PREAMBLE:
The track record of developed countries honoring their aid commitments is not impressive (especially the G8 nations)[1]. However, until recently, there was optimism that most would honor their commitments to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
To briefly revisit the MDGs for those readers who may not recall what they were about, here is a thumbnail sketch: at a United Nations conference in 2000, governments around the world pronounced the MDGs, to be achieved by 2015. Eight goals were constructed (listed below), reflecting the world's main development challenges and responding to the calls of civil society.[2] Within these goals there are 18 targets, complemented by 48 measurable indicators to measure progress towards the MDGs.
Goal 1: Halve Proportion of People in Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality by 2/3
Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality by 3/4
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership of Development
Last year’s UN Special Session on MDG outcomes provided an important reminder: in relation to Goal 8 (Develop a Global Partnership of Development) there was a message for all donor countries, namely that, without more reliable support from developed countries, several Goals are likely to be missed in many developing ones.[3]
However there is now serious concern regarding the 6th goal, which comes within the remit of a “Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria”. Tragically, in November 2011, several European entities (Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the European Commission itself), ostensibly in response to fraud in a small number of developing nations (4 out of >120 recipient countries), have frozen or drastically cut back on their funding support to the Global Fund as a whole with the effect that it will not be able to take on any new commitments for a 3 year period.
Although it is understood around the world that the entire European Union is now under existential threat, and therefore unable to make good on their commitments, in our view it is a “bit rich” (to use the vernacular, no pun intended) that these rich nations, whose own financial mismanagement and fraud in some instances led to their own current morass, feel free to tar recipient countries with the same brush.
The documented fraud amounts to $34 million, which represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio, and all of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Furthermore, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. It would be interesting indeed to see how this compares with the extent and impact of fraud in the European Community itself, especially on the heels of various banking collapses, and national defaults. Pot calls kettle black?
For this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives, we extract from an objectively critical situation analysis as presented by Results UK, an NGO registered in England, Wales and Scotland.[4]
NOTE: This is our last issue for 2011. Our Year in Review will appear as the first issue for 2012.
References:
1. White F. Development assistance for health – donor commitment as a critical success factor. Can J Public Health (2011)102,6:421-3
2. United Nations Development Programme. About the MDGs: Basics - What are the Millennium Development Goals? http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml Accessed December 15, 2011.
3. UN General Assembly. 65th Session Agenda Items 115. Special Session on the MDGs. Outcome Document: New York. September, 2010.
4. Supporting the Global Fund – making the case for immediate intervention. Background Sheet 1: RESULTS – the power to end poverty. December 11, 2011. http://results.org.uk/sites/default/files/December%202011%20Background%20Sheet%201%20Supporting%20the%20Global%20Fund.pdf Accessed December 15, 2011.
THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TB AND MALARIA (GF)
Note: This report is extracted verbatim from the work of Results-UK (citation #4 above). While we fully endorse what they have stated, the originality of this analysis belongs entirely to them. We recognize that it was written for a primarily UK audience, but we feel that it deserves global recognition and readership.
The GF is a multilateral agency founded in 2002 and is the world’s largest financer of anti-AIDS, TB and Malaria programs. It operates as a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. It draws its funding from donor governments, trusts and foundations and distributes that money to implementing agencies. To ensure that GF money goes to where it is needed most, it prioritises countries with low incomes and high disease burdens. Importantly the GF is guided by the principles of accountability and transparency. It focuses explicitly on results and has an outstanding track record for delivering real impacts on the ground.
At the end of 2010 the GF has approved funding of $22 billion for more than 600 programs in 150 countries. Because it has such clear monitoring mechanisms the Fund states that it has distributed 190 million insecticide treated nets to treat malaria, provided TB treatment for 8.2 million people and provided antiretroviral drugs and holistic care for some 3.2 million people, saving 7.7 million lives.
How funding works: the replenishment process
The fund is predominantly bankrolled by contributions from the governments of developed nations. Since it was created in 2002, 95% of pledges have been from these governments (totalling $28.3bn), with the other 5% coming from private sector and philanthropic givers like the Gates Foundation. From 2001-2010 by far the largest contributor to the fund has been the USA, followed by France, Japan, Germany and the UK. In terms of giving as per cent of GNI, Sweden gives the largest proportion, followed by France, Norway, Holland and Spain.
After the initial funding it received for 2002-2004 the GF has gone through a replenishment cycle every three years, with the last of these events taking place in 2010 in New York. The GF went into the New York conference seeking $20 billion to fully fund the fight against the three diseases. Whilst this represented a doubling of contributions from the 2007 replenishment, it was considered as absolutely vital to avoid losing ground to the diseases. Unfortunately, pledges and projections at the conference only ended up totalling $11.68 billion. The result was that the GF needed to seek new funding, could not fund certain high cost programs and had to slow the pace of scale up.
The UK contribution
The UK government has been a strong historic supporter of the Fund. In 2001 the Labour government made a pledge to give £1.36 billion between 2001-2015 and has delivered £1.06bn thus far. After coming to power the new coalition undertook a review of all UK giving to multilaterals and the Fund came out very well, rated in the highest category as providing ‘Very Good’ value for money, which was only given to 9 organisations. In giving the Global Fund a top score, the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) found its “quality and depth of reporting” were very high, and reported that “standards for financial management and audit” were very high as well. Overall it found the Global Fund to be critically important in the delivery of the MDGs.
As such, the new government has committed to continued giving to the fund at the same levels as the previous administration. The UK has not made a new pledge recently, however, our historically strong stance puts us ahead of many European countries. Civil society organisations across the UK and Europe have been calling on the UK to make a contribution of £840 million between 2011-2013, a figure that would represent a ‘fair share’ of the $20 billion that the GF requested to fill financing needs of partner countries.
What went wrong?
There have been several competing factors that have led to countries withdrawing or withholding their payments to the Global Fund.
1. The financial crisis: The global economic downturn of 2008 has severely hit the GF. With aid budgets being squeezed more tightly than ever before, many countries have chosen to hold back or renege on their commitments to the Fund, citing a variety of causes. As the crisis has continued the ratio of pledges to money actually delivered has steadily worsened, with countries including Spain, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and the US seriously behind on their commitments. Countries are finding the crisis a convenient excuse not to meet their commitments.
2. Global Fund Corruption: In January this year, corruption in GF programmes was inaccurately and sensationally reported by the Associated Press. Citing losses of $34 million dollars across several countries, the media created a situation in which Germany, Ireland, the European Commission and Sweden all announced that they were withholding funding until investigations into the causes of the losses and how they occurred were carried out.
