By Neena Bhandari
SYDNEY, Jun 7 2024 – The Global South is crucial for ensuring aquatic food security to feed the growing world population. It is imperative that blue economy initiatives benefit fishing communities in developing and small island nations, which are facing disproportionate impacts of climate change, says Dr Essam Yassin Mohammed, Director General of WorldFish, an international non-profit research organization based in Penang, Malaysia.

“More than three billion people depend on aquatic foods as their main source of protein and micronutrients, and nearly 800 million people rely on fishing for their livelihood. The Global South produces a significant portion of the world’s aquatic food and 95 percent of the fishing workforce comes from these regions,” notes Mohammed, who is also CGIAR’s Senior Director of Aquatic Food Systems.

Growing up in Eritrea’s capital, Asmara, situated on a highland plateau 2325 meters above sea level, Mohammed learned the value of food early in life. The country had recently gained independence from Ethiopia in 1991, and young children like him were motivated to contribute to the nation’s food security.

“Eritrea, a coastal country by the Red Sea, had abundant fish and marine resources. We believed these resources would be critical in making the country food secure so some of us decided to study marine biology and fishery science,” he adds.

While working for Eritrea’s Ministry of Fisheries, he was tasked with enhancing fish consumption amongst the Highlanders, who traditionally had no connection with the sea. He then realized that driving behavioral change in people’s diets, while considering cultural food preferences, is far more complex. To meet this challenging task and to better understand the interaction between humans and the ecosystem, he decided to train as a development economist.

“Integrating fisheries science with economics has profoundly shifted my viewpoint and deepened my comprehension of the intricate interplay within socio-ecological systems. This has defined my career, and I have never looked back,”  says Mohammed, who is committed to improving fisheries and aquaculture amidst the challenges of climate change, habitat degradation, and aquatic animal diseases.

Shifting ocean currents and warming waters are having a significant impact on fish stocks and coastal infrastructure, inundating lands and altering marine ecosystems, which is affecting the productivity of some fish species and forcing them to migrate to more optimal environments.

He says, “While large-scale commercial fishing vessels can still pursue and catch these fish say 20 km away, it is technically and financially prohibitive for small-scale operators with small boats to do so. This is where climate change becomes a social justice issue, impacting coastal communities’ access to food and causing loss of livelihoods and cultural identity.”

“At WorldFish, we are going beyond helping communities become climate resilient by creating viable livelihood opportunities, which include development of climate-resilient fish strains, adoption of sustainable aquaculture practices and assisting governments strengthen their fisheries policies, for fishing and fish farming-dependent communities to thrive under a changing climate,” he adds.

WorldFish research is helping prevent aquatic animal diseases, which cause an estimated global annual loss of over USD 6 billion, by ensuring that the food being produced is safe for human consumption.

“One of the critical aspects of fish farming is that once fish are exposed to a disease, the entire stock can perish.

We are democratizing fish health diagnosis with Lab in a Backpack initiative. It’s a compact digital tool that enables fish farmers to quickly diagnose the disease, contact service providers for treatment advice, and also learn how to deal with anti-microbial-resistant  diseases,” he explains.

The initiative is helping fish farmers build their capacity for the best biosecurity management practices by integrating the One Health approach, which prioritizes the health of fish, the environment, and people.

Besides diseases, plastic pollution in the ocean poses a significant threat to marine life and ecosystems. In November 2024, governments will meet for the final round of UN negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution.

Mohammed says, “Once plastics enter the ocean, they are there to stay indefinitely. We have seen many instances of plastics harming marine life—straws stuck in the nostrils of turtles or dolphins—and now traces of microplastics have been found in fish tissues. It means those microplastics are being ingested by human beings, impacting their health too.”

“We need a legally binding treaty to mitigate plastic pollution. There is a global consensus now, but this needs to be followed by action on minimizing and eliminating plastic use and establishing a robust waste management system,” he adds.

