2030 Agenda reinforces the close relationship between peace, security and development, the foremost contribution of the OSCE to its implementation is likely to be through its engagement in all stages of the conflict cycle, from early warning and conflict prevention, through crisis management, conflict resolution and post-conflict rehabilitation. Through its network of field operations in more than a dozen countries and the activities of its secretariat, institutions and Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE is actively involved in fostering security at multiple levels. Its field operations stand out in particular. Not only do they provide longterm support for reform efforts, but also help keep the finger on the pulse in specific settings by offering early warning and support for possible early action in the emergence of a crisis, monitoring implementation of conflict resolution measures, or assisting countries with post-conflict rehabilitation and the reconciliation efforts. At the same time, OSCE support for confidence- and security-building measures through arms control, military transparency and dialogue is equally important for stability and sustainable development.
PEOPLE
Ensuring lasting peace, prosperity and stability for more than a billion people in North America, Europe and Asia is a major OSCE objective. The organization's support for strengthening democratic institutions, promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights helps to nurture sustainable development. These efforts are reinforced by the active involvement of members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly who, as parliamentarians, feature among the major stakeholders defined by the 2030 Agenda. The OSCE has also developed specific tools and programmes tailored to help governments address the root causes of intolerance and discrimination and will continue to promote inclusive societies, tolerance for diversity and integration. Recognizing the crucial importance of the free flow of information in maintaining peace, advancing democracy and ensuring sustainable development, the OSCE will continue its support for free and pluralistic media in all of its participating States.
Achieving gender equality and empowering women form a cornerstone of the OSCE security approach, which protects and promotes the human rights and dignity of women and men and advocates for women's full and equal participation in society both in peacetime and in times of conflict. OSCE activities to empower women and girls, to ensure their full and effective participation in political, economic and public life and to eliminate all forms of violence against them are fully compliant with the 2030 Agenda.
The global migration challenge can be met only by developing cooperative, rights-based approaches to ensure that migration can continue to act as a powerful catalyst for development. Efficient migration policy frameworks, including at the regional level, are a key ingredient for facilitating safe and responsible migration and mobility of people. The OSCE will continue to offer an inclusive platform for dialogue and provide expertise for facilitating integration of migrants and refugees, effective management of labour migration, and enhancing freedom of movement, which can benefit sustainable development.
PLANET
The OSCE recognizes the two-way relationship between the environment and security-environmental challenges as a potential source of conflict, and environmental cooperation as a tool for conflict prevention and confidence-building. It will continue to contribute to international discussions on environmental issues from a security perspective and aim at transforming environmental risks into opportunities for cooperation, with a focus on the following thematic areas:
Water is a cross-cutting issue for sustainable development and also an indispensable aspect of the OSCE comprehensive approach to security. The organization supports its participating States in jointly managing water resources and promotes good water governance through projects on the regional, national and local levels. It will continue to make full use of the potential offered by water diplomacy to increase security and stability in its region.
Natural and man-made disasters represent another difficult challenge to both security and sustainable development. The OSCE will continue its support for disaster risk reduction mainly through awareness-raising and capacity strengthening within and across borders. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 will be an important reference in this endeavour.
The 2030 Agenda calls for urgent action to combat climate change. In the course of discussions at an October 2015 OSCE Security Days event dedicated to climate change and security it was concluded that the compound risks posed by climate change require a multidimensional response. According to some experts, climate change is no longer a mere "threat multiplier" for security, but a "threat catalyst". However, cooperation in addressing climate change and climate diplomacy is also a good entry point for preventing conflict situations and strengthening trust. Building on the global political momentum generated by the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, the OSCE will continue to analyse and raise awareness of the security implications of climate change, identify geographical hotspots, and assist its participating States in developing and implementing adaptation strategies, particularly in transboundary contexts.
Environmentally sound management of hazardous waste and toxic chemicals and prevention of their illegal transportation across borders are also areas where the OSCE offers extensive experience in assisting its participating States. This expertise, along with initiatives for increasing resource efficiency, can contribute to ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns.
The OSCE also promotes environmental good governance. The OSCE-supported network of Aarhus Centres, which now includes 60 Centres in 14 of the organization's participating States, contributes to peace, democracy and sustainable development by promoting and enhancing access to information, public participation and access to justice, as well as transparency and accountability.
The OSCE offers a platform for energy security dialogue, cooperation, exchange of information and sharing of best practices on sustainable and renewable energy and energy efficiency. By bringing together major energy producing, transit and consuming countries, it will continue to play a significant role in the development of a sustainable approach towards energy security.
PROSPERITY
Good economic governance, the rule of law and equitable economic development are the prerequisites for peaceful and prosperous communities and nations. The OSCE activities in promoting international economic cooperation, enhancing the climate for business and investment, streamlining regulatory frameworks and countering corruption, money laundering and terrorism financing will contribute to implementing the 2030 Agenda.
International trade and transport also play a vital role in regional economic development. Procedural impediments and “red tape” at border crossings all too often hamper international trade and foreign investment, creating high costs for trade transactions and delays in the crossborder movement of goods. The organization will continue to assist its participating States in developing more efficient border, transport and customs policies, while at the same time maintaining high security standards.
PARTNERSHIPS
The inclusive dialogue and cooperation of the OSCE extend beyond the borders of its 57 participating States. Close relations with 11 partner countries in the Southern Mediterranean and Asia allow the OSCE to share best practices on many issues affecting the security of both the OSCE area and neighbouring regions.
The OSCE is joining efforts first and foremost with the United Nations, but also with many other international and regional organizations to develop and implement effective responses to traditional and emerging challenges. The Environment and Security Initiative is a concrete example of this approach. This long-standing partnership between the OSCE and the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe enables coordinated environmental action in support of the 2030 Agenda. While there are many other examples of OSCE partnerships in different spheres of sustainable development, there is still great potential to enhance collaboration with international financial institutions, the private sector and civil society to forge the strong coalition needed to implement the visionary but challenging 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
COOPERATION IS KEY
As transnational and global challenges become increasingly complex and intertwined, they pose a growing threat to sustainable development that no single country can tackle alone. This is a key reason why regional organizations such as the OSCE have an important role to play in supporting the 2030 Agenda. The OSCE will continue to serve as an inclusive platform for dialogue and cooperation on security issues with a direct impact on development, providing a strong link between security in the OSCE region and global security. Yet closer coordination between international and regional organizations, governments and civil society, and all other relevant stakeholders is also needed to create new synergies, while ensuring an effective division of labour and efficient use of resources. Only by working together will we succeed in bringing peace and prosperity to people in every corner of our planet.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Water Brings People Together to Create a Better Planet | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/water-brings-people-together-create-better-planet | April 2013, No. 1 Vol. L, Water
A report from the 2030 Water Resources Group (November 2009), Charting Our Water Future: Economic world, water demand will exceed supply by 50 per cent. This is an alarming figure and shows the importance of access to this essential resource. Quick, evidence-based decision-making by national and international policymakers is required to avoid dramatic consequences for the planet and its population. However, policy decisions are not always forthcoming. Fortunately, there are some interesting shifts that may change this picture soon. One of the most important is the new vision that significant parts of the scientific community are developing to define its role in the decision-making process, as well as the growing consciousness of global citizens who want to be part of the process. The way forward for evidence-based decision-making is the creation of a triangular relationship among scientists, policymakers and an informed citizenship. Science centres and museums worldwide have the capacity and the willingness to help create that new relationship.
In March 2012, 3,000 scientists gathered in London for the scientific pre-Rio+20 conference, Planet Under Pressure: New Knowledge Towards Solutions. Scientific research concerning sustainability was addressed and a State of the Planet Declaration was approved, which stated the need to redefine the role of scientists and science in society. It also noted that: "Research plays a significant role in monitoring change, determining thresholds, developing new technologies and processes, and providing solutions. The international global-change research community proposes a new contract between science and society in recognition that science must inform policy to make more wise and timely decisions and that innovation should be informed by diverse local needs and conditions."
In order to be a significant part of that new contract, the organizers of the Planet Under Pressure conference launched Future Earth, a 10-year international research initiative that will develop the knowledge to respond effectively to the risks and opportunities of global environmental change and support transformation towards global sustainability in the coming decades. Future Earth will mobilize thousands of scientists while strengthening partnerships with policymakers and other stakeholders to provide sustainability options and solutions in the wake of Rio+20.
One can only applaud this initiative and concur with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who addressed the conference through a video statement: "The scientific community can help us make sense of these complex and interconnected challenges, including by strengthening our understanding ... But policymakers often fail to turn to scientists for advice, or discount it too easily owing to electoral or other political considerations. At the same time, scientific advice is sometimes unclear ... My High-level Panel on Global Sustainability has just recommended that I consider naming a chief scientific adviser or establishing a scientific board to advise me and other organs of the United Nations."
The Secretary-General is right to point out the importance of electoral considerations for policymakers. The new contract proposed by the scientific community and the Scientific Advisory Board will only be successful if there is significant support from the public. This can only happen through public education on global issues. An education process that goes far beyond the traditional school system is required. Science centres and museums are ideal partners in explaining the complex science of sustainability to the public, and create various forms of public engagement with science that can lead towards the support of evidence-based decision-making.
The Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) was honoured to become the outreach partner of the Planet Under Pressure conference. Never before had a scientific conference seen a coordinated effort among 250 science centres in the world whose aim was to gain public understanding and support. Various direct links between activities worldwide and scientists took place at the conference, involving science centres in Canada, Colombia, India, Israel, and the United States. For example, Janos Bogardi, former Executive Officer of the Global Water System Project (GWSP) and Professor at the United Nations University, dialogued with youth via Skype comparing water issues related to sea level rise in Florida and melting glaciers in Colombia. Both groups were part of a large ASTC initiative called Science Centers Engagement and the Rio Summit (SCEnaRioS). The programme allowed youth to explore local evidence and the impacts of global change and to exchange their ideas with groups in other parts of the world. They discussed how similar issues could have different solutions depending upon local conditions. Most of the groups, such as the partnership between Singapore, Guangdong and Canberra, chose water as their topic for discussion.1
Many science centres have exhibits and programmes that show the unique physical and chemical characteristics of water and have created playgrounds that use water as the main attraction. An increasing number of science centres address the place of water in society and what should be done to preserve it. Some current examples include:
The Fairmount Water Works Interpretive Center (FWWIC)2 on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is housed in the oldest municipal pumping station in the United States. The museum is designed to allow it to flood during spring rains and the hurricane season. Since its opening in 2003, it has flooded 13 times. Flooding occurs more frequently now than ever because there are many more impervious surfaces in and around Philadelphia, producing faster runoff into the river and a greater chance that the river will breach its banks. The museum has been designed so that it can withstand flooding by having exhibits that can be easily and quickly removed, winched up towards the ceiling, or allowed to be immersed in water with no damage. The goals of FWWIC are to educate the public on the natural design of watersheds and how we affect them, natural habitats and fish identification, water quality and sewage treatment, and individual stewardship of the watershed.
The Observatory Science Centre3 in Herstmonceux, England, has an outdoor exhibit that lets visitors explore how the power of water can be used in so many ways. Erosion is explored as water moves from a stream to a river and then to the ocean, and there is a water play tank where visitors can build dams and learn through play.
Questacon, the National Science and Technology Centre4 in Canberra, Australia, has an exhibit called H2O. With 16 interactive exhibits, it demonstrates the properties of water, how we use it and how it affects the world we live in. It is an excellent learning resource for schoolchildren and a guide is available for teachers to link the hands-on learning to the Australian National Science Curriculum. Students are encouraged to answer questions such as: How much water do you use every day? Is it easy to extract freshwater from saltwater? Does it take much energy to boil a cup of water? If we run out of water in our dams, how can we obtain an alternative supply? Questacon also offers a touring exhibition called Our Water. This hands-on exhibit focuses on the use and perseveration of water and has toured cities in Australia.
A touring exhibition, Water Works, is presented by Science North5 in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The exhibit has three main goals: to help visitors learn about the physical properties of water, to increase knowledge about personal water use and to increase awareness about water sustainability. The Water for Life section allows visitors to explore a household water cycle and compute their own water footprint. In harnessing water power, participants play water pinball, use a hydraulic lift and pilot a submarine.
There are many museums that feature the history of water-human interaction. Liberty Science Center6 in Jersey City, New Jersey, explores the complex relationship between industrial use and the ecosystem in the Hudson River. Waterworks Museum7 in Boston, Massachusetts, interprets one of the country's first metropolitan water systems through exhibitions on engineering, architecture, social history and public health. The Nieuw Land Museum8 in the Netherlands describes the rich history of Flevoland and the Zuiderzee Project where land was reclaimed from the sea.
There are several water museums in development. The Asia Pacific Water Museum to be built in Pathumthani, Thailand, is a collaborative project organized by the National Science Museum, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Japan Water Forum. The museum will take an interdisciplinary approach into looking at the history and culture of water in the region, the human-water interrelationship and current scientific developments. Another museum in development is on Reunion in the Indian Ocean. Reunion is an International Union for Conservation of Nature biodiversity hotspot and 40 per cent of the island is on the UNESCO World Heritage List. One of the biggest challenges faced by Reunion is a rapidly expanding population. The new science and nature centre will allow visitors to follow the water cycle on the island and address its relationship to Reunion's natural environment, agriculture and sustainable development.
Science centres are much more than places where children have fun and learn about science. These centres are increasingly addressing societal issues and challenges for the planet and its future. Since science, education and communication are the core of science centres, they are sensitive to new ways of thinking within the scientific community and its role in society. Margit Fisher, the First Lady of Austria, spoke at the closing event of the Planet Under Pressure conference on behalf of the science centre field worldwide: "We all hope for a powerful plan of action, but even the most ambitious programme will need to be complemented by effective public engagement. In order to achieve this, we propose that science centres and museums be created, developed and supported worldwide as vital resources -- particularly in areas where they are currently missing, such as in much of Africa. We call for a strategic plan that channels the energy of science centres and museums to advance a UN outreach strategy. Let me conclude by saying that our vision is to move towards a sustainable world. This will only be achieved with the support of an informed public. This is what science centres bring to the table."9
Notes
1 See http://www.astc.org/about/scenarios.htm.
2 Fairmount Water Works Interpretive Center (see http://www.fairmountwaterworks.org/).
3 Observatory Science Centre (http://www.the-observatory.org/).
4 Questacon-The National Science and Technology Centre (http://www.questacon.edu.au/)
5 Science North (http://sciencenorth.ca/exhibitsales/services-traveling.aspx).
6 Liberty Science Center (http://lsc.org/see-whats-happening/current-exhibitions-and-experiences/our-hudson-home/).
7 Waterworks Museum (http://waterworksmuseum.org/).
8 Nieuw Land Museum (http://www.nieuwlanderfgoed.nl/).
9 Full speech at http://www.astc.org/about/pdf/MFischerPuPspeech.pdf.
With thanks to Lesley Markham for her assistance.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Role of the International Maritime Organization in Preventing the Pollution of the World's Oceans from Ships and Shipping | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-international-maritime-organization-preventing-pollution-worlds-oceans-ships-and-shipping | May 2017, Nos. 1 & 2 Volume LIV, Our Ocean, Our World
Shipping is a key user of the oceans, delivering more than 80 per cent of world trade, taking ferry passengers to their destinations and carrying millions of tourists on cruises. Annually, more than 50,000 seagoing ships carry between them more than 10 billion tons of vital and desired cargoes, including commodities, fuel, raw materials and consumer goods.
As the United Nations agency responsible for developing and adopting measures to improve the safety and security of international shipping and to prevent pollution from ships, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has an integral role in meeting the targets set out in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
The increase in the number and the size of ships and the volume of cargo carried over the past five decades has gone hand in hand with the work of IMO, through its 172 member States, to create the legal and technical framework within which shipping has become progressively cleaner and safer. Of course, there remains work to be done. IMO will continue its efforts, in partnership with member States and other organizations, to implement and support the enforcement of its regulations.
Formed by means of the 1948 Convention on the International Maritime Organization, IMO initially focused on maritime safety and navigation. Then, in the 1960s, the world became more aware of the spillage of oil into the oceans and seas through accidents or as a result of poor operating practices. Spurred by major oil pollution incidents, such as the Torrey Canyon disaster off the south-west coast of the United Kingdom in 1967, IMO embarked on an ambitious programme of work on marine pollution prevention and response, and on liability and compensation issues. A key outcome was the adoption, in 1973, of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, universally known as MARPOL.
