Tackling the World’s Planetary Emergency

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Tackling the Planetary Emergency: Supporting a Declaration of Planetary Emergency at the UN General Assembly and the Convening of a Planetary Emergency Platform

NEW YORK, Aug 26 2024 (IPS) – The world is facing a triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

Climate change continues to pose an existential threat to humanity, with recent science estimating that we have possibly less than six years left to change course and rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to have a chance of avoiding the worst of the climate crisis.

Pollution is crippling air and water quality, exacerbating the inequality between wealthy and low-and middle-income countries. Biodiversity loss has the potential to collapse our food and water supply chains, putting further pressure on some of the most vulnerable countries in the world to manage the ever-growing risk of poverty, hunger, and harm to human health.

We also have scientific evidence that six of the nine core Planetary Boundaries have been crossed, posing a catastrophic danger to the Earth’s overarching ecosystem.

With this in mind, the Climate Governance Commission, supported by the Earth governance smart coalition Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA), seeks to assist in catalyzing the implementation of critical reforms to global governance institutions for the effective management of the triple planetary crisis.

Probably the most significant and fundamental reform that could be established quickly and effectively would be a Declaration by the UN General Assembly of a Planetary Emergency and the convening of a Planetary Emergency Platform to facilitate global cooperation to address the emergency.

Adopting a Planetary Emergency Declaration would ensure that policy actions to protect the environment – especially the climate – would be elevated to top priority in global, national and local decision-making, requiring concerted action by all sectors of government, similar to the way that other critical emergencies are addressed.

Convening the Planetary Emergency Platform would help facilitate the development of cooperative plans for urgent action at all levels of governance on specific goals such as, for example, a global, fast-track de-carbonization package. The fact that we are indeed in a serious planetary emergency justifies and indeed requires an approach that can sufficiently address such an emergency.

Why declare a Planetary Emergency?

An emergency occurs when risks (impact X probability) are unacceptably high, and when time is a serious constraint. As identified by MEGA and the Climate Governance Commission based upon the best available science, we are at such a juncture. Consequently, with scientific evidence continuing to mount depicting the grave circumstances humanity finds itself in, the UN General Assembly, with the support of climate-vulnerable countries, should consider responding in kind, declaring a planetary emergency recognising this fundamental shift toward an emergency footing and moving quickly to convene an emergency platform to reflect these circumstances and facilitate urgent, coordinated action, with linked national emergency plans.

The growing urgency for declaring a planetary emergency stems from a history of a fragmented multilateral planetary policy system, that lacks a coordinated and ambitious response at the speed and scale required. Climate change to date has been treated as a peripheral issue dealt with primarily within a two-week framework every year at the climate COPs (Conference of the Parties), leading to a lack of effective cooperation between different aspects of the multilateral system and its domestic counterparts. Further, climate change solutions have not been adequately linked to mitigating pollution and biodiversity loss.

This siloed approach to handling the crisis as just another social and economic issue, rather than the interlinked and existential threat that it poses to society, illustrates how unequipped current governance structures are to handle this all-encompassing and systemic issue.

Consequently, global governance at present lacks the preparation and resilience necessary for current and future global shocks caused by the planetary emergency (e.g. extreme weather events, potential collapse of food supply chains, major economic crises, among other shock events).

However, this emergency also opens the door for the UN General Assembly and broader multilateral system to reconsider its framing of its approach and identify new governance mechanisms to address current gaps in the system. Governments and policymakers are now presented with an opportunity for transformation – to create a sustainable governance framework that facilitates the safe operation of humanity within its Planetary Boundaries.

Climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss and its related ecological, social, and economic problems are global issues, and thus require a whole-of-system approach to provide global solutions.

By recognizing that the world is in a state of acute distress through the Declaration of a Planetary Emergency at the UN General Assembly and thereby convening a Planetary Emergency Platform to coordinate a response to this emergency, policymakers would be provided with a framework needed to transcend current political divides to effectively address the challenges we face.

What would a Declaration of a Planetary Emergency at the UN General Assembly achieve?

We have already seen regional, national, and local climate emergency declarations issued across 2359 jurisdictions (as of August 2024). Such declarations by themselves have limited impact due to the global nature of this emergency. However, they demonstrate a keen interest in responding to the triple planetary crisis within an emergency framework, providing a core foundation for multilateral cooperation.

