Category Archives: Socio-economic Collapse

The emergence of COVID-19 as a public health emergency by the World Health Organization has led to a number of precautionary measures such as quarantines, social distancing or in some cases total lockdown in region or countries around the world.

For the first time since WWII, Europeans have been confronted with such restrictions and have to adjust to new realities where the future is unpredictable. Keeping a job and earning a living have become uncertain, especially for those who are already in a precarious situation, leading to greater levels of stress and anxiety. Furthermore, limiting access to normal daily activities, not just going to work, but normal social interactions with others provokes mental health issues, and weakens physical health for those who already struggle to maintain good health and wellbeing.

This situation is particularly worrying for prisoners, who may experience greater mental health effects as they are deprived of external social contacts for a longer period. Children are also affected by social isolation and the mental health issues this provokes. For those who already experiencing loneliness, the social distancing required to stop the pandemic only further raises their feelings of social isolation.

Feelings of loneliness and social isolation, heightened by the current public health crisis, can have severe health consequences for a number of socio-economic groups. Anxiety and apathy, as well as loneliness, are some of the mental health consequences that will persist long after the pandemic ends, while the increased feelings of depression and stress, especially during a time of uncertainty, may have serious impacts on public health, increasing peoples vulnerability to poor health, and weakening society as a whole. Social isolation should not become a norm, even if some specific circumstances require social distancing. These two terms are often used interchangeably but their meanings should be clearly distinguished and used in an appropriate manner. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to talk about physical distancing instead.

Tackling the pandemic and preventing its further spread is vital for society, but such measures do not mean there should be a collapse in social contact. The impact of isolation and loneliness should not be under-estimated or fall to the bottom of politicians lists of priorities as inaction now will lead to high human and financial costs later on. The strong social and economic arguments should be enough to convince decision makers that they also need to take urgent action to tackle peoples social isolation especially those in a vulnerable situation. Developing effective interventions, including prevention measures is not an easy task during a public health emergency when priorities have to be redefined and public spending has to be urgently reallocated; but consideration of these issues now can widely contribute to limiting the long-term effects of the current crisis.

In an era when digital technology is an integral part of peoples lives, public authorities must deploy their capacity to meet peoples needs and address both the physical and mental health impacts of social isolation. Online medical consultations can support doctors and patients to ensure proper medical follow-up, which is widely affected by confinement. Such a measure will demonstrate the role of digital technologies in the health sector and provide an effective response to patients needs allowing patients to be properly diagnosed and avoid self-medication that can additionally worsen peoples health during a health emergency.

The possibility for online discussion with a health professional or a psychologist is another concrete action that can help reduce anxiety and panic and overcome feelings of being alone or powerlessness. Virtual thematic discussions and group activities offered by social workers can also help combat social isolation people can be part of a collective where they can meet and discuss with others, their common values and interests. Teachers play an important role for childs socialization, through online classes, as well as extra-school activities that can meet childrens specific social needs.

These are just a few examples of activities that can be adapted to local contexts to reduce the mental health effects of the pandemic. Measures to combat peoples isolation, loneliness, anxiety and panic; and improve peoples well-being, can contribute to the successful reconstruction of our society, when some normality returns, and people can return to their daily lives.

Follow this link:

The dangers of social isolation during a pandemic - European Public Health Alliance

WITH many people confined to their homes through the movement control order, there is a lot of time for catching up on reading, watching TV or anything to whittle the time away.

Trying to figure out what the world will look like after the Covid-19 pandemic subsides sufficiently for people to go back to work is like a post-apocalyptic scenario. The projections of what is going to happen is conjecture at this point, but nonetheless, the divergence of opinions does point to one thing: hardship.

Unemployment by all accounts is going to be a problem for people and governments, and one interesting article that was circulating on social media was that the current crisis is akin to war-time conditions. By that, it said that there is a collapse in both demand and supply. The demand side has been the focus of many governments to ensure that liquidity and cash is there to support any recovery in consumption when it happens.

The supply side is tackled differently. Thats why a number of SMEs have been painting a dreadful outlook, as a number have said they do not have sufficient cash flow to survive the month of April. Businesses, regardless of whether they are large or small, need conditions to inch towards normalcy to have any chance of surviving.

Retailers are going to feel the brunt of the pandemic. People will be hesitant to go out and eat after this, as they will err on the side of caution. There will be a waiting period until new cases drop to zero for a period of time before confidence returns to resume past activities. Even then, how the current crisis will change everyday consumption is left to be seen.

The closure of companies will damage the supply side of the economy. For large businesses, especially exporters, there is a need to resume fast so they do not lose their international clients. The faster Malaysia is able to resume production, the better it is for our exporting companies to not only protect market share, but also win new businesses from countries that are affected by a prolonged crisis. Thats why testing as many people as possible, which is the Korean model and what Germany is doing now, seems to be the right direction to take.

Then, there is another issue the government will be faced with in the recovery process. If it is a V-shaped one, then there is little displacement for workers. But if the recovery is U-shaped, then a hard decision will need to be made as regards to foreign workers.

If unemployment is an issue, the focus will be to make sure Malaysians are the first choice among employers. And if businesses are structurally hurt, then many Malaysians will become wage takers in that scenario.

That will hurt wage growth, consumption and a host of other socio-economic issues that can have a telling consequence on the make-up of labour in this country. We have gone through a period when there were dozens of Malaysians applying for a job at a fast-food restaurant. No one wants to return to those times.

That is why the government has to act fast and hard now to avoid such a situation. No one wants this crisis to set Malaysia back years and if it does, there needs to be a policy intervention to make sure Malaysians are the ones that stand to recover from a rebound in employment before anyone else.

Lets hope it does not come to that.

View original post here:

Unrestricted thoughts - The Star Online

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Education, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequity, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal

AMMAN, Jordan, Mar 26 2020 (IPS) - Humankind has outlived multiple pandemics in the course of world history. The kingdoms and states of Central and Western Europe abolished the institution of serfdom once it had become clear that medieval rule in the aftermath of devastating pestilence would founder without ending the dependency and servitude that characterized the Dark Ages. The vulnerability of entire nations to the risk of total collapse in the absence of widespread access to the most basic healthcare in the Spanish Flu spurred governments to build the public health systems that have made the progress and development of the last hundred years possible. If the past is prologue, then continuity and survival command that we change.

