Celebrating the end of COP28, which ended with an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. Credit: UNFCCC
DUBAI, Dec 14 2023 (IPS) – While the outcomes of COP28 are being hotly debated in both the scientific and social justice arenas, the climate conference has taken an unprecedented step forward toward a just transition, says Yamide Dagnet, Director for Climate Justice at the Open Society Foundations.
Making some preliminary remarks a day after the climate conference ended, she said: “COP28 ends like it started: imperfect, yet an important and unprecedented step forward in our “course correction” for a just transition towards resilient and greener economies.”
The UN decision acknowledged the need for the decline of coal, oil, and gas for the first time in an agreement that talks about transitioning out of fossil fuels. It will also be known for operationalizing the Loss and Damages Fund, even if the funding falls far below the requirements for climate-stressed countries and communities.
UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell acknowledged these contractions in his final speech.
“While we didn’t turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end,” Stiell said.
He also noted that climate finance, which he said was a great enabler of climate action, fell short of the trillions needed to support developing countries with clean energy transitions and adaptation efforts.
He urged ordinary people everywhere to not relent in their demands for a climate-just world.
“In the crucial years ahead, your voices and determination will be more important than ever. I urge you never to relent. We are still in this race. We will be with you every single step of the way.”
Yamide Dagnet, Director for Climate Justice at Open Society Foundations. Credit: TJ Kirkpatrick, Open Society Foundations
Dagnet believes that COP28 is the start of a new era in climate justice.
“This is not an end; rather, just the beginning of an implementation journey that we know is hard but can be so positively transformative, and just if we manage to mobilize, in an equitable manner, all hands-on deck. A climate-just journey and outcome require vigilance, creativity, and accountability; stronger solidarity and engagement at all levels; promoting human rights; and shared prosperity for all,” she says.
This COP, Danget says, laid bare the issues with the Paris Agreement, especially with the just transition.
“More specifically, this COP exposed all the contradictions and challenges faced when implementing the promises of the Paris Agreement, especially a managed, equitable transition away from fossil fuels and the sustained mobilization, alignment, and access to financial flows domestically and internationally to decarbonize and build resilience,” Dagnet says. ”
While some signals got clearer with more substantive commitments, challenges remain, however, in how the just and equitable transition is sequenced.
“Inclusive processes matter to foster shared prosperity and benefits throughout the journey, together with adequate safeguards to minimize unintended adverse impacts of climate-related measures and technologies and to protect frontline and marginalized communities.
“Similarly, the just operationalization and continued capitalization of the Loss and Damage Fund will require vigilance, effective guidance, and mechanisms to make sure commensurate funding is actually mobilized and reaches the communities that need it the most in a timely manner. Adequate mobilization of finance for adaptation by the donor community is also essential to tackle losses and damages with dignity. We are happy that a dozen of them committed to join OSF efforts in this regard.”
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 13 2023 (IPS) – With the US Fed raising interest rates, the world economy is slowing as debt distress spreads across the global South, increasing poverty worldwide to pre-pandemic levels, with the poorest countries faring worst.
Extreme poverty continues to be high and is now worse than before the pandemic in low-income countries (LICs) and among those affected by fragility, violence and conflict. The promise of eradicating poverty worldwide by 2030 has become unachievable.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
The Bretton Woods institutions’ (BWIs) annual meetings in Marrakech in October were only the second-ever in Africa. But the rich nations-dominated BWIs failed yet again to rise to the challenges of our times, setting Africa and the global South even further back.
Instead of fostering cooperation to address the causes and effects of the contemporary catastrophe, neither the International Monetary Fund nor the World Bank governors could agree on joint communiques due to the greater politicisation of multilateral fora.
Indebtedness immobilises governments Indebtedness and restrictive creditor rules prevent governments from spending more counter-cyclically to overcome the many contractionary tendencies of recent times, besides preventing them from addressing looming social and environmental crises.
The G20’s largest twenty economies have urged strengthening “multilateral coordination by official bilateral and private creditors … to address the deteriorating debt situation and facilitate coordinated debt treatment for debt-distressed countries”.
But its Common Framework to restructure debt has been roundly criticised by civil society, think tanks and even the World Bank on many grounds, including the paltry concessional credit relief offered to a few of the very poorest countries.