From the start, MARPOL addressed not just pollution by oil from ships (covered in Annex I) but also noxious liquid substances, such as chemicals, carried in bulk (Annex II); harmful substances carried in packaged form (Annex III); sewage discharges into the sea (Annex IV); and the disposal at sea of ship-generated garbage (Annex V). Under Annex V, a general prohibition applies to discharging all garbage from ships, while discharging plastics is subject to a total, globally applicable ban.
Later, in 1997, IMO added a new Annex VI to MARPOL dealing with atmospheric pollution from ships. Today, Annex VI addresses air pollution from sulphur and other harmful emissions, such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. In 2011, IMO became the first international regulator for a transport sector to adopt globally binding energy efficiency requirements, which apply to all ships globally, regardless of trading pattern or flag State, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.
MARPOL Annex VI also incorporates regulations for ozone-depleting substances, volatile organic compounds, shipboard incinerators, reception facilities and fuel oil quality. All these measures have a significant, beneficial impact on the atmospheric environment, and also on human health for people living in or near port cities and coastal communities.
Under MARPOL Annex VI, Emission Control Areas (ECAs) for sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have been designated, with a strict 0.10 per cent by mass (m/m) limit on sulphur in fuel oil. In a move that demonstrates a clear commitment by IMO to ensuring that shipping meets its environmental obligations, the global sulphur limit outside ECAs will be cut to 0.50 per cent m/m, from 3.5 per cent m/m, from 1 January 2020.
Today, the expanded, amended and updated MARPOL Convention remains the most important, as well as the most comprehensive, international treaty covering the prevention of both marine and atmospheric pollution by ships, from operational or accidental causes. By providing a solid foundation for substantial and continued reductions in ship-source pollution, the Convention continues to be relevant today.
MARPOL also recognizes the need for more stringent requirements to manage and protect so-called Special Areas, due to their ecology and their sea traffic. A total of 19 Special Areas have been designated. They include enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Red Sea areas, and much larger ocean expanses such as the Southern South Africa waters and the Western European waters. This recognition of Special Areas, along side global regulation, is a clear indication of a strong IMO awareness of-and total commitment to-the fundamental importance of protecting and preserving the world's seas and oceans as vital life support systems for all peoples.
The Antarctic has enjoyed Special Area status since 1992. Oily discharges into the sea and garbage disposal overboard are totally prohibited. In addition, a total ban on the carriage or use of heavy fuel oils took effect on 1 August 2011 under a new MARPOL Annex I regulation. Polar waters also benefit from special measures under the IMO Polar Code, which entered into force on 1 January 2017 for ships operating in both Antarctic and Arctic waters.
IMO also has a process to designate Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), which are subject to associated protective measures, such as mandatory ship-routeing systems. There are currently 14 areas (plus two extensions) protected in this way, including those covering UNESCO World Heritage Marine Sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), the Galápagos Archipelago (Ecuador), the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (United States of America), and the Wadden Sea (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands). This long-established practice of designating Special Areas and PSSAs fully supports the SDG 14 target to increase coverage of marine protected areas.
While MARPOL specifically targets accidental and operational discharges from ship operations, IMO also actively addresses marine pollution from land-based sources, albeit indirectly, through the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, and its 1996 Protocol. The Protocol adopts a precautionary approach, prohibiting the discharge of wastes at sea except for a few specified on a list of permitted wastes, such as dredged material.
The London Convention and Protocol regime also contributes to climate change mitigation by regulating for carbon capture and sequestration in subsea geological formations and providing regulations and guidance on how to assess proposals for marine geoengineering.
The process of adopting all these measures at IMO begins with structured fora, in which member States debate, agree and adopt universal measures aimed at safe and sustainable shipping with minimal adverse environmental impact.
The essential path to implementation then follows. IMO works with various stakeholders and partners to build capacity and expertise among its member States to write IMO standards into their own national maritime legislation, and then to implement and enforce that legislation effectively.
IMO has a long history of working with key donors, including the European Union, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Korea International Cooperation Agency, and shipping and maritime organizations such as IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues.
A large number of marine environmental projects have been implemented, with support from a range of regional organizations, including the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea, the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment, the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, and the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme.
IMO has pioneered a series of projects based on a global partnership model known as Glo-X, which is being used to accelerate legal, policy and institutional reforms in developing countries to implement international conventions while, at the same time, leveraging private sector partnerships to accelerate research and development and technological innovations by forming global industry alliances and facilitating information exchange.
The GloBallast Partnerships Project (2007-2017), a joint initiative of GEF, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and IMO, has been successful in assisting developing countries in reducing the transfer of potentially harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in ships ballast water and implementing the IMO Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention. The BWM Convention will enter into force in September 2017 and will require ships to manage their ballast water to avoid the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, and protect the marine environment, human health, property and resources.
A second global partnerships project is the GEF-UNDPIMO Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnership project (GloMEEP), which is working in 10 lead pilot countries (Argentina, China, Georgia, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Morocco, Panama, Philippines and South Africa). It aims to create global, regional and national partnerships to build capacity to address maritime energy efficiency—in other words, to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships—and for countries to bring this into the mainstream within their own development policies, programmes and dialogues.
Another current project, funded by the European Union, is the Global Maritime Technology Cooperation Centre (MTCC) Network (GMN), which is establishing a global network of five MTCCs in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific. The aim is to help beneficiary countries limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their shipping sectors. The project will encourage the uptake of energy efficiency technologies through the dissemination of technical information and know-how.
Through this network of MTCCs, the project will enable developing countries in these regions, and in particular, least developed countries and small island developing States, to effectively implement energy efficiency measures in maritime transport through technical assistance and capacitybuilding. Both the GloMEEP and GMN projects will support IMO member States in climate change mitigation, the key aim of SDG 13.
In other oceans-related partnerships, IMO is a partner in, and secretariat for, the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), which advises the United Nations system on scientific components of marine environmental protection. GESAMP evaluates the environmental hazards of harmful substances carried by ships and reviews applications for "active substances" to be used in ballast water management systems, thereby providing inputs into the regulatory process at IMO. GESAMP also provides a systematic overview of new and emerging issues to inform its nine sponsoring United Nations organizations.
Recent key reports by GESAMP on microplastics in the oceans have contributed to the widening knowledge of the sources and fate of marine litter, specifically microplastics, in the oceans. IMO is also a co-lead for sea-based sources of marine litter, together with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in the Global Partnership on Marine Litter, which is managed by the United Nations Environment Programme.
The IMO track record in minimizing pollution from ships, both into the seas and oceans and into the atmosphere, speaks for itself. The Organization is fully committed to working through its member States and with its partners to continue to develop, maintain and implement a set of global regulations to ensure shipping's sustainable use of the oceans.
Notes
1 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2016 (UNCTAD/RMT/2016), pp. X, 87. Available from http://unctad.org/en/Publicationslibrary/rmt2016_en.pdf.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Building Worldwide Expertise to Detect and Seize Illegally Traded Wildlife | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/building-worldwide-expertise-detect-and-seize-illegally-traded-wildlife | September 2014, No. 2 Vol.LI, Illegal Wildlife Trade
The effective monitoring and control of transboundary movements is a key component of wildlife protection. In most countries, this task falls upon Customs which is at the forefront of efforts to counter wildlife trafficking and ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is practiced legally by implementing the provisions of the Convention on International Trade Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as well as relevant national legislation.
Representing 179 Customs administrations around the globe, the World Customs Organization (WCO) has long been involved in combating illegal wildlife trade raising awareness of the issue among frontline Customs officers, organizing training to improve their targeting and identification capabilities, leading international enforcement operations aimed at wildlife smuggling, and developing practical guidance in the form of various training resources.
Benefitting from the strong support of CITES Secretariat and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it was only natural for WCO to join CITES Secretariat, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Bank in creating the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) in 2010. Although specialized staff from the five organizations have worked together in the past, since the launch of ICCWC, their collaboration has become more structured bringing together the expertise of each agency to support national authorities in their efforts to tackle wildlife crime.
Given the escalating levels of poaching and illegal trade—particularly in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn—and strong evidence of the increased involvement of organized crime groups in wildlife trafficking, much more work lies ahead for WCO and its partners. This article touches upon some of the actions undertaken by Customs administrations to stop illegal wildlife trade at borders and also highlights some of the many challenges that Customs faces while trying to defeat criminals.
Identified Vulnerabilities
One of the challenges all Customs and law enforcement officers face is the sheer volume of international traffic. In 2012, world container port throughput amounted to 601.8 million twenty-foot equivalent container units (TEUs)—the standard measure used in container trading. Seaports can process from several hundred to 50,000 containers daily. Air cargo volumes are also substantial and increasing with fore- casts for 2014 predicting 38 million tonnes of air freight and around 1.3 billion international air passengers.
Another challenge facing Customs officials is the ever-changing methods that criminals use to smuggle wildlife products. Organized and well-connected criminal gangs blend illegal consignments with the huge volume of legitimate trade. New means of concealment are invented all the time, including ways to camouflage illegal products. For instance, rhino horn or ivory may be cut and painted to make it more difficult to detect. Other methods include blending non-protected species with protected ones or using fraudulent documents.
Evidence suggests that many Customs administrations, especially in African range States, suffer from a lack of awareness, training, effective enforcement, proper equipment and inter-agency cooperation. Corruption has also hindered enforcement efforts. To augment its knowledge about wildlife trafficking, and ultimately improve the performance of Customs enforcement, WCO gathered information on the global Customs community’s perceptions and capacities to fight illicit trade by conducting a survey in September 2013. The survey’s core findings show that:
There is a need to increase awareness amongst some Customs administrations about the pervasive problem of wildlife smuggling. In general, countries place wild life smuggling below more traditional priorities, such as tax evasion, drug trafficking, illicit tobacco trade, the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal weapons shipments.
Many Customs administrations lack the authority to conduct CITES investigations or impose fines; cases and specimens are handed over to other agencies. Customs administrations in Europe are more likely to have the power to investigate and impose fines than in any other region.
There is a need to increase cooperation between competent authorities and Customs administrations.
Measures should be developed to improve the availability of CITES-violation detection statistics and to increase usage of WCO Customs Enforcement Network (CEN). CEN is a database of Customs seizure records worldwide, which allows for the tracking and analysis of the latest trends and patterns linked to illicit trade.
Renewed Commitment
Given the heightened global focus upon illegal wildlife trade, at the June 2014 sessions of WCO Council, the Organization’s highest decision-making body, Directors General of Customs, representing WCO 179 Members, adopted the Declaration on the Illegal Wildlife Trade that reinforces the commitment of the global Customs community to fight this type of crime, as part of its efforts to combat all forms of illicit trade.
The Declaration contains 10 steps which will contribute to a stronger and more coordinated enforcement response. Chief among these is building closer cooperation at the national and international level between Customs and other regulatory and enforcement agencies, as well as with NGOs and the private sector using:
The full range of detection and investigative techniques, including risk profiling, intelligence sharing, controlled deliveries, forensic techniques, detector dogs and other non-intrusive equipment.
The full extent of the law to secure an appropriate level of punishment that would act as an effective deterrent.
Global standards and best practices developed to address the problem of corruption and the promotion of integrity.
Training and Awareness-Raising
Bearing in mind shrinking travel times and an increasing volume of trade, it is clear that control agencies are unable to efficiently exercise their functions upon the arrival of every ship and aircraft. Therefore, thorough physical inspections practised by some Customs administrations are inefficient and burdensome for supply chain actors, travellers and control agencies.
Fighting wildlife crime at the border requires the application of the same techniques as with other crimes. Controlling cargo and transboundary traffic should be based upon intelligence analysis and risk profiling. Allowing for effective enforcement necessitates a certain level of well- functioning Customs structures.
When it comes to wildlife, capacity-building activities are aimed at increasing CITES profile in Customs administrations and other enforcement agencies. Training programmes target the lack of knowledge, provide access to information about protected wildlife and emphasize the importance of strengthening controls—including export controls—and CITES enforcement.
Since many Customs administrations lack information and intelligence on wildlife trafficking, and their networking with other agencies or organizations that could share needed information is limited, WCO wildlife programme pays special attention to intelligence training and stakeholder engagement, with a view to brokering better information sharing partnerships and strengthening Customs’ overall intelligence analysis capability, which in some countries is just becoming established or is poorly resourced.
For capacity-building to be successful and achieve expected results, a foundation of political will and integrity must already exist. WCO Integrity Programme addresses these issues, that is why the Organization’s wildlife programme will integrate elements of the Integrity Programme into its educational materials and training activities.
Information and Communication TOOL
In order to facilitate access to information for enforcement officers and to keep Customs officials around the world informed about emerging trends associated with illegal trade in environmentally sensitive goods, WCO has created a web-based platform called ‘ENVIRONET’. Risk indicators for CITES-listed species, alerts, and trend analyses, as well as information from other organizations are published on the platform to support frontline Customs officers in their daily work.
ENVIRONET also enables the sharing of information between various bodies dealing with wildlife crime, including Customs, police, wildlife rangers and game park managers. About 280 accounts have been activated so far, bringing together a wide range of key actors in the domain of wildlife protection from around the world.
When it comes to quick identification of a species that may be endangered, cooperation is critical. Frontline Customs officers have very little time to detain a suspicious consignment in order to ascertain whether a species, its parts or derived products are in fact protected by law. Indeed, more than 35,000 species of animals and plants are protected by CITES. It requires some expertise to distinguish a handicraft made out of elephant ivory from one made out of regular animal bones. When in doubt, ENVIRONET enables officers to seek assistance from experts around the globe to facilitate rapid decision-making on the ground.
Promoting Controlled Deliveries
A controlled delivery allows illegal consignments to pass out of, through, or into the territory of one or more countries, with the knowledge of and under the supervision of the competent authorities. The objective is to identify persons connected to criminal activities and to bring them to justice. The technique has rarely been used to combat wildlife crime, although it is widely used—and with good results—to combat other crimes, such as the illegal trade in drugs and tobacco or in hazardous chemicals.
WCO is promoting the use of controlled deliveries for wildlife law enforcement. Under the auspices of ICCWC, it organized a workshop in December 2011 for Customs and police officers, as well as prosecutors from over 20 countries considerably affected by large scale wildlife trafficking. The technique is also promoted under the framework of WCO wildlife capacity-building programme.
Handling and Securing Evidence
The judiciary plays a vital role in responding to illegal wildlife trade. Customs authorities need to work closely with investigators and prosecutors to bring offenders before the courts, rather than relying on confiscations or limited administrative penalties. WCO wildlife capacity-building programme includes training and guidance on how to handle, secure and protect evidence. All agencies engaged in wildlife protection are invited to WCO training sessions and are sensitized to this issue.
WCO also trains frontline officers to properly report detailed information on seizures and provides examples of detailed seizure forms and custody-related receipts in order to encourage Customs to maintain accurate records of seizures and offences. Collecting more data will shed light on illegal wildlife trade and increase the pool of evidence necessary for the analysis of evolving trends, and, consequently, for the development of appropriate measures to combat wildlife crime.
Enforcement Operations
Enforcement operations are key WCO activities in all Customs areas, including wildlife. They are aimed at developing legal and operational capacities, following a holistic approach which combines awareness-raising, as well as classroom and hands-on training. In addition, they provide a snapshot of the trends and patterns used by smugglers.
Last but not least, the results of enforcement operations give Customs a sense of the scale of the trade in illegal wildlife. The figures are alarming! For example, in January 2014, the 28 African, Asian and North American countries that participated in Operation COBRA II seized 36 rhino horns, three metric tonnes of elephant ivory, 10,000 turtles, and 1,000 skins of protected species, as well as 10,000 European eels and more than 200 metric tonnes of rosewood logs. The Operation was supported by ICCWC partners.
Another recent operation illustrates the scale of the illegal timber trade. Peruvian Customs, after having gathered information on illegal activities taking place on its territory, initiated Operation AMAZONAS in cooperation with Brazil, China, the Dominican Republic and Mexico with the support of WCO and INTERPOL. So far, over 6.5 million board-feet (equivalent to 15,454 cubic meters) of suspected illegal timber have been confiscated in Peru. Investigations are still ongoing.
