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. |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 38