We have more often than not banded together in the face of all kinds of threats. In all its ramifications, COVID-19 threatens to push our social, political and economic structures to the brink. Disease, recession and fright can rapidly overwhelm states and societies. Each coming day will bring increasing challenges that can only be met by caring for the sick, minimizing the impact of shutdowns on lives and livelihoods, securing the delivery of adequate water, food and energy supplies, and racing for a cure. Success as in an asymmetric conflict rests on resilience. To contain the socio-political and socio-economic fallout from the crisis, policymaking efforts should center on human dignity and welfare as the bedrock of national and international security.

The most vulnerable members of society in some parts of our world are those on the front lines of the crisis: the doctors, nurses, care-givers, pharmacists, sanitation workers, farmers, supermarket cashiers and truck drivers whose courage, sacrifice and dedication will see us through the next 12 to 18 months of expected lockdowns. In the absence of state support, what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who have already been laid off, while millions more face looming hardship as the numbers of layoffs grow? Some will continue to ignore the vulnerable and marginalized, those who have least access to humanitarian assistance, while others will continue to exploit them. The calls for social distancing have grown louder and more frequent over the last couple of days, and as we begin to separate from one other we must remember our humanitarian duty to each another.

Security, far from being individual, is collective and global. The current crisis calls for transcendent thinking between politicians on both sides of the aisle. Grey areas in politics in which zero-sum games and the perverse logic of mutually assured destruction proliferate will not protect and promote human dignity and welfare. Conservatives and reformers must now move beyond the tournaments and arm-twisting of politics. The logic of mutually assured survival cannot accept grey areas. If conflict resolution transcends political beliefs, nationality, ethnicity, gender, and religion, then human dignity and welfare is the benchmark of the humanitarian commitment to life.

Reliable brokers in the management of this crisis and other crises do exist as in the International Committee of the Red Cross and Mdecins Sans Frontires. Corporate social responsibility requires developing a public platform of health facts so that people-to-people conversations and consultations can be promoted through civil society, the media and educational institutions. We cannot cherry-pick energy and climate change without talking about health or education and human dignity. Migrants and refugees must be an integral part of the national response for halting the spread of the novel coronavirus. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia reports that 55 million people, in West Asia region, require some sort of humanitarian assistance and that the vulnerability of displaced women and girls is especially heightened in a pandemic. Post-conflict insecurity whether in countries ravaged by war or across the urban centers and countrysides of advanced economies overwhelmed by disease can only be addressed in the careful terrain mapping of humanitarian access. Yemen, Syria, Gaza and Libya are frighteningly vulnerable to the onslaught of epidemics what will peace uncover there when the wars end?

Regional insecurity is heightened in the absence of cooperation, but the multilateral system is not at a loss in facing an existential crisis. European solidarity has been sharply damaged by the onset of widespread disease although China is performing through the swift and effective action that has come to the aid of the people and government of Italy. Multilateralism today can only be revisited with a focus on the interdisciplinary priorities of the twenty-first century that include addressing the need for a Law of Peace. We draw humanitarian concessions from the law of war in times of conflict, but have no recourse to legal instruments that can secure the dignity and welfare of all in times of peace.

The current crisis is as much a global health crisis as it is a crisis of the globalization that has come to undermine the foundations of modern society with its rampant inequality and rising injustice and which threatens the very survival of our species with climate change. The planet that we share with other organisms is fragile and prone to crises. A resolution to our predicament will take nothing short of extending the ethic of human solidarity beyond the contours of our immediate response to the outbreak of COVID-19. Real success lies not in the taming of a pathogen or in re-discovering the value of compassion, respect and generosity, but in institutionalizing these values in the days, weeks and months ahead.

See the article here:

COVID-19 in the Time of Insecurity - Inter Press Service

There is no doubt that the coronavirus already has and will continue to put the whole world in a very challenging position. No one knows how to battle the virus nor its implications on the worlds health systems and economies. What is clear, however, is that Sweden is relatively alone in its approach to manage this ongoing crisis, at least in terms of control over the spread of the virus in the population.

Illustration: Indigo Trigg-Hauger. Photo: saamiblog via Flickr

On Sunday March 22, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lfven spoke to the nation in a pre-recorded clip for a total of five minutes. For some the economic sector those five minutes created a sense of trust in the government, that it is strong and will not let the economy in free fall, that citizens can believe in the expertise of the Swedish public health agency (Folkhlsomyndigheten) follow its recommendations, and go on with their lives. For others, those five minutes only brought questions and concerns to the fore.

In Sweden, the public health authority free from ministerial rule recommends life to go on basically as usual; stay home if you are ill; wash your hands; cover your mouth with your elbow when you cough or sneeze; keep a safe distance from others; if you can, work from home, and if you do go to the mountains, no after ski partying. These recommendations are at the moment the most liberal among countries who are affected by the virus, and as such they also place heavy emphasis on individuals to act responsibly and follow the recommendations. On Thursday March 26, the Public Health authority commented that they were receiving signals that people over 70, one of the risk groups, were not following the recommendations. In consequence, information campaigns towards the risk groups have increased. In order to be able to follow given recommendations, however, individuals must understand what their responsibilities are and why they are responsible for following the recommendations. So far, individuals are trusted, but at the same they are packed in commuter busesn order to get to work because they are asked to do so. That sends mixed signals.

In Norway, on the other hand, comprehensive measures, such as the Corona law, were undertaken in order to limit transmission of the virus and not overburden health and care services. Among these measures are closing schools, universities and day cares, a ban on cultural events, closed swimming pools, gyms, and all service provisions that involve physical contact with persons less than two meters away with an exception for critical health care services, and finally no cabin trip to the mountains, which is a huge deal and has spurred a debate whether it is a human right for Norwegians to go to their cabins. Responsibility to not overburden hospitals and risk putting healthcare workers in difficult ethical dilemmas is placed on the collective, a national dugnad.

In Sweden on the other hand, the public health authority encourages the public to keep gyms and other training venues, youth and children activities and sport events open. A Scandinavian gym chain recently re-opened its centers there, while at the same time keeping the other centers in the Nordic region closed, as instructed by the countries respective Public Health agencies and governments. The same approach was adopted by a company that owns and runs winter sports facilities in Norway and Sweden. It closed its facilities in Norway but kept them open in Sweden, and alas will continue to do so, despite the hazard of overburdening hospitals in the regions with less resources to handle the influx of broken legs and COVID-19 at the same time.

The logic behind these companies decisions is that they are simply following public health agencies and governments recommendations or rules blindly.

Inevitably, witnessing the diametrically different approaches to battle the spread of COVID-19 leave the observer with doubt about what the right approach is. And it begs the question: do Swedish authorities have too much trust in the public? Can people really be trusted to act responsibly without the more extreme measures seen in Norway? On the other hand, one can ask if Norwegian government dont trust its population to follow recommendations and therefore sees the need to implement stricter rules?