A Planetary Emergency Declaration would be science-led and action-focused, helping to elevate global planetary policy by connecting and elevating the existing declarations and filling the gaps in our current governance framework. Activating, focusing, and coordinating existing capacities at the UN through a Declaration of this kind could form a crucial aspect in ensuring that the Declaration is not merely a reflection of well-intended aspirations, but that it provides a solid basis for building effective, cooperative action.

A Planetary Emergency Declaration could build off and connect to its predecessors’ efforts and acknowledge all inter-connected risks associated with the triple planetary crisis in order to facilitate a global green transition. This would in turn allow for the Declaration to stimulate, support and facilitate cooperation and implementation of planetary policy at multilateral, national, and subnational levels.

The Declaration could seek primarily to achieve three things at the outset.

Firstly, as noted above, it could place the multilateral system on an acknowledged emergency footing, allowing for more ambitious action at all levels of governance, and reducing the current barriers to planetary progress.

Secondly, a Declaration could open the door for more effective emergency governance platforms including in particular the convening of a Planetary Emergency Platform, in line with the broader proposal of the UN Secretary General that emergency platforms be convened to strengthen the response to complex global shocks.

A Planetary Emergency Platform, using the Declaration as its basis, could be tasked with coordinating, defragmenting, and harmonizing the international community’s response to the triple planetary crisis. This would, in turn, speed up much needed solutions to the crisis, including, for example, the unlocking of greater climate finance and increased protection of crucial global commons under threat from human activity, from the Amazon to the High Seas.

A Platform of this kind would also be capable of developing a Planetary Emergency Plan, which could outline and bring into effect these desired outcomes, as well as assist with monitoring the implementation of the Declaration.

Finally, a Declaration of Planetary Emergency would allow for scientific concepts like Planetary Boundaries to become more familiar and integrated into our global policy responses, as well as creating vital opportunities to bridge the gap between planetary science and policy.

The Declaration could seek to ensure policymakers have greater impetus to take emergency action to protect these Planetary Boundaries, helping to generate political support and reduce geopolitical barriers to progress.

A Planetary Emergency Declaration at the UN General Assembly could serve as a crucial next step toward remedying the – to date – dysfunctional and inadequate nature of our response to the triple planetary crisis and convene a Planetary Emergency Platform as a key governance mechanism to facilitate the cooperation required between national and subnational entities to ensure effective and equitable planetary action.

Working with climate-vulnerable states, and global experts, the Climate Governance Commission and Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance will offer support to build a coalition to advance this Declaration at the UN General Assembly and accelerate our shared efforts to capably and effectively manage the global environment.

Eoin Jackson is Chief of Staff and Legal Fellow at the Climate Governance Commission and Co-Convenor of the Earth Governance ImPACT Coalition; Nina Malekyazdi is a Summer Intern at the Climate Governance Commission and a graduate in International Relations of the University of British Columbia

Source: Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA)

MEGA is a coalition of civil society organizations working in cooperation with like-minded governments, legislators, experts, private sector actors and other stakeholders to strengthen existing environmental governance mechanisms and establish additional mechanisms. MEGA is led by the Climate Governance Commission and World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy (co-hosts) in cooperation with 28 co-sponsoring organizations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Kazakhstan Takes Lead in Global Push for Nuclear Disarmament Amid Heightened Tensions

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Conferences, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Health, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Weapons

Opinion

Central Downtown Astana with Bayterek tower. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TOKYO/ASTANA, Aug 19 2024 (IPS) – In a world increasingly shadowed by the threat of nuclear conflict, Kazakhstan is stepping up its efforts in the global disarmament movement. On August 27-28, 2024, in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Kazakhstan will host a critical workshop in Astana. This gathering, the first of its kind in five years, is set to reinvigorate the five existing Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) and enhance cooperation and consultation among them.

This initiative aligns with UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s Agenda for Disarmament, particularly Action 5, which emphasizes the strengthening of NWFZs through enhanced collaboration between zones, urging nuclear-armed states to respect relevant treaties, and supporting the establishment of new zones, such as in the Middle East. This effort reflects the global community’s ongoing push to reduce the nuclear threat and foster regional and global peace.

Kazakhstan’s Historical Commitment to Disarmament

Kazakhstan’s vision for a nuclear-free world is deeply rooted in its leadership in global disarmament efforts. This vision is not just aspirational; it is grounded in the country’s lived experience of the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. The Semipalatinsk Test Site in northeastern Kazakhstan, often referred to as “the Polygon,” was the site of 456 nuclear tests conducted by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1989. These tests exposed over 1.5 million people to radiation, resulting in severe health consequences, including cancer and birth defects, as well as environmental degradation.

