By Ezequiel Heffes
NEW YORK, May 23 2023 – In 2021 alone, almost 24,000 grave violations of children’s rights in war were documented by the United Nations – these included killing and maiming, sexual violence, use and recruitment, and abductions. Schools and hospitals were destroyed, and humanitarian relief was denied on arbitrary grounds, depriving children of vital services. More children now live in conflict zones than in the past two decades.

One critical tool created to address violations against children in war is the UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict, in which he includes States and armed groups responsible for such violations in his “list of shame.” Myanmar government forces, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) in Colombia, and Al-Shabaab in Somalia, to name a few, are currently included in this list.

Some parties responsible for harming children are not included in the list, while others are listed for only some of the violations they have committed. Some have even been removed from the list before they have fully complied with children’s safeguards

The list helps protect children and ensures accountability by identifying warring parties and securing commitments to prevent violations through the adoption of UN action plans. It creates tangible, positive changes for children affected by war. Importantly, the listing is based on verified data collected by a global monitoring mechanism.

Despite the fact that the listing mechanism has improved the protection of children in various conflicts, civil society organizations and UN Member States have raised concerns about the process for determining which perpetrators are included by the Secretary-General in his Annual Report.

They have noted that any politicization of the decision-making process to list parties threatens to undermine its credibility, weakening the mechanism’s legitimacy as a tool for ensuring accountability, promoting compliance, and preventing future harm to children. These concerns are due to inconsistencies between the data on violations included in the Report’s narrative section and the parties listed in its annexes.

Specifically, some parties responsible for harming children are not included in the list, while others are listed for only some of the violations they have committed. Some have even been removed from the list before they have fully complied with children’s safeguards. In a 2021 report, an eminent group of international experts on children’s rights identified “dozens of cases where multiple and egregious violations did not lead to listing or where listing decisions reflected unexplained inconsistences.”

Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict emphasizes the salience of evidence-based and consistent listing decisions. Protecting children from being harmed in war should never be subject to political considerations. It is crucial to address the abovementioned concerns and ensure that the listing mechanism remains an effective tool for protecting children.

The UN Secretary-General must publish a complete list of perpetrators that accurately reflects verified data on violations. It is time to uphold existing protection frameworks and promote accountability for violations against children’s rights irrespective of who the perpetrators are.

Dr. Ezequiel Heffes is the Director of Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict

By Ahmed Rachid El-Khattabi and Aaron Salzburg
CHAPEL HILL, NC, US, May 23 2023 – At the UN Water Conference in March 2023, the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina (UNC) along with several key partners, including UNICEF, Water Aid, the World Health Organization, and the governments of Ghana, Uganda, and South Africa, among others, organized a session centered around the elimination of lead in drinking water across the globe.

During the session, the various institutional partners articulated a vision of eliminating lead from all drinking water supplies by 2040. This vision, dubbed the “Global Pledge to Protect Drinking Water from Lead” (Lead-Free Water Pledge, for short), begins by outlining concrete steps for phasing out lead-leaching materials for new drinking water systems by 2030.

As long as lead is present in drinking water, we as a society are condemning millions (if not billions) of people to futures of health issues and reduced earning potentials in the decades to come. The vision articulated by the Lead-Free Water Pledge is one of many necessary steps that we as a global society must take to ensure access to safe drinking water to people around the world

The pledge’s two-pronged approach recognizes the complexity of eliminating lead from drinking water systems. On the one hand, lead is a problem in existing systems. On the other hand, many new drinking water systems are being constructed as much of the Global South develops and urbanizes; these new systems are being constructed with parts or components that contain and leach lead into the water.

As evidenced by efforts to address lead in drinking water in the United States, the first step of identifying areas affected by lead contamination is both financially and technically onerous. Because mitigation is more expensive than prevention, ensuring that new water systems are constructed in accordance to standards the prevent the leaching of lead is low-hanging fruit in the broader effort to eliminate lead from drinking water.

Lead in Drinking Water is a Global Concern

Globally, exposure to lead is responsible for a significant burden of disease, accounting for an estimated 0.9 million deaths per year and 30% of developmental disability from unknown origins. Young children and infants are particularly sensitive to the harmful effects of lead. Current statistics suggest that approximately one in three children worldwide have elevated blood lead levels.

Lead is seldom, if ever, found to be naturally occurring in bodies of water, such as rivers or lakes. Lead is also rarely present in water leaving water treatment plants. Yet, lead in drinking water is a global concern.