3. A victim of its own success: Ironically, the Fund’s success up until 2010 has partly led to these problems. The Fund introduced new paradigms in the global health and international development arenas. It established a mechanism which channels resources to fund demand through the submission of evidence based, technically sound TB/Malaria/HIV proposals, and as a result has regularly met and exceeded its targets. As such, scale up in demand has been steep, leaving the Fund needing increasingly more and more funding. When global economics were good, this was a curve that could continue. Now this is clearly no longer the case.
The issue of corruption
Stories began to circulate in January 2011 about money going missing from GF supported programs in nine different countries. The total sums that were misappropriated or unaccounted for totalled around $34 million dollars. As a reaction, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the E.C all stated that they were withholding money to support pledges. They all cited slightly different reasons – and had slightly different motivations – but all called for the Fund to conduct an investigation into its activities.
The media reports of corruption have been very damaging to the Fund, but it’s important to look at this in detail and put the figures into perspective. All of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Corruption was found in 9 out of 33 investigated programs (of 145 the fund administers). In Mali, the country with the greatest losses, the Fund has reclaimed a large amount of that money and secured the convictions of nine civil servants involved in its theft. The Office of the Inspectorate General (OIG) is a completely independent body within the Fund that carries out these investigations. What’s more, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. Joe Liden, a spokesman for the Fund stated that they felt they had been “treated very badly by the media.”
Within the whole of the Fund’s portfolio, the $34 million represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio (although only 33 countries were investigated). However, these 9 programs were investigated for the very reason that they were some of the riskiest grants the Global Fund provided. Looking at the most recent set of reviews from the OIG, which analysed over $1b of grants, indicates that across the whole portfolio, no more than 1% of funds have been lost to fraud. This is substantially less than is lost by the UK’s DWP every year.2 However, the sensationalist language used by the media has stuck and the Fund’s reputation as been damaged. The Fund has been through a process of self-evaluation and produced a High Level panel report discussing the problems it faced around fiscal accountability, auditing and investigation practices and has addressed many of the criticisms made by concerned donors.
OUR COMMENT: The ethics of the European Community need to be called into question. It appears that they have held the Global Fund to a higher standard than they themselves could meet, especially given the evidence of everything from bank fraud to gross mismanagement of national finances in several of their own members (Ireland is one of the countries that have reneged on their GF commitments, but isnt this also one of the so-called “PIGS” that have exhibited financial mismanagement?), leading to the current crisis in the Euro. At least one should expect Europe to be honest about this and not play “bully in the pulpit”. Why not lay the blame for reneging on commitments on their own mismanagement, and by extension accept responsibility for any reversals that will result from funding shortfalls in global efforts to combat these diseases over the next 3 years?
We wish all readers the very best for the Holiday Season, and a Happy New Year.
Thursday 15 December 2011
Wednesday 16 November 2011
REVISITING REGULATORY CAPTURE 1) Government- Sponsored Gambling, and 2) Government-Industry Oil Sands Emissions Monitoring
PREAMBLE
In our February 14, 2011 blog, we visited the pervasive issue of “regulatory capture” (RC), examining as a case study, sodium regulation in foods. The theory of regulatory capture goes back at least four decades, attributed to Richard Posner and the earlier work of George Stigler (a Nobel laureate), both economists associated with the University of Chicago.
RC is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. It happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public. As portrayed by The Economist (citing Posner) "Regulation is not about the public interest at all, but is a process, by which interest groups seek to promote their private interest ... Over time, regulatory agencies come to be dominated by the industries regulated." [1]
Recent work by Frederic Boehm throws new light upon this phenomenon: reviewing regulatory capture from the perspective of what can be done to limit it based on a risk analysis (after first analysing the various levels of corruption that can occur), he presents an array of measures to reduce different types of corruption in regulatory processes, preventing capture and ultimately safeguarding the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of regulation.[2] However, it appears all too often, that there is no explicit anti-corruption agenda in regulation. Regulation is widely considered as the key issue in reforms of public service sectors. But it has been pointed early to the problem that regulatory capture in itself could undermine the stated aims of the reforms.[3]
The ethical principle here has long roots and important ramifications across many areas of activity. For example, in the public health field, it is well recognized that "People who work on not only tobacco control, but on chronic disease control, should be critical about receiving money from revenue generated through tobacco sales."[4] Beyond the tobacco industry, there are numerous examples where the credibility of policy makers, regulators, researchers and practitioners may be undermined on the basis of their association with industry e.g., the energy industry, mining interests, agricultural chemical companies, pharmaceutical firms, beverage industries, arms manufacturers, the gambling industry… and so on. This is why government needs to remain at arms-length from such industries, and not be involved simultaneously in regulating and operating such industries. Regulation needs to be based on the best scientific objective evidence; while industrial interests are relevant, those interests should follow, not lead.
Our blog for this month takes note of two additional examples: 1) the extraordinary phenomenon of governments in many countries (including several Canadian provinces) both sponsoring yet also charged with regulating the gambling industry, even as it exacts an enormous toll on health (a provincial responsibility in Canada, therefore an obvious conflict of interest); and 2) the advisory group charged with examining emissions from the Alberta oil sands industry.
CASE STUDY # 1: GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN PROBLEM GAMBLING
CONSIDER a British Columbia Government NEWS RELEASE November 30, 2010: In this release, the province’s Solicitor General, whose Ministry both regulates and operates the province’s gambling industry, “commends BCLC for Responsible Gaming” on the basis of its having been awarded “the World Lottery Association’s highest honour recognizing outstanding achievements in the area of responsible gaming.”
[Note: the term “gaming” is a euphemism for gambling, conveying the idea of “fun” rather than psychological addiction which it becomes for many people, from which government (just like the industry as a whole) obviously wants to distance itself].
Discussion
It is notable that the World Lottery Association[5] is itself a classic example of “regulatory capture” as illustrated by its Mission “a member-based organization to advance the interests of State-authorized lotteries” and Vision “for the WLA to be recognized as the global authority on the lottery business, to uphold the highest ethical principles, and to support our members in achieving their vision for their own communities.” Because this is an industry association, such a laudatory News Release from a Solicitor-General is questionable: no such statement would ever come from any United Nations agency with a mandate for health or crime prevention.