Mohammed warns that many developed countries are prioritizing short-term economic gains at the cost of long-term sustainability and conservation of the global marine ecosystem. “We need to perceive the natural capital—marine life, oceans, and water bodies as economic infrastructure; and reinvest in them to ensure they continue to provide for us in the future,” he asserts.

According to the World Bank, blue economy is the “sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and jobs while preserving the health of the ocean ecosystem.”

Currently, investments in blue economy initiatives are not percolating down to developing countries. WorldFish research reveals that from 2017 to 2021, USD 5.9 billion allocated to blue economy initiatives was concentrated mainly in Europe and Central Asia, and 35 percent of examined projects had potential risks for creating or exacerbating social inequities.

“Blue economy investments must benefit developing countries and small island nations. Those who are farthest behind must be able to benefit the most,” Mohammed tells IPS.

The total fisheries and aquaculture production (excluding algae) is expected to reach over 200 million metric tons in 2030, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation.

“Small-scale operators in the Global South supply up to 50 percent of aquatic food consumed globally. Ensuring that investments in the blue economy benefit these communities is essential for achieving shared prosperity and addressing climate change impacts on food security,” says Mohammed.

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’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Blue Economy, World Oceans Day 2024

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 7 2024 – India’s Hindu nationalist strongman Narendra Modi has won his third prime ministerial term. But the result of the country’s April-to-June election fell short of the sweeping triumph that seemed within his grasp.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has shed seats compared to the 2019 election, losing its parliamentary majority. Modi remains prime minister thanks to coalition partners. It’s a long way from the 400-seat supermajority Modi proclaimed he wanted – which would have given him power to rewrite the constitution.

The outcome may be that Modi faces more checks on his power. If so, that can only be good news for those he’s consistently attacked – including civil society and India’s Muslim minority.

Modi’s crackdown

Under Modi, in power since 2014, civic space conditions have deteriorated. India’s election was accompanied by the usual headlines about the country being the world’s largest democracy. But India’s democracy has long been underpinned by an active, vibrant and diverse civil society. Modi has sought to constrain this civic energy, seeing it as a hindrance to his highly centralised and personalised rule.

Modi’s government has repeatedly used repressive laws, including the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, to harass, intimidate and detain activists and journalists on fabricated charges. Law enforcement agencies have raided numerous civil society organisations and media companies. In October 2023, for example, police raided the homes of around 40 staff members of the NewsClick portal and detained its editor.

This was one of many attacks on media freedoms. Independent journalists routinely face harassment, intimidation, threats, violence, arrests and prosecution. Last year, the government banned a BBC documentary on Modi, followed by tax investigation raids on the corporation’s Indian offices.

The authorities have also used the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act to block access to international funding for civil society organisations, targeting those critical of their attacks on human rights. In 2020, the government amended the law to make it even stricter, extending powers to freeze bank accounts. Since the start of 2022, the authorities have cancelled registrations of almost 6,000 organisations.

The authorities have also unleashed violence against protesters. In 2019, citizenship legislation created a way for undocumented migrants to become Indian citizens – but only if they weren’t Muslim. Despite India’s secular constitution, the law introduced religious criteria into the determination of citizenship. The passage of this discriminatory law brought tens of thousands to the streets. Security forces responded with beatings, teargas and arrests, accompanied by internet shutdowns.

It was the same when farmers protested in 2020 and 2021, believing new farming laws would undermine their ability to make a living. The farmers ultimately triumphed, with Modi repealing the unpopular laws. But several farmers died as a result of the authorities’ heavy-handed response, including when a minister’s car ploughed into a crowd of protesters. Once again, the authorities shut down internet and mobile services, and police used batons and teargas and arrested many protesters.

As the new citizenship law made clear, those who have least access to rights are the ones most under attack. Muslims are the BJP’s favourite target, since it seeks to recast the country as an explicitly Hindu nation. The party’s politicians have consistently stoked anti-Muslim hatred, including over the wearing of hijabs, interfaith marriage and the protection of cows – a revered animal in Hinduism.