Lead in drinking water constitutes a significant portion of a person’s exposure to lead in countries around the world. In the US, lead in drinking water is a significant issue that affects households in almost every state. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that drinking water can account for at least 20% of a person’s total exposure to lead; this estimate can increase up to 60% for infants who mostly consume mixed formula. A 2021 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examining water supplies in sub-Saharan found that nearly 80% of drinking water systems were contaminated with lead. Of these systems, approximately 9% of drinking water samples across several countries had lead concentrations that exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline value of 10 parts per billion (ppb).

Lead contamination of drinking water supplies is entirely preventable: lead finds its way into drinking water from lead-containing plumbing materials used throughout drinking water systems. Notably, lead can leach into water from lead-based solder used to join pipes, lead-containing brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures, and the wearing-away of old lead service lines.

Regulations around Lead in Drinking Water are Insufficient

There is no safe level of exposure to lead. Even low levels of exposure can be harmful to human health and can cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, cognitive impairments, stunt growth, and impair the formation and function of blood cells, among other harmful effects.

Many countries around the world have regulations in place to reduce or limit the amount of lead in drinking water. The European Union, China, and Japan, for instance, all have statutory limits of 10 ppb; Canada and Australia have published guidelines recommending limits of 5 and 10 ppb, respectively. In the US, the EPA set the maximum contaminant level for lead at 15 ppb.

Except for the US, however, none of the existing national-level regulations have goals place to eliminate lead from drinking water. In 2022, the EPA issued the Revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) setting the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water at zero. As part of the revised LCR, water systems have to create lead service line inventories to better identify areas where they may possible lead in drinking water. Creating this inventory, however, is proving to be financial and technologically onerous for many water systems because it requires both a significant financial investment and having access to staff with technical expertise in GIS or data modeling.

Delivering on the Pledge

The Lead-Free Water Pledge is not the first global initiative to reduce exposure to lead. Notably, one of the most successful public health initiatives over the previous century has been to remove the use of lead in gasoline. For context, lead was commonly used as an additive in gasoline since the 1920s when it was discovered that the addition of lead reduced engine knock allowing engines to run more smoothly.

Though the harmful health effects of lead were almost immediately apparent, it took close to a century for global action to gather any meaningful momentum to eliminate its use. As of 2021, all but one country has banned the use of lead as an additive in fuels because of concerted efforts by the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and other like-minded organizations.

As illustrated by the effort to remove lead from gasoline, delivering on the pledge to remove lead from drinking water by 2040 will require non-trivial amounts of effort. First, countries must sign on to the pledge and take it on as a priority. So far, three African countries—Ghana, Uganda, and South Africa—have made firm commitments to eliminating lead from drinking water by 2040. Though the United States’ policies are fully consistent with the Lead-Free Water Pledge, it has yet to commit.

Second, there must also be a commitment mechanism in place to ensure countries that sign on to the pledge take meaningful actions towards eliminating lead in drinking water. National governments will have to set up systems to ensure new treatment plants follow international standards, support the training and certification of professionals to oversee the construction of safe drinking water systems, ensure affordable access to fittings and other plumbing materials that meet standards for lead in drinking water, among other commitments.

The dual problem of both gathering momentum and implementing a commitment mechanism to ensure progress is not unique to the Lead-Free Water Pledge: the UN Water Conference in 2023 culminated in over 200 similar sorts of commitments, pledges, or agreements.

Given that the next UN Water Conference of the sort that took place in March 2023 wouldn’t take place until 2030 (at the earliest), the need for spaces that decision-makers and researchers from different parts of the world working on particular issues, such as the elimination of lead from drinking water, can use to come together to flesh out details, report on progress, and hold each other accountable is paramount.

A logical step in the right direction would be to take advantage of all the current meetings to create the space for meaningful discussions and actions around lead. To that end, the UNC Water & Health conference is ideally suited to serve as a space to follow-up on the Lead-Free Water Pledge and other commitments made at the UN Water Conference. The yearly conference hosted by the Water Institute each fall is already a gathering place for experts on water sanitation & hygiene in both developing and developed countries.

As long as lead is present in drinking water, we as a society are condemning millions (if not billions) of people to futures of health issues and reduced earning potentials in the decades to come. The vision articulated by the Lead-Free Water Pledge is one of many necessary steps that we as a global society must take to ensure access to safe drinking water to people around the world. We are grateful for the commitments made by Ghana, Uganda, and South Africa and are proud that Africa is taking the lead in tackling such a fundamental issue to ensure a more water secure future.