Rather than continuing the lead in discussing this particular case further, it is sufficient to draw from statements issued earlier this year by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC):
The Impact of Government Sponsored Gambling on Families and Society
With Nova Scotia and British Columbia (apparently to be followed by Ontario and Quebec) having expanded into online gambling, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC)[6] have called for provincial governments to remove themselves from the gambling business, and for a halt on gambling expansion. The IMFC recently issued a report expressing the essence of the public health view that “provincial governments must get out of the gambling business because insatiable appetites for revenues are creating more addictions and skyrocketing social and economic costs”.[7]
According to IMFC, over $32 per capita is spent annually in Canada to help gambling addicts. The number of problem gamblers has been estimated at 3.2 percent of the population. This estimate would place the annual direct cost of gambling addictions in Canada at around $1 billion. However, the IMFC report argues that an additional 5 to 10 people (spouses, family, co-workers) are affected for each individual with an addiction, making the true impact closer to 12-25 percent of the population. These human impacts will have financial costs to the nation.
Derek Miedema (IMFC’s lead researcher) has noted that problem gamblers often forego basics, such as paying for food, hydro, car payments or mortgages to feed their addictions, with the poor being the most vulnerable. Families with incomes below $20,000 spend more than twice as much on gambling as high-income earners (over $80,000) as a percentage of income, lending "credence that government-run gambling is a tax on the poor," Miedema said. "They've interviewed children where it was clear the mom who is a problem gambler loves slot machines more than her kids. You can't imagine what impact that has on kids - to see Mom spending money on slots when they don't have food to eat," he said. "Or you have one spouse working long hours to bring money in to support the family, and the other spouse spending long hours and money gambling, and it creates conflict. It can lead to family breakdown and crisis."
To quote Miedema further: "It's a conflict of interest… Responsible gambling drops revenues, so it cannot coexist under the same tent..." (as responsibility for health and social welfare and regulation of the gambling industry). Governments should privatize gambling, tax the winnings and use those revenues to fund responsible-gambling initiatives, he said. "If governments are bearing the responsibility of (helping problem gamblers), they have to get out from being the provider of the service." We agree.
CASE STUDY # 2: INADEQUATE STANDARDS OF WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS USED BY RAMP, A GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY GROUP CHARGED WITH MONITORING THE IMPACT OF OIL SANDS EFFLUENTS SINCE 1997.
The following is an excerpt from a recent report by Andrew Miall, Professor of Geology, University of Toronto, who served as a member of both the Federal Oil Sands Advisory Panel and the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel.[8] It speaks for itself in terms of the conflict of interest experienced by a monitoring group representing the industrial and governmental beneficiaries of oil sands development, once contradicted by an independent researcher.
“Just about a year ago, politicians and the general public in the United States were making critical remarks about ‘Canada's dirty oil'. David Schindler, the respected environmental scientist at the University of Alberta published a paper with his colleague Erin Kelley showing that government sponsored environmental monitoring data were inadequate, and James Cameron the Canadian film director (Titanic, Avatar), visited the oil sands to show his concern, and was received respectfully by the Alberta Government. There was widespread alarm at these perceived threats to Canada's reputation and possibly to its export market.
This heightened attention raised public concern to a new level, and both the federal government and the Alberta government realized that action needed to be taken. Several major initiatives were started last Fall, and these are now reaching completion, with whole new sets of analyses and recommendations emerging from government-appointed study groups. A federal Oil Sands Advisory Panel was formed in October, and reported to the then interim Environment Minister John Baird in December. Baird admitted that governments needed to "up their game" with respect to environmental management of the oil sands. He initiated an intensive examination of air and water quality environmental science by his officials at Environment Canada.
The Alberta government appointed a task force in October to examine Schindler's data and to explore the reasons why his results were so different from those resulting from the work of the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP) -- the government-sponsored, industry-funded organization charged with the responsibility for water quality studies since 1997.
The final report of this group of scientists, submitted in March 2011, described the inadequate standards of water sampling and analysis used by RAMP. For example, they had not realized, as had Schindler, that one of the worst sources of air-borne pollution in the surface waters is the winter snowpack. Pollutants from industrial emissions accumulate there all winter long, and are released into the river system rapidly during the spring thaw, at the time when fish are spawning.”
Discussion:
As noted in our February blog, the oil sands industry is perhaps the most visible example of regulatory capture in Canada, where adverse environmental impact is daily more evident. The industry was given disproportionate representation over independent scientists on advisory groups examining the contamination of fresh water sources. The conservative political mentality of federal and provincial governments in this instance, having nothing to do with “conservation”, is an ideology that places commerce above science or public health as a basis for public policy. Given that the RAMP regime held sway since 1997, regulatory capture appears part of their modus operandi.
HOWEVER, it also appears from this encouraging case study that regulatory capture may be reversed in some situations, if a high level of advocacy can be mustered to confront it. In this instance, the advocacy involved independent scientists (willing to put their reputations on the line, against scurrilous lobbying e.g., media outlets aligned with industrial interests), a leading film producer, and the true public media (i.e., media not complicit in the government-industrial conspiracy to subvert what should always have been an independent review, monitoring and evaluation process). Confronted with this force of informed opinion, government and industry clearly backed down.
Whether this will ultimately lead to better practices by government and the oil industry, remains to be seen, keeping in mind that neither the government of Alberta nor that of Canada has yet put in place a comprehensive framework to address oil sands emissions.
REFERENCES:1. Posner R. The Economist - Business School: Research Tools. http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R)
2. Boehm F. (2010) Regulatory capture revisited – Is there an anticorruption agenda in regulation? Lessons from Colombia and Zambia. IRC Symposium 2010. [Note: This is a shorter and slightly modified version of a chapter prepared for the forthcoming book “International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption. Vol. II”, edited by S. Rose-Ackerman and T. Søreide, Edward Elgar Publishing.]
3. Boehm F. (2007) Boehm F. Regulatory Capture Revisited – Lessons from Economics of Corruption. Working Paper. Anti-Corruption Training & Consulting (ACTC), and Research Center in Political Economy (CIEP, Universidad Externado de Colombia). July 2007.
4. White F. Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. Uneasy money: Tobacco philanthropy and conflict of interest in global health. ProCor Global Dialogue. Dec 13, 2010. http://www.procor.org/globaldialogue/globaldialogue_show.htm?doc_id=1435171
5. World Lottery Association http://www.world-lotteries.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=13&Itemid=75 Accessed Jan 17, 2011.
6. Institute of Marriage and Family Canada http://www.imfcanada.org/default.aspx?cat=3 Acesessed January 18, 2011.
7. Battagello D. Get out of gambling business, provinces told. Vancouver Sun, Nov 1, 2010 p B03
8. Miall A. Alberta's Oil Sands: A New Regime of Environmental Management? Huffington Post. Politics Canada. November 16, 2011. Posted: 7/26/11 09:40 AM ET http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andrew-d-miall/alberta-oil-sands_b_906070.html Accessed November 16, 2011.