In contrast, the G24 caucus of developing countries at the BWIs has emphasised the need for “durable debt resolution measures while collaborating on resolving the structural issues leading to such vulnerabilities.”
But all those advocating purported solutions are not even trying to ensure fiscal space and public spending capacity for counter-cyclical efforts, let alone achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and national development objectives.
Surcharges The IMF currently imposes additional charges on countries that do not quickly clear their debts to the Fund. Besides the usual fees and interest, borrowing countries paid over $4 billion in such surcharges in 2020-22, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Surcharges will cost debt-distressed countries about $7.9 billion over six years. The G24 has emphasised that surcharges are pro-cyclical and regressive, especially with monetary tightening.
Governments have undertaken contractionary policies and cut imports for lack of foreign exchange. This deepens the problems of heavily indebted poor countries who cannot but count on the Fund for relief and solutions.
At Marrakech, the governing International Monetary and Financial Committee decided to “consider a review of surcharge policies”. The G24 called for “a suspension of surcharges while the review – which we hope will lead to substantial permanent reduction or complete elimination – is being conducted.”
Rich nations have been divided over surcharges. With Ukraine now among the top surcharge payers, following civil society criticisms, the Biden administration’s refusal to review surcharges in 2022 was heavily criticised by the US Congress.
Deepening austerity IMF fiscal austerity measures of the 1980s returned with a vengeance after the 2008 global financial crisis, and then again during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020. Most Fund loans require cutting the public sector wage bill (PSWB), the budget line to pay employees.
Most wage earners in many LICs, including nurses, teachers and other social service workers, work for the state, directly or indirectly. Although much needed, these employees have been more likely to be targeted by such budget cuts.
PSWB cuts may involve hiring or wage freezes, or limiting, or even cutting wages. These inevitably undermine government capacities and services. Fiscal consolidation has also involved raising more indirect, consumption taxes, and tax exemptions, e.g., for essential goods such as food.
In 38 countries with over a billion people, loan conditionalities during 2020-22, the three years of the Covid-19 pandemic, meant regressive tax reforms and public spending cuts. PSWB and fuel or electricity subsidy cuts are also common demands worsening economic contractions.
Austerity bound to fail But the IMF’s own research suggests such austerity policies are generally ineffective in reducing debt, their ostensible purpose. The April 2023 IMF World Economic Outlook acknowledged austerity programmes and fiscal consolidations “do not reduce debt ratios, on average”. Yet, its Fiscal Monitor still demands “fiscal tightening” of most developing countries.
The new IMF-World Bank debt sustainability framework sets the LICs’ external debt-to-GDP ratio limit at 30% or 40%. It insists debt-distressed economies must have lower ratios than ‘strong’ countries, effectively further penalising the weak and vulnerable.
Instead of enabling consistently counter-cyclical macroeconomic frameworks, the IMF’s current short-termist approach is mainly preoccupied with annual, or worse, quarterly balances, mimicking corporate reporting practices.
Such short-termism further limits fiscal space, effectively preventing or deterring public sector investments requiring longer-term macroeconomic frameworks to realise benefits. This discourages ‘patient’ medium- to long-term investments required for national economic planning and transformation, essential for sustainable development.
Restrictive debt and fiscal targets have meant even less public investment. This is typically required of borrowing countries as a credit conditionality. Annual IMF Article IV consultations cause other countries to also accept similar constraints to avoid Fund disapproval.
While a few better-off economies enjoy full employment, most countries face further economic contraction, not least due to interest rate hikes led by the US Fed and their many effects. Instead of being part of the problem, the IMF should be part of the solution.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro presented his environmental plans at COP28 in Dubai and added his country to the small group of nations that support the negotiation of a binding treaty to prevent the proliferation of fossil fuels, despite his country being an oil producer. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
DUBAI, Dec 12 2023 (IPS) – One of the most heated debates at the annual climate summit coming to a conclusion in this United Arab Emirates city revolved around the phrasing of the final declaration, regarding the “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels within a given time frame.
Experts who talked to IPS at the summit agreed on the magnitude of the bill, which for some Latin American nations could be unaffordable.
“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources.” — Fernanda Carvalho
Fernanda Carvalho of Brazil, global leader for Energy and Climate Policy at the non-governmental World Wildlife Fund (WWF), referred to the amount without specifying a figure.
“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources,” the expert, who was present at COP28, held at Expo City on the outskirts of Dubai, told IPS.