Dr. El-Khattabi is the Associate Director for Research and Data at the Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Salzberg serves as the Director of the Water Institute and the Don and Jennifer Holzworth Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering in the Gillings School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

By Grantly Galland
WASHINGTON DC, May 23 2023 – Global fisheries are worth more than US$140 billion each year, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. But this hefty sum does not capture the true value of fish to ocean health, and to the food security and cultures of communities around the world.

Unfortunately, many important populations were allowed to be overfished for decades by the same regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) charged with their conservation and sustainable use, and in some regions, this continues.

At the same time, the demand for fish continues to grow— from consumers of high-end bluefin tuna sushi to coastal communities who depend on seafood as their primary source of protein. So, RFMOs and governments must do more to ensure sustainable fishing and long-term ocean health.

More than 20 years ago, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) entered into force as the only global, binding instrument holding governments accountable for managing the shared fish stocks of the high seas.

Under the agreement, fish should be managed sustainably and consistent with the best available science. Governments that are party to this treaty—and to RFMOs—are supposed to follow its management obligations, and work towards greater sustainability of the transboundary species, including tunas and sharks, vital to the ocean and economies.

Five of those RFMOs focus specifically on tuna management, one each in the Atlantic, eastern Pacific, western and central Pacific, Indian, and Southern oceans. They operate autonomously and, although there is some overlap among their constituent members, each sets its own rules for tuna fishing in its waters.

This makes UNFSA critical to successful management of tuna fisheries. And because the tuna RFMOs manage some of the world’s most iconic species, they often set the tone for how other similar bodies operate.

All of this is pertinent now because UNFSA member governments are meeting in New York May 22-26 to evaluate whether RFMOs are performing consistent with their commitments. A similar review was conducted in 2016, and although management has improved over time, some areas require more work, especially when it comes to ending overfishing and considering the health and biodiversity of the entire ecosystem.

Since 2016, the share of highly migratory stocks that are overfished increased from 36% to 40%, making it all the more urgent for governments to act quickly.

UNFSA calls on RFMOs to be precautionary in how they regulate fishing, although that guidance is not always followed. There are several examples of extensive overfishing of target species, such as bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans; yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean; and mako, oceanic whitetip sharks and other species that are caught unintentionally.

Although the RFMOs that manage these fisheries have stopped the overfishing in some cases, in others they have not. But there are signs of progress. Over the past decade, a new precautionary management approach known as harvest strategies has gained traction among RFMOs.

These strategies (or management procedures) are science-based rules that automatically adjust catch limits based on several factors, such as population status. If widely implemented, they should end overfishing and prevent it from threatening these populations again.

Harvest strategies have already been successful, particularly in the Southern and Atlantic oceans, where they’ve been adopted for several species, including bluefin tuna and cod, fish stocks for which precautionary management has historically been difficult, or even controversial.

While this progress is important, UNFSA members are still falling short in an area they have agreed is critically important: taking an ecosystem approach to management. For generations, fisheries managers focused on individual fish stocks—adopting catch limits and other measures with little thought to the broader ecosystem.

Science shows that maintaining ecosystem health is critical to sustainable fishing. Yet, to date, RFMOs largely have not consistently assessed or addressed the wider impacts of fishing on ecosystems, including predator-prey relationships, habitat for target and non-target species, and other factors.

Instead, most action has been limited to reducing the impact of bycatch on individual shark species. Better data collection and sharing, and more monitoring of fishing activities, could help integrate stronger ecosystem considerations into management. The more RFMOs can build the whole ecosystem into their decisions, the better it will be for their fisheries.

For example, in the western and central Pacific, the $10 billion skipjack tuna fishery is an enormous economic driver for island nations that are threatened by climate change. But the harvest strategy in place there is nonbinding and unimplemented.

For a fishery facing changes in stock distribution due to warming waters, as well as increased market pressures, delayed action on implementation—and a lack of an ecosystem approach—may make matters worse.

At this week’s UNFSA meeting, RFMOs should be commended for the work they have done in the seven years since the last review. Good progress has been made, including improvements to compliance efforts, and monitoring and enforcement to fight illegal fishing.

But many of the legal obligations of the treaty remain unfulfilled. As such, sustainability is still out of reach for some critically important stocks, and almost no ecosystem-based protections are in place.

As governments convene this week, they should look to the lessons of the past—when poor decision-making threatened the future of some fisheries—and seize the opportunity to modernize management and adhere to the promises they have made on conservation. The biodiversity in the world’s ocean shouldn’t have to wait another seven years for action.

Grantly Galland leads policy work related to regional fisheries management organizations for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ international fisheries project.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 23 2023 – When the UN displayed a female robot back in February 2019, it was a peek into the future: a fast-paced, cutting-edge digital technology where humans may one day be replaced with machines and robots.