As a Swedish citizen living in Norway, I find this development rather perplexing. The differences in each governments approach to combat COVID-19 is above all seen in the posts of acquaintances, friends and family on social media in Sweden. Ive seen social gatherings, parties, game nights and trips to Stockholm, Gothenburg, cabins in the mountains and archipelago to get some much-needed break from the corona hysteria in the cities girls night out, to name a few of the examples. It makes me wonder if Swedes are immune. More critically it makes me question whether the measures millions of people are affected by in other countries are legit. Clearly, Swedes are not immune. In fact, the death rate per million people in Sweden is nearly double that of Norway.

Most people in both countries, however, want to and do trust their governments, above all their respective public health agencies. Support for the governments have increased as they tend to do in times of crisis. In a recent interview with Dagens Nyheter, foreign minister Ann Linde commented that the level of trust the Swedish public have in its government and public agencies is very high. And, according to the latest government at a glance report from OECD, there is consensus in the academic literature that trust influences the relationship between citizens and the government and has an impact on public policy.

Thus, the keywords to understand these diametrically different approaches are trust and the Swedish governments belief the common sense folkvett of its citizens. Yet, while many people do understand the consequences of their decision to not stay at home and go to the family gathering at grandmas house with symptoms, alas there are too many who dont understand that in the end their actions may inflict on doctors and nurses the difficult decision of choosing what life to save which is a reality in Italy, Spain and now even the U.S.

Its a huge experiment. [] We have no idea it could work out. But it could also go crazily in the wrong direction.

Starting in mid-March, the Public Health Authority in Sweden and Norway have both commented on the situation almost every day. Journalists in both countries cover their comments meticulously and the Swedish press conferences are screened on Norwegian TV as well. Former Swedish state epidemiologist, Johan Giesecke call the Norwegian measures draconian and unnecessary; We are right while Europe are wrong is his message to anyone who want to understand what they are doing, and acting state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell agrees. The public health authority expects people to get seriously ill, and that people will die. But 500-2000 people die from the seasonal flu every year, Johan Giesecke says. The head of analysis at the Swedish public health institute recently commented on international criticism from media and other experts: We do not believe it is possible to keep society closed until a vaccine is developed [] the economy will collapse long before that [] and people will not follow the recommendations.

The Swedish strategy is based on volunteering, information campaigns and a high level of public trust in the public health agency, and keeping the economy alive. The Norwegian approach on the other hand is based on collective suppression of the virus, but Norway also has the worlds largest financial security the pension fund. Nevertheless, both the Swedish and Norwegian governments do adhere to advice from various authorities with various expertise and capacities to handle this crisis. Based on the similarities Sweden do share with its Nordic neighbors in terms of levels of education and other and socio-economic factors developed simultaneously during the last century, it is plausible to claim that the countries are not that different, except in crises.

Time will tell. The Swedish approach might be right. Joacim Rocklv, Professor of epidemiology and Public Health at Ume Univeristy, emphasizes that we dont know and that he does not see why Sweden would be so different from other countries. Its a huge experiment. [] We have no idea it could work out. But it could also go crazily in the wrong direction.

The rest is here:

Norway and Sweden: Battling Coronavirus in Two Different Worlds - Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

At a glance: Key points for relief aid

Countries that are already struggling with poverty, conflict, or natural disasters will be hit hard by COVID-19. Governments, medics, and aid groups are scrambling to prepare, but face daunting challenges.

After forcing China to confine 750 million people to their homes, the virus brought rich countries to a standstill and overwhelmed their hospitals and economies. A third wave is starting to reach the crisis-affected and low-income countries of the Global South.

How is the humanitarian sector typically ready and willing to respond anywhere adjusting? What are the scenarios and priorities? What is different with this crisis?

TNH Senior Editor Ben Parker discussed some of the most pressing issues with leading specialists and practitioners from across the humanitarian sector:

Here are some key points from the discussion, condensed from the full hours recording.

You can sign up for further coverage and alerts of upcoming events here.

The third wave after China, after Europe will hit poorer nations hard, said Karl Blanchet of the CERAH research centre. Blanchet said the capacities of healthcare systems in countries already facing other crises are far too low to cope with COVID-19. And the weakest and poorest places make a fertile ground for the disease. When it comes to crowded slums, informal settlements, or camps, you would have a hard time designing a more dangerous setting, said Jeremy Konyndyk of the Center for Global Development.

Not only will COVID-19 be an immediate health disaster, but it will take resources away from other lifesaving work. Normal health programmes need to continue. We are still going to have a lot of deliveries. We still have a lot of chronic care patients, said Blanchet. We need to get access to their medication: diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and so on, make sure they've got 30 days of medication.

During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, more people died of other diseases than died of Ebola, Konyndyk said. Pre-existing aid projects outside of the health sphere cant be abandoned either, he added: If we focus all our attention on coronavirus and meanwhile locusts eat up all the crops in a country, that is a pandemic impact.

Blanchet urged caution. While aid agencies are talking about business continuity, he said NGOs should scale back now. You need to identify what is essential and postpone anything else to avoid mass gathering, he said. Social distancing should be a top priority for aid organisations, he said, adding: I think that's your responsibility.

Konyndyk said places where there is a crowded population, very poor sanitation, a low level of basic health within the community, very poor disease surveillance, and very poor health services combine to make the virus extraordinarily dangerous. I don't think that's getting enough global attention yet, he added.

The medical emergency will be accompanied by enormous secondary impacts on jobs, food production, and trade, Konyndyk said.

For example, Virginie Lefvre of Lebanese NGO Amel Association, said Lebanon faces several interlinked crises, including a very acute socio-economic crisis since mid-2019, involving a near-collapse of the banking system and 200,000 job losses. So it's quite difficult to be positive, she said.

In Somalia, it's like people have braced for a tidal wave, said Suze van Meegen of the Norwegian Refugee Council, adding: We're all kind of just sitting on tenterhooks waiting to see where this will go.

NGOs and other humanitarian organisations face a difficult balancing act of keeping their current operations intact while pivoting to COVID-19. On my mind is how we absorb this shock but maintain our existing programmes, said van Meegen.

Responding to the looming emergency will be an enormous challenge for the humanitarian world, which is likely to be working on the outbreak in the most compromised and most vulnerable settings, Konyndyk said.

The scale of response needed, the operational and logistical challenges, the funding issues and coordination complexities are all daunting.

