|
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service |
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
|
|
NO 92 JUNE-JULY 2002
| UN UPDATE | NGO & OTHER NEWS | FOCUS |
|
WFP Sounds the Alarm Viera de Mello named High Comm.. Anna Tibaijuka named Habitat Ex. Dir. World Bank Donors Increase... Security Council Adopts Resolution... SG Speaks on Globalization and Role.. UNCTAD SG: Policy Space for Dev.. Open Letter fails, Bush withholds Funds Optional Protocol to Torture Conv.. Preview of World Economy UNECA Economic Report on Africa Arab Human Development Report IASC Warns of Funding Shortage Conference on Disarment holds 2nd.. First World Day Against Child Labour CEDAW Holds 24th Session UN Publishes Study on Abortion Polic.. New Basel Guidelines to Improve Cycl. World Day to Combat Desertification State of African Environment INC-6 on Persistent Organic Pollutants UN Introduces Internet Oceans Atlas UNESCO Launches Global Alliance ODCCP Releases Report on Illicit Drug WHO Releases Draft Text of Tobacco.. |
AI: No
Trade-off Between Human Rights & Security PAN Celebrates 20th Anniversary Anti Slavery International Releases Report "We The People" Campaign" Other News African Union Launched USCR Says Number of World's UprootedGrowing Zimbabwe Invokes TRIPs and Health Delaration Latino Farmworkers Face Greater Cancer Risk |
World Food
Programme Sounds the Alarm World Food Summit: Five Years later UNCTAD Proposes Alternative Approach to Poverty Reduction ECOSOC High Level Segment on Education and Health Care G-8 Summit Addresses African Development Assistance Civil Society and the G-8 ILO Holds 90th Labour Conference High Level Meeting Focuses on Digital Divide Meetings on the UN Millenium Development Goals Calendar Guest Editorial:Ambassador Anwaral Karim Chowdury(High Representaive for Least Developed countries) |
| WFP SOUNDS THE ALARM | ||
| The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has launched a massive international appeal to provide emergency food relief to southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho, and Swaziland), where millions of people are threatened with starvation over the next nine months in the worst crisis that the region has experienced in a decade. WFP says that a “regional cocktail of drought , flooding, mis-government and devastated economies” lies at the heart of the current emergence. | ||
| VIEIRA DE MELLO NAMED HR HIGH COMMISSIONER | ||
|
The General Assembly approved the appointment of Sergio Vieira de Mello of Brazil as the
next UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 23 July 2002. Mr. Vieira de Mello had been the
head of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), helping to oversee East
Timor’s transition to independence. Prior to that, he was briefly Mr. Annan’s Special Representative
for Kosovo after a stint at UN headquarters in New York as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs. Since 1969, a large part of his career has been with the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), where he also had considerable field experience.
Mr. Vieira de Mello, who succeeds High Commissioner Mary Robinson, will begin his four-year term on 12 September. Mrs. Robinson had agreed to stay on for one more year after completing her tenure in September 2001. The post was created by the General Assembly following the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights, with José Ayala-Lasso—a key negotiator in that process—becoming the first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 5 April 1994. |
||
|
Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka has been nominated as Executive Director of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) at the level of Under-Secretary-General. Her four-year term of office will start 1 September 2002. Ms. Tibaijuka has been heading the UN Centre for Human Settlements, UNCHS (Habitat) since September 2000. The centre was upgraded to a programme by the UN General Assembly in December 2001. |
||
|
The World Bank has announced that donor countries have reached agreement on a three-year plan to fund the Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) programme, which provides assistance to 79 countries where the vast majority of people live on less than US$2 a day. The Bank says approximately US$23 billion in resources will be made available during the three years, of which about US$13 billion will come from new contributions from 39 donor countries, representing an 18% increase over levels in the previous replenishment. Half of the resources is expected to be used to support development projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Sven Sandstrom from the World Bank and Chair of the IDA negotiations, called the agreement “an important step forward in addressing the goals highlighted at the recent development conference in Monterrey” [International Conference for Financing, held in March 2002, see NGLS Roundup 91]. US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who has argued for more grants as opposed to loans to avoid poor countries falling further into debt (see focus page 27), said it would “make a difference in the lives of real people.” However, European donor countries had expressed their concern that the US push for more grants would threaten IDA’s long-term financial health. According to John Taylor, the US Treasury Department’s Undersecretary for International Affairs, “There’s still a lot of discussion” among leading donors about potential mechanisms for ensuring that the move to more grants does not hurt IDA’s financial health. The Bank says that the replenishment discussions produced innovations in policies and processes: Donors emphasized a number of clear objectives for IDA, including policy priorities such as improving the quality and access to basic education; creating an enabling environment for gender equality; strengthening the fight against the spread of communicable diseases, including HIV/AIDS; fostering good governance; building a healthy investment climate as the basis for a competitive private sector and the promotion of free and fair trade; diversifying the sources of growth and exports; and mainstreaming environmental concerns in IDA operations. IDA was created in 1960 and is the world’s largest source of concessional financial assistance for the poorest countries. This agreement represents the thirteenth multi-year replenishment of IDA’s resources.Contacts: Caroline Anstey, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433, USA, telephone +1-202/473 1800, fax +1-202/522 2632, e-mail <Canstey@worldbank.org>, website (www.worldbank.org/ida). |
||
|
The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution that grants peacekeepers a one-year immunity from the International Criminal Court (ICC), ending a controversy that was threatening the mandate of the ICC and UN peace-keeping operations. The resolution applies to peacekeepers from States that are not party to the ICC, and would involve not only UN operations, but operations approved by the UN, such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The adoption of the resolution followed intense negotiations. The United States wanted the Court to give US peacekeepers permanent immunity, which was not accepted by Member States. In retaliation, the US vetoed the renewal of the mandate of the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, saying it did not want to expose its peacekeepers to the possibility of “politicized prosecution” by the ICC. After the adoption of the resolution, the Council renewed the mandates for the mission. In response to the US’s demand for blanket immunity, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed a letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which he said, “The issue that the United States is raising in the Council is...highly improbable with respect to United Nations peacekeeping operations. At the same time, the whole system of United Nations peacekeeping operations is being put at risk....My concern is that the only real result that an adoption by the Council of the proposal would produce—since the substantive issue is moot—is that the Council risks being discredited. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to consider this aspect.” UK Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said that the resolution provides a “time-out for the right action to be taken by the Member State whose national is accused or indicted. It’s a very different proposition from the blanket immunity that was present in some of the earlier drafts.” Some States believe that the Security Council resolution violates the UN Charter, which says that the Council can intervene only when there is a threat to peace, breach of peace or an act of aggression. “This is a sad day for the United Nations. We are extremely disappointed in the outcome,” said Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker. “We don’t think it’s in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else.” NGOs have also expressed their concern about the resolution. They see the decision as going against the Court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as the UN Charter. “The two biggest losers as a result of today’s decision are the United States and the Security Council,” said William Pace, Convenor of the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court. “The US lost on two levels. First because it came away with a good deal less than it wanted, and second because it squandered any claim of legitimate interest or concern. The Security Council was damaged because it acted beyond its powers. Several Security Council members party to the Rome Statute shamed themselves by ignoring the UN Charter, international law and the International Criminal Court treaty. The ICC will rise above this assault and prove to be one of the greatest instruments of peace ever created by the international community.” The US says it intends to seek renewal of the resolution on an annual basis and “build additional protections” during the year through bilateral agreements with countries where peacekeepers are deployed. The Security Council will reconsider the resolution in July 2003. The Parliamentarians for Global Action has launched a campaign against the renewal of the resolution. Contact: NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, c/o WFM/IGP, 777 UN Plaza, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/687 2176, fax +1-212/599 1332, e-mail <cicc@iccnow.org>, website (www.iccnow.org) or (www.un.org/law/icc). |
||
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the Conference on Globalization and International Relations in the Twenty-First Century at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva on 7 June 2002. Below are excerpts from his address. “I do believe that globalization represents a great opportunity for the whole human race, and I have said so to many audiences who are less ready to accept that message than you here today. “But, I always say in the next breath that at present the benefits of globalization are far from being equitably shared. There are many, many people in the world who are not enjoying them, and one reason for that is that they do not live in well-organized States that are capable of managing the process. “Globalization makes well-organized States, if anything, more necessary, not less. But even the best-organized States are not finding globalization easy to manage. That is because globalization challenges their ability to perform their historic function of providing security to their citizens, in all three of its aspects—physical security, economic security, and psychological security. “This is most obvious in the case of economic security. Globalization is only partly the result of technological change. Equally important have been decisions, taken by States, to reduce the controls and restrictions they formerly imposed on the economic life of their citizens. “On balance, and in the long term, I have no doubt that this move away from State control is beneficial. But its immediate effect is to deprive States of many of their traditional instruments for protecting vulnerable groups. It has become more difficult to finance social expenditure by raising taxes, or to enforce standards in such areas as environmental protection, working conditions, and even basic human rights, without being accused either of obstructing the free flow of trade, or of imposing unfair conditions on your own exporters, in a highly competitive global market. “But, globalization now challenges the ability of States to protect and provide the physical security of their citizens, too. “Weak States in the developing world—especially in Africa—find that they are no longer able to monopolize and control the flow of weapons in their societies, because groups within those societies are able to bypass the State, financing weapons purchases on the global market through sales, on the same global market, of illicit crops or illicitly mined natural resources. For these countries, globalization represents a return to some of the worst features of the pre-colonial or early colonial era. “But, the same phenomena, or related ones, are also undermining security in developed countries. Neither crime nor terrorism is a new problem. But, increasingly, they are global problems, from which no country can feel safe. “One of the lessons of the twentieth century is that a strong State is not the same thing as a coercive State. States that were extremely coercive, like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, looked terrifyingly strong for a time, while liberal democracies appeared weak and decadent. But, at the end of the century it was the liberal democracies that proved resilient. So, it would be a tragic mistake if, as the new century begins, States tried to assert themselves mainly by coercive methods. “Please understand: I am not advocating a passive approach. It was not through laissez-faire policies, nor yet by unilateral disarmament, that the liberal democracies outlasted Nazism and communism. “States need robust policies. They must have the capacity to resist aggression, to detect and punish crime, to protect their citizens against terrorism, and also to provide basic services and safety nets. “But many challenges, in the age of globalization, can only be met at the global level. What is needed is a kind of ladder of institutions, rising through many steps from the village or district council to the United Nations itself. Through these institutions, individuals must be able to express their many different identities, and link up with each other in an emerging world community. “Just as States remain relevant and necessary at the national level, so the United Nations and its Charter are more relevant than ever at the global level. Fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter—sovereign equality, good faith, and the peaceful settlement of disputes—must form the core of any viable international community. “Of course the UN is not, and does not aspire to be, a world government. But it is a kind of parliament, in which all sovereign States are represented. That gives it unique legitimacy, in the age of globalization, as a source of international law and a convener of global action. “The United Nations must be a forum where States come together with each other and these other actors. “Non-State actors cannot and should not usurp the proper role of States, which is to take binding decisions and make binding agreements on behalf of all their citizens. But the dialogue between States and non-State actors can be richer and more constructive than it has been so far. Many more creative partnerships can be formed. “To facilitate such partnerships has been one of my prime objectives since I became Secretary-General, and I remain firmly dedicated to it.” |
||
| TOP | UNCTAD SG: POLICY SPACE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES | |
|
Speaking on the subject of ‘Rethinking Development Strategies, Reshaping Globalization’ during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Mid-Term Review, held in Bangkok (Thailand) in May 2002, UNCTAD Secretary-General Rubens Ricupero outlined some of the constraints that have shrunk the policy space of developing countries as they struggle to design development strategies, and says those constraints must be re-examined with an open mind. Following are excerpts from his speech. “There are currently concerns in developing countries that pursuing the kind of development strategies that have proved successful in the past is no longer feasible, owing to constraints imposed by the emerging international economic order. Diminished official financing and greater reliance on private capital flows are one source of such constraints. Another source is new obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), which subject domestic policies to stricter disciplines than before. Conditionalities attached to multilateral loans have also brought a wider set of policy measures under the close surveillance of the multilateral financial institutions. “All these constraints need to be re-examined to ensure that developing countries have sufficient policy space to create the sort of investment-export nexus that can support rapid and sustained economic growth. “For most developing countries, the current working of the international trade and finance systems does not provide sufficient resources to enable them to achieve the rapid and sustained growth needed to reach various poverty alleviation targets set by the international community for the new millennium. Full implementation of commitments by most developing countries undertaken during the Uruguay Round, together with continued restrictions on market access in some major industrial countries, are factors contributing to generating payment deficits that cannot be financed