Let’s conclude on a more optimistic note. On 5 February 2014, two women were arrested at Heathrow airport after United Kingdom Border Force officers found 13 endangered San Salvador rock iguanas in their luggage. The women were jailed for a year. As for the iguanas, after being given care by experts in the United Kingdom, they were repatriated on 8 July to the Bahamas. The United Kingdom Border Force has been promoting the story through national and international media as a means of informing consumers and curbing the demand for these animals.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
If You Want the Peace of the Dead, Prepare for Nuclear War | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/if-you-want-peace-dead-prepare-nuclear-war | December 2011, No. 4 Vol. XLVIII, 7 Billion People, 1 United Nations, Hand in Hands
The world faces two existential threats: climate change, and nuclear Armageddon. Action on both is required urgently. Tackling the first will impose significant economic costs and lifestyle adjustments, while tackling the second will bring economic benefits without any lifestyle implications. Those who reject the first are derided as denialists; those dismissive of the second are praised as realists. Although action is needed now in order to keep the world on this side of the tipping point, a climate change-induced apocalypse will not occur until decades into the future. A nuclear catastrophe could destroy us at any time, although, if our luck holds out, it could be delayed for another six decades. The uncomfortable reality is that nuclear peace has been upheld, owing as much to good luck as to sound stewardship. Because we have learned to live with nuclear weapons for 66 years, we have become desensitized to the gravity and immediacy of the threat. The tyranny of complacency could yet exact a fearful price if we sleepwalk our way into a nuclear Armageddon. The time to lift the spectre of a mushroom cloud from the international body politic is long overdue.
Nuclear weapons are strategic equalizers for weaker sides in conflict relationships, but they do not buy defence on the cheap. They can lead to the creation of a national security state with a premium on governmental secretiveness, reduced public account- ability, and increased distance between citizens and Governments. There is the added risk of proliferation to extremist elements through leakage, theft, state collapse, and state capture. In terms of opportunity costs, heavy military expenditure amounts to stealing from the poor. Nuclear weapons do not help to combat today's real threats of insurgency, terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and corruption. As they said in the streets of Delhi in 1998: "No food, no clothing, no shelter? No worry, we have the bomb."
Since the end of the Cold War, the risk of a Russia-United States nuclear war has diminished, but the prospect of nuclear weapons being used by other nuclear-armed states or non- state actors has become more plausible. As a result, we find ourselves at a familiar crossroads, confronting the same old choice between security in or from nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has kept the nuclear nightmare at bay for over four decades. The number of countries with nuclear weapons is still in single figures. There has been substantial progress in reducing the number of nuclear warheads. However, the threat is still acute with a combined stockpile of more than 20,000 nuclear weapons; of these, 5,000 warheads are launch-ready and 2,000 are in a state of high operational alert.
The NPT enshrined multiple bargains. The non-nuclear countries agreed among themselves never to acquire nuclear weapons. They entered into a deal with the nuclear weapon states (NWS) whereby, in return for intrusive end-use con- trol over nuclear and nuclear-related technology and material, they were granted favoured access to nuclear technology, components, and material. The non-nuclear countries struck a second deal with the NWS by which, in return for forever forswearing the bomb, the NWS would pursue good faith negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament. Article 6 of the NPT is the only explicit multilateral disarmament commitment undertaken by all NWS.
Those agreements are now under strain due to a five-fold challenge:
1. The five NPT-licit nuclear powers (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States) have disregarded NPT obligations to disarm.
2. Three nuclear-armed states lie outside the NPT: India, Israel, and Pakistan.
3. As an intergovernmental agreement, the NPT does not cover non-state groups, including terrorists.
4. Some NPT members may be trying to elude their non-proliferation obligations, while the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has withdrawn from the NPT and tested nuclear weapons.
5. Many countries are interested in nuclear energy owing to rising environmental anxieties and fossil fuel price, raising issues of safety, security, and weaponization.
The disquieting trend of a widening circle of NPT-licit and extra-NPT nuclear weapons powers has a self-generating effect in drawing other countries into the game of nuclear brinkmanship. Adding to the five sets of concerns is the sorry state of global governance mechanisms for nuclear arms control. The Conference on Disarmament cannot even agree on an agenda. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not yet entered into force and a fissile material cut-off treaty is no nearer conclusion.
After more than a decade in the doldrums, the nuclear agenda was re-energized by a coalition of four United States national security policy heav y weights -- William Cohen, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry -- and given fresh momentum with President Barack Obama's Prague Promise in April 2009 to aim for the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The Washington Nuclear Summit looked closely at the safety and security requirements of nuclear programmes and materials. The 2010 NPT Review Conference was a modest success. Commissions such as the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and campaigns like Global Zero have helped to mobilize key constituencies. Russia and the United States have negotiated, signed, ratified, and brought into force a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (know as START II) to cut back nuclear arsenals by one third, limiting each to 1,550 deployable warheads.
Yet, there is a palpable and growing sense that START II could mark the end of nuclear disarmament progress, instead of being the first step on the road to abolition. There is little evidence of significant demand for disarmament by domestic political constituencies in the nuclear-armed states. Tellingly, not one country that had an atomic bomb in 1968 when the NPT was signed has given it up. Judging by their actions rather than the rhetoric, all are determined to remain nuclear-armed. They are either modernizing nuclear forces and refining nuclear doctrines, or preparing to do so. For example, even after implementing START II, the United States will retain a cache of reserve warheads as a strategic hedge available for rapid uploading, should the need arise, and also build three new factories for increased nuclear warhead production capacity. To would-be proliferators, the lesson is clear: nuclear weapons are indispensable in today's world and for dealing with tomorrow's threats.
Reflecting the technical state of 1968 when the NPT was signed, Iran insists on its right to pursue the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes -- to the point where it would be a screwdriver away from developing the bomb. The world is at a loss on how to stop Iran from crossing the weapons threshold and how to persuade, coax, or coerce the DPRK from stepping back into the NPT as a denuclearized member in good standing.
Japan is the emotional touchstone in the discourse as the world's only victim of the bomb. The United States has a special responsibility to lead the way to nuclear abolition as the only country to have used atomic bombs, and as the world's biggest military power. The A-bomb was developed during the Second World War by a group of scientists brought together for the Manhattan Project under the directorship of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Witnessing the first successful atomic test on 16 July 1945, Oppenheimer recalled the sacred Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One." Birth and death are symbiotically linked in the cycle of life. Oppenheimer also recalled the matching verse from the Gita: "Now I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."
The same duality is omnipresent in every aspect of modern day Hiroshima. The citizens of Hiroshima, in rebuilding their city, have consecrated it as a testimonial to social resilience, human solidarity, and nuclear abolition. Once again a beautiful, scenic, and thriving city, Hiroshima lives by three codes: transformation from a military city to a city of peace; to forgive and atone, but never to forget; and, never again.
The case for abolition is simple, elegant, and eloquent. Without strengthening national security, nuclear weapons diminish our common humanity and impoverish our soul. Their very destructiveness robs them of military utility against other nuclear powers and of political utility against non-nuclear countries. As long as any country has any, others will want some. As long as they exist, they will be used one day again by design, accident, or miscalculation. Our goal, there- fore, should be to make the transition from a world in which the role of nuclear weapons is seen as central to maintaining security, to one where they become progressively marginal and eventually entirely unnecessary. Like chemical and bio- logical weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, but like them, nuclear weapons can also be controlled, regulated, restricted and outlawed under an inter- national regime that ensures strict compliance through effective and credible inspection, verification, and enforcement.
The common task is to delegitimize the possession, deployment, and use of nuclear weapons; to require no first use and sole purpose commitments; to reduce their numbers to 10 per cent of present stockpiles (500 warheads each for Russia and the United States, and 1,000 among the rest) by 2025; to reduce the high-risk reliance on them by introducing further degrees of separation between possession, deployment and use, by physically separating warheads from delivery systems and lengthening the decision-making fuse for the launch of nuclear weapons; to strengthen the authority and capacity of the International Atomic Energy Agency; to establish a multilateral fuel cycle; and to toughen up supply- side restrictions.
Because the NPT has been subverted from a prohibition into a purely non-proliferation regime, the time has come to look beyond it to a better alternative that gathers all the meritorious elements into one workable package in a nuclear weapons convention. This will not self-materialize merely because we wish it so. Nor will it ever eventuate if we always push it into the distant future. There are many technical, legal, and political challenges to overcome, but serious preparatory work needs to be started now, with conviction and commitment.
Those who worship most devoutly at the altar of nuclear weapons issue the fiercest fat- was against others rushing to join them. The most powerful stimulus to nuclear proliferation by others is the continuing possession of the bomb by some. Nuclear weapons could not proliferate if they did not exist, but because they do, they will. The threat to use nuclear weapons, both to deter their use by others and to prevent proliferation, legitimizes their possession, deployment, and use. That which is legitimate cannot be stopped from proliferating.
Critics of the zero option want to keep their atomic bombs, but deny them to others. They lack the intellectual honesty and the courage to show how non- proliferation can be enforced without disarmament, to acknowledge that the price of keeping nuclear arsenals is uncontrolled proliferation, and to argue why a world of uncontrolled proliferation is better than abolition for national and international security.
The focus on non-proliferation to the neglect of disarmament ensures that we get neither. The best and only guarantee of non-proliferation is disarmament. If we want non- proliferation, therefore, we must prepare for disarmament. Within our lifetime, we will either achieve nuclear abolition or have to live with nuclear proliferation and die with the use of nuclear weapons. It is better to have the soft glow of satisfaction from the noble goal of achieving the banishment of nuclear weapons, than the harsh glare on the morning after these weapons have been used.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Climate Change Poses a Threat to Our Oceans | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/climate-change-poses-threat-our-oceans | May 2017, Nos. 1 & 2 Volume LIV, Our Ocean, Our World
In 2016, the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment, also known as the World Ocean Assessment I, was published. The introduction of the report is fascinating. It states that 70 per cent of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the average depth is 4,000 metres. These oceans contain 97 per cent of all water on Earth, which is the equivalent of approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This can seem like an infinite amount.
But the report also states that there are now more than 7 billion people on Earth. If we divided all of this water equally between us, we would only have one fifth of a cubic kilometre each. And in 2050, when there will be some 10 billion people on Earth, we will only have one eighth of a cubic kilometre per person. This relatively small amount of water is what will provide each person with all ecosystem services, including food and oxygen. But this is also where some of our emissions, our waste and our rubbish will end up.
Oceans, however, happen to be borderless and are also unevenly distributed across the planet. We cannot protect our share of the ocean with walls; instead, we must cooperate in a spirit of solidarity if we are to succeed in preserving and protecting the water that we have at our joint disposal. We must work together with our closest neighbours and cooperate at a global level, between countries.
The importance of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cannot be stressed enough. They light our way through the darkness that is currently shrouding the world. Progress is being made on many of the SDGs, but one of the goals for which developments are unfortunately moving in the wrong direction is SDG 14, which calls on the international community to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development".
This is why the Government of Sweden, together with the Government of Fiji, took the initiative to host the Ocean Conference in New York in June 2017. The Conference will be the first high-level forum to focus on one single goal in the 2030 Agenda, and we are enthusiastic to see growing engagement among the countries of the world.
One of the many issues demanding immediate attention at the Conference is the impact of climate change on the global marine environment. Although the ocean is the single largest habitat on our planet and is a system that is inextricably linked to human survival, climate change and the impact of increasing carbon dioxide emissions on the oceans have been largely overshadowed in the climate change debate. The oceans—which produce half of all our oxygen, regulate the Earth's climate and temperature, give us food and water, and are home to hundreds of thousands of species-have for a long time been our best ally in efforts to curb climate change. More than 93 per cent1 of all the heat people have added to the planet since the 1950s has been absorbed by the oceans—but at a price we are just beginning to understand. Rising ocean temperatures and increased acidification are now becoming apparent in melting Arctic sea ice and coral bleaching. Immediate action is needed here and we must use our entire toolbox at once: mitigation, protection, restoration and adaptation.
The warming of the oceans over the past 60 years has taken place on such a scale that it is difficult to take in. A 2015 analysis produced by the Grantham Institute shows that if the same amount of heat that was added to the top two kilometres of the oceans between 1955 and 2010 had instead been added to the bottom ten kilometres of the atmosphere, we would have seen the temperature on Earth rise by 36 degrees Celsius. So the oceans have protected us from the worst effects of climate change. But there is great uncertainty regarding the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide in future. If the oceans have so far been our best friend, there is now the risk in the foreseeable future that they will begin to send us the bill: a large proportion of the emissions we have caused since the 1900s, now stored in the oceans, may return to the atmosphere.
Ocean acidification can be called the chemical crisis of the global climate. Alongside global warming, ocean acidification risks pushing marine life beyond catastrophic limits. Since industrialization, acidification of ocean surface water has increased by almost 30 per cent.2 Coral reefs will be one of the most immediate victims of climate change if we do not take action very quickly. Although coral reefs make up just 1 per cent of the surface of the oceans, as much as 25 per cent of marine species are dependent on them. The breakdown of coral reef ecosystems also affects the protection of coastal zones, fisheries and tourism. Without a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, by 2050 almost all of the world's coral reefs may have been subjected to such acidic conditions that they will be only marginally able to form calcium and continue growing.
Researchers have estimated that the oceans are home to up to 1 million different species.3 Increased ocean temperatures risk causing the mass migration of species, resulting in the global homogenization of biodiversity. This would mean a decline in the numbers of species in the warmer water regions and a drastic increase in the colder regions around the poles. This kind of change could have a very serious impact on global fisheries and aquaculture. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that fish now account for 20 per cent of the animal protein source for around 3 billion people. Along with population growth, poor fisheries management and increased fish exports, changes in the local fish fauna can have enormous consequences for food security, especially in poor coastal countries where many people depend on fishing for their daily living.
Climate change also threatens the supply of oxygen in the oceans in two different ways. Firstly, warm water cannot hold as much oxygen as cold water, so as the oceans warm up, oxygen levels drop. Secondly, warmer water has lower density, making it more difficult for the oxygen-rich water near the surface to sink and circulate. Consequently, deep oceans face a particularly great risk of oxygen depletion. Fish that are dependent on oxygen will grow more slowly, decrease in size and reproduce less. Larger fish such as tuna, swordfish and shark, which are dependent on a large amount of oxygen, will be driven to more oxygen-rich surface waters, as will a large proportion of their prey. This will lead to increased food competition. Creatures living in or on the seabed will also need to seek out shallower waters. The knock-on effect of this will be a clear risk of even more overfishing, as more sea creatures will inhabit smaller and more easily accessible areas, becoming more readily fished.
One example of a 'hot spot' for the effects of climate change on oceans is the Arctic. Here, both warming and acidification are occurring particularly rapidly and to a greater extent than in many other places in the world. Scientific findings show an increased risk of crossing large-scale tipping points in the Arctic, such as the collapse of summer sea ice, melting ice sheets and methane emissions from melting permafrost, which may all have very significant global consequences-not least with regard to rising sea levels. The biodiversity and ecosystems in the Arctic are irreplaceable assets of global importance. Many Arctic species, ecosystems and habitats are at risk of disappearing completely, or remaining only as isolated fragments. As the ice sheet melts, increasingly large areas in the Arctic are now opening up for shipping and extracting natural resources such as oil, gas and fish. In November 2016, the planet sent perhaps its clearest warning yet, when the temperature in the Arctic was measured at a shocking 20 degrees Celsius warmer than what is normal for that time of year. The abrupt warming of the Arctic entails a dramatic change in life conditions not only around the North Pole, but also for the rest of the planet. Permanent ice at the North and the South Poles is a prerequisite for a stable planet. A self-heating Arctic will have major effects on global climate. Let us therefore hope that this was the last alarm bell from the planet before we humans came together and succeeded in reversing the trend.
It is impossible to estimate the economic value of living oceans for us humans; they are in essence the actual prerequisite for human existence. It is beyond doubt, however, that the effects of climate change on the oceans will entail major economic costs. For example, the cost of reduced tourism due to coral bleaching has been estimated to be as much as $12 billion annually. If lost ecosystem services from reefs are included, the annual cost is estimated to reach $1 trillion by the year 2100.4 But the truly great costs will be measured in the form of reduced human health and security.