With international flight bans and lockdowns, the model of rushing foreign aid teams and cargo to frontline response is looking ill-suited to COVID-19. That could be an opportunity for local aid groups long hoping for greater recognition and resources. Its a widely supported shift that has proven stubbornly hard to achieve. It's going to really force a more effective, and more supportive, and frankly, more respectful and power-balanced way of working between international partners and local partners than I think we've seen before, said Konyndyk.

Humanitarian response shouldnt ignore the systems already in place, said Lefvre. She said she was concerned that we're going to develop a parallel system over the next six months when, if anything good could come of the pandemic, it might leave behind a stronger national health system.

Van Meegen said donor countries that fund international relief programmes will need to show flexibility, as current projects will be disrupted and might need to change. How to design and implement programmes for the new threat is still a fresh problem. I think the best thing donors could do now is ensure they are giving time and space to us to figure out what is needed in different contexts, said van Meegen. That will take different amounts of time in different countries, she added. If things go wrong, donors need to share the blame, not pass all the risk onto their grantees, she said: We're seeing ourselves carry the burden of all risks relating to security, financial management, the risk of fraud. And that's both time consuming and expensive. And that tension is even greater where armed groups under terrorism sanctions are in control.

We have closed our borders in a time where we need more international collaboration, and that's an issue for me.

There will be many players involved. Fundamentally, this is a huge coordination challenge for the international aid system, said Konyndyk, and at a much bigger scale than what we are used to dealing with. Asked if we have the international machinery in place to manage, he said, I don't think we do, and referred to a real struggle during the West Africa Ebola crisis. At that time, the UN installed a health-keeping mission that didn't work very well, he said. This time, the UN-led international aid will be coordinated by the UNs emergency aid coordination body, OCHA, and the World Health Organisation. They're trying a different way, said Konyndyk. We will see how that works.

Blanchet said he was heartened by evidence of national and local solidarity: People are helping each other, helping elderly people, and doing the shopping for them. It's beautiful. But does that translate internationally? We have closed our borders in a time where we need more international collaboration, and that's an issue for me, he said.

You have to be careful about the backlash when drawing attention to those at particular risk, like some refugees, said Lefvre. In Lebanon, pre-existing tensions could be worsened, putting people at greater risk. Handled badly, a very acute health crisis could turn into internal clashes, she warned.

The country already faces rifts between different Lebanese communities and between them and Syrian refugees in the country. Im always very, very careful, when it comes to tensions and stigma, not to over-exaggerate what is going on, said Lefvre. When it comes to catastrophic language, I think that we have to be very, very careful. In Lebanon, Lefvre said her organisation was working to make sure that patients (especially refugees) who live in informal shelters and settlements get referred and treated in the official health system.

Competition for medical supplies will be critical. Konyndyk said fights are coming over limited supplies of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), limited supplies of vaccines, and limited supplies of therapeutics.

Im always very, very careful, when it comes to tensions and stigma, not to over-exaggerate what is going on.

If and when there is a vaccine, there aren't going to be seven billion doses ready immediately, he added. This is more a political issue than a humanitarian one When the first 100 million doses of vaccines come out, it's going to be a big fight over who gets those and it's going to be very important that they not just go to those who can afford them.

NGOs need to look after their staff and volunteers, as there's fear, and a lot of misinformation. Aid staffers, van Meegen thought, could be reluctant to get involved. As the world has become more inward-looking, she said, so too will some humanitarian staff. They will be fearful for their own health, safety, and families.

According to Lefvre, locally-led response, the community-based initiatives, are working despite the fear. Frontline aid workers will be exposed to the virus more than others and are already facing very high levels of stress, she warned.

A core tool for modern humanitarian response is cash distribution, usually means-tested: hard-up aid recipients get money, vouchers, or a debit card and can spend as they choose. Ramping up the cash for COVID-19 response might seem relatively easy to scale up to large numbers of people (cash handouts are part of state relief packages in the richer countries). But there could be a serious flaw, according to van Meegen. What is there to buy?

Even before the coronavirus had arrived in Somalia, markets were absolutely empty of basic medical supplies: of soap, of hand sanitiser, of buckets, van Meegen said. If markets aren't functioning and aren't able to meet those needs, how do we adapt?

I would caution against NGOs taking an excessively opportunistic approach to this and diving into something because the money's available.

Could aid work get special permission to fly? Van Meegen hopes for humanitarian exemptions on travel restrictions. We know that we'll be relying predominantly on national teams, she said. But how can we ensure that within countries and across borders to the extent necessary we are able to travel?

Blanchet called for health and other efforts to be closely integrated. This pandemic is a very good example of how multisectoral we have to be and it's not a buzzword, he said. We need the private sector to be involved. We need transport. We need airlines to transport staff and products and we need international collaboration.

Should NGOs switch what they are doing to go all-in on COVID-19? Van Meegen is wary: I would caution against NGOs taking an excessively opportunistic approach to this and diving into something because the money's available. Konyndyk said there had been valid examples of programmes layering additional elements into existing programmes during the Ebola epidemic. The burial teams in Liberia, for example, those were built on top of an existing community WASH programme that already had community confidence and participation. not in a sort of opportunistic way, but in a way that is strategic, he said. I think it could be a huge opportunity.

I think the information is one of our biggest concerns, said van Meegen. Misinformation including rumours, theories, and unproven remedies are circulating at speed in Somalia, she said, part of a global parallel infodemic. We see irrational behaviour in high-resource countries too, she pointed out, where people are believing all sorts of things stockpiling, and panicking. The most vulnerable people will be hit very, very hard because they're the ones with even less access to reliable information.

Konyndyk: We need to be working on developing... low-tech approaches to things like personal protective equipment, infection prevention and control a scalable low-tech solution to testing, and some of these settings will be really important.

Van Meegen: Humanitarian organisations should remind wealthy countries and high-resource countries of the impact its going to have elsewhere, but without seeming sensationalist or hysterical, because that messaging actually does a lot of damage.

Blanchet: We need to make sure we can create field hospitals to separate suspected cases with confirmed cases.

Lefvre: This crisis shows, and there was no need to demonstrate it, but it shows that localised responses are the only solution in certain settings. But I don't think that this means no international actors.

bp/ag

Read more:

Aid and Policy COVID-19 and international aid - The New Humanitarian

New Delhi: Ircon International Limited (IRCON) has come forward to provide a financial assistance of Rs. 5 Crore to Prime Minister CARES Fund through CSR fund and employees contribution. Shri S. K. Chaudhary, Chairman & Managing Director, IRCON said that due to Covid-19, the current situation in India is unprecedented and this amount would be utilized towards fighting COVID-19.