Modi has been accused of spreading anti-Muslim hate speech and conspiracy theories, including on the campaign trail. During the election, he called Muslims ‘infiltrators’ and alluded to India’s version of a narrative often advanced by far-right parties – that a minority population is out to replace the majority through a higher birthrate and the conversion of partners.

The BJP’s populist rhetoric has encouraged hatred and violence. In 2020, Delhi saw its worst riots in decades, sparked by violence at a protest against the citizenship law. Groups of Hindus and Muslims fought each other and 53 people were killed, most of them Muslims.

Top-down institutional violence followed the unilateral revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special autonomous status in 2019. The removal of constitutional protections for this Muslim-majority region was accompanied by a military occupation, curfew, public meeting ban, movement restrictions and one of the world’s longest-ever internet shutdowns. Indian government authorities have detained thousands of Kashmiri activists and criminalised countless journalists.

Disinformation thrives

Ahead of the election, the state detained key opposition politicians such as Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and froze opposition bank accounts, including of the main opposition party, Congress. Almost all politicians investigated by the government’s Enforcement Directorate are from the opposition.

Indian elections always take several weeks, given the huge logistical challenge of allowing up to 969 million people to vote. But this one, spread over 82 days, was unusually long. This allowed Modi to travel the country and make as many appearances as possible, representing a campaign that put his personality front and centre.

Disinformation was rife in the campaign. BJP politicians spread claims that Muslims were engaged in what they called a ‘vote jihad’ against Hindus, accompanied by accusations that the opposition would favour Muslims. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was a particular target, with false allegations of links to China and Pakistan and doctored videos in circulation.

But despite the many challenges, the opposition coalition performed better than expected. The result suggests at least some are tired of the Modi personality cult and politics of polarisation. And for all the BJP’s attempts to emphasise economic success, many voters don’t feel better off. What matters to them are rising prices and unemployment, and they judged the incumbent accordingly.

It’s to be hoped the result leads to a change in style, with less divisive rhetoric and more emphasis on compromise and consensus building. That may be a tall order, but the opposition might now be better able to play its proper accountability role. Modi has lost his sheen of invincibility. For civil society, this could open up opportunities to push back and urge the government to stop its onslaught.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society 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’);  

By Rajika Mahajan
BANGKOK, Jun 7 2024 – Each year, millions of children worldwide fall prey to the targeted tactics of the tobacco industry in its attempts to lure new customers. This year’s World No Tobacco Day (May 31), aptly themed “Protecting children from tobacco industry interference”, saw global youth unite to confront the pervasive influence of Big Tobacco.

The Global Youth Voices (GYV) movement, convened by the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), has become a powerful front to hold the tobacco industry accountable and safeguard the well-being of future generations.

The addictive nature of nicotine, a key ingredient in tobacco products, is largely unknown to many. Nicotine is as addictive as cocaine or heroin, manipulating nerve cells to release more dopamine, which creates a feeling of ‘high’. The young brain creates more receptors to handle the anticipated nicotine, which leads teens to needing more nicotine to get the same high.

This addiction is particularly potent in young brains, which continue to develop until about age 25, making teens more susceptible to addiction. Among youth, smoking causes faster heart rates, shortness of breath, increased risk of lung cancers, reduced lung function, limitations on performance and endurance , and other health issues. ,

Moreover, emerging evidence shows that Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) or e-cigarettes, launched by the industry as alternate tobacco products are harmful and may act as a gateway to conventional smoking among young people or the renormalization of smoking in society.