COP28 engaged in an acrimonious debate between phase-out and phase-down, with a definite date, of oil, gas and coal, which has already anticipated a disappointing end in Dubai, that in line with the tradition at these summits extended its negotiations one more day, to conclude on Wednesday, Dec. 13.
The “phase-down” concept has been in the climate-energy jargon for years, but it really took off at the 2021 COP26 in the Scottish city of Glasgow, whose Climate Pact alludes to the reduction of coal still being produced and the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Throughout the climate summits since 1995, developing countries have insisted on differentiated measures for them, in accordance with their own situation, the need for financing from developed nations and the transfer of technology, especially energy alternatives.
Enrique Maurtúa of Argentina, senior diplomacy advisor to the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) – an umbrella data and advocacy initiative – said they hoped for a political signal to determine regulations or market measures regarding a phase-down or phase-out.
“If a target date is not set, there is no signal. If you set a phase-out for 2050, that is a pathway for the transition. With a deadline, the market can react. And then each country must evaluate its specific context,” the expert told IPS in the COP28 Green Zone, which hosted civil society organizations at the summit.
Available scientific knowledge indicates that the majority of proven hydrocarbon reserves must remain unextracted by 2030 to keep the planetary temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold agreed in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement to avoid massive disasters.
On Sunday, Dec. 10 the non-governmental Climate Action Network (CAN) delivered at COP28 a dishonorable mention to the United States for its role in Israel’s carnage in Gaza, in the traditional Fossil of the Day award for “doing the most to achieve the least” in terms of progress on climate change at the summits. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Failed attempts
In the Latin American region there are unsuccessful precedents of fossil fuel phase-outs.
In 2007, the then president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (2007-2017), launched the Yasuní-Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini initiative, which sought the care of the Yasuní National Park in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, in exchange for funds from governments, foundations, companies and individuals of about 3.6 billion dollars by 2024 to leave the oil in the ground.
The aim was to leave 846 million barrels of oil untouched underground. But a special fund created by Ecuador and the United Nations Environment Fund only raised 13 million dollars, according to the Ecuadorian government. So Correa decided to cancel the initiative in 2013, at a time when renewable energies had not yet really taken off.
In a referendum held in August, Ecuadorians decided to halt oil extraction in a block in Yasuní that would provide 57,000 barrels per day in 2022 – the same result sought by Correa, but without foreign funds.
The result of the referendum is to be implemented within a year, although the position of the government of the current president, banana tycoon Daniel Noboa, who took office on Nov. 23, is still unclear.
Meanwhile, in Colombia, President Gustavo Petro has put the brakes on new oil and coal exploration contracts, a promise from his 2022 election campaign.
In addition, the president announced on Dec. 2 in Dubai that his country was joining nine other nations that are promoting the formal initiation of the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Colombia will thus become the first Latin American nation and the largest oil and coal producer to join the initiative that first emerged in 2015 when several Pacific Island leaders and NGOs raised the urgent need for an international mechanism to phase out fossil fuels.
For the undertaking of a just energy transition to cleaner fuels, Petro estimates an initial bill of 14 billion dollars, to come from governments of the developed North, multilateral organizations and international funds.
The latest summit of hope for the climate kicked off on Nov. 30 in this Arab city under the slogan “Unite. Act. Deliver” – the least successful in the history of COPs since the first one, held in Berlin in 1995.
The hopes included commitments and voluntary declarations on renewable energy and energy efficiency; agriculture, food and climate; health and climate; climate finance; refrigeration; and just transitions with a gender focus.
In addition, there were financial pledges of some 86 billion dollars, without specifying whether it is all new money, to be allocated to these issues.
Like many countries, the host of COP28, the United Arab Emirates, has had a pavilion in the so-called Green Zone, which hosts non-governmental organizations, companies and other institutions. The Emirati government bet a lot on the climate summit to deliver results, but without directly targeting the fossil fuels on which its economy depends. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Billions
Given the production and exploration plans of the main hydrocarbon producing countries in the region, the magnitude of the challenge in the medium and long term is enormous.
In October, Brazil, the largest economy in the region and the 11th largest in the world, extracted 3.543 billion barrels of oil and 152 million cubic meters (m3) of gas per day.
This represented approximately two percent of the domestic economy that month.