on a sustained and reliable basis by international capital markets. Moreover, official financing is no longer available on a scale to fill this gap. The outcome of the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey does not, by itself, remove this inconsistency. The additional pledges made in the context of this conference fall short of amounts needed to close the resource gap, which, according to a number of independent estimates, would require the doubling of official aid. This implies that many developing countries may have to accept slow growth that is unlikely to make much of a dent on poverty. “The fact that so few developing countries, perhaps a dozen out of 140, have been able to overcome the longer-term payments constraint by pursuing targeted trade, investment and technology polices, seem to indicate that the existing arrangements do not allow sufficient policy space. Although, of course, mistakes in national policies also are a contributing factor. So there are increasing concerns that current policy orthodoxy and global arrangements have, or may have, the result of kicking away the ladder by which today’s advanced countries attained their present levels of economic development—by denying developing countries many of the policy instruments that were widely and successfully used in the past. We have to discuss and examine those problems with an open mind, with an attitude of balance, accepting that the responsibilities between the external environment and national policies should be equally shared.” |
||
| OPEN LETTER FAILS, BUSH WITHHOLDS FUNDS TO UNFPA | ||
|
In late June, 25 women’s rights, religious, health and other organizations urged US President George W. Bush in an open letter to release the US Government’s US$34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The groups cited cuts in personnel and programmes that could cost lives in the developing world, and urged President Bush to overturn his previous decision made last January to stop the payment due to allegations that the UNFPA was funding forced abortions and sterilizations in China (see Go Between 91). Addressing President Bush’s concerns about the agency’s China programme, the 25 signatories said none of the monitors sent to study the programme “have found evidence of support of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. If they had, we all could not support UNFPA.” The signatories included health, rights and advocacy groups, including the International Women’s Health Coalition, Population Connection, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, US Committee for the UN Population Fund, as well as a pro-choice coalition from President Bush’s own Republican Party. Religious groups—including the Presbyterian Church, Catholics for a Free Choice and the National Council of Jewish Women—also signed the letter. On 22 July, the Bush Administration formally announced that it would withhold the international family planning funds from UNFPA, saying the organization “implicitly condones forced abortions and sterilizations in China.” Secretary of State Colin Powell informed lawmakers that the money would be diverted to child and maternal health programmes administered by the US Agency for International Development, which has family planning initiatives in roughly half as many countries as the UNFPA. UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid, speaking at a news conference, said, “It is disturbing that the US Administration has chosen to disregard the findings and recommendations of its own fact-finding mission and also the will of the US Congress....UNFPA does not promote abortion anywhere in the world. The services we promote reduce the incidence of abortion. Abortion rates are actually declining in the 32 counties in China where we operate.” The European Union has announced that it will fill what it calls the “decency gap” left by the US’s decision to stop funding to UNFPA. The European Commission will provide the money to projects run by UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Contact: Stirling Scruggs, Director, Information and External Relations Division, UNFPA, 220 East 42nd Street, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/297 5020, fax +1-212/557 6416, e-mail <scruggs@unfpa.org>, website (www.unfpa.org) Contact: US Committee for the UN Population Fund, 220 East 42nd Street, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/297 5210, fax +1-212/297 5209, website (www.uscommittee.org/main.html). |
||
| OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO TORTURE CONVENTION ADOPTED | ||
|
On 25 July the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted the optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture in spite of US opposition. The protocol will be sent to the General Assembly later this year before being opened for ratification. The optional protocol, sponsored by Costa Rica and supported by members of the European Union, Latin American, Caribbean and African States, would establish an international system of inspection visits to places of detention in countries that ratified it. US Deputy Ambassador Sichan Siv said the US objected to the protocol because of “certain flaws,” including incompatibility with aspects of the US Constitution and that “the regime...would be overly intrusive.” The US was seeking to delay action on the protocol by calling for renewed negotiations. According to expert observers, the proposed system of visits has many checks and balances, ensuring consultation with governments, prior notification of visits and the confidentiality of reports, and can be adapted to different legal cultures, including federal systems. Human Rights Watch has criticized the US call for renewed negotiations on the draft optional protocol. “Yet again, the Bush Administration is on a collision course with its allies over an important new mechanism to protect human rights,” said Rory Mungoven, Global Advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “Last week, it was the International Criminal Court; this week, it's the prevention of torture.” Human Rights Watch said the draft optional protocol represented the best compromise possible after ten years of difficult negotiations, and addressed many of the concerns previously raised by governments, including the US. Reopening talks as the US had asked would have been the “kiss-of-death for the treaty,” according to Human Rights Watch. Contact: Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor, New York NY 10118-3299, USA, telephone +1-212/290 4700, fax +1-212/736 1300, e-mail <hrwnyc@hrw.org>, website (www.hrw.org). |
||
| PREVIEW OF WORLD ECONOMY | ||
|
The world is pulling out of the global slowdown of 2001, but recovery in 2002 is shaping up to be modest, with growth in the gross global product at less than 2%, according to the report World Economy in 2002. “Whereas the slowdown was rapid and quickly embraced many countries, the recovery is expected to be both slow and less synchronized among economies,” the report says, predicting only “a modest recovery” of 1.25% in developed countries, while “economies in transition are forecast to experience a further deceleration.” The report notes that China and India were able to maintain growth during 2001, and are expected to continue to do so in 2002 and 2003. Elsewhere in the developing world, the report says, the majority of countries are not expected to return to the growth rates of the mid-1990s of around 5% until next year. Though African countries suffered relatively little effect from the slowdown, their economies continued to grow with an increase that had a negligible effect on development. The study attributes the “synchronicity” in the 2001 downturn among many countries to “a series of common shocks,” including: the increase in oil prices, the bursting of economic “bubbles” in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, and the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States. According to the report, these events “highlighted the instability associated with increased global synchronicity and the growing dependency on the economy of the United States.” Since the mid-1990s, “the United States has been the ‘single engine’ for global economic growth. This became more apparent during 2000-2001 when the engine stalled,” the report said. None of the other major economies has replaced the US or shared its role of supporting global growth. The report calls for a “transition from a ‘single engine world economy’ to multi-polar and more balanced global economic growth,” terming it crucial to sustaining the current recovery and to ensuring robust growth in the long run. The report also says consumer spending has had a “steadying effect” on many economies—Japan being a notable exception—while “in sharp contrast...the corporate sector was a major dragging force in many economies in 2001 and its weakness continues to pose uncertainties for the strength and sustainability of the global recovery in 2002.” That weakness is the result of declining corporate profits, a fall in equity prices, capital spending cuts and a drop in industrial production, according to the report. The cumulative effects of reduced overall growth and higher unemployment, reinforced in the developed countries by negative effects from stock market returns, is expected to muffle consumer spending around the world in 2002. Among the positive signs for the medium-term, the report cites improved understanding between countries of the North and South on key development issues, as a result of trade negotiations in Doha (Qatar) in November 2001 and pledges of national reforms and of increased development assistance made at the International Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey (Mexico) in March 2002. Contact: Ian Kinniburgh, Development Policy Analysis Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2 UN Plaza, Room 2170, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/963 4838, fax +1-212/963 1061, website (www.un.org/esa/analysis/wess/wess02c1.pdf). |