Kazakhstan’s dedication to disarmament is further highlighted by its initiative to establish August 29 as the International Day against Nuclear Tests, recognized by the United Nations. This date commemorates both the first Soviet nuclear test at Semipalatinsk in 1949 and the closure of the site in 1991, serving as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear testing and a call to action for the global community.

The Role of NWFZs in Global Security

NWFZs are critical components of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. There are five established NWFZs, created through treaties: Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean), Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific), Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia), Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa), Treaty of Semey (Central Asia) In addition, Mongolia’s unique status as a self-declared nuclear-weapon-free state, recognized through a United Nations General Assembly resolution, exemplifies a national commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.

These zones prohibit the presence of nuclear weapons within their territories, reinforced by international verification and control systems. NWFZs play a crucial role in maintaining regional stability, reducing the risk of nuclear conflict, and promoting global disarmament.

Astana Workshop: A Critical Gathering for Disarmament

The upcoming workshop in Astana is a critical opportunity for states-parties to the five NWFZ treaties, alongside representatives from international organizations, to engage in vital discussions aimed at overcoming the challenges facing these zones. This gathering is particularly timely, given the escalating geopolitical tensions in regions where nuclear capabilities remain central to national security.

A key focus of the workshop will be on enhancing cooperation among the NWFZs, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament. This includes facilitating consultation between the zones and encouraging nuclear-armed states to adhere to the protocols of these treaties. The workshop builds on the 2019 seminar titled “Cooperation Among Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia,” co-organized by UNODA and Kazakhstan in Nur-Sultan(Astana), which produced key recommendations aimed at revitalizing cooperation among NWFZs.

Participants will discuss strategies to advance the objectives of NWFZs, with an emphasis on strengthening security benefits for member states and fostering more robust consultation mechanisms. The workshop will also address the challenges posed by the reluctance of certain nuclear-armed states, particularly the United States, to ratify protocols related to several NWFZ treaties. Despite being a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. has yet to ratify protocols to treaties covering the South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga), Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba), and Central Asia. This reluctance has impeded the full realization of the security benefits these zones could offer.

Kazakhstan’s Leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

Kazakhstan’s role in nuclear disarmament extends beyond NWFZs to include leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In March 2025, Kazakhstan will host the 3rd Meeting of State Parties to the TPNW at the United Nations, further solidifying its position as a champion of nuclear disarmament.

Kazakhstan has been a vocal advocate of the TPNW and has actively pushed for the creation of an international fund to support victims of nuclear testing and remediate environments affected by nuclear activities, in line with Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty.

The Vienna Action Plan, developed during the First Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW（１MSP）, outlines actions for implementing these articles, including exploring the feasibility of an international trust fund and encouraging affected states parties to assess the impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing and to develop national plans for implementation.

At the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP), co-chaired by Kazakhstan and Kiribati, progress was made, but challenges remain. The informal working group on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation presented a report, and its mandate was renewed, with the goal of submitting recommendations for the establishment of an international trust fund at the 3rd Meeting of States Parties (3MSP). Kazakhstan’s leadership in this area underscores its commitment to addressing the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, drawing from its own experience with the devastating consequences of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk.

Civil Society’s Crucial Role

As a part of the two day event, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) from Japan and the Center for International Security and Policy (CISP) will hold a side event in the evening of September 28 to screen the documentary “I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon,” highlighting the survivors of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk. This documentary, produced by CISP with SGI’s support, was first shown at the UN during the second meeting of state parties to the TPNW in 2023. This side event is part of a broader initiative by SGI and Kazakhstan, which have co-organized several events focusing on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at UN, Vienna, and Astana in recent years.

Also coinciding with the Astana workshop, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will hold a conference convening civil society organizations and activists including Hibakusha from some countries. This confluence of governmental and civil society efforts in Astana marks a significant moment in the global disarmament movement. While diplomats and state representatives discuss policy and cooperation during the official workshop, the parallel activities organized by civil society will amplify the humanitarian message and emphasize the urgent need for a world free of nuclear weapons.

As global tensions rise, the Astana workshop represents a beacon of hope, a critical moment in the global journey toward disarmament. Through cooperation, dialogue, and a shared commitment to peace, the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons remains within reach. Kazakhstan, with the support of the international community, is at the forefront of this vital effort.