Keeping global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and aspiring to 1.5 degrees Celsius under the Paris Agreement, is fundamental to mitigating the impact of climate change on our oceans. Sweden is prepared to take a leading role in international climate efforts and has the goal of being one of the world's first fossil-free welfare nations. Sweden has also doubled its contributions to multilateral climate financing in recent years and is now the largest per capita donor to many of the multilateral climate funds, including the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility and the Adaptation Fund. Climate change is also central to much of Sweden's bilateral cooperation and we want to work proactively to strengthen initiatives that are linked to the impact on oceans. Immediate and dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will buy us time to strengthen the resilience of oceans, ecosystems and species, that is, their ability to adapt to the negative impact of climate change and the inevitable stressors already in operation in our oceans. Fish that can easily migrate will be able to find new habitats, and organisms with short reproductive cycles such as plankton can evolve to adapt to the new conditions.
Drastic measures must be employed to strengthen the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. It is still possible to preserve large, relatively unaffected marine ecosystems if measures are taken now. Sweden has allocated substantial funds to protect valuable marine environments in national waters and meet the commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, but protection of marine environments is also an important issue in regional and international cooperation. Moreover, the impacts of climate change must be considered in assessments of threatened species and in formulating advice on which measures need to be taken.
In the light of the various stress factors acting on our oceans, the sustainable management of marine resources-not least measures to ensure improved food security—is more important than ever. Forceful measures are essential to stop overfishing and illegal fishing, and ensure a move from industrial fishing to small-scale fishing in coastal nations where many people are dependent on fish for their daily living. Further forceful measures are necessary to prevent and reduce marine pollution, including marine debris and the inflow of nutrients. Finally, we must also invest more in research to increase our scientific knowledge in all these areas.
The impact of climate change on our oceans can no longer be described in isolated, individual stories about bleached coral reefs; it involves fundamental changes to ecosystems and marine life on a scale we are only just beginning to imagine. We must act now and put oceans at the centre of our climate efforts. The great interest in the Ocean Conference from all parts of the United Nations system, the science and business sectors, and civil society demonstrates that the international community is ready to take forceful action.
Notes
1 Sydney Levitus and others, "World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000m), 1955-2010", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 39, No. 10 (17 May 2012).
2 Richard A. Feely, Scott C. Doney and Sarah R. Cooley, "Ocean acidification: present conditions and future changes in a high-CO2 world", Oceanography, vol. 22, No. 4 (December 2009), pp. 36-47.
3 Ward Appeltans and others, "The magnitude of global marine species diversity'', Current Biology, vol. 22, No. 23 (4 December 2012), pp. 2189-2202.
4 Jean-Pierre Gattuso and others, "Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios", Science, vol. 349, No. 6243, (3 July 2015), pp. aac.4722-1-4722-10.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Cooperation on Water Research and Education between the Universities from the Black Sea Region | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/cooperation-water-research-and-education-between-universities-black-sea-region | April 2013, No. 1 Vol. L, Water
The Danube-Mediterranean-Black Sea region is defined in terms of a macrosystem that incorporates water and wildlife dynamics, anthropogenic pressures, socioeconomic patterns and transport and industrial chains.
In terms of water dynamics, the Danube River, with a mean water discharge of about 200 km3/year and a basin estimated at 805,000 km2, accounts for a large part of the freshwater input into the Black Sea. At the same time, the Black Sea delivers a net outflow of meso-saline water to the eastern basin of the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara (which is connected by the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea, and thereby to the Mediterranean Sea). The average surface multiannual outflow is 600 km3/yr and the average bottom multiannual inflow is 300 km3/yr.
The availability and quality of water resources in the coastal areas and the Danubian Valley represent a major factor for sustainable development. The issues on water management and water pollution are generating many debates in the cross-border area and sometimes lead towards political conflicts, like in the Middle East region. According to the simulations performed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), it is estimated that in the coming decades the complexity of the phenomena related to climate change shall have an impact on the depletion of water resources by up to 40 per cent.
The overall hydrodynamics within the described global system are also related to renewable energy resources. The Danube River has a huge potential for hydroenergy and a fundamental factor for biomass resources. In the case of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea there is an estimated generalized reduced level of energy marine resources, including wind, waves, tides and currents. Within the defined global system, there are also areas where the renewable energy resources are coupled with erosion phenomena, as in the western coast of the Black Sea and islands in the Sea of Marmara and Aegean Sea.
The diverse nature of regional geography, with the attendant diversity of climate change impacts, represents a particular challenge for monitoring and management of climate change at the regional and local levels. The most common feature in the Black Sea region is the widespread increase in summer temperatures with consequences in the water inflow of the tributaries and the soil desertification in the shore zone. In the Mediterranean, average temperatures have risen about 2° C and rainfall has decreased by about 20 per cent in the last 40 years. Water is a limited resource in the Mediterranean basin, where its demand has doubled over the past 50 years (280 km3/year in 2007), with agriculture consuming the most, at 64 per cent. Losses, leaks and waste are estimated at 40 per cent of total water demand, particularly in the farming sector.
In terms of wildlife dynamics, there is a continuous exchange of ichthyoplankton or phytoplankton among the Danube-Mediterranean-Black Sea systems. While sturgeons live in the Black Sea, they travel to spawn on the Danube upstream. At the same time, alien species are continuously being introduced in the Danube, the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea through the navigating vessels. Some of these species prey on local wildlife, especially fish eggs, larvae and fingerlings, or become competitors for food and space with indigenous organisms.
The third level of connectivity lies on anthropogenic pressures, mainly related to the dynamics of pollutants. The circulation of pollutants is directly dependent on water circulation, from the Danube and other Black Sea tributaries, such as the Dniepr, Southern Bug and Dniestr Ukrainian Rivers, to the Black Sea and then to the Mediterranean Sea.
Along with river contributions, sources of pollution include sewage, such as point and diffuse land-based sources, river run-off, atmospheric deposition, and intentional and accidental discharges from vessels. Many coastal municipalities and industries discharge their wastewaters into the Black Sea with inadequate treatment, due to a poorly developed infrastructure, in comparison with the Mediterranean region. The 1990s statistics estimated that the total volume of sewage came to over 570 million m3 per year.
The amount or load of contaminants entering the sea and their degradability, persistence and toxicity to aquatic organisms depend on population size and industrialization within its catchments and the level of treatment and control of contaminants in discharges. Thus, the Black and Azov Seas not only have the largest catchments of Europe’s seas, but also the largest population within the hydrographic basin, so contaminant loads are potentially higher than in other seas.
Marine eutrophication is a direct consequence of pollution. In the Black Sea, the increase of nutrient loads from agriculture, industry and urban settlements facilitated by the Danube (50 per cent) and the Dniepr, Dniester, and Bug Ukrainian Rivers along the northwestern coast and the Turkish rivers along the southern coast (50 per cent), led to changes in the ecosystem structure and functioning: intensification of phytoplankton blooms; a gradual basin-wide shallowing of the euphotic zone; massive loss of shallow water macrophytes, an important component of the system’s biodiversity and a major economic resource, as it is commercially harvested; profound changes of the base of the marine food chain caused by the almost monospecific algal blooms; widespread hypoxia; the introduction of alien species, through vessels navigating in the Black Sea, either preying on local animals or becoming competitors for food and space with indigenous organisms; a drastic reduction of biodiversity with serious socioeconomic consequences (from 26 species of economically valuable fish caught in the 1960s down to 5 today); the closing of main fisheries and related fish-processing industry, as well as less of tourism. In the Mediterranean region, control is needed to slow down the increase in eutrophication from nutritional substances, although it is limited to such sectors as the North Adriatic Sea, the Gulf of Lions and the Nile Delta.
The retention or turnover time has a direct influence on how contaminants are retained or accumulated in the marine ecosystem. For example, retention time values range from 0.1 to 3.9 years in the North Sea, 30 years in the Baltic Sea, about 80 years in the Mediterranean Sea and up to 140 years in the Black Sea.
The Black and Mediterranean Seas have manifested strong interdependencies in terms of socioeconomic organization. Two of the most notable Mediterranean civilizations in classical antiquity, the Greeks and Romans, expanded throughout the Black Sea and south through the Red Sea. They founded colonies and significantly contributed to the economic development of the region. Along with interconnected economic development, this exchange of population also led to a cultural exchange and to the development of common myths and beliefs centred on the area of the macrosystem. The Greeks and Romans were the most notorious, but many other civilizations spread ties using the connectivity between the three waterways in ancient and medieval times. Presently, the maritime and inland water navigation between the various ports in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Danube River are well established with dedicated liners and intermodal connectivities.
The economy of the riparian countries depends significantly on maritime activities. Tourism, transport, fisheries, aqua and mariculture are important sectors, contributing more than 20 per cent to the national gross domestic product in some cases. Solid scientific knowledge to enable sustainable development and environmental protection in the phase of global change is an urgent need. In particular, there is a significant need to develop additional scientific understanding for assessing good environmental status in a coherent and holistic manner to support the ecosystem.
The Black Sea Universities Network (BSUN) was established based on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC) and the Cultural, Education and Social Affairs Committee during the session held in Bucharest in August 1997. Following the PABSEC recommendations, this network was established in 1998 in Constantza, Romania during the second Conference of Rectors from the Black Sea region. The idea of the network was welcomed by the region’s academic community and was developed by over 118 universities from the 12 member countries of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC): Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine.
With its establishment, BSUN represented an academic cooperation structure promoting the initiation of students and academic staff mobility, organization of scientific meetings, summer schools and workshops in different fields. In order to concentrate its efforts, BSUN activity was structured on framework programmes with a duration of two years which were proposed and implemented by each presidency.
BSUN has the statute of Sectoral Dialogue Partner to BSEC and is working in close cooperation with PABSEC, is a member of the European Universities Association and a founding member of the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI).
BSUN has signed cooperation agreements with the Eurasia Universities Association, coordinated by the Lomonosov Moscow State University, with the Association of Universities from the Caspian Sea, the Baltic Sea Cooperation Programme and the Réseau Méditerranéen des Écoles d’Ingénieurs. Also, BSUN has signed a cooperation agreement with Hewlett Packard in Romania in the field of high-performance computing and cloud computing and with ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development for cooperation in developing common activities in the field of green economy, sustainable development and renewable energy sources.
The priorities for the activities of the network are approved during the Conference of Rectors from the Black Sea Region/BSUN General Assembly. The last session of the Conference of Rectors was held during the BSUN 2012 Congress which was organized as a Forum on Academic Cooperation for Peace & Welfare in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Region in Tirana, Albania from 16 to 19 May 2012. The Forum, organized by BSUN in cooperation with Réseau Méditerranéen des Écoles d’Ingénieurs, Community of Mediterranean Universities and UNAI, gathered rectors, senior university managers and decision makers from the fields of higher education, scientific research, technology transfer and academics, interested in the active involvement of universities for the reconstruction of sustainable peace and welfare in the region.
At the Forum, it was decided that BSUN shall focus on projects dedicated to the management of water resources including graduate-level courses on sustainable development and governance, as well as the establishment of the International Centre for Advanced Studies in Danube River “Danube Delta-Black Sea”.
CASE STUDY: THE UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE
The Chair in Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering at the University of Belgrade has a tradition of more than 125 years. Years of cooperation with the United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) research and educational projects resulted in the establishment of the International Research and Training Centre for Urban Drainage (IRTCUD), which has been active in the field of water since 1987. These water-related centres under the auspices of UNESCO have cooperated closely with UN organizations, UN programmes and agencies, as well as with professional institutions such as the International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control, International Association of Hydrological Sciences, World Meteorological Organization, and universities and research institutions from around the world.
In recent years, IRTCUD has expanded its activities beyond urban drainage to include aspects of integrated urban water management. These activities have been implemented through the IRTCUD network of regional centres and through the newly created network of Centres for Urban Water. The main field of activities of the IRTCUD/CUW network is the development and implementation of the advanced methodologies for integrated urban water management in urban, peri-urban and rural areas, and their interactions with other urban water subsystems. The Centre and its cooperating partners have developed several innovative, internationally recognized methodologies for research, modelling and sustainability improvement of urban water systems, such as Geographic Information Systems-based urban drainage modelling, flooding and water quality assessment.
The EDUCATE! Postgraduate Study Programme in Water Resources and Environmental Management is an outcome of inter-university cooperation. This is an international postgraduate programme organized by four leading universities in the South-Eastern European region: National Technical University of Athens, the University of Belgrade, the Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest and the University of Ljubljana. The EDUCATE! studies at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering, target recent university graduates and professionals from the public or private sector seeking specialization in the field of water resources and environmental management.
The programme aims to enhance and broaden students’ academic competencies in the fields of urban water systems (including the analysis, design, modelling and management of all their aspects); catchment management issues related to both surface water and groundwater systems and their associated processes (specific capacities are developed for analysis, modelling through a variety of hydroinformatics tools and management of all key aspects of catchment and integrated water management systems); water and environmental policy; legislation with an emphasis on European Union legislation and the Water Framework Directive; policymaking and social processes; and the role of public participation in the decision-making process.
Recognizing the need for improving education and research in the field of water in the region, the UNESCO Chair in Water for Ecologically Sustainable Development was awarded to the University of Belgrade in 2011 and established in 2012.
The Chair promotes an integrated system of research, training, information and documentation on sustainable water resources management, hydroinformatics and ecohydrology. It is expected to facilitate the achievement of UNESCO priorities to Region II, Central Asia, Africa and gender equity within integrated water resource management.
The long-term goal of the Chair is to help achieve the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring environmental sustainability and to empower women by promoting socio-economic-environmental resilience and sustainable development in Southeast Europe, the Black Sea and Caspian region, by improving water governance and the capacity of current and future water professionals and policymakers.
As a professor at Ovidius University of Constantza, I speak to my students about water beyond its physical and chemical properties. Water is a perfect example of unity in diversity, for water binds our entire ecosystem as a basic and common element and also takes on infinite forms, shapes and behaviours. This basic common element can help unite people and build our future.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Teaching The UN Through Experiential Education | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/teaching-un-through-experiential-education | “As educators…you can help students grow into…a global civic identity and understand how their decisions have an impact ranging well beyond their immediate vicinity. The United Nations is uniquely placed to work with you in instilling a sense of global citizenship in today’s youth.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, 30 January 20091
The news that Syria had met its 1 November, 2013 deadline to destroy its chemical mixing and production facilities for weapons, albeit with some remaining challenges about disarmament on a larger scale, demonstrated the triumph, as well as the continued need, to seek diplomatic solutions to resolve and avert conflicts on the global stage. More than 60 years ago, when the United Nations was created to prevent the scourge of another world war, the goal was that it would serve as the premier partnership of nation states that would provide collective security and offer conflict resolution through diplomatic means. Since the days of the cold war and continuing into the twenty-first century, the role of the United Nations in preventing conflicts has been a subject of study, analysis and debate in the practical world of international politics as well as in academic circles.
Regardless of how educators view the role of the United Nations, for decades educators at the secondary and post-secondary levels across the world have underscored the importance of teaching and learning about the organization. Starting with 51 nations in 1945, and with South Sudan’s newest membership in 2011, a total of 193 countries are now United Nations members. As the United Nations membership grew and the organization adapted to changing global dynamics, it spread its functions to cover areas of peace and security, human rights, humanitarian assistance, social and economic development, and much more. Interest in its history, structure and functions also grew among educators and students. The genesis of its formation, structure and functions of the different organs of the United Nations bureaucracy, and relevance of the organization as a whole, remain fundamental aspects of study in political science courses, international relations and related disciplines. Traditionally, students learned about the history and analysis of the United Nations and its inner workings from books and articles, including UN publications. For students in the New York City vicinity, a day trip to UN Headquarters offers a firsthand introduction to the General Assembly building and the main chambers, along with the Security Council, Economic and Social Council, and Trusteeship Council. With the advent of technology, virtual tours provide an insight into the workings of the United Nations.2
While traditional courses of study and Internet based information continue to serve as useful instruments for analyzing and learning about the UN System, they offer only partial fulfillment to the yearning fascination and excitement that can capture the imagination of the students eager to learn about how global policymaking works through a diverse tapestry of participants representing the different cultures and nation states around the world. How can students find opportunities to engage with the policymaking process within the UN System?