Envoi: PacificSci will continue to monitor and report on both these situations.
In our February 14, 2011 blog, we visited the pervasive issue of “regulatory capture” (RC), examining as a case study, sodium regulation in foods. The theory of regulatory capture goes back at least four decades, attributed to Richard Posner and the earlier work of George Stigler (a Nobel laureate), both economists associated with the University of Chicago.
RC is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. It happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public. As portrayed by The Economist (citing Posner) "Regulation is not about the public interest at all, but is a process, by which interest groups seek to promote their private interest ... Over time, regulatory agencies come to be dominated by the industries regulated." [1]
Recent work by Frederic Boehm throws new light upon this phenomenon: reviewing regulatory capture from the perspective of what can be done to limit it based on a risk analysis (after first analysing the various levels of corruption that can occur), he presents an array of measures to reduce different types of corruption in regulatory processes, preventing capture and ultimately safeguarding the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of regulation.[2] However, it appears all too often, that there is no explicit anti-corruption agenda in regulation. Regulation is widely considered as the key issue in reforms of public service sectors. But it has been pointed early to the problem that regulatory capture in itself could undermine the stated aims of the reforms.[3]
The ethical principle here has long roots and important ramifications across many areas of activity. For example, in the public health field, it is well recognized that "People who work on not only tobacco control, but on chronic disease control, should be critical about receiving money from revenue generated through tobacco sales."[4] Beyond the tobacco industry, there are numerous examples where the credibility of policy makers, regulators, researchers and practitioners may be undermined on the basis of their association with industry e.g., the energy industry, mining interests, agricultural chemical companies, pharmaceutical firms, beverage industries, arms manufacturers, the gambling industry… and so on. This is why government needs to remain at arms-length from such industries, and not be involved simultaneously in regulating and operating such industries. Regulation needs to be based on the best scientific objective evidence; while industrial interests are relevant, those interests should follow, not lead.
Our blog for this month takes note of two additional examples: 1) the extraordinary phenomenon of governments in many countries (including several Canadian provinces) both sponsoring yet also charged with regulating the gambling industry, even as it exacts an enormous toll on health (a provincial responsibility in Canada, therefore an obvious conflict of interest); and 2) the advisory group charged with examining emissions from the Alberta oil sands industry.
CASE STUDY # 1: GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN PROBLEM GAMBLING
CONSIDER a British Columbia Government NEWS RELEASE November 30, 2010: In this release, the province’s Solicitor General, whose Ministry both regulates and operates the province’s gambling industry, “commends BCLC for Responsible Gaming” on the basis of its having been awarded “the World Lottery Association’s highest honour recognizing outstanding achievements in the area of responsible gaming.”
[Note: the term “gaming” is a euphemism for gambling, conveying the idea of “fun” rather than psychological addiction which it becomes for many people, from which government (just like the industry as a whole) obviously wants to distance itself].
Discussion
It is notable that the World Lottery Association[5] is itself a classic example of “regulatory capture” as illustrated by its Mission “a member-based organization to advance the interests of State-authorized lotteries” and Vision “for the WLA to be recognized as the global authority on the lottery business, to uphold the highest ethical principles, and to support our members in achieving their vision for their own communities.” Because this is an industry association, such a laudatory News Release from a Solicitor-General is questionable: no such statement would ever come from any United Nations agency with a mandate for health or crime prevention.
Rather than continuing the lead in discussing this particular case further, it is sufficient to draw from statements issued earlier this year by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC):
The Impact of Government Sponsored Gambling on Families and Society
With Nova Scotia and British Columbia (apparently to be followed by Ontario and Quebec) having expanded into online gambling, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC)[6] have called for provincial governments to remove themselves from the gambling business, and for a halt on gambling expansion. The IMFC recently issued a report expressing the essence of the public health view that “provincial governments must get out of the gambling business because insatiable appetites for revenues are creating more addictions and skyrocketing social and economic costs”.[7]
According to IMFC, over $32 per capita is spent annually in Canada to help gambling addicts. The number of problem gamblers has been estimated at 3.2 percent of the population. This estimate would place the annual direct cost of gambling addictions in Canada at around $1 billion. However, the IMFC report argues that an additional 5 to 10 people (spouses, family, co-workers) are affected for each individual with an addiction, making the true impact closer to 12-25 percent of the population. These human impacts will have financial costs to the nation.
Derek Miedema (IMFC’s lead researcher) has noted that problem gamblers often forego basics, such as paying for food, hydro, car payments or mortgages to feed their addictions, with the poor being the most vulnerable. Families with incomes below $20,000 spend more than twice as much on gambling as high-income earners (over $80,000) as a percentage of income, lending "credence that government-run gambling is a tax on the poor," Miedema said. "They've interviewed children where it was clear the mom who is a problem gambler loves slot machines more than her kids. You can't imagine what impact that has on kids - to see Mom spending money on slots when they don't have food to eat," he said. "Or you have one spouse working long hours to bring money in to support the family, and the other spouse spending long hours and money gambling, and it creates conflict. It can lead to family breakdown and crisis."
To quote Miedema further: "It's a conflict of interest… Responsible gambling drops revenues, so it cannot coexist under the same tent..." (as responsibility for health and social welfare and regulation of the gambling industry). Governments should privatize gambling, tax the winnings and use those revenues to fund responsible-gambling initiatives, he said. "If governments are bearing the responsibility of (helping problem gamblers), they have to get out from being the provider of the service." We agree.
CASE STUDY # 2: INADEQUATE STANDARDS OF WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS USED BY RAMP, A GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY GROUP CHARGED WITH MONITORING THE IMPACT OF OIL SANDS EFFLUENTS SINCE 1997.
The following is an excerpt from a recent report by Andrew Miall, Professor of Geology, University of Toronto, who served as a member of both the Federal Oil Sands Advisory Panel and the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel.[8] It speaks for itself in terms of the conflict of interest experienced by a monitoring group representing the industrial and governmental beneficiaries of oil sands development, once contradicted by an independent researcher.
“Just about a year ago, politicians and the general public in the United States were making critical remarks about ‘Canada's dirty oil'. David Schindler, the respected environmental scientist at the University of Alberta published a paper with his colleague Erin Kelley showing that government sponsored environmental monitoring data were inadequate, and James Cameron the Canadian film director (Titanic, Avatar), visited the oil sands to show his concern, and was received respectfully by the Alberta Government. There was widespread alarm at these perceived threats to Canada's reputation and possibly to its export market.