||
| UNECA ECONOMIC REPORT ON AFRICA | ||
|
The latest Economic Report on Africa (ERA 2002), entitled Tracking Performance and Progress, shows that Africa grew faster than any other developing region in 2001, “reflecting better macro-economic management, strong agricultural production, and the cessation of conflicts in several countries.” These gains were made amid the “synchronized slowdown” of all major economies and the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States, which were expected to lower commodity prices and reduce the amount of foreign investment in Africa, said the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) in the annual report. Output remained relatively strong and Africa’s overall economic growth increased from 3.5% in 2000. However, Africa’s average gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 4.3% in 2001 masks wide disparities, from 65% growth in Equatorial Guinea to a 7.5% contraction in Zimbabwe, and the report emphasizes that economic growth remains fragile, and confirms that at current rates Africa “will not achieve any of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the United Nations at its Millennium Summit (see focus page 33).” Based on a number of positive recent developments, ERA 2002 provides a cautiously optimistic prognosis of the medium-term prospects for Africa. These developments include the opportunities created by the US African Growth and Opportunity Act, the European Union’s “Everything but Arms” initiative, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the launches of the Doha Development Round and the newly launched 53-member African Union. In the medium-term, issues of political governance, civil conflicts, and developments in the world economy dominate the downside. ERA 2002 reached these conclusions by supplementing its traditional analysis with seven in-depth country studies spanning the diversity of Africa—from South Africa to Guinea. Contact: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, PO Box 3001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, telephone +251-1/515826, fax +251-1/510365, e-mail <ecainfo@uneca.org>, website (www.uneca.org). |
||
| ARAB HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT | ||
|
In spite of a decrease in infant mortality and fewer people in dire poverty, the Arab region still has a long way to go, according to the Arab Human Development Report. The report, published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and compiled by Arab scholars, covers 22 countries in the region, calling it “richer than it is developed.” There is a wide disparity among countries in the region within the Human Development Index (HDI). Kuwait, for example, scores only slightly less than Canada, which has the highest HDI, while Djibouti scores close to Sierra Leone, which has the lowest. While noting that the region does have a certain amount of wealth, the report points out that it suffers from a “poverty of capabilities and poverty of opportunities,” due to “three deficits: freedom, women’s empowerment, and knowledge.” Life expectancy has increased by 15 years over the last 30 years, and infant mortality rates have dropped by two-thirds. Although there are fewer people living in “dire poverty”—defined as an income of less than US$1 a day—than in any developing region, the report notes that one in five Arabs live on less than US$2 a day. Around 15% of the labour force—an estimated 12 million people—was unemployed in 1995. If the present trend continues, this figure could rise to 25 million in 2010. The report says that the impediments to employment generation are traditional, “severely segmented and dysfunctional” labour markets and ineffective labour-market intermediation through employment exchanges. Adult literacy is an area where Arab countries have made progress: adult illiteracy dropped from 60% in 1980 to 43% in mid-1990, and female literacy has tripled since the 1970s. However, ten million children between the ages of six and 15 are not in school. The region scores low in the “freedom index,” which comprises factors such as political participation, civil liberties, and independence of the media. Arab women’s political and economic participation is the lowest worldwide in quantitative terms. In some countries, women are denied the right to vote or hold office. The report says that cross-border and internal conflicts, sanctions, and embargoes in the region are serious obstacles to security and progress. It names Israel’s “illegal occupation of Arab lands” and the denial “of the most basic Palestinian human rights” as the most pervasive conflict. The report lists areas important for progress: Contact: United Nations Publications, Room DC2-853, 2 UN Plaza, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/963 8302, fax +1-212/963 3489, e-mail <publications@un.org> or Section des Ventes et Commercialisation, Bureau E-4, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, telephone +41-22/917 2613, fax +41-22/917 0027, e-mail <unpubli@unog.ch>, website (www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr). |
||
| IASC WARNS OF FUNDING SHORTAGE | ||
|
Speaking to representatives of donor States and humanitarian agencies at a UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) meeting held in Geneva on 28 May, UN Assistant Emergency Relief Coordinator Ross Mountain said the United Nations and its partners are facing a shortfall of US$2.2 billion to address humanitarian emergencies around the world. In November 2001, the United Nations and its partners launched appeals for 19 areas, calling on countries to support some 33 million people in conflict zones. Following the creation in January 2002 of an Afghanistan assistance programme, US$3.7 billion in all is being requested for this year. So far, the response to the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) is 38.5%, but it falls to 29% if funding to the “high-profile crisis,” Afghanistan, is not included. IASC says, as in the past, high-profile crises continue to draw the majority of resources, often to the detriment of “forgotten” emergencies. The CAP Mid-Year Review Status Report also indicates that there is a clear donor preference towards funding the food sector with less support for other sectors such as agriculture, health and education. It calls for “timely, flexible and unearmarked” contributions to be provided early in the calendar year to enable agencies to implement strategies designed to meet identified priorities, and to plan based upon need rather than available resources. Progress towards peace has created opportunities for increased humanitarian assistance in countries like Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone, permitting humanitarian programmes to reach vulnerable populations. Protracted conflicts in Burundi, Somalia and Liberia, however, will require renewed diplomatic efforts of the international humanitarian community, complemented by humanitarian aid, to assist those most in need. The Consolidated Appeals Process, a key coordination tool for humanitarian assistance, brings together IASC members, host governments, NGOs and donors to discuss and set common directions and principles for humanitarian assistance in a country. It works to ensure that assistance goes to populations who suffer from natural disasters, genocide, armed conflict and other humanitarian emergencies, so that they can resume normal life as soon as possible. CAP covers the following countries and regions: Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Great Lakes Region and Central Africa, Indonesia, North Caucasus (Russian Federation), Somalia, Southeastern Europe, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uganda and West Africa (including Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone). |
||
| CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HOLDS 2ND SESSION | ||