INPS Japan/IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Digital Trade & the Sustainable Development Goals: A Dynamic Agenda

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Online transactions and E-commerce have become a key part of people’s life in Asia and the Pacific. Credit: Unsplash/Rupixen

BANGKOK, Thailand, Aug 12 2024 (IPS) – The rapid growth of digitalization has fundamentally altered commerce, impacting production and facilitating the movement of goods. The 2023 Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report (APTIR), has pointed out that although digital trade revenues of Asia and the Pacific account for a significant share of global trade, this growth is uneven, with trade concentrated in a few areas, leading to disparities across the region.

Studies show a positive relationship between digital trade and progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These linkages among digital trade policy and the social and economic pillars of the SDGs may appear more indirect, but they do manifest through economic channels.

Various facets of the relationship between sustainable development and digital trade are evident, such as the impact of digital trade on wealth inequality in the region, the role of the Internet in export expansion, how e-commerce facilitates small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and how digital trade can help achieve the ambitious agenda behind the SDGs.

However, better digital infrastructure does not necessarily engender competition and instead requires active measures from the government to promote linkages between export superstars and domestic suppliers.

Additionally, robust regulatory frameworks on digital trade can help eliminate “monopolistic and restrictive” trade policies, contributing significantly to a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Examples of good practices

Different policy measures to establish an inclusive digital trade and e-commerce landscape have been used across the region. For example, research on internet courts in China showed how such public and digitized judicial systems benefit smaller and medium-sized firms compared to private dispute resolution mechanisms, which are highly costly.

Similarly, research on the Pacific Alliance’s trade policies, particularly its binding agreements and work instruments, provided a framework to incorporate net neutrality in the promotion of equitable digital development.

Indonesia’s introduction of single submission for freight transport applications and its impact on sustainability in supply chains was another case study. This policy instrument has had significant impacts across multiple domains, such as increasing time effectiveness, reducing costs, and increasing transparency in shipping and port clearances.

Lessons learned and the way forward

There is a need to understand the specific digital trade policy instruments that promote sustainable development. It is critical to acknowledge key differences and similarities between trade and digital trade policy to strategically leverage their interlinkage to achieve the SDGs. Social development works in tandem with economic progress.

A key concern is the lack of data on cross-border e-commerce in the Asia-Pacific and Latin America regions, which hinders the implementation and evaluation of programs designed to promote the participation and productivity of small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

More concerted efforts to improve data measurement through private-public partnerships could be a possible policy intervention to address this issue. States should establish effective monitoring systems by improving the availability of economic statistics and third-party evaluations for measuring the progress and impact of SME support programs.

However, given the diversity in operations of SMEs across sectors, it is essential to devise and tailor policies that cater to their specific needs and realities.

There is also a need for sharing real-world examples of successful government initiatives and SME support programs so neighboring countries can draw lessons from them. There are doubts about the long-term usefulness of stand-alone Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs) due to the lack of stringent legal provisions for possible breaches, unlike market-access free trade agreements (FTAs).

Lastly, the United States, which has played a pivotal role in advocating for an open global trade environment, gradually step back from its position, it is time to rethink the leadership that would guide the establishment of digital trade provisions in the future.

This involves showcasing how digital trade rules will be established and enforced moving forward. Who will provide such public goods for digital trade is a major question facing the global economy.

Given its rapid digital-economy growth, significant market size, and increasing influence in global digital trade, should that leadership come from the Asia-Pacific region?

Witada Anukoonwattaka is Economic Affairs Officer, Trade Investment and Innovation Division, ESCAP; Preety Bhogal is Consultant, Trade Investment and Innovation Division, ESCAP.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Will the New Cybercrime Treaty be Used as a Tool for Government Repression?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Global Cybercrime Treaty: A delicate balance between security and human rights. Credit: Unsplash/Jefferson Santos Via UN News

Aug 8 2024 (IPS) – A new UN Cybercrime Treaty, which is expected to be adopted by the UN General Assembly later this year, is being denounced by over 100 human rights activists and civil society organizations (CSOs) as a potential tool for government repression.

The treaty is expected to be adopted by a UN Ad Hoc Committee later this week and move to the 193-member General Assembly for final approval.

Deborah Brown, Deputy Director for Technology, Rights, and Investigations at Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS governments would then need to sign and ratify the treaty, which means going through national processes.