This heightened attention raised public concern to a new level, and both the federal government and the Alberta government realized that action needed to be taken. Several major initiatives were started last Fall, and these are now reaching completion, with whole new sets of analyses and recommendations emerging from government-appointed study groups. A federal Oil Sands Advisory Panel was formed in October, and reported to the then interim Environment Minister John Baird in December. Baird admitted that governments needed to "up their game" with respect to environmental management of the oil sands. He initiated an intensive examination of air and water quality environmental science by his officials at Environment Canada.
The Alberta government appointed a task force in October to examine Schindler's data and to explore the reasons why his results were so different from those resulting from the work of the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP) -- the government-sponsored, industry-funded organization charged with the responsibility for water quality studies since 1997.
The final report of this group of scientists, submitted in March 2011, described the inadequate standards of water sampling and analysis used by RAMP. For example, they had not realized, as had Schindler, that one of the worst sources of air-borne pollution in the surface waters is the winter snowpack. Pollutants from industrial emissions accumulate there all winter long, and are released into the river system rapidly during the spring thaw, at the time when fish are spawning.”
Discussion:
As noted in our February blog, the oil sands industry is perhaps the most visible example of regulatory capture in Canada, where adverse environmental impact is daily more evident. The industry was given disproportionate representation over independent scientists on advisory groups examining the contamination of fresh water sources. The conservative political mentality of federal and provincial governments in this instance, having nothing to do with “conservation”, is an ideology that places commerce above science or public health as a basis for public policy. Given that the RAMP regime held sway since 1997, regulatory capture appears part of their modus operandi.
HOWEVER, it also appears from this encouraging case study that regulatory capture may be reversed in some situations, if a high level of advocacy can be mustered to confront it. In this instance, the advocacy involved independent scientists (willing to put their reputations on the line, against scurrilous lobbying e.g., media outlets aligned with industrial interests), a leading film producer, and the true public media (i.e., media not complicit in the government-industrial conspiracy to subvert what should always have been an independent review, monitoring and evaluation process). Confronted with this force of informed opinion, government and industry clearly backed down.
Whether this will ultimately lead to better practices by government and the oil industry, remains to be seen, keeping in mind that neither the government of Alberta nor that of Canada has yet put in place a comprehensive framework to address oil sands emissions.
REFERENCES:1. Posner R. The Economist - Business School: Research Tools. http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R)
2. Boehm F. (2010) Regulatory capture revisited – Is there an anticorruption agenda in regulation? Lessons from Colombia and Zambia. IRC Symposium 2010. [Note: This is a shorter and slightly modified version of a chapter prepared for the forthcoming book “International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption. Vol. II”, edited by S. Rose-Ackerman and T. Søreide, Edward Elgar Publishing.]
3. Boehm F. (2007) Boehm F. Regulatory Capture Revisited – Lessons from Economics of Corruption. Working Paper. Anti-Corruption Training & Consulting (ACTC), and Research Center in Political Economy (CIEP, Universidad Externado de Colombia). July 2007.
4. White F. Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. Uneasy money: Tobacco philanthropy and conflict of interest in global health. ProCor Global Dialogue. Dec 13, 2010. http://www.procor.org/globaldialogue/globaldialogue_show.htm?doc_id=1435171
5. World Lottery Association http://www.world-lotteries.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=13&Itemid=75 Accessed Jan 17, 2011.
6. Institute of Marriage and Family Canada http://www.imfcanada.org/default.aspx?cat=3 Acesessed January 18, 2011.
7. Battagello D. Get out of gambling business, provinces told. Vancouver Sun, Nov 1, 2010 p B03
8. Miall A. Alberta's Oil Sands: A New Regime of Environmental Management? Huffington Post. Politics Canada. November 16, 2011. Posted: 7/26/11 09:40 AM ET http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andrew-d-miall/alberta-oil-sands_b_906070.html Accessed November 16, 2011.
Envoi: PacificSci will continue to monitor and report on both these situations.
Tuesday 11 October 2011
SUPERVISED INJECTION FACILITY WINS LEGAL BATTLE IN CANADA
PREAMBLE: Harm Reduction for People Addicted to Injection Drug Use
The purpose of supervised injection facilities is to reduce the harms associated with injection drug use. This said, the way forward is decidedly uphill for any society that pits the perceived interests of “law and order” against public health interests. Insite, a supervised injection facility in British Columbia, Canada’s western most province, illustrates this struggle.
When opened in September 2003, Insite was awarded a three-year exemption from Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, for scientific and research purposes. In September 2006, the Federal Health Minister announced an extension to the facility’s exemption that allowed Insite to operate for another 15 months. In October 2007 the exemption was extended until June 30, 2008. In August 2007, the PHS Community Services Society, the two Insite clients and Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed a statement of claim in BC Supreme Court seeking to have the court declare Insite the exclusive jurisdiction of the province and for the federal government not to play any role in its future. In May 2008, the BC Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that deal with possession and trafficking but suspended the declarations of invalidity for one year to allow Parliament to bring the law into compliance with the Constitution, and the Court’s reasons, which ensure Insite a permanent constitutional exemption. The Attorney General of Canada appealed the decision. On January 15, 2010, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the Attorney General of Canada, allowing Insite to continue operations. The Attorney General filed a further appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Early in 2011, it was announced that the Supreme Court of Canada would hear the appeal from Attorney General of Canada.
Note: The position of Attorney General is a Cabinet post awarded to an elected member of the governing party; its central role is to advocate and act on the policies and views of the government of the day.
The Outcome: On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the federal Minister of Health to grant an exemption to Vancouver’s supervised injection facility under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
By ruling that addiction-related drug use is a health issue and not simply a criminal justice issue, the Supreme Court decision upheld Canada’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person and the role of public health interventions of this nature.
Under Canada’s Conservative government, an unremitting effort had been made to close the facility down, despite support from the provincial government of British Columbia. Their objections were based on reasons of political ideology. In stark contrast, the decision made by the Supreme Court, was based on a careful reading of Canada’s Charter of Rights, and scientific evidence that the facility was saving lives, and not promoting the drug culture as the federal Conservatives had claimed. It is relevant to note also that several European countries have similar established facilities in major urban centers, as does Australia.