Further, Shri S. K. Chaudhary said that the world is facing the menace of COVID-19, of which India is no exception. As we all know, even the most developed countries are struggling hard to find a way to overcome this and salvage the situation. The world over, this pandemic is causing a constant blow to the economies and the very fabric of human lives and there should be every effort to thwart a socio-economic collapse.

Shri S. K. Chaudhary added that, IRCON stands strongly by the society in these testing times. As a responsible corporate, IRCON will work towards implementation of all precautionary measures to deal with the pandemic. There is every reason and moral responsibility on the part of every Indian citizen to come forward and show urgency in extending a helping gesture, with what is at our command.

Mr. Chaudhary urged all the employee of the IRCON to make a very humble beginning, at this crucial moment, by donating one days salary, to begin with. And instill a sense of purpose for being part of this national cause, which was overwhelmingly applauded and supported by IRCON employees.

Posted Date : 31-03-20

Categories : PSU NEWS

More:

IRCON extends support of rs 5 crore to fight COVID-19 PSU NEWS - PSU Connect

By Dineo Faku Mar 27, 2020

Share this article:

The industry yesterday held talks with various government departments to reverse the lockdown regulations that will result in the shutting down of cellars and a ban on wine exports.

Vinpro, which represents 2500 South African wine grape producers, and cellars, said that switching off cellars would have catastrophic economic and socio-economic implications.

Vinpro managing director, Rico Basson, said on Wednesday that it was essential for the industry to complete harvesting activities in the next two weeks, and to secure the stock. It also contested current regulations that prohibit the export of wine.

This is an extremely important aspect for current and future economic sustainability and socio-economic stability, said Basson.

Vinpro said the final amended regulations of the lockdown contradicted verbal commitment from national departments, within the economic cluster of government.

According to the regulations, only food products including non-alcoholic beverages were listed as essential products and the trade and manufacturing of alcoholic products were scheduled to cease during the lockdown.

Maryna Calow, a spokesperson for Wines of South Africa (WoSA), said yesterday that roughly 20percent of grapes still needed to be harvested in the next two weeks.

Not only do the grapes need to be harvested, they also need to be processed, otherwise all the juice will also essentially turn into vinegar, and whatever is left on the vines will go to waste, warned Calow.

Calow said WoSA, which is the wine export marketing council for the South African wine industry, was worried that the wine industry would be brought to its knees if exports were banned during the lockdown.

The fact is that if we do not export, there will be a knock-on in the industry and some farmers may lose everything. The issue is that lockdown is 21 days, and it might be extended beyond, said Calow.

The wine industry employs about 290000 people and exports on average between 420million and 450million litres a year.

However, following three years of drought, the industry only exported 320million litres of wine last year.

We were hoping that 2020 would be a year of recovery for the wine industry and that yields would be better following strong winter rains in 2019, Calow said.

The value of wine exports dropped to R8.7billion last year on lower yields from R9.3bn a year earlier.

President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the 21-day lockdown on Monday as a measure to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

South Africas confirmed coronavirus cases rose to more than 900 yesterday.

Meanwhile, Distell, Africas leading producer of spirits and wines, has announced that it would begin producing hand sanitisers and other hygienic products to curb the spread of coronavirus in South Africa.

Chief executive Richard Rushton said that the company had committed 100000 litres of alcohol, which would be used to produce sanitisers and a variety of other hygienic and sanitising products.

We fully understand that our position as a leading player in the alcoholic beverages industry comes with a societal obligation.

"We want communities to benefit from our presence and we are determined to rise to the challenge, said Rushton.

BUSINESS REPORT

View post:

Wine industry warns of collapse if harvesting, exporting halted - IOL

As of March 26, the world had recorded more than 21,000 deaths among over 470,000 infected with the novelcoronavirus. Around 15% have needed hospitalization, 5-7% ICU care, and 4% have died. So far, India has largely escaped, with 13 deaths among 675 infected. The numbers have risen in the USA, UK and Italy by nearly 50 times over the past four weeks. Had the government not pro-actively instituted decisive early containment measures in terms of travel restrictions and quarantine, followed by the unprecedented lockdown from March 24, India would have witnessed the same steep climb. At that rate, we would have run out of intensive care and hospital bed capacity anytime between now and the next two weeks. So the math was simple and the step logical: Lockdown for three weeks; all the infected people would hopefully recover by then and become non-infective as most stop shedding the virus by three weeks. The problem would be over as long as no one comes in later from overseas and starts infecting us again. Hopefully, all other countries would sort out their infected cases by then. Or soon thereafter.

However, there are several imponderables. Will the problem really be over in a month? Consider this. It took just one case to infect the world. Clearly, COVID-19 isn't going away anytime soon. It will surface again. Eventually, unless effective treatment and vaccine become available, herd immunity will play a big part in taming it. This means around 60% of the population needs to develop immunity to it by actually getting infected.

Not many would hazard a guess on how long the lockdown will be needed. While everyone acknowledges the economic setback, no one is sure of just how calamitous it will be. The longer it is, the worse the hit. When will it become unsustainable? The resource depletion will especially impact the already impoverished 60% and no doubt create a chain reaction of further public health issues.Eventually, the lockdown will become too bitter a pill to swallow. The cure could get harsher than the disease. My fear is we may pay an astronomical price and yet not be able control the contagion in the long-term.

So what should be our approach? A month of lockdown is essential to get the sting out of the bite. After that, for the next two-four months, we should pivot to a nuanced, targeted approach of containment rather than continue a blanket shut down. Efforts and resources should be then directed at the vulnerable groups which are now well known. The fatality rate is under 1% for those under 60, whereas it is 8-15% for high risk groups such as those older than 60, diabetics, those with heart or respiratory diseases, smokers and those with low immunity (for example, transplant recipients).

The ban on travel to and from countries with ongoing active cases and on gatherings of over 25-30 people should continue. Those with the above risk factors should continue to be quarantined. Social distancing, working from home and workplace distancing should continue. Hopefully, the younger, healthy population will get the Corona flu, much like any other seasonal flu, and become immune to it.

At all times, healthcare staff should be prevented from becoming patients themselves through strict enforcement of two levels of protection. Level 1 involves a strict hand wash routine, gloves and mask while dealing with patients, changing scrubs between patients, and cleaning all surfaces several times a day. Level 2 protection (gown, goggles, gloves and special masks) is for healthcare workers in high-risk specialties such as respiratory and ICU care, and those taking care of COVID patients. Those who have had unprotected contact (more than 15 minutes, within 6 feet) with infected patients should be quarantined and tested at two weeks. In addition, unrestricted, widespread testing should be allowed, especially for at risk or symptomatic persons, and contacts of those with proven infection.