“We anticipate that as countries move to ratify the treaty it will face considerable scrutiny and pushback from legislators and the public because of the threat it poses to human rights.”

The treaty, she pointed out, would expand government surveillance and create an unprecedented tool for cross-border cooperation between governments on a wide range of crimes, without adequate safeguards to protect people from abuses of power.

“Negotiations are also expected to start on a protocol to accompany the treaty to address additional crimes and further expand the treaty’s reach. We urge governments to reject a cybercrime treaty that undermines rights,” Brown said.

Recognizing the growing dangers of cybercrime, the UN says member states have set about drafting a legally-binding international treaty to counter the threat.

Five years later, negotiations are still ongoing, with parties unable to reach an acceptable consensus, and the latest meeting of the Committee members in February did not conclude with an agreed draft, with countries unable to agree on wording that would balance human rights safeguards with security concerns.

One of the nongovernmental organizations taking part in the negotiations is Access Now, which defends and extends the digital rights of people and communities at risk around the world.

Whilst the February session was still taking place at UN Headquarters, Raman Jit Singh Chima, the Senior International Counsel and Asia Pacific Policy Director for Access Now, spoke to Conor Lennon from UN News, to explain his organization’s concerns.

“This treaty needs to address “core cybercrime”, namely those crimes that are possible only through a computer, that are sometimes called “cyber dependent” crimes, such as hacking into computer systems, and undermining the security of networks”, said Chima.

Clearly, these should be criminalized by states, with clear provisions put in place enabling governments across the world can cooperate with each other.

“If you make the scope of the treaty too broad, it could include political crimes. For example, if someone makes a comment about a head of government, or a head of state, that might end up being penalized under the cybercrime law,” he pointed out.

“When it comes to law enforcement agencies cooperating on this treaty, we need to put strong human rights standards in place, because that provides trust and confidence in the process”.

Also, if you have a broad treaty with no safeguards, every request for cooperation could end up being challenged, not only by human rights advocates and impacted communities, but by governments themselves, he warned.

Meanwhile, the joint statement by CSOs points to critical shortcomings in the current draft of the treaty, which threatens freedom of expression, privacy, and other human rights.

The draft convention contains broad criminal provisions that are weak –- and in some places nonexistent -– human rights safeguards, and provides for excessive cross-border information sharing and cooperation requirements, which could facilitate intrusive surveillance.

“Cybercrime regimes around the world have been misused to target and surveil human rights defenders, journalists, security researchers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, in blatant violation of human rights”.

The draft convention’s overbreadth also threatens to undermine its own objectives by diluting efforts to address actual cybercrime while failing to safeguard legitimate security research, leaving people less secure online, the CSOs warn.

“National and regional cybercrime laws are regrettably far too often misused to unjustly target journalists and security researchers, suppress dissent and whistleblowers, endanger human rights defenders, limit free expression, and justify unnecessary and disproportionate state surveillance measures”.

Throughout the negotiations over the last two years, civil society groups and other stakeholders have consistently emphasized that the fight against cybercrime must not come at the expense of human rights, gender equality, and the dignity of the people whose lives will be affected by this Convention.

In an oped piece in Foreign Policy in Focus, Tirana Hassan, executive director of Human Rights Watch, says the new treaty, backed by Russia, is aimed to stifle dissent.

She points out that Cybercrime—the malicious hacking of computer networks, systems, and data—threatens people’s rights and livelihoods, and governments need to work together to do more to address it.

But the cybercrime treaty sitting before the United Nations for adoption, could instead facilitate government repression, she noted.

By expanding government surveillance to investigate crimes, the treaty could create an unprecedented tool for cross-border cooperation in connection with a wide range of offenses, without adequate safeguards to protect people from abuses of power.

“It’s no secret that Russia is the driver of this treaty. In its moves to control dissent, the Russian government has in recent years significantly expanded laws and regulations that tighten control over Internet infrastructure, online content, and the privacy of communications,” said Hassan.

But Russia doesn’t have a monopoly on the abuse of cybercrime laws. Human Rights Watch has documented that many governments have introduced cybercrime laws that extend well beyond addressing malicious attacks on computer systems to target people who disagree with them and undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, she pointed out.

For example, in June 2020, a Philippine court convicted Maria Ressa, the Nobel prize-winning journalist and founder and executive editor of the news website Rappler, of “cyber libel” under its Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The government has used the law against journalists, columnists, critics of the government, and ordinary social media users, including Walden Bello, a prominent progressive social activist, academic, and former congressman.