BACKGROUND: ROLE OF HARM REDUCTION
Supervised Injection as a Public Health Approach to Drug Addiction - the Evidence
Instead of responding to drug addiction primarily as a matter for law enforcement as many nations do, a public health approach to this condition can offer positive alternatives. That superior health and social outcomes can be achieved is illustrated by Insite. Operating under an exemption from provisions under federal legislation, Insite is North America’s first legal supervised site for injection drug use (IDU). Located in a disadvantaged area of Vancouver, Canada, about half of the people who use Insite are marginalized: homeless or living in shelters or have significant mental health issues. Many are older and have been using drugs for many years. Their long-term drug use and chaotic lives have seriously compromised their health. Through Insite, clients develop trusting relationships with health and social workers, making them more likely to pursue withdrawal management (detox) and other addiction services.
Since 2003, Insite has offered a safe place where people may inject drugs and connect with diagnosis and treatment of infection and disease, addiction counselling and treatment, access to housing and community support. The provincial Ministry of Health provides funding, while Vancouver’s public health agency operates the facility in collaboration with community organizations. Insite represents a “harm-reduction” model: it strives to decrease the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use without requiring abstinence from drug use. This embodies prevention: reducing the incidence of primary infections through safe injection itself, and reducing HIV and TB transmission by expanding highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) coverage among HIV infected persons.
Insite’s front line team includes nurses, counsellors, mental health workers and peer support personnel. The operation has 12 injection booths where clients inject pre-obtained illicit drugs under supervision. It supplies clean injection equipment such as syringes, cookers, filters, water and tourniquets. If an overdose occurs, the team, led by a nurse, is available to intervene immediately. Nurses also provide other health services, like wound care and immunizations. Although there have been 1,418 overdoses at InSite between 2004 and 2010, staff were able to successfully intervene each time. There has never been a fatality at InSite since opening.
Not designed to be a stand-alone facility, Insite is part of a continuum of care for people with addiction, mental illness and HIV/AIDS. It was designed to be accessible to injection drug users who are not well connected to health care services. For people with chronic drug addiction, this is the first step towards possible recovery. When clients are ready to access withdrawal management, they can be immediately accommodated at Onsite, a partner program where people have access to 12 rooms with private bathrooms where they can detox. Mental health workers, counsellors, nurses and doctors work together to help people stabilize and plan their next steps. People can then move up to transitional recovery housing for further stabilization and connection to community support, treatment programs and housing.
Insite is supported by The Urban Health Research Initiative (UHRI), established in 2007 as a program of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, affiliated with the University of British Columbia. The UHRI comprises a network of studies developed to help identify and understand the many factors that affect the health of urban populations, focusing on substance use, infectious diseases, the urban environment and homelessness. For example, UHRI research has produced evidence of reduction of overdose mortality after the opening of Insite: this retrospective population-based study found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of Insite decreased by 35% after the facility opened compared to a decrease of 9% in the rest of Vancouver.[1] Details of this and other studies are available online.[2]
An initial evaluation focused on the first three years of Insite (2003-6).[3] This revealed that the facility attracted IDUs who were hard to reach through conventional public health programs. Its opening coincided with a significant reduction of public injection drug use and publicly discarded syringes, suggesting that the facility has also contributed to an increase in public order. Among its clientele, Insite significantly reduced the rate of syringe sharing, a practice that is identified as a primary mode of HIV transmission. Individuals who used Insite were also significantly more likely to enter into addiction treatment services. Finally, the opening of Insite was not associated with an increase in levels of drug- dealing or other drug related crime in the area in which the facility is located. The paper concluded that Insite was associated with an array of community and public health benefits and, despite rigorous evaluation, no identified adverse impacts. These findings should be useful to other cities considering opening supervised injecting facilities, and to governments considering regulating their use.
A study of user perspectives revealed that, Of 1,082 Insite users surveyed, 809 (75%) said that they injected more safely as a result of visiting Insite.[4] Of individuals reporting safer injecting, 80% reported rushing less during injecting, 71% reported less outdoor injecting, and 56% reported less unsafe syringe disposal. When asked to list any obstacles or barriers to using Insite, study participants most commonly reported travel time to Insite, the facility’s limited operating hours, and the waiting time to use the facility. When asked in what ways Insite might be improved, the three most common suggestions were longer hours of operation, the addition of a washroom, and reduced wait times. Clearly there is wide demand for Insite’s services.
Insite as a refuge for women who inject drugs has also been studied.[5] Violence is common within open drug scenes, especially for women who spend time in such environments. There is often a sense of danger on the streets, and women who inject illegal drugs live with the constant threat of arrest, robbery, physical abuse, sexual assault, partner violence and even murder. Struggling to avoid these dangers, women are less able to exercise choice in protecting themselves against other threats such as HIV and hepatitis C. In-depth interviews with women have revealed that Insite has provided temporary refuge from the dangers of the street-based drug scene. Women also have learned the correct way to perform an injection. In many cases, the first time a woman uses an injection drug, someone else—usually an older male drug user—injects the drug for her. By learning how to inject themselves, women rely less on men and gain more control over the circumstances of their own drug use. They are then more likely to practise safer habits when injecting, such as using clean needles. This, in turn, reduces their risk of becoming infected with HIV or hepatitis C.
References: 1. Marshall BDL, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. Lancet. Published online April 18, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7.
2. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/ Accessed September 2, 2011.
3. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006; 175(11): 1399‑1404.
4. Petrar S, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Wood E. Injection drug users’ perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addictive Behaviors, 2006; 32(5): 1088-1093.
5. Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, Wood E, Kerr T. Seeking refuge from violence in street-based drug
scenes: Women’s experiences in North America’s first supervised injection facility. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 67(5): 817-823.
Envoi: We at Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. congratulate Insite for winning this landmark legal battle. It is to be hoped, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has held sway, that Insite will move forward without the constant threat of political harassment, and thereby more able to focus on its mission of harm reduction, one of the main pillars of a coherent prevention and control strategy for drug abuse. The others pillars are primary prevention, treatment and enforcement.
The purpose of supervised injection facilities is to reduce the harms associated with injection drug use. This said, the way forward is decidedly uphill for any society that pits the perceived interests of “law and order” against public health interests. Insite, a supervised injection facility in British Columbia, Canada’s western most province, illustrates this struggle.
When opened in September 2003, Insite was awarded a three-year exemption from Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, for scientific and research purposes. In September 2006, the Federal Health Minister announced an extension to the facility’s exemption that allowed Insite to operate for another 15 months. In October 2007 the exemption was extended until June 30, 2008. In August 2007, the PHS Community Services Society, the two Insite clients and Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed a statement of claim in BC Supreme Court seeking to have the court declare Insite the exclusive jurisdiction of the province and for the federal government not to play any role in its future. In May 2008, the BC Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that deal with possession and trafficking but suspended the declarations of invalidity for one year to allow Parliament to bring the law into compliance with the Constitution, and the Court’s reasons, which ensure Insite a permanent constitutional exemption. The Attorney General of Canada appealed the decision. On January 15, 2010, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the Attorney General of Canada, allowing Insite to continue operations. The Attorney General filed a further appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Early in 2011, it was announced that the Supreme Court of Canada would hear the appeal from Attorney General of Canada.