|
The Conference on Disarmament was held in Geneva from 13 May to 28 June 2002, and its presidency was shared between Ambassador Hubert de la Fortelle (France) and Ambassador Volker Heinsberg (Germany). In his opening remarks as President, Mr. Heinsberg expressed his country’s strong commitment to the further strengthening and developing of multilateral instruments of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation. Mr. Heinsberg suggested that the Conference should continue its efforts to adopt a programme of work on the basis of the agenda agreed upon by all Members at the start of this year’s session. He said he would address in that regard the “four issues”—nuclear disarmament; a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. He called on Member States to look at new and innovative ways to break the persistent deadlock and to start meaningful work. Making reference to the Treaty on Strategic Disarmament, signed on 24 May 2002 in Moscow by the United States and Russia, and distributed in the Conference as Document CD/1674, he said it had shown that progress in the field of bilateral disarmament was possible. He asked, “Why not also in the field of multilateral disarmament and, in particular, within the Conference?” Making a statement before the audience, Rakesh Sood, representative of India said that the post-11-September change in thinking was the realization of diffusion of power away from a government to an individual or a transnational group. Global terrorism had privatized war; conflicts do not have to be among sovereign States; and casualties in those conflicts were no longer combatants but increasingly, innocent bystanders and civilians. He asked how such conflicts could be prevented. He said that in recent weeks and months, one had witnessed a remaking of the global security agenda: in June, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, long described by many as the “cornerstone of strategic stability,” had ceased to exist; in May NATO leaders welcomed Russian President Putin into a NATO-Russia Council; on 24 May, US and Russian leaders had signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty; and earlier in the year, the US Nuclear Posture Review had provided, what he said was a “disconcerting glimpse into new doctrines and roles for nuclear weapons in the post-11-September world.” According to Mr. Sood, the cases of anthrax in the mail last year galvanized the world against the threat of bio-terrorism, but, at the same time, the Biological Weapons Review Conference session was so wracked by dissension that it had to be suspended for a year. The US representative reiterated that his country saw no need for new outer space arms control agreements and opposed the idea of negotiating a new outer space treaty, adding that the US Government believed that the existing outer space regime was sufficient. While the US understood that certain other Member States had differing views, the representative said that the work of the Conference should be broad enough to encompass diverse priorities and goals, and it should be hoped that Member States would be able to develop an agreed approach that would lead to consensus. Saying that outer space was the common heritage of mankind, China’s representative said the exploitation and utilization of outer space for peaceful purposes was a universal aspiration and demand of the international community. He said that for more than half a century, the development of space technology had enormously facilitated the economic, scientific and social progress of all nations, while, at the same time, stimulating the research and development of outer-space-related weaponry and military technologies. Various combat theories and concepts relating to space warfare had been unveiled, and outer space was faced with the danger of weaponization and an arms race. On the final day of the Conference on Disarmament, the Russian Federation and China submitted a joint working paper on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space. Speakers from Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Venezuela, Iran, Chile, Zimbabwe, Algeria Vietnam, Cuba, Syria, Belarus, Pakistan, Iraq and Kenya supported the proposal on “possible Elements for a Future International Legal Agreement on the Prevention of the Deployment of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects,” and urged the Conference to start substantive discussion on the subject. The representative of the Russian Federation said that in proposing basic parameters of a possible new agreement in the area of outer space, the delegations of China and the Russian Federation had taken into account the experience of nearly nine years of work at the Conference’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). The Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979 as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, was a result of the first Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly held in 1978. It succeeded other Geneva-based negotiating fora, which include the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962-68), and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969-78). The Conference on Disarmament’s third session will be held from 29 July-13 September 2002 in Geneva. Contact: Conference on Disarmament, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, telephone +41-22/917 3440, fax +41-22/917 0034, website (www.unog.ch/disarm/dconf.htm). |
||
| FIRST WORLD DAY AGAINST CHILD LABOUR | ||
|
The first World Day Against Child Labour, an initiative of the International Labour Organization (ILO) seeking to focus world attention on the urgent need to eradicate child labour, was observed on 12 June 2002. It was celebrated in an array of activities, ranging from gatherings of child workers and their supporters to school events, children’s art shows and drama performances, child-adult information workshops, activities organized by worker and employer representatives, media events and other public activities. “This first World Day Against Child Labour is intended to help spread the message that child labour remains a serious problem and that we must do more to combat it,” said ILO Director-General Juan Somavía. “We are asking everyone to join together in working towards a world where no children will be deprived of a normal, healthy childhood, where parents can find decent jobs and children can go to school. Our goal is a world free from child labour.” ILO says the World Day will be held annually to increase support for the global campaign against child labour and will also serve as a catalyst for enhancing the growing worldwide movement against child labour, as reflected in the steadily mounting ratifications of ILO Conventions Nos. 182 (on its worst forms) and 138 (on minimum age), as well as the work of the ILO International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). Contact: Department of Communication, ILO, 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, telephone +41-22/799 7912, fax +41-22/799 8577, e-mail <communication@ilo.org>, website (www.ilo.org). |
||
| CEDAW HOLDS 27TH SESSION | ||
|
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held its twenty-seventh session from 3-21 June 2002 at UN headquarters in New York. The session, which examined the progress of seven States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) dealt with a wide range of issues but focused on women’s access to decision making; the situation of rural women; means of overcoming negative traditional stereotypes; women’s health; their access to education; discrimination within the family and in the labour market; and special measures to advance gender equality. Examining Zambia’s progress on implementation, the expert members of the Committee warned that pervasive traditional stereotypes and prejudices regarding women, as well as across-the-board discriminatory provisions in the country’s legislature and common law, were undermining most of the country’s efforts at ensuring gender equality and equal representation. The Committee said the reports from Zambia honestly represented the problems the country was facing in the areas of discrimination in education, health and marriage. During the review of St. Kitts and Nevis, experts of the Committee said they were encouraged by the country’s pioneering national machinery used to ensure that both men and women enjoyed equal rights. It praised the government for the new bill regarding equal pay for equal work and the country’s efforts to make foreign investors adhere to a code of ethics. However, the Committee regretted the fact that St. Kitts and Nevis was submitting its initial report 17 years after ratification—a process that should only take one year. Examining Ukraine’s progress, the Committee experts noted that a major problem was not so much an inadequate number of legal standards, but the lack