In Tunisia, authorities have invoked a cybercrime law to detain, charge, or place under investigation journalists, lawyers, students, and other critics for their public statements online or in the media.

In Jordan, the authorities have arrested and harassed scores of people who participated in pro-Palestine protests or engaged in online advocacy since October 2023, bringing charges against some of them under a new, widely criticized cybercrimes law.

Countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have weaponized laws criminalizing same-sex conduct and used cybercrime laws to prosecute online speech.

The treaty has three main problems: its broad scope, its lack of human-rights safeguards, and the risks it poses to children’s rights, said Hassan.

“Instead of limiting the treaty to address crimes committed against computer systems, networks, and data—think hacking or ransomware—the treaty’s title defines cybercrime to include any crime committed by using Information and Communications Technology systems.”

The negotiators are also poised to agree to the immediate drafting of a protocol to the treaty to address “additional criminal offenses as appropriate.”

As a result, when governments pass domestic laws that criminalize any activity that uses the Internet in any way to plan, commit, or carry out a crime, they can point to this treaty’s title and potentially its protocol to justify the enforcement of repressive laws.

In addition to the treaty’s broad definition of cybercrime, it essentially requires governments to surveil people and turn over their data to foreign law enforcement upon request if the requesting government claims they’ve committed any “serious crime” under national law, defined as a crime with a sentence of four years or more, Hassan said.

This would include behavior that is protected under international human rights law but that some countries abusively criminalize, like same-sex conduct, criticizing one’s government, investigative reporting, participating in a protest, or being a whistleblower.

In the last year, a Saudi court sentenced a man to death and a second man to 20 years in prison, both for their peaceful expression online, in an escalation of the country’s ever-worsening crackdown on freedom of expression and other basic rights.

This treaty would compel other governments to assist in and become complicit in the prosecution of such “crimes.”

Moreover, the lack of human rights safeguards, says Hassan, “is disturbing and should worry us all.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Pivotal Shift at Seabed Authority: Nations Rally for Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

KINGSTON, Jamaica, Aug 7 2024 (IPS) – The International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly meeting concluded last week with no mining authorized, an unprecedented number of States calling for a moratorium or precautionary pause and a new Secretary-General elected.

Three weeks of negotiations included intense scrutiny of the ISA’s annual financial management; no Mining Code was agreed; a Head of State attended the meeting to support a moratorium for the first time in the Assembly’s history; and there was the first formal debate ever by the ISA Assembly on the need to adopt an overall policy for the protection of the marine environment.

Momentum to defend the deep increased with 32 states now calling for a precautionary pause or moratorium. The attendance of senior political figures, Indigenous Leaders and youth from across the world added weight to the push to stop mining from proceeding and the election of a new Secretary General opens up a new era for the ISA.

The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) has been present throughout the negotiations in Kingston and Deep-Sea Mining Moratorium Campaign Lead, Sofia Tsenikli said: “For years the ISA has operated in its own bubble, pressing ahead and resisting the mounting calls for precaution. This Assembly meeting has marked a pivotal shift for the ISA and the moratorium campaign.

The dumbo octopus, which uses its ear-like fins to propel itself off of the seafloor, is one of the many species that call the deep-sea home. Credit: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Okeanos Explorer Program, 2014 expedition, Gulf of Mexico.

States and communities that are on the front lines of deep-sea mining and its impacts are here in Jamaica to defend their homes and cultures from this destructive activity before it can begin. We applaud the ocean champions spearheading efforts to safeguard our fragile and essential deep sea.”

Malta, Honduras, Tuvalu, Guatemala, and Austria joined the ever-growing wave of countries calling for a precautionary pause to deep-sea mining, citing a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of the deep sea, the absence of an effective regulatory regime and the high risk to the marine environment.

The ISA Assembly elected Leticia Carvalho as the new Secretary-General of ISA after defeating incumbent Michael Lodge, marking a new chapter for the institution responsible for the effective protection and long-term health of the deep sea.

The DSCC’s co-founder Matthew Gianni congratulated Carvahlo and the government of Brazil on this historic election and noted: “The ISA has an opportunity to champion a new way forward for sound ocean governance that prioritizes the precautionary principle and secures the health of the deep sea and its benefits for future generations.

We urge the new Secretary General to prioritize advancing transparency in the work of the ISA and independent scientific research and capacity building, decoupled from an extractive agenda, to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the deep ocean, its diversity of species and ecosystems, and the role they play in maintaining the health of the planet for all of us.”