This question is rooted in a deeper need that educators have been seeking answers to for some time now. Academic disciplines are seeking ways to make their teaching and learning relevant to the real world in which students will graduate, seek employment, and build careers and personal lives. Increasingly, high school and especially colleges and universities are incorporating experiential learning, which gives students hands-on experience in applying theoretical knowledge in actual work settings and organizations. It is done through internships, which offer students the opportunity to spend time assisting in the work of the organization and learning through apprenticeship. The literature on the pedagogical benefits of experiential learning underscores its manifold benefits. Even though the most direct benefit that students and others see are enhancement of chances of employment, the impact is deeper. “The strongest case to be made for internships is that they significantly enhance students’ capacity to analyze and understand political phenomena.”3 Studies suggest that students who participate in experiential learning are more likely to stay engaged, and help the retention numbers at universities.4 Many programmes create internships to offer their students such experiential opportunities. At the United Nations there are opportunities for internships that students can apply for. They are wonderful opportunities but understandably competitive, and are primarily for graduate and postgraduate students.5 Logistically, they may not be a feasible option for many students.
A long-standing and unique instrument that provides experiential learning opportunity for students, and addresses this kind of multifaceted and deeper impact, is the Model UN experience. Even before the creation of the United Nations, in the 1920s a group of students from Ivy League schools introduced the model league, which later morphed into the Model UN.6 Students engage in role-playing, serving as delegates of Member States of the United Nations and agencies, and tackle actual problems that the global community faces. Often, this involves crises scenarios involving an outbreak of violent conflict, or a global pandemic, which participants are expected to resolve within a limited timeframe, working through myriads of challenges. As student expectations for opportunities for experiential learning offering hands-on experiences in diplomatic negotiations increased, along with the realization of the benefits of skills associated with writing position papers, negotiations and conflict resolution, Model UN conferences surged and spread to all 50 states in the United States, as well as across Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe. According to one account, as of 1992, “Over 100,000 high school and college students participate in the more than 150 Model UN conferences held annually in the United States and Canada.”7 The National Model UN conference in New York attracts more than 5,000 students from across the world annually.
Even though the structure and delivery of a Model UN programme can vary, at its core it offers an opportunity for students to ‘experience’ the actual workings of the United Nations, the various roles that the different organs play, and the vicissitudes of global policymaking with a multitude of actors, priorities, and values. Depending on class size, simulation groups can be small, for example, to replicate the Security Council. Larger groups can represent the entire membership body and play the role of the General Assembly. Students take on the roles of diplomats representing countries and their national priorities and interests, as well as issues that are centre stage on the global agenda. For instructors, it means offering students a thorough background in the structure and functions of the United Nations, as well as about major global issues, and clear instructions about the simulation process and its goals. Typically, students run mock conferences on their campus and also participate with other institutions in small or large conferences. In addition to study materials covering these aspects, publications and delegate handbooks from organizations such as the United Nations Association of the United States of America provide useful resources to prepare students for the simulation and role-play.
A fundamental aspect of the Model UN experience is the immersion in oral and written communication skills. During the conference, students are engaged in small and large group negotiations, they exchange research and ideas, come up with solutions, and write position papers and arguments. To get their resolutions passed, participants have to engage in caucusing, passionately representing and defending their country’s positions, and effectively communicating their positions. The skills needed and developed in the course of such exercise over the course of the conference last a lifetime. High school students reckon that working with Model UN helped them develop and present coherent policy ideas with confidence. For them, it is a unique experience that few other high school organizations could have provided. It also allowed for the development of their interpersonal skills and helped them connect with motivated students from other schools. The friendships that they developed during the Model UN conference and meetings resulted in friendships and support sources that continue to benefit them in their college years and beyond.8 As such, an experiential education opportunity like Model UN offers long-term values in the preparation of students in their later professional lives.
Which students does Model UN benefit? Contrary to popular notions, Model UN simulations benefit students from various disciplines. It is true that students studying political science and international relations are naturally drawn to the experiential aspects of Model UN experience. A student interested in learning about power politics gets valuable training in working within the realities of power imbalance. They learn the art of persuasion and compromise and their role in conflict resolution. However, awareness is also increasing that Model UN is not just for such students. Beyond peace and security, issues such as the global health crises, environmental and sustainability issues, and development priorities are relevant for students of health studies, environment, and other related disciplines. Testimonials from business students who participate in Model UN conferences underscore the impact of such experiential learning. Some confirm that despite doubts about its impact, Model UN experience helps a student of business in multiple ways. It improves their research, written and oral communication, negotiation, persuasion and problem-solving skills. Interacting with and persuading others to come to a resolution on conflicting issues requires leadership qualities and team building skills that are helpful in any business or other career setting.
Teaching about the UN through the Model UN experiential template is not without its limitations, though. Instructors and students have to make a commitment to the success of the experience. Preparation can be time consuming; instructions have to be very clear so that students understand their roles as well as what the expected outcomes will be, on which they will be assessed. It is a team effort and, as such, the assessment has to take consideration of that aspect: “Instructors must resist the temptation to simply reward those who speak most at the podium.”9 Institutional funding is a prerequisite to successful participation in Model UN conferences nationally and internationally. The possibilities for virtual simulations, as well as on-campus ones provide viable alternatives.
In addition to Model UN, there are other avenues and opportunities to engage students with the work of the United Nations, and thereby offer them opportunities to become active global citizens. In teaching about the United Nations, there is need to offer students an insight into the wide-ranging span of UN presence and activities around the world. These include not only peacekeeping and peace building, but also promoting awareness, understanding, and activism surrounding development, education, gender empowerment, human development and security, sustainable living, and other goals and targets envisioned in the Millennium Development Goals. Through the offices of the United Nations Department of Public Information and affiliated programmes, such as the UN Academic Impact (UNAI), educational institutions have a unique opportunity to engage students in making a difference through projects promoting values of human rights, education, sustainable living and conflict resolution.10 Through the UNAI and other opportunities provided by the various UN agencies, students from around the world get opportunities to participate in conferences, engage with their peers from around the world, exchange ideas with global leaders, make their voices heard, and provide leadership toward positive change.
Initiatives such as the UNAI have been engaging students to bringing positive change in their communities through diverse academic projects. They range from building solar powered gadgets to bringing power in rural areas in the developing world, to mentoring underrepresented students to explore opportunities for higher education in New Jersey.11 Such programmes are opening up new horizons of experiential learning and teaching about the United Nations. Following Gandhi, one acknowledges that quintessentially they are offering opportunities for students to take charge of their learning, to become agents of the change they want to see in the world, and become tomorrow’s leaders who will be skilled at resolving conflicts non-violently through dialogue and diplomacy.
Notes
1 http://www.ctaun.org/ accessed 26 October 2013.
2 The main UN website provides basic information on the United Nations, its structure and functions: http://www.un.org/en/. Other valuable sources of such information and virtual tours are provided by Cyberschoolbus: http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/untour/.
3 Andrew Hindmoor, “Internships with Political Science,” Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 3, 10 September 2010, pp. 484-85.
4 Ibid.
5 More information is available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/sds/internsh/.
6 Phillips, Mary Jones and John P. Muldoon Jr. “The Model United Nations: A strategy for enhancing global business education.” Journal Of Education For Business 71, no. 3: 142. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (1996) (accessed 31 October 2013).
7 Muldoon, cited in Phillips and Muldoon (1996) Ibid (html version).
8 Model UN is offered at high schools and colleges across the world. Until recently, Monmouth University in New Jersey has been offering a Model United Nations Conference for high school students. In 2007, the university began offering opportunities for its students, through the Global Service Project Club, as well as a course on Model UN, to prepare for and participate in collegiate level Model UN Conferences. Within a short period of time, the Model UN team has generated much excitement on campus, and provided unique learning opportunities for students. I thank Aziz Mama, Liz Anderson, and Professors Joseph Patten and Thomas Lamatsch for sharing information about the Model UN programme at Monmouth University.
9 Daniel McIntosh, “The Uses and Limits of the Model United Nations in an International Relations Classroom,” International Relations Perspectives (2001), 2, p. 275.
10 http://academicimpact.org/.
11 As part of a UNAI initiative, Monmouth University, in partnership with the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monmouth and Middlesex counties in New Jersey, and Asbury Park High School, engage students to jointly work toward exploring higher education opportunities for the high school students. This initiative has also led to the creation of a debate team at the high school where Monmouth University students, through peer learning, work with high school debaters in a mutual partnership to share academic and communication skills for success in future studies and careers.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
National Security and Pandemics | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/national-security-and-pandemics | August 2013, No. 2 Vol. L, Security
Pandemics are for the most part disease outbreaks that become widespread as a result of the spread of human-to-human infection.1 Beyond the debilitating, sometimes fatal, consequences for those directly affected, pandemics have a range of negative social, economic and political consequences. These tend to be greater where the pandemic is a novel pathogen, has a high mortality and/or hospitalization rate and is easily spread. According to Lee Jong-wook, former Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), pandemics do not respect international borders.2 Therefore, they have the potential to weaken many societies, political systems and economies simultaneously.
The association of pandemics with national security threat grew to prominence in the1990s. In 1995, the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreed to revise the International Health Regulations (IHR), the only international legal framework governing how WHO and its member States should respond to infectious disease outbreaks, on the grounds that revision was needed to take “effective account of the threat posed by the international spread of new and re-emerging diseases”.3 In 2005, the IHR revisions were adopted as WHA Resolution 58.3.4 Article 2 announced that the scope and purpose of the instrument was “to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks”.5 Since its entry into force in 2007, signatory States have been working, individually and collectively, to meet their core capacity requirements under the new framework.
The focus of IHR is on the prevention and containment of public health emergencies of international concern. Member States committed themselves to building core capacities in the areas of national legislation, policy and financing, coordination and National Focal Point (NFP) communications, surveillance, response, preparedness, risk communication, and human resources and laboratories. It was widely presumed that not all member States would achieve these eight capacities by the 1 July 2012 deadline, but those that could not would identify areas in which they needed assistance in order to achieve these capacities.
The political logic behind the attachment of health to security within the IHR framework would underline their importance and help sustain the political will needed to achieve the core capacities. The global threat posed by pandemics required a global approach to security as the rapid transmission of disease in a globalized world means that capacity failures in any member State could place any other state or society in peril. By 2013, 110 member States out of 195 signatories requested an additional two-year extension to build the capacities. This unexpectedly large number could be interpreted in one of two ways. First, that member States are not taking their commitment seriously and that the use of security language in the health field is no more than rhetoric. Second, that most states face immense challenges when it comes to building core capacities, especially when domestic health systems are fragmented, inadequately funded and understaffed.
At this stage, indications point to the latter rather than former explanation. Multiple extensions were built into the IHR framework in recognition of the fact that the revised framework demanded much more of member States in terms of pandemic prevention and containment. The evident difficulties in these 110 States are largely rooted in more general health system deficiencies and do not reflect political objections to the IHR or the sense of shared responsibility for the prevention of pandemics.6
This is reflected in the fact that it is those capacities most associated with the general performance of health systems that have proven most resistant to strengthening. According to the latest figures, nearly two thirds of the States parties that reported their IHR implementation progress performed best in surveillance (with a global average score of 81 per cent), response (78 per cent), and zoonotic events (80 per cent), while performance was much lower in relation to human resources (with a global average of 53 per cent), chemical events (51 per cent) and radiological events (53 per cent).7 Some 194 member States have appointed NFPs. Assessments of NFP functionality have revealed that they “recognize the value of engaging with government sectors outside the health ministry, [but] they lack the convening power needed to establish solid and reliable linkages”.8 In other words, the NFP’s recognition of the need to engage with others may outstrip the political process. At this stage, it may be safely said that the implementation lag does not reflect a lack of commitment to IHR but lies in deeper issues surrounding state capacity and political processes. In these circumstances, viewing pandemics as a security issue has encouraged a deepening of commitment to international cooperation and pandemic preparedness, but some of the associated structural changes will take more time.
One response to the capacity challenge has been the promotion of a more targeted approach to implementation. In 2013, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO argued: “The aim [of IHR core capacities] is not only to achieve the widest possible population coverage. It is also to ensure that there are no significant gaps at the national level, as these have the potential to threaten the health security of all countries in the world”.9 There are two interrelated concepts in her statement: the responsibility of states to protect as many of their citizens as possible and their responsibility to health security between states. The relationship between individual, national and international security is related to the introduction of concepts such as “human security” and “sovereignty as responsibility” in the post-cold war era, which tied the capacity of the state to secure its population to that state’s domestic and international legitimacy. Based on a realist understanding of the world, one prominent criticism of this approach was that, as rational self-interested entities, states would only commit resources to human security when they derived some direct benefit from it. Directed at the IHR framework, this critique suggests that the framework is primarily aimed at protecting states, particularly developed states, from the economic and other ills of pandemics and not, in fact, at promoting human security. Expecting core capacities for pandemic prevention to be prioritized in states where, for example, health-care coverage is far from universal has raised the question: who really benefits from the securitization of health?
This question is legitimate but neglects the discussion that has flowed from the health security movement since the 1990s. Today, debates concerning what should follow the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are primarily focused on the promotion of universal health care as a core goal.10 In 2007, the Oslo Ministerial Declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, France, Indonesia, Norway, Senegal, South Africa and Thailand suggested 10 implementation priorities which included the marriage of health security with health equality: “a global partnership for overcoming both structural and economic barriers to development and health is fundamental for reaching the MDGs and reducing vulnerabilities to neglected and emerging infectious diseases” (emphasis added).11
This Declaration inspired the adoption of a General Assembly resolution on Global Health and Foreign Policy.12 In December 2012, the General Assembly reinforced the link between security and universality in calling for member States to “recognize the links between the promotion of universal health coverage and other foreign policy issues, such as the social dimension of globalization, cohesion and stability, inclusive and equitable growth and sustainable development and sustainability of national financing mechanisms, and the importance of universal coverage in national health systems”.13
This approach clearly refutes realist cynicism and shows an emerging consensus that health security rests on universal and equitable health systems upon which sustained implementation of the IHR core capacities depend. A key priority then is to ensure that access to and distribution of core capacities is equitable within and across societies and that the progress of IHR does not inadvertently weaken other aspects of the health system.
In South and East Asia, for example, things have progressed amid a number of competing priorities and political interests. The region sits on key trading routes, has already proven to be a hot spot for novel infectious diseases (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever, severe complications from Enterovirus and influenza strains such as H5N1 and H7N9), has multiple states in political transition, civil unrest, dormant and active armed conflicts, and has a number of states recovering from armed conflict. There is also sharp diversity of wealth, health coverage and health governance.
Since 2004, in the aftermath of SARS, member States to WHO South-East Asia Regional Office (SEARO) and Western Pacific Regional Office (WPRO) began meeting to develop a collective strategy for addressing emerging infectious disease outbreaks. The resulted Asia Pacific Strategy for Emerging Diseases (APSED) framework was adopted in 2005. APSED aimed to assist member States with the implementation of the revised IHR and to develop a series of implementation goals and shared experiences that would reflect regional concerns and realities outside the confines of the IHR. APSED, in its second phase of implementation in 2010-2015, still works according to the principle of tailoring the IHR core capacity requirements to the priorities and capacities of SEARO and WPRO member States.14 WHO SEARO and WPRO staff, along with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEA N), have worked together in efforts to share dialogue and highlight progress across the eight IHR capacities. From its inception, the APSED framework has been couched in strong security rhetoric, one that the ASEAN secretariat has readily adopted to promote regional cooperation.15,16
However, with this ready adoption of a national security lens have come concerns that the overall approach conceals deep structural shortfalls when it comes to IHR compliance in the region. It is sometimes charged that security rhetoric allows the region to appear engaged while doing little to ensure that domestic health and political systems are reformed to meet the commitments made to IHR .17,18 ,19 These programmes rely on self-reporting and hold workshops that engage like-minded health responders, while there is no forum to openly address problems where progress is seriously lagging.20
In responding to these concerns, while it cannot be said that all member States are effectively achieving their core capacity targets, the region has exhibited a willingness to recognize the challenges it faces. Most notably, nearly every SEARO and WPRO member State has reported on progress towards IHR implementation, a rate of reporting significantly above any of the other WHO Regional Offices. When novel outbreaks occur, this emerging shared knowledge of where capacity and capacity gaps exist is a significant advantage, as the region’s rapid and largely effective response to H7N9 demonstrates. Indeed, WPRO and SEARO have made the most progress in narrowing the time difference between outbreak alert and formal confirmation. This is no small achievement.