of machinery to ensure equal legal representation of women in elected bodies. They pointed out that highly educated women in Ukraine simply were not proportionately represented in decision-making positions and said that without women in such positions, it was particularly difficult to achieve gender-related decisions because of men’s resistance. Expert members of the Committee urged Suriname to overcome the ingrained stereotypical attitudes and complacency that threatened to undermine the rights of women and girls. In particular, the experts were concerned with the status of the Convention in Suriname’s domestic law, because there were still a number of clearly discriminatory laws in effect. The Committee congratulated Belgium on its progress and agreed that Belgium’s equality-oriented policies were, in many ways, exemplary and should serve as an example to other countries. However, it also expressed concern over the intricacy and complexity of its national machinery. In this connection, the Committee experts inquired into the coordination between various bodies at the federal and local levels, saying that their multiplicity could lead to confusion and duplication in implementation of the Convention. The Committee’s expert members observed that there seemed to be two societies in Denmark—that of the country’s basic citizens, on the one hand, and that of migrants, refugees, ethnic minorities and asylum-seekers on the other. While Denmark had set an example for others in its efforts to combat violence against women and mainstream women’s issues in its national policies, it had some progress to make on the situation of migrant and minority women in Denmark, including Kosovo refugees, as well on the advancement of women in the Danish territories of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The Committee commended Tunisia’s strong political will to implement the Convention through numerous amendments to national legislation and measures to improve de facto gender quality. Besides many institutions and programmes for gender equality, the experts noted Tunisia’s efforts to integrate women in development and reduce illiteracy, maternal mortality and women’s health problems. The Committee also said it was encouraging to see the country’s efforts to harmonize the provisions of Islam with the human rights approach. However, it warned that patriarchal stereotypes still hindered progress in Tunisia in many respects, and said a large portion of the female population was still illiterate and unaware of its rights. The Committee is composed of 23 experts, who serve in their personal capacities and monitor the implementation of CEDAW, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 and came into force in 1981. An exceptional session will be held from 5-23 August 2002 at UN headquarters in New York, where the Committee will hear reports from Argentina, Armenia, Barbados, Czech Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Mexico, Norway, Peru and Yemen. Contact: Jane Connors, Chief, Women’s Rights Unit, Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), United Nations, Room DC2-1228, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/963 3162, fax +1-212/963 3463, e-mail <connors@un.org>, website (www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw). |
||
| UN PUBLISHES STUDY ON ABORTION POLICIES | ||
|
The United Nations Population Division has published Abortion Policies: A Global Review, an updated, country-by-country examination of national policies concerning induced abortion and the context within which abortion takes place. In three volumes it provides comparable information for all Member and non-member States of the United Nations. The publication aims to provide the most up-to-date, accurate and objective information about the nature of laws and policies relating to abortion in both developed and developing countries at the end of the twentieth century. It includes information on the social and political settings of these developments, the ways in which these laws and policies have been formulated, and how they have evolved over time. Of the approximately 50 million abortions carried out every year in the world, estimates place the number performed illegally at 40%. The publication shows that abortion is legally permitted to save the life of the woman in 98% of the countries in the world. Other grounds for abortion are: to preserve the physical health of the woman (63% of countries), to preserve mental health (62%), in case of rape or incest (43%), foetal impairment (39%), economic or social reasons (33%), and on request (27%). The report notes that grounds on which abortion is permitted varies greatly among regions. For example, abortion is permitted upon request in 65% of developed countries, but 14% of developing countries, and for economic and social reasons in 75% of developed countries and 19% of developing countries. Nonetheless, abortion to save the woman’s life is permitted in nearly all developed (99%) and developing (96%) countries. The report is available on the Population Division website (www.unpopulation.org). Contact: Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, DESA, Room DC2-1950, United Nations, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/963 3179, fax +1-212/963 2147, e-mail <chamiej@un.org>, website (www.un.org/esa/population/cpd/cpd.htm). |
||
| NEW BASEL GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE RECYCLING | ||
|
In an effort to reduce the global risk of lead poisoning, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal has finalized a set of guidelines promoting the environmentally sound recycling of spent lead-acid batteries, which it says is the number one source of secondary lead in the world today. “Since ancient times, lead has brought us great benefits but also innumerable poisonings, particularly amongst workers and children,” said Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), under whose auspices the Basel Convention was adopted. “The recycling of lead-acid batteries is one of the greatest potential sources of risk, especially for exposed workers in the informal sector in many developing countries. The safe recycling of these batteries requires strict environmental and occupational standards that can only be ensured by specialized firms, of which only a few are found in developing countries,” he said. Malleable and resistant to corrosion, lead is the most widely used metal after iron. Of the 2.5 million tonnes produced worldwide every year, some 75% goes into the lead-acid batteries used in automobiles, industrial facilities and portable tools. The Basel Convention notes that lead has been mined for at least 8,000 years and was probably one of the first health and safety issues in the workplace. Reports of lead poisoning date to ancient Greece, and high levels of lead have been found in ancient Egyptian mummies. The new Basel guidelines aim to improve the management of lead-acid batteries by enabling governments to develop the necessary legislation and facilities for coping with the dramatic growth in the quantity of used batteries. They offer governments and industry a set of best practices and principles for setting up effective systems for recycling batteries. Rigorous controls, economic incentives, appropriate technologies and stable market conditions are the keys to safety, according to the Basel Convention. The 64-page guidelines describe how to collect, transport and store used batteries, as well as addressing medical issues and public awareness. The Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Lead-Acid Batteries have been developed by the Convention’s Technical Working Group, which met in Geneva from 23—24 May. They will go forward for final adoption to the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-6), scheduled for 9-13 December 2002, also in Geneva. The Basel Convention, adopted in March 1989, has 150 members. It regulates the movement of hazardous wastes and obliges its member countries to ensure that such wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Contact: Michael Williams, Information Officer, UNEP, International Environment House, 15 chemin des Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine (Geneva), Switzerland, telephone +41-22/917 9242, fax +41-22/797 3464, e-mail <michael.williams@unep.ch>, website (www.basel.int). |
||
|