Mexico, the region’s second largest economy, extracted 1.64 million barrels and 4.971 billion m3 of gas per day in October, equivalent to 52 million dollars in revenues.
Meanwhile, Colombia produced 780,487 barrels of oil in the first eight months of 2023 and 1,568 cubic feet per day of gas, equivalent to 12 percent of public revenues.
“We have to think about decarbonization measures. We want Latin America to be a clean energy powerhouse,” said Carvalho.
As of September, Brazil’s state-owned oil giant Petrobras was working on obtaining 9.571 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to the Global Oil & Gas Exit List produced by the German non-governmental organization Urgewald.
This represents an excess of 94 percent above the limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex is producing 1.444 billion barrels of oil equivalent, 56 percent above the threshold set by the Paris Agreement.
Finally, the public company Ecopetrol, mostly owned by the Colombian state, is working to obtain 447 million barrels, 98 percent above the Paris Agreement limit, according to Urgewald.
In addition, the cost of action against the climate crisis is far from affordable for any Latin American nation.
For example, Mexico estimated that the implementation of 35 measures, including in the power, gas and oil generation sector, would cost 137 billion dollars in 2030, but the benefits would total 295 billion dollars.
But Maurtúa says the budget question is only relative. “There is a lot of public money with which many things can be done,” complemented by international resources, he argued.
Five fishers pray for a benevolent sea in Dublar, Bangladesh. Credit: Rodney Dekker/Climate Visuals
DUBAI, Dec 11 2023 (IPS) – Wealthier nations must deliver the finances so developing countries can adapt—the time for excuses is over, says Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Bangladesh’s Special Envoy for Climate Change in the Prime Minister’s Office.
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with IPS, Chowdhury said climate change was at the forefront of Bangladesh’s focus, as one in seven people faces displacement due to climate impacts. With this in mind, the country was focused on building resilience and ensuring resources were directed toward the most marginalized.
“The biggest challenge we will have is the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas because it means flooding in the short term and sea level rise in the long term. We will lose about one-third of our agriculture GDP between now and 2050, and we can lose up to 9 percent of our GDP by 2100,” Chowdhury said.
“For us, it is not just one sector of our economy; it is an existential challenge for Bangladesh.”
Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Prime Minister’s Office Bangladesh, addresses an event on climate change at the Bangladesh Pavilion at COP28 in Dubai. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS
Here are edited excerpts from the interview:
IPS: In terms of climate change and the government’s actions, where is Bangladesh?
Chowdhury: Bangladesh is giving most importance to the Global Stocktake because it has two dimensions—one is looking back and the other is looking forward. We all know how bad things are when we look back because we know we are nowhere near where we are supposed to be.
But what do we do with that knowledge? How do we move forward across the board in terms of mitigation, adaptation, funding, loss and damage, and, of course, the global goals? And one of the points we are stressing is the continual interconnectedness between mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.
The more effective our mitigation in terms of keeping temperatures in check, the more manageable the adaptation becomes, and the more manageable the adaptation becomes, the lesser the burden that we pass on the loss and damage. And it is meaningless to talk about adaptation without the context of mitigation. Because of the rise in temperature to 1.5°C (the threshold to which world leaders pledged to try to limit global warming), there will be a certain level of adaptation that you can do, but if the temperatures are close to 3°C, as it is now said the temperature is likely to rise to, then all adaptation will become loss and damage because there are limits to adaptation and there are limits to resilience.
IPS: What are your views on the ongoing COP 28?
Chowdhury: We got off to a great start. The fact that the Loss and Damage Fund was agreed upon on the first day. In terms of context, we only had this in the agenda last year and it was approved and within a year, the funds have started coming in. That was a huge positive. We know that funds are nowhere near what the needs are. But it is a good start and we are hoping that the same spirit will be seen in other challenges such as mitigation, adaptation, funding, etc.
Also, I believe the presidency has tried to be very inclusive. But at the end of the day, it depends on global solidarity. If members of the conference come together, then we will have the deal we need. Let me say that this COP is a hugely important COP because we don’t have the luxury of tradeoffs. We have to deliver across the board, and mitigation (to keep to the Paris Agreements) of 1.5°C is an absolute must, and if we go beyond that, I think we have lost the game. To what extent we can mitigate will then determine what our adaptation requirements are. The better we manage adaptation, the lesser the burden will be on loss and damage. It is a litmus test. Bangladesh being at ground zero for climate change impact, this is a hugely important event for us.