For the first time, the ISA Assembly discussed the possibility of a General Policy for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, which could set the necessary conditions to be fulfilled before commercial deep-sea mining exploitation can be considered.

However, no decision was taken, as a group of States, including China, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uganda and Ghana, refused to engage in any development on a General Policy at this Assembly, despite the support from a large number of States, including Chile, Palau, Vanuatu, Samoa, Switzerland, Brazil and Greece to bring the protection of the marine environment into the heart of ISA’s supreme organ: the Assembly.

We urge the Assembly to open this discussion again next year and to develop a General Policy to safeguard these fragile ecosystems.

DSCC International Legal Adviser Duncan Currie said: “A discussion on the protection of the marine environment is long overdue at the ISA Assembly considering the global outcry of environmental concerns surrounding deep-sea mining.

The ISA Assembly, as the supreme organ of the ISA, has the legal authority under UNCLOS to establish such a general policy. We are disappointed this didn’t happen this year but we look forward to working with states constructively on the establishment of a General Policy for the protection and preservation of the marine environment next year.”

Moreover, a Mining Code remains far from being agreed – a blow to mining companies – and the unrealistic and artificial 2025 Roadmap remains on the table, with over 30 outstanding regulatory matters still unresolved, undecided or undiscussed.

DSCC Policy Officer Emma Wilson said, “With independent scientists pointing to the risks of deep-sea mining, as well as the absence of a robust scientific understanding of these ecosystems, it’s time for States to zoom out from the technicalities of the mining code and instead address one basic question: is it or is it not safe to allow this industry to proceed under the current circumstances? Rushing to adopt a regulatory regime that would open the gates to a highly destructive activity for an area we know little about is beyond reckless and risks irreparably and permanently damaging our ocean and planet.”

Patricia Roy is a senior press officer for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and Communications INC. She has worked for more than 10 years in art management and communication in the public and private sectors in France, the UK and Spain. Working with Communications INC, she specialises in European and international media strategy, coordination and outreach for environmental and social campaigns designed by international NGOs.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Activists Challenge Pharma Company Gilead Over HIV Medication

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Health

Activists protest during the 25th International AIDS Conference (AIDS2024) in Munich over a affordable pricing for a drug currently sold by pharmaceutical firm Gilead. Credit: Ed Holt/IPS

Activists protest during the 25th International AIDS Conference (AIDS2024) in Munich over a affordable pricing for a drug currently sold by pharmaceutical firm Gilead. Credit: Ed Holt/IPS

MUNICH, Aug 2 2024 (IPS) – Campaigners and experts have demanded a breakthrough HIV intervention hailed as “the closest thing to an HIV vaccine” must be made available as soon and as cheaply as possible to all who need it as its manufacturer faces protests over its pricing.

Activists led a massive protest during the 25th International AIDS Conference (AIDS2024) in Munich last week as a study was presented showing lenacapavir—a drug currently sold by pharmaceutical firm Gilead for more than USD 40,000 per year as an HIV treatment—could be sold for USD 40 per year as a form of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to help prevent HIV infection.

Community groups working in prevention, as well as experts and senior figures at international organizations fighting HIV, called on the company to ensure it will be priced so it is affordable for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which account for 95 percent of HIV infections.

“It is no exaggeration to call lenacapavir a game changer. It could be life-changing for some populations. We need to see it produced generically and supplied to all low- and middle-income countries to the people who need it,” said Dr. Helen Bygrave, chronic disease advisor at Medecins sans Frontiere’s (MSF) Access Campaign.

During the event, data from a trial of lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable, were presented. The results of the trial were announced by pharmaceutical firm Gilead last month and showed the drug offered 100% protection to more than 5,000 women in South Africa and Uganda.

Many experts and community leaders helping deliver HIV interventions who spoke to IPS described the drug as a real “game changer,” offering not just spectacular efficacy but relative ease and discretion in delivery—the latter key in combating stigma connected with HIV prevention intervention in some societies—compared to other interventions, such as oral PrEP.

But they warned there were likely to be challenges to access, with cost expected to be the main barrier.

Lenacapavir is currently approved only as a form of HIV treatment at a price of USD 42,000 per person per year.

While as a PrEP intervention it would be expected to be sold at a much lower price, an abstract presented at the conference showed that it could cost just USD 40 a year for every patient.