There are three key concepts about the relationship between pandemics and security. First, associating health policy commitments with security can elevate the level of priority given to an issue and deliver results. While 110 member States will not meet their IHR core capacities by 2014, the majority of these States are working towards an implementation path with the WHO Director-General. Few other areas of global governance can boast similar levels of commitment and compliance; fewer still where core national capacities and structures are concerned.
Second, health security has not distorted policy by drawing attention away from the health crises that affect most of the world’s population. In fact, heightened global and national interest in pandemic prevention and response has helped to elevate the goal of universal health-care coverage. It is now widely recognized that effective prevention and response to a pandemic requires national health systems that are accessible and equitable. Universal health-care coverage is not the only answer in strengthening health systems but many states, such as China, perceive it as a core part of their effective response to disease outbreak events.
Third, IHR compliance needs to be understood through a regional lens and supported by global institutions. Regional mechanisms allow a more tailored approach that recognize the contexts in which states operate and establish frameworks consistent with regional norms. This all helps to build the necessary trust and confidence. However, regions and individual states cannot do this on their own and WHO has a major role to play in assisting its regional offices and cooperating with its member States. The wider United Nations system, especially bodies such as the Peacebuilding Commission and agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Children’s Fund, have a supporting role to play in helping states build the technical capacities needed to deliver the IHRs.
While the marriage of security and health has helped build the necessary global political will to implement the IHRs, the institutional, technical and political challenges in achieving this goal cannot be overstated.
Notes
1 Doshi, P., “The elusive definition of pandemic influenza”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 89 (2011), pp. 532-538.
2 World Health Organization, “World Health Assembly adopts new International Health Regulations: New rules govern national and international response to disease outbreaks” (2005).
3 World Health Organization, Revision and Updating of the International Health Regulations, WHA48.7, Forty-eighth World Health Assembly (1995).
4 World Health Organization, Revision of the International Health Regulations, WHA58.3, Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly (2005).
5 Ibid.
6 World Health Organization, Department of Global Capacities and Alert Response Activity Report, 2012 (WHO Lyon Office, 2013). Available from http://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ WHO_HSE_GCR _ LYO_2013.3.pdf.
7 World Health Organization (2013), Implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005). Report by the Director-General (A/66/16), Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly.
8 Hardiman, Maxwell C. and World Health Organization Department of Global Capacities, Alert and Response, “World Health Organization perspective on implementation of International Health Regulations”, Emerging Infectious Diseases (2012). Available from http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/7/12-0395_article.htm.
9 See World Health Organization (2013), Implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005).
10 World Health Organization, Informal Member State Consultation on Health in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Summary Report (2012). Available from http://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/post2015/summary_... states_20121214.pdf).
11 Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, France, Indonesia, Norway, Senegal, South Africa and Thailand, “Oslo Ministerial Declaration—global health: a pressing foreign policy issue of our time”, The Lancet (2007).
12 Global health and foreign policy (A/63/33), 27 January 2009.
13 Global health and foreign policy (A/67/L.36, para. 3), 12 December 2012.
14 World Health Organization, “Securing Regional Health through APSED, Building Sustainable Capacity for Managing Emerging Diseases and Public Health Events”, Progress Report (World Health Organization Regional Office for Western Pacific, 2012).
15 Caballero-Anthony, M., “Non-Traditional Security and Infectious Diseases in ASEAN: Going Beyond the Rhetoric of Securitization to Deeper Institutionalisation”, The Pacific Review, vol. 12, No. 4 (2008), pp. 509-527.
16 Haacke, J. and Paul D. Williams, “Regional Arrangements, Securitization, and Transnational Security Challenges: The African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Compared”, Security Studies, vol. 17, No. 4 (2008), pp. 775-809.
17 Aldis, W., “Health security as a public health concept: a critical analysis”, Health Policy and Planning, vol. 23, No. 6, (2008), pp. 369-375.
18 Stevenson, M. A. and A. F. Cooper, “Overcoming Constraints of State Sovereignty: Global Health Governance in Asia”, Third World Quarterly, vol. 30, No. 7 (2009), pp. 1379-1394.
19 Vu, T., “Epidemics as Politics with Case Studies from Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, Global Health Governance”, (2011) (see http://blogs.shu. edu/ghg/2011/06/21/epidemics-as-politics-with-case-studies-from-malaysia-thailand-and-vietnam/).
20 See Haacke, J. and Paul D. Williams (2008).
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
The Future of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/future-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty | The world's first nuclear test, "Trinity", took place on 16 July 1945, in a torrid desert in New Mexico which the Spanish Conquistadores had named Jornada del Muerto (Journey of the Dead Man). In the decades that followed, over 2,000 such tests occurred in eight countries, some in the atmosphere, some underground and others underwater. Today, the world is poised to turn a new page in the history of nuclear testing. With some enlightened leadership from key States that possess such weapons, as well as sustained diplomatic encouragement from other countries and persistent efforts from civil society, there is a good chance that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) will finally enter into force sometime in the foreseeable future, thereby outlawing all such tests in any environment.
Why would readers of the UN Chronicle, who are interested in many other issues, care about the outcome of the CTBT treaty? How is it relevant to their concerns? What are some possible consequences if the treaty never enters into force? These are all legitimate questions and all have good answers -- but before we can respond and look forward, we must look back.
The United Nations Charter, signed one month before the "Trinity" test in June 1945, is a pre-atomic document. Yet, in January 1946, the General Assembly's first resolution called specifically for the elimination of all nuclear weapons and other such weapons "adaptable to mass destruction", including biological and chemical arms. The term "mass destruction" is tricky, since the many thousands of conventional bombs dropped in the Second World War -- not to mention the havoc wreaked centuries earlier by the Mongol conquerors in Central Asia -- established rather conclusively that many types of weapons can cause mass destruction. Yet, what is unique about nuclear weapons, and to a lesser extent other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is their ability to produce large-scale, indiscriminate deaths with a single detonation. While the UN Charter addressed both "disarmament" and "regulation of armaments", the General Assembly clarified that disarmament applied to WMD, while the parallel goal was the control or limitation of conventional arms.
This distinction is significant. The United Nations does not seek merely to "regulate" nuclear weapons, but rather to prohibit and eliminate such weapons, along with all other WMD, while limiting conventional arms. This is what "general and complete disarmament" means. It has been on the General Assembly's agenda for 50 years and has been the "ultimate goal" of the United Nations since the Assembly's first special session on disarmament in 1978.
Nuclear weapons, of course, do not spring out of nothing. They are enormously complex artefacts of human ingenuity. The production of the fissile materials that fuel such weaponry -- plutonium and highly enriched uranium -- is in itself a tremendously difficult process, which only a few countries have mastered, even today. Designing such a weapon that is light yet durable enough to be delivered to its intended target is another difficult task, and here is where explosive tests play such an important role. Of course, one can design a workable nuclear weapon without having tested it, as illustrated conclusively by the development and use of the "Little Boy" bomb that devastated Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Even using 1945-vintage technology, the designers of that uranium bomb had so much confidence that it would work, they were comfortable putting it to use even without a test.
However, all the States that have declared possession of such weapons -- namely, the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States, plus the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), India and Pakistan -- have also tested such devices. Testing is a way for a State to signal unambiguously to the international community possession of such a weapon. But symbolism alone does not explain the testing of over 2,000 nuclear weapons over the past several decades.
Testing is essentially an experimental tool used by scientists and engineers to improve these weapons or, as occurred rarely in the past, confirm their reliability. Sometimes these "improvements" are intended to enhance the safety or security of a weapon, for example, to ensure that it will not go off prematurely, explode as a result of an accident or be subject to theft or use by a terrorist group. Yet, these improvements are also intended to enhance the performance of a weapon, give it a new role or make it better able to survive the hazards of their delivery -- the intense pressures, temperatures and defensive measures that such weapons encounter on their way to their targets -- and the effects of their aging process. Some tests, of course, can serve to develop entire new generations of weapons -- this is how the hydrogen bomb was developed in the early 1950s.
Historically, efforts to prohibit nuclear tests have focused on three possible benefits: environmental, non-proliferation and disarmament. The impetus that led to the conclusion of the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 (PTBT) -- which outlawed nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater or in outer space -- was influenced by the outpouring of demands from civil society, as well as at the United Nations, for efforts to put a halt to the environmental contamination from nuclear tests. Fallout from a 1954 hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific contaminated a Japanese fishing boat, called the "Lucky Dragon", killing the radio operator and injuring its crew. Radioactive isotopes from such tests were found later turning up in mother's milk and children's teeth. Public outrage mobilized in response to studies documenting the health and environmental effects of these tests. Concerns of the scientists and the public soon became the subject of legislative hearings and other such inquiries. The media was drawn to the issue serving to expand public interest even further. Countries with no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons were finding traces of radioactive materials on their territories. The effect of these findings snowballed, leading to the PTBT.
There were, of course, other reasons to oppose nuclear tests. Policymakers and students of nuclear weapons often speak of the difference between "horizontal" and "vertical" proliferation: the former consists of the geographical spread of these weapons to additional States, while the latter represents the qualitative improvement or expansion of existing nuclear arsenals. Others have expressed concern over the ubiquity of such weapons in transit worldwide -- through the sea via submarines, or in the skies via aircraft. Some of these vessels carry weapons that can be fired at a moment's notice, and some have been involved in collisions and crashes over the years.
As suggested by the precedent of "Little Boy", a test ban alone cannot prevent a country from acquiring an early-generation nuclear weapon. Prohibition can, however, make it more difficult for other States to pursue nuclear-weapon programmes. If there is an agreed global norm against testing, a State wishing to defy this norm will have to face some significant political and diplomatic repercussions for conducting a nuclear test, including international condemnations, sanctions and possible military responses from neighbouring States. Such a norm will also serve to discourage countries, groups and individuals from assisting in the conduct of any such test.
A test ban can indeed serve as an important barrier to horizontal proliferation, even if it cannot offer any panacea. One great merit of a multilateral, legal test ban is that it helps to neutralize any possible status or prestige that may come from conducting such a test. With such a norm, tests will be viewed throughout the world community not as status symbols but as a taboo to be stigmatized.
A global ban on nuclear tests would also be necessary, but is alone insufficient in the process of achieving nuclear disarmament. One can imagine a world with many nuclear-weapon States that simply refrain from nuclear tests, whether pursuant to a treaty or as a result of a national policy decision. Yet, no one should underestimate the positive contributions of a legal ban on nuclear tests in advancing the goal of global nuclear disarmament. First, a test ban would help to prevent certain forms of "vertical proliferation", including the development of new generations of nuclear weapons or major improvements in existing arsenals. Second, a test ban would lead to a process of taking apart some of the elaborate institutional infrastructure that had been established to develop and maintain those arsenals. Third, a test ban would help in the evolving process of delegitimizing the very existence of nuclear weapons -- claims that testing is needed to "maintain the reliability" of existing arsenals, for example, are much harder to sustain in a climate of global expectations that such weapons should not exist at all.
What are these expectations? It was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India who made one of the first calls for a ban on nuclear tests, in a speech to his Parliament on 2 April 1954, just a few weeks after the "Lucky Dragon" event. His proposal for a "Standstill Agreement" had quite an effect at the United Nations, where under the leadership of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and concerned Member States, numerous proposals were put forward to halt tests.
The Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation was established in 1955 and continues to meet annually. Many Governments introduced specific proposals for a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests, though great differences remained, especially during the cold war, over the ever-sensitive issue of verification. By the late 1950s, States were referring to such proposals as "partial measures"; in other words, there was a growing recognition at the United Nations that nuclear disarmament would not occur at once, but through an evolving, incremental process. Halting nuclear tests was positively and widely viewed at the time as one of those essential steps, just as it is now.
Global efforts to achieve a comprehensive ban did not end in 1963 with the conclusion of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which foresaw future challenges in its preamble, underscoring that parties were "seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time [and] determined to continue negotiations to this end".
In 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature; its preamble echoed the more comprehensive goal of PTBT, and its Article VI obliged each of its States parties "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
The NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995 as a result of a "package deal" which included the conclusion of a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by 1996 as one of its key elements. The "early entry into force" of the CTBT was also the first of "thirteen steps" for nuclear disarmament agreed upon at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The global norm for a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests has also received additional support, with the inclusion of a test ban in the texts of the treaties which created regional nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central Asia, representing the combined commitments of 112 States.
However, though the CTBT was finally opened for signature in 1996, it has not yet gained all of the 44 ratifications required for its entry into force. As of July 2009, 180 States have signed the treaty and 14 have ratified it. Of the 44 key States, 35 have ratified it, nine have not, while three have not signed the treaty. Support for the CTBT's entry into force, however, was not limited to NPT States. The General Assembly has been adopting resolutions for literally decades on behalf of a comprehensive test ban, typically receiving an overwhelming majority of votes. The last one on CTBT, resolution 63/87, was adopted in December 2008 by a vote of 175 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Banning nuclear testing is a goal that has long had the strong support of UN Secretaries-General, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who stated: "I see emerging in the world today a 'zero tolerance' of any further tests of nuclear explosive devices. I hope to see the day when this expectation is made legally binding and remain convinced that the CTBT is the way that this goal will ultimately be achieved." (Interview in CTBTO Spectrum, July 2007). His interest in this issue is quite sincere and longstanding as illustrated by his past service as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in 1999 and by his many messages to the periodic meetings of CTBT signatory States (organized to promote the Treaty's entry into force). He also included the nuclear-test banning goal in his five-point disarmament proposal announced at the United Nations on 24 October 2008. The goal to ban nuclear testing continues to receive strong support from civil society and has been incorporated in numerous disarmament proposals presented in recent years. In 2006, for example, the international WMD Commission, chaired by Hans Blix, placed a particular emphasis on the need for the United States leadership in bringing CTBT into force:
"The Commission believes that a US decision to ratify the CTBT would strongly influence other countries to follow suit. It would decisively improve the chances for entry into force of the treaty and would have more positive ramifications for arms control and disarmament than any other single measure. While no nuclear-weapon tests have been carried out for many years, leaving the treaty in limbo is a risk to the whole international community. The United States should reconsider its position and proceed to ratify the treaty. Only the CTBT offers the prospect of a permanent and legally binding commitment to end nuclear testing." (Weapons of Terror, 2006)
By now, many of the questions posed at the beginning of this article have been answered. A world free of nuclear weapons would tremendously benefit all of humankind -- it is what the Secretary-General has called a "global public good of the highest order". And a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests would advance that goal in many significant ways, while also reducing many of the risks of proliferation and helping to protect the environment. Progress in disarmament may also free some financial and technological resources for social and economic development purposes. Our world will be safer and more prosperous as a result.
This is why I personally believe that the real "constituency" of disarmament includes not just all of humanity, but also future generations. Progress towards global nuclear disarmament, which surely includes the entry into force of the CTBT, deserves strong support and encouragement from all people everywhere -- especially from UN Chronicle readers who appreciate the importance of multilateralism, the rule of law, the need to channel more resources into meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals, and the concrete benefits for international peace.
These steps towards a nuclear-weapon-free world are deeply rooted in the UN Charter -- together they help to define the very identity of the United Nations as an institution dedicated to peace, security and human welfare. This helps to explain why there is so much support for CTBT throughout the United Nations.
Yet, UN Member States do not view the treaty as an end in itself. To the contrary, they recognize the many ways that this global treaty will advance their specific national interests, while also advancing other multilateral goals of disarmament and non-proliferation. They also understand that the inability of a single treaty to achieve all these historic UN goals is no reason whatsoever for deferring its entry into force.
What CTBT can do, however, is to put an effective end to all nuclear testing. More than just a vision of a desired goal, it offers an effective international regime backed up by a robust global monitoring system that has significantly expanded in recent years; and CTBT continues to improve its ability to detect any clandestine nuclear explosions, even those far smaller than the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is my great hope that certain developments in the months ahead will have a profound and positive impact on the future of CTBT -- including two important conferences in September 2009 and May 2010 concerning the CTBT and NPT, respectively, and the unfolding of policies of President Barack Obama, who has spoken favourably about the CTBT treaty. However, the treaty's future will not be determined by the actions of just one country, but by the support it deserves among all countries, and this support has been and remains considerable. Ultimately, its strongest foundation of support remains among the people, who will be both its true beneficiaries and its most persistent and effective advocates. Enlightened leadership from countries, backed by an informed public, can accomplish a great deal in this world, even one of the greatest of all arms control achievements -- a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests.