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Klaus Töpfer, speaking on World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought on 17 June, warned that the world’s deserts are continuing to expand despite international efforts to stem the tide. He said that since the 1994 establishment of the legally binding UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), many countries have begun to take measures to stop soil degradation and the advance of the deserts, but the global trend of shrinking arable land still continues. Desertification affects over 110 countries worldwide. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his message commemorating the day, painted a bleak picture of the situation. “Desertification and drought pose a worldwide threat with serious economic, environmental and socio-political implications. “Every year, an estimated US$42 billion in income and six million hectares of productive land are being lost because of desertification, land degradation and declining agricultural productivity, and 135 million people who depend primarily on land for their livelihood are at risk of being displaced. “The fallout is felt on all continents. In Africa, over the next 20 years some 60 million people are expected to move from the Sahelian region to less hostile areas if the desertification of their land is not halted. In north-east Asia, dust and sandstorms have buried human settlements and forced schools and airports to shut down. In the Americas, dry spells and sandstorms have alarmed farmers and raised the spectre of another ‘Dust Bowl,’ reminiscent of the 1930s. And in southern Europe, lands once green and rich in vegetation are turning barren and brown. “The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, adopted eight years ago today, integrates environmental and developmental concerns and thus is a key instrument not only in protecting ecosystems and resources, but also in alleviating poverty. However, a lack of predictable financial resources has hampered implementation. I urge developed countries to follow through on the commitments they made both in adopting the Convention and at the ‘Earth Summit’ ten years ago in Rio de Janeiro—including the provision of financial support through the Global Environment Facility (an alliance of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Bank), which should serve as a financial mechanism of the Convention. “Desertification will be among the most important issues to be discussed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development….We need to find ways to halt land degradation, and to manage land more responsibly. We need to reverse the decline in agricultural productivity, especially in Africa, so that food production keeps pace with the number of mouths to feed. We need, in short, to implement the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification as a key element in the world’s quest for sustainable development,” the Secretary-General concluded. As the only convention to stem directly from a recommendation of Agenda 21, the UNCCD is a key instrument in addressing both poverty alleviation and environmental protection within the framework of sustainable development. “The fight against desertification is fundamentally a fight against poverty,” said Hama Arba Diallo, UNCCD Executive Secretary, who also called on the international community to make financial commitments to enable countries affected by land degradation to implement the UNCCD. Contact: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Haus Carstanjen, Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8, D-53175 Bonn, Germany, telephone +49-228/815 2801, fax +49-228/815 2899, e-mail <secretariat@unccd.de>, website (www.unccd.de). |
||
| STATE OF AFRICAN ENVIRONMENT | ||
|
Sharp increases in air and water pollution, land degradation, droughts and wildlife losses are facing Africa unless urgent action is taken to deliver environmentally-friendly development for its citizens, according to a report released by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Africa Environment Outlook (AEO) finds that growing populations, wars, high levels of national debt, natural disasters and disease have all taken their toll on the people and the rich natural environment of Africa in the past three decades. Over the coming three decades new and emerging threats, including climate change, the unchecked spread of alien, introduced species, uncontrolled expansion of cities and pollution from cars and industry are likely to aggravate levels of poverty, environmental decline and ill-health. Many African countries are now attempting to address some of the root causes of environmental degradation through initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). But UNEP says a far bigger effort—by countries within and outside the Continent—is needed to steer Africa on a prosperous and environmentally-sustainable course. Actions include deeper cuts in Africa’s debt burden, a boost in overseas aid, the empowering of local communities, enforcing environmental agreements, introducing green and clean technologies and allowing African countries fair access to international markets for their goods and services. Without this, the report says Africa is unlikely to develop in a way that benefits its people, its landscapes and its wildlife. The report was compiled by UNEP for the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and involved hundreds of experts. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, said, “The right decisions cannot be made without the right facts. We have those here in the AEO. It chronicles where Africa has been, where it is now and possible directions for the future with an array of positive and negative consequences. At the beginning of this new century we have all the resources, both financial and technological, to build Africa and the lives of its citizens and to conserve its astonishing biological richness and diversity.” Report findings include: Contact. Nick Nuttall, Head of Media, UNEP, PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya, telephone +254-2/623084, e-mail <nick.nuttall@unep.org>, website (www.unep.org/aeo) |
||
| INC-6 ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS MEETS | ||
|
The Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-6) for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) brought together approximately 400 delegates from more than 125 countries, including representatives of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, from 17-21 June 2002 in Geneva, to discuss preparations for its first Conference of the Parties (COP) and dimensions of the implementation process. Delegates discussed a number of issues and adopted decisions on: DDT and register of specific exemptions; the expert group on best available techniques and best environmental practices; wastes and stockpiles; implementation plans; the POPs Review Committee; a clearing-house mechanism; technical assistance; financial resources and mechanisms and the interim financial mechanism; effectiveness evaluation; non-compliance; INC-7; as well as the size of the Bureau and budget. The Stockholm Convention was adopted and opened for signature on 22 May 2001. The treaty calls for international action on 12 POPs grouped into three categories: (1) pesticides: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex and toxaphene; (2) industrial chemicals: hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and (3) unintended by-products: dioxins and furans. Governments are to promote best available techniques and environmental practices for replacing existing POPs while preventing the development of new POPs. One of the most pressing issues facing the Stockholm Convention is the lack of funds for its basic administration. Key elements of the treaty include: the requirement that developed countries provide new and additional financial resources; control measures to eliminate production and use of intentionally produced POPs, eliminate unintentionally produced POPs, where feasible, and manage and dispose of POPs wastes in an environmentally sound manner; and substitution involving the use of safer chemicals and processes to prevent toxic by-products. Precaution is operationalized throughout the Stockholm Convention, with specific references to it in the preamble, the objective and the provision on identifying new POPs. Since the Stockholm Convention’s adoption, 151 countries have signed the treaty, and 11 have ratified it (Canada, Fiji, Germany, Iceland, Lesotho, Liberia, Nauru, the Netherlands, Rwanda, Samoa and Sweden). The Convention will enter into force 90 days after receipt of the 50th instrument of ratification. Contact: Jim Willis, Director, Chemicals, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 15 chemin des Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine (Geneva) Switzerland, e-mail <opereira@unep.ch>, website (www.chem.unep.ch/sc). |
||
|