However, a joke circulating in the UN delegate’s lounge at that time was the possibility, perhaps in a distant future, of a robot– a female robot– as the UN Secretary-General in a world body which has been dominated by nine secretaries-general, all male, over the last 78 years.

Will it take a robot to break that unholy tradition?

At a joint meeting of the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and its Economic and Social Committee, the robot named Sophia had an interactive session with Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed.

But with the incredible advances on CHATGPT chatbot– the AI search engine is now capable of producing texts, articles, pitches, follow-ups, emails, speeches and even an entire book.

If the UN goes fully tech-savvy, will AI chatbot help produce the annual report of the Secretary-General, plus reports and press releases from UN committees and UN agencies?

But the inherent dangers and flaws in AI chat bot include disinformation, distortions, lies, and hate speech—not necessarily in that order. Worse still, the search engine cannot distinguish between fact and fiction.

Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias

Testifying before US Congress on May 16, Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI urged legislators to regulate AI.

Ian Richards, former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, (CCISUA) told IPS: “ AI is good at regurgitating what it finds on the internet and which has been put there by someone, whether accurate or not. It basically reproduces existing patterns.”

“However, our work has two parts,” he pointed out.

The interesting, high-value-added part involves talking to people on the ground in remote areas, gathering stories, eliminating biases and creating data from sources that are offline or unreliable. This is something AI would find difficult to do, he added.

The less interesting, low value-added part involves creating tables and charts, running repetitive calculations and formatting documents, he noted.

“If AI can take over some of the latter and give us more time to focus on the former, staff will be both more productive and happier”, said Richards, a development economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

“But let’s not get too caught up in the hype. And any staff member who relies too much on AI to produce original content will be quickly caught out,” he declared.

Last week the New York Times quoted Gary Marcus, emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University (NYU) calling for an international institution to help govern AI’s development and use.

“I am not one of those long-term riskers who think the entire planet is going to be taken over by robots. But I am worried about what bad actors can do with these things because there is no control over them,” he warned.

Perhaps a future new UN agency on AI?

Meanwhile, some of the technological innovations currently being experimented at the UN include machine-learning, e-translations (involving the UN’s six official languages where machines have been taking over from humans) and robotics.

The United Nations says it has also been using unarmed and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, “helping to improve our situational awareness and to strengthen our ability to protect civilians”.

Among the technological innovations being introduced in the world body, and specifically in the UN’s E-conference services, is the use of eLUNa –Electronic Languages United Nations — “a machine translation interface specifically developed for the translation of UN documents.”

What distinguishes eLUNa from commercial CAT (Computer-Assisted Translation) tools is that it was developed entirely by the United Nations and is specifically geared towards the needs and working methods of UN language professionals, says the UN.

Asked whether UN should have a role in the growing debate on AI, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters May 22: “I think this is an issue that the Secretary-General has expressed extreme worry about — the lack of regulation, the lack of safeguards, especially when it comes to autonomous weapons.”

“And I think he’s been very clear on that. It’s one of the things that keeps him up at night… we should be releasing soon our latest policy paper on the global digital compact”

Referring to AI and the social media, he said: “These are things that need to be dealt with, within what we love to refer as multi-stakeholder settings, because it is clear that in this regard, the power is not solely in the hands of governments. It is very much also in the private sector. And the UN has been and will continue to try to bring all these people to the table.”

Responding to questions whether Guterres plans to convene an international conference on AI, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said: “I don’t have a meeting to announce for now, but certainly, these are part of the concerns that the Secretary-General himself has been expressing — the idea that as artificial intelligence develops, it needs to be monitored carefully and the right regulations and standards need to be put in place to make sure that this type of technology is not open to abuse”.

Asked if there is any chance that the Secretary-General might consider convening an international conference on AI, Haq said: “That’s certainly something that can be considered. Obviously, if he believes that this would be a helpful step forward, that is what he will do. But again, I don’t have anything to announce at this point.’

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a UN staffer pointed out that the UN once tried out an AI system to generate transcripts for meetings.

But in one instance, it incorrectly cited an European Union (EU) delegate talking about “Russia’s legal invasion of Ukraine” and another delegate accusing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of creating a conflict in Northern Ethiopia.

The moral of the story is that AI has to be closely monitored and double-checked because it can produce incorrect information and distort facts and figures.

At a White House May 4 meeting of executives from Google, Microsoft, Anthropic and OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, US President Joe Biden conveyed mixed feelings: “What your’re doing has enormous potential– and enormous danger”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);