The current lockdown is like carpet bombing, which we can ill-afford for long. And it may not get the enemy. A surgical strike is needed to focus scarce resources where they are needed most and prevent a socio-economic collapse that may take years to resurrect.

In April, we would do well to add another 'T' - target - to the 'Test-Treat-Trace' strategy advocated by WHO Chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. As it becomes available, epidemiological data from around the world should be used to guide policy and time the 're-boot'. All this may change if and when we find a cure or a vaccine that works.

(Dr. Arvinder Singh Soin is a pioneer liver transplant surgeon, medical writer and innovator.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

Read more:

COVID-19 Lockdown Is Needed But May Not Solve The Problem - NDTV News

Text Size:A- A+

The Union home ministry has ordered the states to seal borders and quarantine people who have violated the coronavirus lockdown for 14 days. Migrants are now being stamped and a group was sprayed with disinfectant in Uttar Pradesh. Thousands of migrants across India walked to their native places after the Narendra Modi government announced the 21-day nationwide lockdown with only four hours of notice.

ThePrint asks: Mass exodus of migrants: Are they the Covid-19 lockdown violators or victims?

Keshav DesirajuFormer Health Secretary

When people are in distress, because of loss of jobs, wages and shelter, all of which have happened since the lockdown was announced, the only place they can go is home. And if they are prepared to walk hundreds of miles, they are obviously desperate and certainly cannot be called violators. Now, the major corporations and municipalities will have to take the responsibility of either housing and feeding the migrants, while observing physical distancing, or press buses and trains into service. Any such solution will involve a collapse of lockdown conditions, but at a time like this, one should look for the less calamitous way out.

Lockdown as a solution can be observed by the Indian middle class, which has regular salaries, a secure home space, and can afford the luxury of physical distancing. People who can conduct their daily business online are not threatened in any way. They are only facing some inconvenience. Governments priority should be to help people who have lost jobs and homes and not brand them as lockdown violators and punish them. This is a time of terrible crisis, but we cannot lose understanding and compassion.

T R KakkarFormer police commissioner, Delhi

Strictly speaking, the migrants are violators but considering the humanitarian problem involved, they must be treated as people who need urgent help from the administration. This is a situation where these people who have now been rendered homeless and unemployed, who feel that they will be much safer in their villages among families, must be treated with a lot of empathy. But the administration has to also consider that these people are not allowed to traverse the length and breadth of India. They might start spreading the virus since they are mostly staying together in large groups.

The maintenance of law and order is primarily the responsibility of the states, but under the Disaster Management Act 2005, the Centre can issue directions that the DM and the SSPs have to follow. In this case, the home secretary has already passed an order that migrant labourers should not be allowed to go beyond the district/state boundaries and that authorities must take care of their food, shelter and medical needs. If their travel becomes absolutely necessary, then the district administration must make proper transport arrangements.

Being in the police services for 36 years, I can say that if the directions are clear and the responsibility lies on the district authorities, they produce wonderful results.

In the Bareilly incident, I am sure it must have been done inadvertently by someone who was overzealous, without the knowledge of the DM or SSP. One odd incident need not be highlighted so much.

Oommen C. KurianSenior Fellow & Head of Health Initiative, ORF

We may not like to admit it, but peoples access to dignity in India will always remain linked to their socio-economic status. What the state tries to achieve is facilitate this access to the less-privileged through an intricate set of rules and laws. But when the access to the legal system itself is linked to ones socio-economic status, this may not always work.

A public health emergency like Covid-19 turns that very state draconian by default. Public health and human rights have had a tenuous relationship historically, and the fault lines start to show more prominently during epidemics, where there is desperation all around and only the outcomes matter.

Of course the lower rung of the public health/law enforcement agencies is acutely aware of their ineffectiveness when they deal with well-off super-spreaders like the singer in Lucknow so they overcompensate when dealing with those potentially exposed to the virus, who also conveniently happen to be less privileged. Hence, we regularly see on media platforms our labourers and families being treated like lab animals.

All this will be tolerated now during Covid-19 times, even by senior human rights defenders, and understandably so since many are obviously from high-risk groups, and we know only outcomes matter. But just like the other Emergency, once the dust has settled, I suspect many cases of human rights violations will be filed across India.

Ayesha JhunjhunwalaHealthcare professional

To cast migrants violating the nationwide lockdown as anything other than victims is to miss the point of measures to control the spread of the coronavirus trying to limit human suffering. These populations have access to food through ration shops and the public distribution system, shelter and potential employment through schemes like MGNREGA in their villages. These essentials are now partially or totally inaccessible in metro cities like Delhi, especially for the large proportion that subsists on daily wages and has no job security.

Even in the unlikely event that the central and state governments manage to provide food for the remaining days in the lockdown, it is possible that cramped living conditions in cities will lead to a greater number of infections over time, because the idea of social distancing (WHO is increasingly using the term physical distance) is a farce in densely crowded or slum environments.

Nitish Kumar is perhaps right in saying that sending migrant workers to their natives places will lead to a situation where putting an effective check on the spread of coronavirus will become a difficult task for all of us. However, given the lack of viable alternatives or clarity on when the economic activity will return to normal, it is absurd to penalise those who are forced into choosing possible Covid-19 over likely starvation.

Also read: 21-day coronavirus lockdown: Should Indians be punished for violations or persuaded more?

By Unnati Sharma, journalist at ThePrint

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

View post:

Mass exodus of migrants: Are they the Covid-19 lockdown violators or victims? - ThePrint

By Sheree Bega Mar 3, 2020

Share this article:

Humanity is driving at full speed towards the abyss of ecosystem collapse, from local freshwater systems to the global climate, but is blindly ignoring the warning lights and crash barriers continuing to ramp up business as usual, says environmental futurist Professor Nick King.

As the web of life unravels across the planet, many in the global conservation community are pinning their hopes on a new agreement to save nature - and humanity itself.

Touted as a Paris-style accord to halt the collapse of nature, the draft UN Global Biodiversity Framework sets out a global plan to safeguard nature through 2030, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

But King, a global change analyst and strategist, is sceptical.

We keep setting non-binding goals and targets, change little by way of policies and incentives to meet them, miss them widely and then spend extraordinary amounts of time and efforts setting new ones, all to no avail as they dont address the underlying causes of loss.