IPS: Bangladesh is often termed a ‘victim of climate change’ across the globe. Why is that?
Chowdhury: One in seven people in Bangladesh will face displacement because of climate change, and that adds up to about 13–14 million people. We have a huge food security problem because we are losing agricultural land due to sea level rise. The biggest challenge we will have is the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas, which means flooding in the short term and sea level rise in the long term. We will lose about one-third of our agriculture GDP between now and 2050, and we can lose up to 9 percent of our GDP by 2100. For us, it is not just one sector of our economy; it is an existential challenge for Bangladesh.
IPS: What do you believe is the responsibility of wealthier nations towards Bangladesh?
Chowdhury: Climate justice is all about wealthier nations. They must deliver the finance so that we can adapt; they must rein in the emissions. They need to act as per science and not have any excuses. It is now or never because the window of action is closing very fast. If we don’t get it right in COP 28, whatever we do in subsequent COPs may well be too little, too late. We have to reduce emissions by 43 percent by 2030. We must reduce emissions by 60 percent by 2035, then we can get to net zero. With that, you also must have tripled the amount of renewable energy and doubled your energy efficiency. So, it has to be a package of responses. It is for the wealthier nations to mitigate, to provide funds for loss and damage as well as for adaptation.
IPS: How responsive do you find these developed nations to the climate crisis?
Chowdhury: Responses must be taken at two levels: one is making pledges, and the other is delivering on pledges. There is no point saying we will do this and then, as in the past, not do it. Pledges are the first step, and therefore everybody has to realize that this is the question of global solidarity. It is not the question of Bangladesh and the developed world. What is happening in Bangladesh today will also happen in those countries that we call developed. Greenland will become greener again because the ice is going to melt. They will also face sea level rise. So it is not the question of “if,” it is the question of when.
IPS: Bangladesh has advanced warning systems for the climate. Please tell us about it.
Chowdhury: We have what we refer to as an ‘early warning system’ If you look at the cyclone that hit Bangladesh in the early 1970s, up to a million people died because of it. But now, when the cyclone hits Bangladesh, the number of deaths is in single digits. The reason for that is that through an early warning system, we can evacuate people to cyclone shelters. That has saved lives, and Bangladesh is a model for that.
Our honorable Prime Minister has this program where we are building cyclone shelters all around the coast of Bangladesh so that people can be evacuated there. We cannot stop a storm or a hurricane from coming, but we can prepare ourselves so that the loss of lives is minimal, and that is what Bangladesh has achieved. Also, the early warning system is very basic, and it is community-based.
IPS: What is Bangladesh doing about the agrarian crisis?
Chowdhury: Bangladesh has a huge success story in terms of food production. From a deficit nation, we are now a surplus nation, but climate change threatens that. This is something we look at in terms of food security, so all of the advances and progress that we have made over the years are now at risk because climate change is impacting this sector.
IPS: What is the role of NGOs in terms of tackling climate change and offering support to governments?
Chowdhury: NGOs need to have partnerships with governments where they can take those ideas and scale them up. That is the reason that NGOs need to have a very close relationship with the government. The whole issue is not how much money I have spent; it is what impact I have generated through spending that money.
But the message at the end of the day is that whatever money is spent must be spent on those who are most marginalized. So how do we get funds for the people who are most in need? I think that must be an overriding issue. This is a learning process, and we are all on the learning curve. When we go back to Bangladesh, we need to have a brainstorming session with NGOs and CSOs and find out what is working, how we can make their job easier, and how we can make the collaboration a win-win between various ministries, government departments, and NGOs. IPS UN Bureau Report
NEW DELHI, India, Dec 6 2023 (IPS) – We, a global coalition of over 50 civil society and human rights organizations from over 30 countries have co-developed the “Civil Society Manifesto for Ethical AI”, a groundbreaking initiative aiming to steer AI policies towards safeguarding rights and deconolonising AI discourse. We question, and we are not the only ones: whose voices, ideas and values matter in AI ?