One question remains: "What are some possible consequences if the treaty never does enter into force?" In all likelihood, countries will continue to maintain their unilateral moratoria on tests, which may or may not hold for a while. If one State decides to resume testing, pressures will grow on others to follow suit. A resumption of testing would damage the NPT by departing from one of the key terms that led to its indefinite extension. It would be a severe blow to any hopes for progress in disarmament, and would create new environmental hazards, even if the tests remain underground.
The best argument for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, however, rests not on fears of its failure to enter into force, but on the prospects for a safer and saner world when it does.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
A Nuclear-Weapons-Free World: Is It Achievable? | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/nuclear-weapons-free-world-it-achievable | After the worst of times, we are perhaps entering the best of times for proponents of nuclear disarmament. At long last, advocates of the elimination of nuclear weapons have reason for some guarded optimism. The road to a nuclear-weapons-free world will be long and bumpy, but those expected to take the initiative seem to have finally decided to lead. That is encouraging.Sixty-four years ago the world was free of nuclear weapons, but after the production of some 140,000 of these artifacts of mass destruction, there seems to be a significant shift in the role some Governments have assigned to them. They are no longer generally considered to be the best means to ensure national security. Deterrence and mutually-assured destruction have become outdated concepts in a world now more concerned with other questions and challenges, including widespread poverty, climate change, a worldwide economic and financial meltdown, and other threats such as the recent alarm over the pandemic outbreak of a new kind of influenza virus.Above all, the motivation for seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons now seems to be a fear of the further proliferation of these weapons to other States and possibly to the so-called non-State actors, including terrorist groups. There is the rub.Nuclear weapons are intrinsically dangerous and pose an unparalleled threat to the very existence of humankind. They do not enhance a country's security but, rather, imperil the survival of all nations, which should be the point of departure of nuclear disarmament efforts.To dwell on the potential danger that they may fall into the wrong hands is to misconstrue the argument for their elimination. They should be banned because they are immoral -- and probably illegal -- tools of destruction. Since their use would likely be fatal for all, they cannot even be considered instruments of war.The twin questions of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy have been on the agenda of the United Nations since its beginning: the dawn of the atomic age coincided with its birth. The UN Charter, however, makes no mention of nuclear weapons for the simple reason that it was adopted at the San Francisco conference three weeks before the first test and six weeks before their use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The transcendental nature of the discovery of atomic energy prompted the delegates to the UN General Assembly's first session to address the issue immediately. In its very first resolution -- 1 (I) of 24 January 1946 -- the Assembly established the Atomic Energy Commission, composed of the Security Council members and Canada, and requested that it submit specific proposals for ensuring the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only, for the elimination of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction and for the establishment of a system of safeguards, including inspections, to prevent violations and evasions.A number of specific proposals followed, including one by the United States in June 1946. As the only nuclear-weapon State (NWS), it was natural that the United States put forward its own ideas on the matter. These were contained in what became known as the Baruch Plan, which was based largely on the United States government publication A Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy, issued in March of that year.The US, which still held an unchallenged nuclear monopoly, called for an open exchange among all nations of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; the elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction from national arsenals; and the establishment of effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions.Though forward-thinking in many aspects, the Baruch Plan had several drawbacks. The most controversial one was probably its insistence that the United States retain its nuclear stockpile (which then consisted of nine weapons) until it was satisfied with the effectiveness of the international control system.1 This proved unacceptable to the USSR, which wanted to reverse the order: all should first surrender their nuclear weapons and then implement an international verification system. One will never know if the world might have returned in 1946 to its nuclear-weapons-free status. What we do know is that there followed four decades of an unbridled nuclear arms race between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the acquisition of those weapons and their delivery systems by other nations.After the USSR's first nuclear test in 1949, the United Kingdom followed in 1952, France in 1960, China in 1964, India in 1974 and Pakistan in 1998. Israel also acquired nuclear weapons as did South Africa, which later surrendered its stockpile. After the USSR's collapse, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine became for a time de facto NWS. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has also tested a nuclear device. In addition, there are many countries that possess the scientific know-how, technology and fissile material that would allow them to play the nuclear card in a relatively short time.In 1952 the US achieved a qualitative leap in the nuclear-arms race when it detonated its first thermonuclear device. A year later the USSR followed suit.The development of nuclear-weapons delivery systems -- bombers, missiles and submarines -- is another chapter of the arms race. However, the testing of nuclear weapons and the rockets to transport them would eventually rally public opinion (at least momentarily) in favour of nuclear disarmament measures.Despite repeated and sometimes intense efforts to put disarmament efforts on track, the United Nations was unable to devise negotiating schemes that would bring the different parties together. Deep-rooted suspicion of the rival's motives and the absence of political will ensured a negotiating stalemate for almost two decades.In the early 1960s the US and the USSR finally agreed to lead disarmament talks at the Geneva Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (endc) meeting. Calls for an end to nuclear tests, especially in the atmosphere, and a stop to further horizontal proliferation were instrumental in getting the endc going in 1962. Not surprisingly, the first order of business was a treaty to ban nuclear-weapons tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space.The 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty was agreed upon rather quickly. It did not contain verification measures and it prohibited activities which the endc's three participating nuclear-weapon States -- the UK, the US and the USSR (France refused to take its seat at the table) -- were ready to forego. Underground testing would continue for over 30 years.The next item on the endc's agenda was a multilateral legal agreement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons to other nations (horizontal proliferation). The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has become the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts since its entry into force in 1970.By the late 1950s, the possible spread of nuclear weapons to more countries (horizontal proliferation) had become a source of increasing concern. So had the continued improvement of existing arsenals (vertical proliferation) and the testing of those weapons was seen as the key element of the qualitative nuclear arms race. Both horizontal proliferation and nuclear testing had found their way onto the United Nations agenda.By the mid-1960s a number of countries had decided to forego the nuclear option and agreed to a trade-off from the nuclear-weapon States in return for a legally-binding commitment to remain non-nuclear-weapon States (nNWS). It was time to sit down and negotiate a treaty. Countries in Latin America had already begun the pioneering efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in their region, which they saw as a way to begin to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world.The NPT's approach was different. It rests on three pillars: horizontal non-proliferation; vertical non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament; and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is a contract between NWS and nNWS. The latter would enjoy the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. The former would pursue nuclear disarmament, beginning with the cessation of all nuclear tests.By then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was in place, providing all parties with an international verification system, including inspections. The IAEA would do the same for the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established.The NPT was done in good faith, but the non-nuclear-weapon States insisted that the situation regarding its implementation be reviewed periodically; thus the five-year conferences. In addition, the NPT was a temporary agreement whose extension would have to be examined after 25 years. In 1995 it was extended indefinitely.After 1970, despite some very limited bilateral agreements between the US and the USSR, the nuclear arms race continued. The 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty had been a hoax, since underground tests multiplied. It appeared that since nuclear tests were out of sight, they were also out of mind. Calls for a comprehensive nuclear-weapon-test prohibition fell on deaf ears.The non-nuclear-weapon States tried to raise visibility of the nuclear disarmament issues. Some pursued an amendment conference of the Partial Test-Ban Treaty to convert it into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a means of promoting public awareness of the dangers of a continued nuclear arms race. Others refused to endorse the conclusions of the NPT's five-year review unless a CTBT was specifically mentioned. Still others requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some continued to insist on the conclusion of a treaty prohibiting those weapons of mass destruction. After all, the international community had already banned biological and chemical weapons through multilateral treaties, why not nuclear weapons as well?In 1996 the CTBT was finally concluded. Unfortunately, it contains a provision for its entry into force that is reminiscent of the conditions set forth by the Baruch Plan fifty years earlier in order to proceed to a nuclear-weapons-free world. The CTBT must be ratified by the world's 44 nations that have nuclear-related activities. That is the bad news. The good news is that the five nuclear-weapon States that have signed the NPT are abiding by the CTBT's provisions.In 2009, the international community has come full circle. United Nations General Assembly resolution 1946 contained the basic elements of a nuclear-weapons-free world: a general commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons and an internationally-acceptable and verifiable system to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy. After more than six decades of nuclear proliferation -- both horizontal as well as vertical -- the world seems poised to implement those same basic elements. As in 1946, the US is expected to take the lead.Public officials in some countries have begun to consider what a world without nuclear weapons would look like. The UN Secretary-General has detailed a five-point proposal.2 The UK has put forward its ideas in this regard.3 A number of former political leaders in and out of the US have enlivened the debate with calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons.4The new administration in Washington has begun to bring about some important changes in international relations. During last year's presidential campaign, then Senator Barack Obama called for a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, adding that to get there would not entail unilateral disarmament but a continuing commitment under the NPT on the long road towards eliminating them.5 Once in office, President Obama reiterated his general commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons. That was one of the basic tenets of the 1946 General Assembly resolution. In his speech in Prague, on 5 April 2009, President Obama described the path to a nuclear-weapons-free world.6 He began by stating what many believe: "The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war." He then added:"Today, the cold war has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centred on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the centre cannot hold."Admitting that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world would not be easy to achieve, he then described the steps the United States was ready to take:* reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy* negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia this year to reduce warheads and stockpiles* ratify the CTBT* conclude a treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons* strengthen the NPT as a basis for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy* ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon* promote a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.President Obama has made a bold proposal for the elimination of nuclear weapons. If nothing else, he has put nuclear disarmament on the international agenda. A long debate and complicated negotiations will follow, but the US has shown a willingness to lead and, even more important, to set an example. The START proposal is a case in point.Fortunately, the Russian Federation seems to be a willing partner in this first stage. Moscow and Washington must reduce their own arsenals before asking others to do the same. Yet, there is bound to be much foot dragging among some of the other nuclear-weapon States. In that regard, the US will also have to point the way in its nuclear posture review. Significant changes in its official nuclear policy could translate into a new nuclear posture for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nuclear-weapon States and their allies must abandon the way they now relate to nuclear weapons.Another question which President Obama did not mention is the degree to which his proposals will encounter resistance within his own country, especially among groups most interested in the maintenance of the nuclear status quo, beginning with the nuclear laboratories themselves. In the US, as elsewhere in the nuclear-weapon States, these have grown accustomed to receiving funding from the national defense budget. The development, effectiveness and safety of nuclear weapons are their livelihood, which they have resisted to surrender in the past.Six decades ago it might have been easier to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world, but now it will take an enlightened leadership to do so.In memory of William Epstein, a relentless advocate of nuclear disarmament.
Notes 1. Bernard Baruch, the US representative to the UN Atomic Energy Commission, submitted the proposal on 14 June 1946 and stated in part:"The United States proposes the creation of an International Atomic Development Authority, to which should be entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy.."We of this nation, desirous of helping to bring peace to the world and realizing the heavy obligations upon us arising from our possession of the means of producing the bomb and from the fact that it is part of our armament, are prepared to make our full contribution toward effective control of atomic energy."When an adequate system for control of atomic energy, including the renunciation of the bomb as a weapon, has been agreed upon and put into effective operation and condign punishments set up for violations of the rules of control which are to be stigmatized as international crimes, we propose that:- Manufacture of atomic bombs shall stop;- Existing bombs shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of the treaty; and- The Authority shall be in possession of full information as to the know-how for the production of atomic energy."2. "The United Nations and security in a nuclear-weapon-free world," 24 October 2008.3. "Lifting the Nuclear Shadow: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons", a Policy information Paper by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 4 February 2009.4. For example, George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," and "Toward a Nuclear-Free World," Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2007 and 15 January 2008.5. His proposals were the most sweeping put forward by a presidential candidate except for Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich's call for the abolition of nuclear weapons.6. The White House, www.whitehouse.gov.7. On 1 April 2009 Presidents Obama and Medvedev agreed in London to pursue such an agreement.Miguel Marín-Bosch has served as the Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations in New York, Permanent Representative in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister and Director of Mexico's Foreign Service academy. In 1994 he chaired the first year of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations in Geneva.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Where Food And Energy Compete | https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/where-food-and-energy-compete | Since 2007, global food and energy prices have been increasing steeply, hitting economies reliant on energy and food imports with great force like a "silent tsunami".1 Rising food costs have led to social unrest in some 30 countries. Food and energy security is more closely connected with political stability than ever before. How to balance food security and energy needs is becoming a burning topic in the international community.2 China, India and other Asian countries have responded promptly to the global food and energy crisis with a number of measures, including export bans, price intervention and subsidies. However, despite the short-term effect of reducing inflationary pressure by export and price intervention, very little seems to slow the momentum of rising prices. In fact, the intervention would probably distort subtle price adjustments and mislead resource allocations, which could in turn be the potential cause for a real crisis at a later stage.
Based on available statistics, this paper primarily studies the competition between food and energy resources and its impact on consumption among China's low-income groups and the poor. In addition, it will also focus on the public actions necessary for balancing food security and energy needs.
Driving force in the food-energy competitionIncreases and fluctuations in the price of energy are some of the factors driving up food prices and creating instability. This leads to higher costs of agricultural inputs such as farm machinery, irrigation, fertilizer and labour. At the same time, the more obvious competition between energy demand and food needs is the production of bioenergy from corn and rapeseed.
The International Grains Council reported an overall 32-per cent growth in 2007/08 in the use of cereals to produce biofuels of which 80 per cent occurred in the United States. World corn production amounted to 777 million tonnes, of which 95 million of the 100 million tonnes traded were used for biofuels. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimated that the growing demand for ethanol was responsible for a 30 per cent rise in food prices during 2000/07.3
Furthermore, due to population growth, higher incomes, industrialization and urbanization, people shifted to high-value commodities, further pushing up food prices. Other causes of the price surge include unmet demand and lower food output due to insufficient investment in agricultural research and infrastructure and sluggish productivity. In the years 2000/07, total world food production fell short of global demand, leading to a fall in food stocks. In addition, climate change, scarcity of water resources, poor harvests in major food-producing countries such as Australia and a cut in food exports all added up to worsen and drag out the problem (Figure 1).4 In China, government intervention ensured lower domestic food prices even as international prices kept rising.
In addition, exceptional institutional factors and patterns in economic growth relevant to the food price issue are worth noting:
First, cultivable land is rapidly shrinking, and farmers only hold the usufruct right to land ownership, which has been practiced since 1978. (Usufruct refers to the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not damaged.)
During the 30 years of rapid industrialization and urbanization, land development was inevitable. However, today, farmers in China have weak bargaining power if they seek to commercially develop their land. They encounter a coalition of local government and developers. Since farmers lack ownership rights to farmland, their usufruct rights are even more precarious.
Thus, scarce farmland without a true price tag results in institutional and widespread land abuse and wastage, with a consequent accelerating decline in the total area of cultivable land. In 2004, it transpired that 147,700 hectares of farmland had been cumulatively developed for commercial use. The figure for 2006 was 91,200 hectares.
Second, there are fewer agricultural labourers. The number of workers -- mostly young and middle-aged -- migrating from villages to cities and employed in non-agricultural jobs is estimated at 200 million. Limited farmland has been a strong constraint on rural settlement, and workers can earn more in non-agricultural jobs. In the 1980s, the average farm size was only 0.5 hectares. Today, more and more farmers are looking for city jobs as their land is put to commercial use through deals made between the government and developers. Another problem is that migrants cannot take their families to the cities because of the permanent residential registration system. The aged and women are left behind to take care of the household and the farm, and this creates a rural-urban polarization. At the same time, for migrants and their families, the limited farmland is their security, especially since social protection for rural people is fragile. Workers restricted in their knowledge and use of new technologies contribute to a further decline in productivity, which is evident by a fall in the cropping index, from 155 per cent in 1990 to 129 per cent in 2006. Even after taking into account statistical corrections on cultivable land in 1996, geographers discovered that the fall in the cropping index is evident in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River and in south China,5 which had been renowned for the highest grain yield per unit in the entire country.