In a statement put out following the protests, Gilead said it was developing “a strategy to enable broad, sustainable access globally” but that it was too early to give details on pricing.

Critics claimed Gilead was not being transparent in its statement—the company talked of being committed to access pricing for high-incidence, resource-limited countries rather than specifically low- and middle-income countries—and there are fears that the price at which it is eventually made available as PrEP will be so high as to put it out of reach of the countries that are struggling most with the HIV epidemic.

“Cabotegravir, a two-month injectable form of PrEP, is currently being procured by MSF for low-income countries for USD 210 per person per year. We would not expect [the price for lenacapavir] to be higher than that, and we would hope it would be more ‘in the ballpark’ of  USD 100 per person per year,” said Bygrave.

She added that “questions have been asked of Gilead about its pricing for lenacapavir, and the company has been pretty vague in its answers.”

“Civil society needs to put continued pressure on Gilead about this issue because, without that pressure, I do not trust Gilead to do the right thing,” Bygrave, who took part in protests at the conference against Gilead’s pricing, said.

Some speakers at the conference set out a series of demands for the firm.

Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS, called on Gilead to license generic manufacturers to produce it more affordably through mechanisms such as the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), a UN-backed programme negotiating generics agreements between originators and generic pharmaceutical companies.

Others, such as keynote speaker Helen Clark, Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, said such interventions must be seen as “common global goods, and ways must be found to make them accessible to all.”

“The pharmaceutical industry has been the beneficiary of much public research investment. With respect to HIV/AIDS, it has benefited from the mobilization of scientists and engaged communities who have advocated for investment in R&D and treatments. Prima facie, the notion that the companies can then make great profits from and not share the intellectual property created is wrong,” she said.

Others went even further, accusing some pharmaceutical firms of being parties to the creation of a de facto global two-tier system for medicine supply.

“Companies must share their medicines. We cannot accept an apartheid in access to medicine in which the lives of those living in the Global South are not regarded as having the same value as the lives in the North,” Archbishop Dr Thabo Makgoba, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Cape Town and HIV advocate, said at a UNAIDS press event during the conference.

Some of those who work with key populations stressed the need to push through all necessary approvals and set lenacapavir’s price at an accessible level as quickly as possible to save lives.

“It’s great to have innovation and get important new tools in the fight against HIV. But the question is: how long will it take to get them to the people who need them? Until then, they are just a great announcement—like a beautiful picture hanging up there that you can see but cannot actually touch. We need to give communities the funding and the tools they need to do their vital work,” Anton Basenko, Chair of the Board of the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD), told IPS.

The calls came as campaigners stressed the exceptional potential of lenacapavir. It is not only its astonishing efficacy, but also its relative ease and discretion of delivery, which experts are excited about.

Stigma around HIV prevention, such as oral PrEP, which involves taking daily tablets, has been identified as a major barrier to the uptake of HIV interventions in some regions.

Some HIV healthcare specialists at the conference told IPS they had seen cases of women leaving clinics with bottles of tablets and, as soon as they heard them rattling in the bottle, threw them into the bin outside the clinic because the noise would tell others they were taking the tablets and leave them open to potential discrimination, or even gender-based violence.

“The lack of oral PrEP uptake and adherence among women and girls is due to a number of factors, such as stigma and worries about being seen with a huge bottle of pills. What about if you are in a relationship and your partner sees the bottle and starts asking whether you are cheating on them or something?

“A woman could go and get a lenacapavir injection a couple of times a year and no one would have to even know and she wouldn’t have to think about taking pills every day and just get on with her life. This drug could change lives completely. I would definitely take it if it was available,” Sinetlantla Gogela, an HIV prevention advocate from Cape Town, South Africa, told IPS.

The concerns around access to lenacapavir at an affordable price for low and middle income countries come against a background of record debt levels among poor countries, which experts say could have a severe negative impact on the HIV epidemic.

A recent report from the campaign group Debt Relief International showed that more than 100 countries are struggling to service their debts, resulting in them cutting back on investment in health, education, social protection and climate change measures.

Speakers at the conference repeatedly warned these debts had to be addressed to ensure HIV programmes, whether they include lenacapavir or not, continue. Many called for immediate debt relief in countries.

“African debt needs to be restructured to let countries get hold of the medicines they need,” said Byanyima.

“Drop the debt; it is choking global south countries, denying us what we need for health. Please let us breathe,” said Makgoba.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source