At a momentous summit hosted by GYV, the youth adopted a Declaration demanding comprehensive measures to address the tobacco industry’s exploitation of young people.. They called for accountability from the tobacco industry for luring young people into addiction and inflicting harm on health and the environment. They urged governments, educational institutions, international organizations, and the media to combat the industry’s insidious influence.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has thrown its weight behind the role of young people in combating the tobacco and nicotine epidemic and, underscores the pivotal role of youth as a force of change and a key element in shaping a tobacco-free future. This acknowledgement of the energy, passion, and innovation that young voices bring to the table is instrumental in galvanizing a global movement against Big Tobacco.

The tobacco industry has long manipulated and ensnared youth into lifelong addiction through flavored tobacco products and targeted marketing. According to WHO, about 37 million children (13-15 years) globally use tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Young e-cigarette users are two to four times more likely to transition to traditional cigarettes, underlining the urgency of the situation as it threatens to roll-back any achievement in controlling youth smoking.

Beyond addicting youth, the tobacco industry inflicts significant environmental harm, costing an estimated US$26 billion annually due to plastics in cigarette butts and packaging. Cigarette butt pollution has become a pervasive global issue, exacerbating environmental degradation for future generations.

The urgency of addressing the tobacco industry’s profound threat is indisputable. Dr. Mary Assunta, Head of Research and Advocacy at GGTC, highlights the need to dismantle the industry’s deceptive web to protect children, “The tobacco industry is a diabolical predator preying on children, despite its claims of not targeting them. Telling children not to smoke or vape is simply not enough. We must act to prevent the industry from trapping our youth.”

In response to these alarming trends, GGTC has empowered youth to counter the tobacco industry’s ploys. Its new advocacy toolkit, “Protecting youth from tobacco industry interference” offers easy–to-execute strategies and guidance to tobacco control advocates.

To harness the creativity of youth to expose the deceptive tactics of the tobacco industry, a global media competition, the ‘Social Reels Challenge,’ a collaboration with WHO, provides a platform for youth to voice their concerns..

With millions of children worldwide falling into nicotine addiction trap, it is imperative to act decisively and stop the exploitative actions of the tobacco industry. The voices of youth must be heard, their stories shared, and their calls to action heeded as we work towards a future free from the grip of Big Tobacco.

The collective efforts of global youth supported by international organizations and the public health community are spearheading this vital movement to safeguard the health and well-being of present and future generations. Together, we can pave the way for a healthier, tobacco-free future.

Rajika Mahajan is the Communications Officer at GGTC.

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, Jun 7 2024 – The continued veiled threats from Russia, warning of nuclear attacks on Ukraine, have prompted some politicians in Europe to visualize a nuclear-armed European Union (EU).

But Volkert Ohm, Co-Chair of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) in Germany, told IPS that the call for nuclear weapons for the EU contradicts international law.

“The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that even in extreme circumstances of self-defense, states may only defend themselves with weapons that fulfil the conditions of international humanitarian law.”

“Nuclear weapons do not fulfill them. Nuclear radiation is inherent in any nuclear weapon; thus, “clean” nuclear weapons cannot exist. Debates and statements by politicians in the EU, and particularly in Germany, are neglecting international law on many levels,” he pointed out.

Facing the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, the head of the EU’s biggest political grouping is calling for Europeans to prepare for war without support from the United States and to build their own nuclear umbrella, according to POLITICO, a US-based online publication.

Manfred Weber, leader of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), has described Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the two who set the framework” for 2024.

The 27 member states of the European Union (EU) are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

But France is the only EU member that is also one of the world’s nine nuclear powers, along with the US, UK, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

John Burroughs, Vice President, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS that interest in some quarters in the European Union (EU) or some European entity acquiring nuclear weapons stems in part from the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine accompanied by illegal nuclear threats.

But the solution is not some form of increased European reliance on nuclear arms. Rather, it is bringing Russia’s war on Ukraine to an end soon, which would involve painful compromises on Ukraine’s part, he said.

“That would eliminate the very real potential for nuclear war arising out of the conflict, and it would open the way for getting arms control and disarmament negotiations with Russia back on track.”