Third, China is facing a water crisis. North China traditionally is drought stricken. The rapid expansion of industries and cities has only worsened the situation, which is evident from projects to redirect water from south China to the north. In addition, treatment of waste emission into heavily-polluted rivers in China, as well as into major lakes which are slowly deteriorating, is lagging. Studies show that it is highly likely that pollutants in water are absorbed in crops through irrigation, therefore threatening food security. In 2006, some 28 per cent of surface water was found to be of the poorest quality nationwide.6 Various water contaminants have caused a shortage of drinking and irrigation water in south China, distorting its long history as a land of abundant water.
Fourth, agriculture is always boxed into an unfavourable position when competing for fiscal resources. Although the budget for agriculture has been growing in real terms, i.e. actual purchasing capacities after removing the effect of inflation, the share of total expenditure has fallen from 10 per cent in 1990 to 6.5 per cent in 2006.7 This shows a weakening of public investment in agriculture, with a fractured rural infrastructure as one of its consequences.8 In recent years, under the slogan "feeding back farmers through industry -- cities support the countryside", the Chinese Government has abolished agricultural tax, funnelled subsidies for growing crops and imposed negative tax on purchasing farm machinery, diesel and chemical fertilizers. In 2007, benefits to the farming community exceeded 150 billion yuan. However, this could not match the oil subsidy of Y220 billion.9 Considering that only 7 per cent of total oil demand is from the farming sector, and that per capita energy consumption by urban dwellers is much higher than in rural areas, oil subsidies imply that cities and non-agricultural sectors have greater benefits from fiscal resources.
As world economic growth has been over-reliant on fossil fuels at the cost of reduced investment in agriculture and fewer development opportunities, so China's case further demonstrates that at the cost of a development policy biased towards industrialization, food security and the environment will be at risk and farmers' interests undermined.
Food-energy crisis and impact on the poorToday's globalized market is concerned with the balance between energy supply and demand, including petroleum, natural gas and electricity.10 Despite differences of opinion among major food importers and exporters, there has long been a consensus on what constitutes "food security". According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life".11 Rising food and energy prices have had a significant impact on people in almost every country. However, social unrest in some developing countries shows that the poor feel threatened. Therefore, priority measures to deliver sufficient and timely food and energy assistance include the necessity to identify those most severely hit, as well as the extent to which they have been affected. Studies covering the period 2006/07 illustrate the issues in China.The State Statistics Bureau in China reported for 200712 that the per capita annual disposable income of urban residents amounted to Y13,786, while per capita annual net income for rural people was only Y4,140. Food prices rose annually by 12.3 per cent: grain, meat, edible oil and eggs rose by 6.3 per cent, 31.7 per cent, 26.7 per cent and 22.9 per cent, respectively. Noticeably, the meat market led the price surge. In December 2007, pork, beef and mutton prices increased by 57.7 per cent, 48.0 per cent and 44.5 per cent, respectively,13 compared with the same period in 2006. However, the price of freshwater fish remained almost unchanged. This information helps to explain the changes in household income and consumption, as shown in tables 1 and 2.
First, allowing for the price rise per capita, the disposable income of urban households generally increased, while the income growth of rural households fell behind the price increases in rural areas.
Second, the bottom urban twentile changed its food consumption pattern: less rice, wheat flour, cooking oil, pork, duck, egg, fresh vegetables and melon, but more chicken, beef, fruit and dairy products. The impact of higher food prices led to a "substitution effect" -- a change in diet. A similar variation can be discerned with the third urban quintile in terms of meat consumption, but it is not seen in the consumption behaviour of the top urban twentile (Table 1).
With the third urban quintile, only 1 per cent change in the share of food expenditure in total consumption was found. But with the bottom urban twentile, a 1.52 percentage point increase in the share of food consumption was evident. This means that perhaps those in the lowest urban income group have not faced a survival challenge. And, as their income increased by 13.2 per cent in real terms, and at the same time the prices of non-food consumer goods and services fell slightly, they are spending more on non-food consumption, with only a trivial decline in spending on education and energy.
Fourth, Table 2 shows that the rural households whose total consumption expenditure exceeded their income -- a per capita net income of less than Y1,000 -- fell below the official poverty line. On the one hand, these households belong to migrant groups, due to a negative income for more than 40 households in the survey, except in terms of the possession of capital and savings. On the other hand, the households that are chronically poor tend to live on loans for part of their consumption. Furthermore, both the value of average annual income and total consumption in real terms decline after deflation by price.
The livelihood of farmers -- and even of high-income groups -- is generally hit by food price inflation. This can be seen from the change in spending habits on basic needs: substitutions in food, clothing and fuel took place and spending on education and health care fell (not shown in the table).
To cut down on food expenditure, all three rural income groups shifted to a less balanced diet by reducing consumption of protein-rich, non-staple foods. The quantity of non-staple food consumed by the poor, originally low in 2006, declined substantially in 2007. Pork, poultry and egg consumption amounted to 11 kilograms, 2.5 kg and
3.6 kg in 2006, and when compared with the rural high-income groups they were 53 per cent, 75 per cent and 99 per cent less. In 2007, the consumption of pork, poultry and eggs by the poor decreased by a further 29 per cent, 28 per cent and 8 per cent, respectively, which will undoubtedly lead to a deterioration of nutritional standards.
In comparing urban and rural households, two points must be noted: First, food price inflation hit rural households with greater force than urban households, a finding that is significantly different from the mainstream opinion in China.14 Grain specialists in the country generally believe that farmers rely mainly on their own farm output, while urban residents rely on markets for food, rendering them more vulnerable in terms of food security than the farmer. However, farmers produce limited amounts of food, and what the poor grow is not sufficient to meet their own energy requirements. Farmers themselves now purchase more food to meet the diverse needs of their families.
Food security is indicated by more than just caloric intake. A diversity of food is essential to supply sufficient micronutrients for a balanced diet.15 If we look back on tables 1 and 2, it is clear that the urban middle and low-income groups managed a balanced diet with meat and starches. But the rural poor and middle-income groups considerably cut down on their meat consumption to cope with higher prices. This shows how vulnerable rural people are to food insecurity.
Second, city dwellers enjoy higher income and better social security, giving them more financial strength than their rural counterparts, a key determinant of food security. Moreover, government intervention on prices has resulted in slower food price inflation in the cities than in the countryside: in 2007, food prices had risen by 13.6 per cent in the countryside, which was 1.9 per cent higher than in the cities. State intervention in food prices has reduced farmers' access to food in two ways: as producers, they do not gain from price inflation, and as consumers, their purchasing power falls when prices rise steeply in rural markets.
Neither of these two surveys cover rural-urban migrants. After several interviews with migrant workers in a number of cities in south China, I found that since early 2007 monthly food expenditure had grown by Y150, while monthly wages had risen by only Y80. Food security for rural migrants has until now been a blind spot in food and nutrition policy in China. Accordingly, individuals vulnerable to food shortages are categorized as low-income classes prevalent throughout the entire population; rural people, who fall into the low-income group; the poor among the rural low-income group; and women, children and the elderly among the poor. Food aid and other vital social assistance should target these vulnerable people with priority.
Proposed strategies to cope with the crisisInternational organizations and governments have responded with urgency to the current food crisis. They have pooled resources, extended humanitarian aid to countries threatened by hunger and poured investment into agricultural research and development. In addition, policymakers have noticed that the excessive speculation in the food and energy futures markets is, in essence, a response to the decline in the storage of foodstuffs and the decreasing capability for alternative energy production. Therefore, international and regional cooperation, adjustment in biofuel policy, elimination of trade distortion, greater investment in agriculture and energy production, promotion of energy-saving and emission-reduction measures are all at the forefront of various United Nations conferences and summits. Implementing the outcomes of these conferences would depend on feasible policies and actions appropriate to specific socio-economic conditions by governments and the general public. The case study of China shows that a sustained balance between food security and energy demand would be reached only if society as a whole acts together and pushes for policy adjustment and reform.Among the policy options that follow, the first two are emergency responses, the third and fourth are for mid-term readjustment, and the fifth relates to mid- and long-term socio-economic policy reform.First, minimum living standards should be raised in proportion to the consumer price index in both rural and urban sectors, together with a provision for food aid to targeted groups. The two projects that the central government is ready to implement, i.e. "Mid- and Long-term National Food Security Programme" and "Capacity-Building for Jilin Province to Increase Grain Output by 5 Million Tonnes",16 will undoubtedly promote food grain production in China. However, it may not strengthen the purchasing power of the poor, nor readily "quench their present thirst with the promise of accessible water in the future". It is therefore necessary to issue food stamps to deliver food aid to the poor and migrant families in cities. In the countryside, the existing aid programme could be reinforced to deliver meat and food to the poor to help increase their intake of protein and micronutrients. Due to irreversible damages caused by malnutrition at an early age, sustained nutrition intervention programmes, such as school meals, could be a highly cost-effective measure if implemented in rural low-income regions.
Second, food security should be of the utmost priority when allocating public resources. The government already stopped issuing new licenses to biofuel projects that use food grain as input. However, biofuel factories currently in operation have not been shut down yet. The government may consider compensating investors or stopping subsidies and, with preferential treatment, encourage the use of non-food grains for biofuel production.
Third, by taking "smaller steps at a faster pace", the government must release its control on prices and food exports and re-establish the function price in balancing supply and demand. The government limits food exports and subsidizes energy production in order to secure domestic food and energy supply while controlling price inflation. However, history has shown that such measures only suppress supply and stimulate demand, making the shortage even worse.
Nevertheless, in the transition towards a market-oriented economy, whenever an imbalance between supply and demand re-emerges, the government is likely to intervene and set a fixed price. The question is whether such intervention would not only distort the relationship between supply and demand and eventually bring about a price hike, with differences between the government-controlled and the market price, but would also encourage rent-seeking behaviour and corruption. In a globalizing market, it might further stimulate speculation and smuggling.
Lately, there have been instances of smuggling of food in China because of cheap domestic prices. Also, when coal is artificially undervalued, other industries dependent on coal tend to increase exports and cut domestic supplies, leading to frequent power shortages. Similarly, when gasoline price is subsidized, international airliners and shipping vessels try their best to fill up their tanks in China. All these cases tell the same story, that is, the welfare of the domestic consumer is sacrificed because of price controls and the ban on food grain exports.
Fourth, the government should take immediate action to curb monopolies and encourage competition. In China, the oil industry has the highest level of monopoly; the three giant companies are all State-owned. Under a market-oriented economy, the incentives to such companies do not necessarily reflect national goals. The companies' own interest is a stronger driving force in guiding their behaviour. Without fair competition, monopoly enterprises grow into interest groups. When doing business, these oil giants are acting under the name of the "State", taking away any opportunities that private players must have of exploring potential petroleum deposits and of developing, trading, processing and retailing new business. The growth of the oil and gas industry as a whole has thus been stunted. It is obvious that industry monopoly not only impeded the efficiency in the supply of goods and services but also narrowed consumer choice.
Fifth, the price formation mechanism should be rectified for production factors and the pattern of economic growth must be transformed. China's fast economic growth and the subsequent increase in employment and incomes are closely connected with the process of globalization. In the beginning, China could only enter at the lower end of the global economic chain, because of constraints on capital, technology and human resources. Firms with high-energy consumption and high pollution shifted their operations from developed countries to China. One of the most important reasons for this shift lies in the supply of undervalued labour, land, environment and water resource that translate into low production costs. This has driven the rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector in mainland China and created huge demand for energy and raw materials. As a result, China has become a net importer of petroleum since 1993.
The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2007 predicts that the daily global demand for energy in 2030 will increase by 38.9 per cent over 2005 figures. About 43 per cent of this increase will come from China and India alone. Clearly, China's share of energy consumption would be significant in the world energy market. Against this background, and with a large manufacturing base, China has increasingly become a net energy importer and runs the risk of escalating carbon emissions on its own territory.17
Environmental pollution, global warming and worsening terms of trade have influenced policymakers and the general public to see the necessity in transforming the pattern of China's growth. Notions such as "saving energy and reducing emissions" and "building a society based on thrift" have emerged as the main objectives in national socio-economic planning. However, so long as the system for determining prices remains unchanged, scarcity of resources will not be apparent and misallocation of resources will continue, making it more difficult to adjust the pattern of economic development.
At present, the worldwide food and energy crisis makes externally-oriented development more difficult to sustain. An opportunity exists to readjust the mechanism to determine prices, such as legally empowering farmers and workers with collective bargaining power in trading land and fixing wage contracts, and imposing environmental protection-related taxes at international rates on mining, water resource development and industrial pollution. These measures will surely frustrate vested interests and put many enterprises under great pressure to respond favourably. After all, this is the right way to cope with the global food and energy crisis. It fits the long-term strategy of sustainable economic development that will lead to the creation of a harmonious society.
It is essential to monitor and assess the power of the government and monopoly enterprises in determining prices, while at the same time empowering workers and farmers. In doing so, we can anticipate a transition towards a more balanced social structure in China.
(My sincere thanks to Professors Jiang Zhongyi, Wei Zhong, Jin Cheng-wu and Gu Xiulin.)
Notes
1 The Earth Institute, 2008, Food Crisis: A Global Emergency (www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2196).
2 von Braun, J. 2008, "High Rising Food Prices: Why, and What Should Be Done?", background material for video conference with China, 12 May.
3 von Braun, J. 2008, "Biofuels, International Food Prices, and the Poor". Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 12 June 2008 (www.ifpri.org/themes/foodprices/foodprices.asp).
4 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)2008, High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions (www.ifpri.org/chinese/PUBS/ib/FoodPricesPolicyActionch.pdf)
5 See Yan Hui-min, Liu Ji-yuan, Cao Ming-kui, 2005. Cropping Index: Variations in China during the period of 1981-2000, in the Journal of Geography (Dili Xuebao), vol. 60(4): pp.559-566, Beijing.
6 See the State Environmental Protection Bureau (The Ministry of Environmental Protection) P.R.C., 2007, "Bulletin on Environmental Status in China in 2006" (www.ipe.org.cn/dtfd.jsp?fdtplj=/uploadFiles/2008-02/1203865035981.JPG)
7 The Ministry of Agriculture, P.R.C., 2007, Agricultural Development Report of China, p. 142, Agricultural Publishing House, Beijing.
8 See Wan Bao-Rui, 2008. To Deepen the Awareness on Food Security, in Xinhua News Digest, Vol 12: 22-23, Beijing.
9 Long Ming, 2008, Do we have the ability to subsidize the whole world?, in Shanghai Securities News: p.5, Shanghai.
10 See Houssin, D.2007, Security of Energy Supplies in a Global Market (www.iea.org/textbase/speech/2007/Houssin_Prague.pdf).
11 See the FAO Special Programme for Food Security: What Is Food Security? (www.fao.org/spfs/en/).
12 The State Statistics Bureau, P.R.C., 2008 Bulletin on National Economic and Social Development in 2007 (www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20080228_402464933.htm).
13 The Ministry of Agriculture, 2008 Analyses on Price Fluctuations in Whole Sale Market for the Products Covered under the Food Basket Program in December 2007 (www.agri.gov.cn/pfsc/fxbg/t20080117_956379.htm).
14 See Lu, Feng and Xie, Ya 2008: Dynamics of Grain Supply-Demand and Prices 1980 -- 2007) -- A Discussion about Prices Fluctuation, Macro-Stability and Grain Security, partly selected by the Xinhua Digest, Vol. 13:51-55, Beijing.
15 See Hoddinott, J. and Y. Yohannes, 2002, Dietary Diversity as a Food Security Indicator, FCND Discussion Paper No. 136, IFPRI, Washington, D.C.
16 Xinhua News 2008 Mid- and Long-term National Food Security Programming and Capacity Building for Jilin Province to Increase 50 Million Ton Food Grain Output (news.sina.com.cn/c/2008-07-02/210314106568s.shtml).
17 According to the estimation by Chen, Pan and Xie (2008): "In 2002, the net export of embodied energy was about 240 million tce (tons of coal equivalent), which occupied about 16% of primary energy consumption in the same year, increasing about 150 million tce in China." "In 2006, the net export of embodied energy went up to about 630 million tce (tonnes of coal equivalent), 162 per cent higher than that of 2002." See Energy Embodied in Goods of International Trade in China: Calculation and Policy Implications, in the journal of Economic Research, Vol.7, pp.11-25, Beijing
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. |
Subsets and Splits