The decline of nature is driven by other sectors, such as the extractives sector, as evidenced in the 2019 Global Resources Outlook reportof the UNEP's Integrated Resources Panel, thus the biodiversity sector cannot address them without a fundamental shift in governance structure and authority within governments and globally.

King served as co-chairperson on the science and policy advisory panel of the report, which shows how over 90% of biodiversity loss and freshwater stress, as well as more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change, are from the extractives sector, including agriculture

Since the 1970s, the global population has doubled, the use of natural resources has tripled and global GDP has grown fourfold, the report shows.

These trends, says King, have gobbled large amounts of natural resources to fuel economic development and improvements in human well-being.

But they have come at a tremendous cost to our natural environment, ultimately impacting human well-being and exacerbating inequalities within and between countries.

In May, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warned how one million assessed plant and animal species face extinction, perhaps within decades, more than ever before in human history.

All our recent global assessments such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPBES and GEO6 talk of the need for transformative change. This is recorded in the zero draft (of the Global Biodiversity Framework), says King. Without this transformative change in our values, consumptive way of life, economic growth at all costs idiocy, unlimited population growth, etc, we will not address the causes.

It is physically impossible for the Earths natural resource base to maintain itself - and meet humanitys demands. So, frankly, another set of targets, couched yet again in all the same wonderful rhetoric of how much we depend on natures bounty etc, is, at best, simply meaningless in terms of actual change, and at worst, it allows politicians and others to believe everything is fine, under our control and no further actions are needed.

This very dangerous complacency is exacerbated by the fact that, globally, almost no politicians have any sort of qualifications in environmental science and are incapable of actually understanding the dire straits were in, let alone setting policies to address this. As humanity, we have and are incurring enormous ecological debt and very soon, nature is going to invoice us for repayment.

In 2010, parties to the CBD adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and its 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets but experts say these have failed to halt nature's precipitous decline.

This week, over 190 nations met in Rome to continue negotiations on the zero draft of the post-2020 framework, which will eventually be agreed at the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming, China, in October.

The draft global plan is hopelessly weak and inadequate, believes Friends of the Earth International, noting how it fails to address the root causes of the collapse of nature - the over-consumption of resources by wealthier countries, industrial agriculture and an economic system that drives further destruction and greater inequality.

The draft will not halt damaging practices such as mining, commodity crops or pesticide use. The main failure of the existing plan was that governments mostly ignored it without repercussions It allows for nature to be destroyed as long as it is saved elsewhere, which would lead to corporations putting a price on nature and offsetting their damage by paying to save it in another place. This will inevitably lead to a financial market in saving and destroying biodiversity.

The draft, it says, ignores the vital role of indigenous peoples and local communities in defending ecosystems.

Professor Belinda Reyers, of the Future Africa unit at the University of Pretoria, points out the zero draft is a very early draft, with a fair way to go before it is negotiated by the worlds governments and finalised in Kunming.

The previous biodiversity framework was "not what one would call a resounding success as we have largely not made progress to most of the targets it set.

"There is a lot of concern, that just like that 2020 framework, this post-2020 framework seems tofocus more on what we are losing, than why we are losing it.By focusing on things like extinction rates, or areas of ecosystems lost we are reallyjust documenting the decline of the natural world.

"Goals a, b, and c in the draft framework fall into this basket of targets whichfocus our attention on the decline, but not on the causes of the decline.Even under these goals in their action targets the focus appears to be on pollution or invasive alien species, which while important, recent research has shown are reallynot the major culprits of biodiversity loss."

The main causes at a global scale are land use and sea use change through agriculture and aquaculture expansion and intensification, for example, climate change and over-exploitation of species for food, trade or other uses, Reyers points out.

"If we focus attention on these only we will really only be 'managing the decline of the natural world', rather than the ambitious plan that is needed to halt biodiversity loss and restore it to some of its former glory.This is what was meant bytransformative change: fundamental changes or reconfigurations in the economic, political, social and value systems and structures that have caused the high rates of biodiversity loss we are witnessing.

"So, a framework that focuses on ecosystems, extinction rates and protected areas,is really not ambitious enoughto counteract and influence the larger drivers of biodiversity lossincluding large scale drivers of change on the planet from agriculture, energy, trade, urbanisation, climate change, inequality."

While there are small hints of this in the draft framework, "calls right now are to make these hints more central and ambitious in the framework".

A key challenge, as always, she says, is that so many of these drivers of biodiversity loss and levers or areas of transformative change lie outside the biodiversity and environment sector.

"Hence the limited focus on protected areas and use of wild species which fall more within the remit of the biodiversity sector. Setting targets that lie far outside the sector, will prove challenging for the environmental sector to actually implement and make progress on. This is a core tension at the heart of the framework: targets you have some say over as a sector vs. targets that will make a difference."

Reyers points to theunsophisticated way that biodiversity is linked to outcomes for people in the draft framework."There is so much evidence of the critical role that biodiversity plays in almost all aspects of social and economic development from food production, sources of income, protection from natural hazards, mitigation of climate change, and a myriad of spiritual, cultural, aesthetic, health and recreational benefits that South Africans are very familiar with from our mountains, beaches, game reserves, forest and rivers.

"And yet this framework which sets itself up as a having a 'mission to put biodiversity on a path to recovery for the benefit ofplanet and people' only lists nutrition, water and disaster resilience as benefits to people."

This has two major implications. "First, this narrow focus will miss out on changes in biodiversity that have real consequences for people. Second, at a time when we need all the support we can get to put biodiversity on this 'path to recovery' from across all sectors of society and the economy, failing to make clear why this mission is important to these other sectors from health, to education to rural development is a misstep."

Morn du Plessis, the chief executive of World Wide Fund for Nature-SA, says 2020 is being punted as a Super Year for nature.

This presents the opportunity to adapt and renew international targets for three interdependent issues: the Sustainable Development Goals, nature (with three major international gatherings on biodiversity coming up) and climate, in particular the resilience that needs to be built into the system.

We are looking at a planetary level emergency when it comes to nature loss, with major economic and social costs. This includes fragmentation and under-delivery of nature-related conventions and the need to connect nature with the economy and climate. Among the many challenges we are facing are the need to provide food and water for 9 billion people by 2030, in the face of biodiversity loss and a rapidly changing climate.

A new narrative that positions healthy, diverse and functional natural systems as the foundation for social and economic development, stability and security, as well as individual well-being is needed.

Were looking for an agreement that is in the same league as the Paris climate agreement and are pushing for heads of state to buy into a concept of setting nationally determined contributions similar to the climate agreement.