The United Nations and leading international scientific agencies launched a pioneering Internet-based atlas (www.oceansatlas.org) on 5 June 2002 that provides users with updated strategic data on the state of the world’s oceans, maps, development trends as well as the threats posed to human health from the deteriorating marine environment. More than two and a half years in development after a decade of planning, the UN Oceans Atlas represents ambitious global scientific information collaboration online and is an international consensus-building tool expected to assist negotiations of future marine-related agreements. The website will be supplemented by a CD-ROM and other media to reach broader audiences and regions where Internet access is difficult. Project manager John Everett of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said the Atlas is intended for a complete cross-section of users—from schoolchildren, educators and the general public to policy makers, scientists, the media, and NGOs needing access to comprehensive databases. The Atlas is designed to be an encyclopaedic resource but also the world’s foremost information clearing-house and online forum for experts in ocean issues. The Atlas focuses on nine main issues: climate variability and climate change; economics; emergencies; food security; governance; human health; pollution and degradation; safety at sea; and sustainable development. “Ocean-related issues will almost certainly dominate the international agenda later this century if, as predicted, the Earth’s continued warming accelerates sea-level rise and adds up to one metre to the height of our oceans,” said Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Members of the project partnership include: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Maritime Organization (IMO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. Contact: John T. Everett, UN Atlas of the Oceans Project Manager, Fisheries Resource Division, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, I-00100 Rome, Italy, e-mail <john.Everett@fao.org>, website (www.oceansatlas.org). |
||
|
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has launched an initiative entitled the Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity, aimed at fostering creative diversity by bringing together public, private and civil society sectors. The initiative is intended to promote the ability of developing and transitioning countries to produce and disseminate their creative products at both the local and international levels. Pointing out that human creativity is renewable, environmentally safe, and one of the most evenly distributed natural resource in the world, UNESCO says one of its central concerns is the imbalance in the reach, capacity and geographic distribution of cultural industry players who create and commercialize creative products. The ability to produce and access the products of human creativity is affected by consumer preferences and buying power. The fear that only a few powerful players who provide the citizens of the world with a pasteurized, standardized set of cultural products is not about protectionism, UNESCO says, it is more about removing barriers and advocating open societies that promote multiple views and expressions. The Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity aims to combine the expertise and financial resources of the private sector, the mobilizing force of NGOs and the political and regulatory powers of governments to develop production and distribution firms in the areas of publishing, music, film, multimedia, crafts, and design in as many countries as possible. UNESCO says it is committed to focusing diverse interests and forces towards a common goal of creating and strengthening small and medium-sized cultural enterprises in the developing world. Professional training, sectoral reorganization and access to capital are also components of this project. The Global Alliance also seeks to address the problem of technology transfer to the South, not only through the reinforcement of cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet, but also through the development of electronic commerce. Contact: The Global Alliance for Cultural Diversity, Division of Arts and Cultural Enterprise, UNESCO, 1 rue Miollis, F-75732 Paris Cedex 15, France, telephone +33-1/45 68 43 05, fax +33-1/45 68 55 95, e-mail <globalalliance@unesco.org>, website (www.unesco.org/culture/alliance). |
||
|
The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) released its annual Global Illicit Drug Trends 2002 report on 26 June, timed to coincide with the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking. The report, produced each year by ODCCP since 1999, presents annual estimates of illicit drug production, trafficking and consumption around the world. Statistics are based on data provided by Member States supplemented by other sources, including satellite monitoring. This year’s edition offers evidence of Afghanistan’s importance in world opium production and trafficking, showing that in 2001, illicit opium production in Afghanistan went down by 94%, causing a two-thirds decline in global opium production. However, in 2002 production resumed and it is expected to be between 1,900-2,700 tonnes, comparable to levels recorded in the mid-1990s. “Today, the challenge is to break the vicious circle which made Afghanistan the world’s biggest producer of illicit opium. The United Nations is assisting Afghan farmers in achieving sustainable agricultural alternative to opium poppy cultivation. We are especially strengthening national authorities’ efforts to enforce their strong commitment against cultivation, trafficking and abuse of drugs,” ODCCP Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said. Mr. Costa also commented on the role of civil society and the spread of drugs: “Afghanistan and some regions in Latin America prove that the weakening of civil society and the breakdown in law and order facilitate criminal activities. As the uncivil elements hurt socio-political developments and even regional security, our response has to be comprehensive. We assist countries to combat the spread of drugs by helping them establish democratic accountability and sustainable development. This is the way to fight narcotics, as crime and drugs are an enemy of society.” Another major trend highlighted in the report is the increase in levels of heroin abuse in practically all countries in Eastern Europe, particularly along the main heroin trafficking routes. In the Russian Federation alone the number of registered drug addicts rose by 30% in 2000, mostly abusing opiates. The rapidly increasing rate of drug-related HIV infection in the Russian Federation also threatens to become a major AIDS epidemic. The report notes that recent years have also seen a significant increase in the abuse of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). There are estimated to be about 33 million consumers of amphetamines and seven million consumers of Ecstasy globally. Abuse of amphetamines increased strongly in East and South-East Asia although their use appears to be stabilizing in West Europe and North America. The report estimates there are about 13 million abusers of opiates and the same number of abusers of cocaine worldwide. Contact: Sumru Noyan, External Relations Unit, ODCCP, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, A-1400 Vienna, Austria, telephone +43-1/26060 4266, fax +43-1/26060 5850, e-mail <sumru.noyan@undcp.org>, website (www.undcp.org). |
||
|
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released the draft text of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which will provide the basis for negotiations by Member States from 14-25 October in Geneva. The FCTC, to be submitted to the World Health Assembly in May 2003 for adoption, must be ratified by 30 countries before coming into force. The draft treaty covers issues such as tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, illicit trade in tobacco products, taxes, and international cooperation in agricultural diversification and financial resources. The treaty aims to eventually halt tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship of sports and cultural events, and signatories have been asked to phase out subsidies to tobacco farming and manufacturing. Diplomats said that the treaty used a truly multisectoral approach, involving not only the health sector, but also ministries of trade, finance and foreign affairs. The chief negotiator, Ambassador Luiz Felipe de Seixas Correa (Brazil), called the draft “a basket of best options for nations seeking to curb the tobacco epidemic.” WHO says that tobacco kills 4.2 million people annually and unless steps are taken, will kill over 10 million people by the 2020s. NGOs have criticized the treaty, saying it needs to be strengthened “dramatically.” They said they were concerned that it does not put public health before trade, leaving the FCTC subordinate to the World Trade Organization (WTO). NGOs were also disappointed that the treaty did not call for a blanket ban on direct and indirect advertising for tobacco. Contact: Chitra Subramaniam, Tobacco Free Initiative, World Health Organization, avenue Appia 20, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland, telephone +41-22/791 3271, fax +41-22/791 4832, e-mail <subramaniam@who.int>, website (tobacco.who.int). |
||
|
home about ngls un-ngo relations publications un news staff/contacts faq links |
||