This, he pointed out, is a far better path than the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the EU or another European entity. That would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as the IALANA Germany statement points out, reinforce nuclear arms racing already underway, and tend to greenlight the spread of nuclear weapons in other regions.

“The interest in European nuclear weapons has also been spurred by concern over statements by former and possible future US President Donald Trump implying US disengagement from NATO. This concern is exaggerated.”

The US government as a whole is deeply committed to NATO, as is illustrated by the fact that Congress passed and President Biden signed a law requiring that a withdrawal from NATO be approved by Congress. It is also true that French and British nuclear arsenals are available for defense of Europe through NATO or otherwise, said Burroughs.

“While they are not as large and diverse as the US or Russian arsenals, it does not take many nuclear weapons to cause Russia or any other country to think twice about aggression. More fundamentally, as the IALANA Germany statement conveys, reliance on nuclear arms, US or European, is incompatible with a law-governed world, and increasing such reliance is going in the wrong direction,” he declared.

“We want NATO, but we also have to be strong enough to be able to defend ourselves without it or in times of Trump,” Weber said in a phone interview with POLITICO on the return leg of a train trip to Kyiv.

“Regardless of who is elected in America, Europe must be able to stand on its own in terms of foreign policy and be able to defend itself independently,” the influential German conservative said.

That brought him to the vexing question of European nuclear defenses. NATO currently relies heavily on U.S. nuclear warheads, which are deployed on six military air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, according to POLITICO.

“Europe must build deterrence; we must be able to deter and defend ourselves,” he said. “We all know that when push comes to shove, the nuclear option is the really decisive one.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has significantly upped his nuclear rhetoric and regularly made veiled atomic threats toward the West.

Within the EU, the only country that would be able to play a larger role is France, which has about 300 nuclear warheads.

The other European nuclear power—but outside the EU—is Britain, with fewer than some 260 warheads. “Perhaps, just to make the options clear, we are now at a point where, after the years and decade of Brexit, we should open a constructive dialogue with our British friends,” Weber continued.

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS that in light of the Russian Federation’s illegal war of aggression in Ukraine and its attendant drumbeat of nuclear threats, a number of former German government officials and politicians have called for the European Union to acquire its own nuclear arsenal.

For example, former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party told Der Speigel last year, “As long as we have a neighbor Russia that follows Putin’s imperial ideology, we cannot do without deterring this Russia.”

Asked whether deterrence includes Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons, he said, “That is indeed the most difficult question.” Noting that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is “also working with nuclear blackmail,” he said: “Should the Federal Republic of Germany possess nuclear weapons? No. Europe? Yes. The EU needs its own nuclear deterrent.”

As pointed out in the IALANA Germany statement, such plans would violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other applicable laws. But more alarming is the growing normalization of nuclear threats and legitimization of nuclear proliferation suggested by Fischer and others, said Cabasso.

At a time when all of the nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals, a new multipolar arms race is underway, and the dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are growing, adding more nuclear-armed actors to the world stage is a truly terrifying prospect, she pointed out.

Germany and other EU members should rebuff any suggestion of acquiring nuclear weapons and take the lead in rejecting reliance on nuclear weapons, use every diplomatic means at their disposal to lower the temperature with Russia and bring the Ukraine war to an end, and promote negotiations among nuclear-armed states to begin the process of nuclear disarmament, declared Cabasso.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS that the vast majority of the countries that are part of the European Union have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-nuclear-weapon State Parties.

According to Article 2 of the NPT, each “non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly.”

Likewise, nuclear-weapon State Parties to the NPT that are either part of the EU (i.e., France) or not (e.g., the United States) are obligated under Article 1 of the NPT “not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices,” he said.

Even without going into the details of who might control these proposed “nuclear weapons for the EU”, it is clear that such an arsenal would contradict the spirit of the NPT and weaken the already weak non-proliferation and disarmament norms.

As IALANA says, EU states should distance themselves from this idea and work for a world free of nuclear weapons, declared Ramana.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

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’);