Individual governments must develop and implement their own ambitious national action plans to contribute to these targets, and then report back to the CBD on their progress regularly.

This then enables all governments to work together to identify global implementation gaps and increase their ambition where necessary until the collective effort is aligned to the ambitious targets.

A movement of non-state actors working with governments, in particular the private sector, will be critical.

Globally, South Africa is recognised as a biodiversity superpower, says Du Plessis. By the majority of measures we fall within the top 10 most biologically diverse countries. With this statistic comes not only pride, but the obligation of care through legally binding global commitments that we have signed up to.

Ambitious plan to stabilise loss of nature by 2030

Biodiversity, and the benefits it provides, are fundamental to human well-being and a healthy planet, says the zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, but it is deteriorating worldwide.

The framework sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in societys relationship with biodiversity and to ensure that by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled.

It is built around a theory of change, which recognises that urgent policy action globally, regionally and nationally is required to transform economic, social and financial models so the trends that have exacerbated biodiversity loss will stabilise in the next 10 years and allow for the recovery of natural ecosystems in the following 20 years.

It presents five long-term goals for 2050, with 20 targets for 2030 meant to contribute towards achieving these goals.

The draft plan proposes, among others, placing around a third of land and oceans under some form of protection, and cutting pollution from plastic waste and excess nutrients and biocides by 50% by 2030, and restoring freshwater and marine ecosystems.

I know that the world is eagerly waiting out there for demonstrable progress towards a clear, actionable and transformative global framework on biodiversity,"Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the acting executivesecretary of the CBD, said in a statement.

"They want a framework that can be implemented at all levels, namely, at global, regional levels, national and subnational levels. They want a framework that builds upon the existing Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011-2020 and its accompanying Aichi Biodiversity Targets and a framework that aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development."

This initial zero draft was based on extensive consultations, advice from governments, scientists, indigenous peoples, NGOs and others, gathered through dozens of meetings and hundreds of written submissions.

It was developed in response to the 2019 IPBES assessment.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, in a position paper, says that while it welcomes the draft framework, the proposed draft action targets will not deliver the goals outlined, and will not therefore halt the net loss of biodiversity by 2030. It follows that the framework will not deliver the required transformative change.

Avoiding extinction:

If 30% of the land area is conserved in tropical regions in Latin America, Africa and southeast Asia, the extinction risk facing vascular plants, birds and mammals could be halved.

A new study published this week in the journal Ecography, authored by 21 global biodiversity and climate change scientists, finds that increased conservation efforts together with efforts to limit global warming to 2C offers the best chance to slow species loss.

Avoiding extinctions results in healthy ecosystems that provide many services critical to people, including maintaining key carbon stores that prevent runaway climate change.

Do your bit:

What is biodiversity?

The variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is considered to be important and desirable.

SAs rich biodiversity:

The number of South African animal species is estimated at 67000 and more than 20400 plant species have been described.

Approximately 7% of the worlds vascular plant species, 5% of mammal, 7% of bird, 4% of reptile, 2% of amphibian, 1% of freshwater fish and 16% of shark, skate and ray species are found in the country.

It is home to nearly 10% of the world coral species and almost a quarter of the global cephalopod species such as octopus, squid, cuttlefish.

Some terrestrial invertebrate groups have high richness relative to global statistics - 13% of the worlds sun spiders and nearly 5% of butterflies occur in the country.

Around half of the countrys species of reptiles, amphibians, butterflies and freshwater fish are endemic. Almost two-thirds of plant species are endemic - mostly linked to the unique Cape Floristic Region.

Approximately 40% of South Africas estimated 10 000 marine animal species are endemic, the vast majority invertebrates.

Did you know?

South Africa is ranked in the top three countries globally when it comes to plant and marine species endemism (species found nowhere else on earth).

The diversity and uniqueness of its species and ecosystems makes the country one of the worlds 17 mega diverse nations - countries that together contain more than two-thirds of the worlds biodiversity.

The economy is highly dependent on this biodiversity. For example, biodiversity tourism demand generates a direct spend of about R31 billion in the economy annually, and its 2 000 medicinal plant species contribute to the African traditional medicine sector worth around R18bn a year.

How biodiversity benefits people:

- Nearly invisible insect pollinators are essential for the production of nutritious fruits and vegetables.

- SAs plant and animal species are used for food and medicine; Aloe ferox, for example, is 95% wild-harvested and used in over 140 cosmetic and complementary medicine products.

- Healthy estuarine and marine ecosystems supports 22 commercial fisheries sectors, about 29 000 small-scale fishers and 700 000 recreational fishers.

- Interacting with nature brings measurable emotional, mental and physical benefits, influences our cultural and spiritual development, and provides R31bn per year to the tourism economy.

To help protect biodiversity:

- Consider what you eat: consume foods from local sources that are sustainably produced.

- Think before you buy: minimise purchasing of items that have only a single use (plastic straws, food in single-use packaging), and buy locally-made items to reduce your carbon footprint.

- Reduce your waste: recycle all packaging, reduce your energy and water consumption, and make sure you dont waste them, dispose of any other waste appropriately.

- Become involved: support local initiatives that protect, restore and study nature - like coastal clean-ups, biodiversity citizen science projects, alien plant hacking, and more. Source: SA National Biodiversity Institute

SAs role in Rome

Albi Modise, the spokesperson for the Department of Environmental Affairs, says South Africa took part in the discussions in Rome this week and was engaging through the Africa regional group.

Modise says: The African priorities that SA is advancing as chair of the AU are related to ecosystem protection and restoration, management and enhancement of freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, thus supporting associated socio-economic activities; management of invasive alien species; access and benefit-sharing with associated traditional knowledge, impact assessment aligned to Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; mainstreaming biodiversity into relevant sectors; natural capital accounting; biosafety; climate change and biodiversity and poaching and illegal wildlife trade.

These elements would need to be supported by means of implementation focusing specifically on financial resources, scientific co-operation and technology transfer as well as capacity building.

The zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework has been drafted by the co-chairs on the basis of the extensive consultations that have been undertaken and the inputs that have been received.

It provides a basis on which the key elements can now be developed for further negotiations. The focus of the meeting is to identify areas where further preparatory work or consultation is required

Future meetings will then focus on addressing the levels of ambition and setting targets. It seems too early and unjustifiable to judge the current draft as hopelessly weak for parties to commence with focused and structured engagements.

The Saturday Star

Here is the original post:

Global conservation communities pinning their hopes on new agreement to save nature - Independent Online