“If Silicon Valley was a country it would probably be the richest in the world. So how genuinely committed is Big Tech and AI to funding and fostering human rights over profits? The barebones truth is that if democracy was profitable, human rights lawyers and defenders including techtivists from civil society organizations wouldn’t be sitting around multistakeholder engagement tables demanding accountability from Big Tech and AI. How invested are they in real social impact centred on rights despite glaring evidence to the contrary?,” asks Nina Sangma, of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, a regional organization founded in 1992 by Indigenous Peoples’ movements with over 40 members across 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
We are currently at a critical juncture where most countries lack a comprehensive AI policy or regulatory framework. The sudden reliance on AI and other digital technologies has introduced new – and often “invisible” – vulnerabilities, and we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, literally melting from the effects of climate change.
Some things we have already seen though: AI is still a product of historical data representing inequities and inequalities. A study analyzing 100+ AI-generated images using Midjourney’s diffusion models revealed consistent biases, including depicting older men for specialized jobs, binary gender representations, featuring urban settings regardless of location, and generating images predominantly reinforcing “ageism, sexism and classism”, with a bias toward a Western perspective.
Data sources continue to be “toxic”. AI tools learn from vast amounts of training data, often consisting of billions of inputs scraped from the internet. This data risks to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and often contains toxic content like pornography, misogyny, violence, and bigotry. Furthermore, researchers found bias in up to 38.6% of ‘facts’ used by AI.
Despite increased awareness, the discourse surrounding AI, like the technology itself, has predominantly been shaped by “Western, whiteness, and wealth”. The discrimination that we see today is the result of a cocktail of “things gone wrong” – ranging from discriminatory hiring practices based on gender and race, to the prevalence of algorithms biases.
“Biases are not a coincidence. Artificial intelligence is a machine that draws conclusions from data based on statistical models, therefore, the first thing it eliminates is variations. And in the social sphere that means not giving visibility to the margins,” declares Judith Membrives i Llorens, head of digital policies at Lafede.cat – Organitzacions per la Justícia Global.
“AI development isn’t the sole concern here. The real issue stems from keeping citizens in the dark, restricting civic freedoms and the prevalence of polarisation and prejudice on several dimensions of our societies. This results in unequal access, prevalent discrimination, and a lack of transparency in technological processes and beyond. Despite acknowledging the potential and power of these technologies, it is clear that many are still excluded and left at the margins due to systemic flaws. Without addressing this, the global development of AI and other emerging technologies won’t be inclusive. Failure to act now and to create spaces of discussion for new visions to emerge, will mean these technologies continue to reflect and exacerbate these disparities,” says Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, civil society leader in Burkina Faso and across the Sahel region, and Chair of the global civil society network Forus.
The Civil Society Manifesto for Ethical AI asks, what are the potential pitfalls of using current AI systems to inform future decisions, particularly in terms of reinforcing prevailing disparities?
Today, as EU policymakers are expected to close a political agreement for the AI Act, we ask, do international standards for regulating machine learning include the voice of the people? With the Manifesto we explore, challenge, disrupt, and reimagine the underlying assumptions within this discourse but also to broaden the discussion to incorporate communities beyond the traditional “experts.” Nothing about us, without us.
“We want Artificial Intelligence, but created by and for everyone, not only for a few,” adds Judith Membrives i Llorens.
From the “Internet of Cows” to the impact of AI on workers’ rights and on civic space, developed by over 50 civil society organisations, the Manifesto includes 17 case studies on their experiences, visions and stories around AI. With each story, we want to weave a different path to build new visions on AI systems that expand rather than restrict freedoms worldwide.
“The current development of AI is by no means an inevitable path. It is shaped by Big Tech companies because we let them. It is time for the civil society to stand up for their data rights,” says Camilla Lohenoja, of SASK, the workers’ rights organisation of the trade unions of Finland.
“Focusing on ethical and transparent technology also means giving equal attention to the fairness and inclusivity of its design and decision-making processes. The integrity of AI is shaped as much by its development as by its application,” says Hanna Pishchyk of the youth group Digital Grassroots.
Ultimately, the Manifesto aims to trigger a global – and not just sectorial and Western-dominated dialogue – on AI development and application.
Civil society is here not just as a mere token in multistakeholder spaces, we bring forward what others often dismiss, and we actively participate worldwide in shaping a technological future that embraces inclusivity, accountability, and ethical advancements.
Bibbi Abruzzini, Forus and Nina Sangma, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
Communities affected by nuclear testing, many originating from island nations in the South Pacific, share their experiences at the Nuclear Survivors Forum. Credit: ICAN / Haruka Sakaguchi
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2023 (IPS) – The language used in the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is unambiguous on its focus of the grave humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The TPNW also recognizes the influence of the public conscience “in the furthering of the principles of humanity as evidenced by the call for total elimination of nuclear weapons”.
This public conscience has been shaped by what we know already of the consequences of nuclear testing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the historic reasons to argue for nuclear disarmament. Decades later, the hibakusha – the term used to refer to survivors of the Japanese nuclear bombings – continue to be vocal in their pleas to world leaders to end nuclear weapon proliferation. Beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the experiences in other affected regions – as represented by second- and third- generation survivors – stand as clear reminders of the intergenerational impact of nuclear testing.
While the Second Meeting of State Parties was an opportunity for member states and NGOs to support the Treaty and express solidarity with affected communities, it has been through a side-events hosted by civil society that those affected can directly testify to their own experiences. It has been through holding such events that the narratives built around nuclear survivors can be expanded, be made more inclusive.
On November 30, the International Campaign for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), along with partner organizations such as Peace Boat and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, convened the Nuclear Survivors Forum. Hosted at the Church Center for the United Nations, the event saw people from communities around the world commiserate over their experiences with nuclear testing and their impact on their homes and communities.
The forum created a space where views, ideas, and common experiences were shared, especially for communities that “rarely have such opportunities”, according to Taraem Taukaro, a youth delegate who came to the event with the Kiribati government representatives. The Republic of Kiribati has been one of several island nations in the Pacific that were impacted by nuclear tests, notably conducted by British and American military forces in the mid-20th century. The Kiritimari island, which is part of the Republic, was previously the site of multiple nuclear bombing tests between 1956 and 1962.
Taukaro’s mother, who lived through the testing, suffers from health issues which is believed to have been caused by exposure to radiation from the fallout. This exposure also resulted in health complications for the next generation, like with Taukaro’s sister, who was born deaf. It is a challenge for this family to have been impacted this way. One of the direct impacts has been that the indigenous Kiribati people that lived through the tests are afflicted with health problems and have suffered losses in their environment and biodiversity. Their descendants now contend with the same issues.
Bedi Racule, an activist with the Pacific Conference of Churches, provided perspective on the impact of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands and the greater South Pacific region. The US military conducted nuclear tests in the region, notably on Bikini Atoll between 1946 and 1958. As Racule noted, many Pacific communities continue to feel the impact of nuclear testing, which encompass cancer, displacement, and ecological contamination.
“There is a loss of our wellbeing and our quality of life and our connection to land and ancestors and culture,” she said. “…There is a lot of pain and trauma.”
When speaking of the nuclear survivors who attended the forum, she added: “I really feel for this community, and for my people. I also want to highlight their resilience, their strength. Having vulnerability is not weakness. It is strength… I just want to commend all of these people that have stood up now and in the past for a better world that’s free of nuclear weapons. And specifically, have a nuclear-free zone, and the first nuclear-free constitution.”
For young people, there is a greater responsibility to them to educate them on the impact of nuclear testing; to contextualize the history and the way their connection to culture has shifted, including what has been lost.
Racule remarked that during the forum, there was a call from the affected communities to establish an advisory group. “The core of [the TPNW] is the humanitarian response to nuclear weapons, knowing what has happened in the past and seeking justice for that and preventing these experiences from ever being felt again by anyone.”
Taukaro remarked that the international community, including the British government, could do more to provide funding and support for medical resources and environmental clean-up, as part of the compensation towards the affected communities in Kiritimari and its neighboring islands.
Racule expressed a different view. “Among our network of nuclear justice advocates, it is very well-acknowledged that nuclear issues are intrinsically linked to issues of colonization, of self-determination,” she said. “Even our countries in the Pacific that are free and independent and sovereign, they still have trouble voicing their wants… because of geopolitical interests, because of aid donor funding. We also see this development aid as a way to come in and influence what is happening, to take away our freedom not only politically but economically, financially, socially.”
With real life testimonies from survivors and their descendants, the event was a reminder that nuclear disarmament must be effective sooner rather than later to ensure that our future generations can live in peace and pursue decent lives. The public conscience must be respectful and elevate the voices of the indigenous communities who have been disproportionately affected by nuclear testing and live through its fallout, well into the new millennium.