Note: The position of Attorney General is a Cabinet post awarded to an elected member of the governing party; its central role is to advocate and act on the policies and views of the government of the day.
The Outcome: On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the federal Minister of Health to grant an exemption to Vancouver’s supervised injection facility under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
By ruling that addiction-related drug use is a health issue and not simply a criminal justice issue, the Supreme Court decision upheld Canada’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person and the role of public health interventions of this nature.
Under Canada’s Conservative government, an unremitting effort had been made to close the facility down, despite support from the provincial government of British Columbia. Their objections were based on reasons of political ideology. In stark contrast, the decision made by the Supreme Court, was based on a careful reading of Canada’s Charter of Rights, and scientific evidence that the facility was saving lives, and not promoting the drug culture as the federal Conservatives had claimed. It is relevant to note also that several European countries have similar established facilities in major urban centers, as does Australia.
BACKGROUND: ROLE OF HARM REDUCTION
Supervised Injection as a Public Health Approach to Drug Addiction - the Evidence
Instead of responding to drug addiction primarily as a matter for law enforcement as many nations do, a public health approach to this condition can offer positive alternatives. That superior health and social outcomes can be achieved is illustrated by Insite. Operating under an exemption from provisions under federal legislation, Insite is North America’s first legal supervised site for injection drug use (IDU). Located in a disadvantaged area of Vancouver, Canada, about half of the people who use Insite are marginalized: homeless or living in shelters or have significant mental health issues. Many are older and have been using drugs for many years. Their long-term drug use and chaotic lives have seriously compromised their health. Through Insite, clients develop trusting relationships with health and social workers, making them more likely to pursue withdrawal management (detox) and other addiction services.
Since 2003, Insite has offered a safe place where people may inject drugs and connect with diagnosis and treatment of infection and disease, addiction counselling and treatment, access to housing and community support. The provincial Ministry of Health provides funding, while Vancouver’s public health agency operates the facility in collaboration with community organizations. Insite represents a “harm-reduction” model: it strives to decrease the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use without requiring abstinence from drug use. This embodies prevention: reducing the incidence of primary infections through safe injection itself, and reducing HIV and TB transmission by expanding highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) coverage among HIV infected persons.
Insite’s front line team includes nurses, counsellors, mental health workers and peer support personnel. The operation has 12 injection booths where clients inject pre-obtained illicit drugs under supervision. It supplies clean injection equipment such as syringes, cookers, filters, water and tourniquets. If an overdose occurs, the team, led by a nurse, is available to intervene immediately. Nurses also provide other health services, like wound care and immunizations. Although there have been 1,418 overdoses at InSite between 2004 and 2010, staff were able to successfully intervene each time. There has never been a fatality at InSite since opening.
Not designed to be a stand-alone facility, Insite is part of a continuum of care for people with addiction, mental illness and HIV/AIDS. It was designed to be accessible to injection drug users who are not well connected to health care services. For people with chronic drug addiction, this is the first step towards possible recovery. When clients are ready to access withdrawal management, they can be immediately accommodated at Onsite, a partner program where people have access to 12 rooms with private bathrooms where they can detox. Mental health workers, counsellors, nurses and doctors work together to help people stabilize and plan their next steps. People can then move up to transitional recovery housing for further stabilization and connection to community support, treatment programs and housing.
Insite is supported by The Urban Health Research Initiative (UHRI), established in 2007 as a program of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, affiliated with the University of British Columbia. The UHRI comprises a network of studies developed to help identify and understand the many factors that affect the health of urban populations, focusing on substance use, infectious diseases, the urban environment and homelessness. For example, UHRI research has produced evidence of reduction of overdose mortality after the opening of Insite: this retrospective population-based study found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of Insite decreased by 35% after the facility opened compared to a decrease of 9% in the rest of Vancouver.[1] Details of this and other studies are available online.[2]
An initial evaluation focused on the first three years of Insite (2003-6).[3] This revealed that the facility attracted IDUs who were hard to reach through conventional public health programs. Its opening coincided with a significant reduction of public injection drug use and publicly discarded syringes, suggesting that the facility has also contributed to an increase in public order. Among its clientele, Insite significantly reduced the rate of syringe sharing, a practice that is identified as a primary mode of HIV transmission. Individuals who used Insite were also significantly more likely to enter into addiction treatment services. Finally, the opening of Insite was not associated with an increase in levels of drug- dealing or other drug related crime in the area in which the facility is located. The paper concluded that Insite was associated with an array of community and public health benefits and, despite rigorous evaluation, no identified adverse impacts. These findings should be useful to other cities considering opening supervised injecting facilities, and to governments considering regulating their use.
A study of user perspectives revealed that, Of 1,082 Insite users surveyed, 809 (75%) said that they injected more safely as a result of visiting Insite.[4] Of individuals reporting safer injecting, 80% reported rushing less during injecting, 71% reported less outdoor injecting, and 56% reported less unsafe syringe disposal. When asked to list any obstacles or barriers to using Insite, study participants most commonly reported travel time to Insite, the facility’s limited operating hours, and the waiting time to use the facility. When asked in what ways Insite might be improved, the three most common suggestions were longer hours of operation, the addition of a washroom, and reduced wait times. Clearly there is wide demand for Insite’s services.
Insite as a refuge for women who inject drugs has also been studied.[5] Violence is common within open drug scenes, especially for women who spend time in such environments. There is often a sense of danger on the streets, and women who inject illegal drugs live with the constant threat of arrest, robbery, physical abuse, sexual assault, partner violence and even murder. Struggling to avoid these dangers, women are less able to exercise choice in protecting themselves against other threats such as HIV and hepatitis C. In-depth interviews with women have revealed that Insite has provided temporary refuge from the dangers of the street-based drug scene. Women also have learned the correct way to perform an injection. In many cases, the first time a woman uses an injection drug, someone else—usually an older male drug user—injects the drug for her. By learning how to inject themselves, women rely less on men and gain more control over the circumstances of their own drug use. They are then more likely to practise safer habits when injecting, such as using clean needles. This, in turn, reduces their risk of becoming infected with HIV or hepatitis C.
References: 1. Marshall BDL, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. Lancet. Published online April 18, 2011. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7.
2. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/ Accessed September 2, 2011.
3. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006; 175(11): 1399‑1404.
4. Petrar S, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Wood E. Injection drug users’ perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addictive Behaviors, 2006; 32(5): 1088-1093.
5. Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, Wood E, Kerr T. Seeking refuge from violence in street-based drug
scenes: Women’s experiences in North America’s first supervised injection facility. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 67(5): 817-823.
Envoi: We at Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. congratulate Insite for winning this landmark legal battle. It is to be hoped, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has held sway, that Insite will move forward without the constant threat of political harassment, and thereby more able to focus on its mission of harm reduction, one of the main pillars of a coherent prevention and control strategy for drug abuse. The others pillars are primary prevention, treatment and enforcement.
Thursday 15 September 2011
CASE STUDY: The Costs of 9/11 and the Creation of a National Security Establishment in Canada
PREAMBLE: Earlier this month the world took note of the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, New York, that took place on September 11, 2001. While memorial events honored those killed and injured, their loved ones, the rescue teams, and all who were affected, there is no doubt that the event was felt everywhere as one that destabilized the world. Its impact was felt not only in terms of immediate mass casualties but on the global security environment and psychosocial health of countless millions in virtually all countries. It set in motion geopolitical forces whose overreaching objectives even now are overwhelmingly negative, taking into account the waves of violence that continue to occur in various forms from military interventions, “justified” in relation to 9-11, to stigmatization of peoples through state sanctioned racial, linguistic and religious profiling, and associated injustices.[1]
Canada is an interesting case study of some of the unintended consequences of over-reaction: the Rideau Institute has released a new report that tabulates, for the first time, the number of additional dollars spent on national security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as observations on the opportunities costs that this has entailed. The Rideau Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, public-interest research, advocacy and consulting group based in Ottawa.
According to the report, the sum already spent in the post–9/11 build-up could have provided significant benefits to Canada. The nearly 100 billion dollars could have rebuilt transit systems in each of Canada’s ten largest cities, it could have provided a national childcare program, or eliminated all payments for prescription medications. Any of these programs could have been fully implemented if the money spent on a national security establishment since 2001 had been used differently.
We agree with the report’s conclusion that “It is time to re-evaluate whether the dramatic post–9/11 spending on national security could be more appropriately spent over the next ten years.”
Further we are obliged to note that the current global economic crisis includes among its roots vast over-expenditure on military budgets. This too contributes to current social and economic crises in many countries, not least the United States, and the extent to which this impacts all countries is literally unquantifiable.
As the 10th Anniversary of 9-11 will arise only once, and the opportunity so impotant, this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives presents verbatim, key content from the Rideau report (Note: italics and bolding - our emphasis).
Reference:
1. White F. The case for an epidemiology of terrorism. Int J Epidemiology (2002) 31, 6: 1273-1274. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/6/1273.full
The RIDEAU REPORT:
The report, called "The Cost of 9/11: Tracking the Creation of a National Security Establishment", was written by economist David Macdonald, and examines how much federal government spending on Department of National Defence, Foreign Affairs, Public Safety and related agencies has increased over pre–9/11 levels.
“A decade after the attacks of 9/11 it’s time to re-evaluate whether we should continue the high level of national security spending,” says Steven Staples, President of the Rideau Institute. “The government has created a national security establishment in Canada.”
The report’s main findings include the following:
• Since 2000-01, the year before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Canada has devoted an additional $92 billion ($69 billion inflation-adjusted) to national security spending over and above the amount it would have spent had budgets remained in line with pre–9/11 levels.
• In this fiscal year, 2011-12, Canada will spend $34 billion on its national security, which is an additional $17 billion ($13 billion inflation-adjusted) more than the amount it would have spent had budgets remained in line with pre–9/11 levels. This is an increase of 105% (60% inflation-adjusted).
• Military expenditures have nearly doubled (+90%) since 9/11 (48% inflation-adjusted), and the Department of National Defence is by far the largest consumer of national security expenditures, at more than $21 billion this fiscal year.
• Security and Public Safety programs have nearly tripled in spending, from $3 billion to almost $9 billion annually ($3.9 billion to $8.7 billion inflation-adjusted), or 186% since 9/11 (123% inflation-adjusted).
Author David Macdonald hopes the report will launch a discussion about future spending. “At a time when the global economy seems to be a greater threat to Canadians’ security than global terrorism, should we spend another $92 billion or more over the coming decade on a national security establishment?” said MacDonald.
Source: Media Release, Rideau Institute, Sept 7, 2011
Conclusion
The following statement appears in the report:
“While other countries have been much harder hit by terrorism, Canada has nonetheless committed significant resources since 9/11 to national security. While some may feel that the $92 billion spent since 2001 has been worth it, others might argue that the money could have been better spent. The real question today is whether or not we should continue this level of expenditure. Should Canada spend another $100 billion or more over the coming decade on a national security establishment? Certainly the political situation today is much different than it was in 2001, and the global economy seems to be a greater threat to Canadians’ security than global terrorism. At the same time, pressures are mounting here in Canada, with high unemployment and large deficits at the federal level. The sum that has been already spent in the post–9/11 build-up could have provided significant benefits here in Canada. Those nearly 100 billion dollars could have easily rebuilt the transit systems in each of Canada’s ten largest cities, it could have provided a national $10-a-day childcare program, or eliminated all payments for prescription medications. Any one of these programs could have been fully implemented if the money spent on a national security establishment since 2001 had been used differently. It is time to re-evaluate whether the dramatic post–9/11 spending on national security could be more appropriately spent over the next ten years.”
Reference: Macdonald D, The Cost of 9/11- Tracking the Creation of a National Security Establishment in Canada. Rideau Institute. Ottawa, September 2011.
Canada is an interesting case study of some of the unintended consequences of over-reaction: the Rideau Institute has released a new report that tabulates, for the first time, the number of additional dollars spent on national security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as observations on the opportunities costs that this has entailed. The Rideau Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, public-interest research, advocacy and consulting group based in Ottawa.
According to the report, the sum already spent in the post–9/11 build-up could have provided significant benefits to Canada. The nearly 100 billion dollars could have rebuilt transit systems in each of Canada’s ten largest cities, it could have provided a national childcare program, or eliminated all payments for prescription medications. Any of these programs could have been fully implemented if the money spent on a national security establishment since 2001 had been used differently.
We agree with the report’s conclusion that “It is time to re-evaluate whether the dramatic post–9/11 spending on national security could be more appropriately spent over the next ten years.”
Further we are obliged to note that the current global economic crisis includes among its roots vast over-expenditure on military budgets. This too contributes to current social and economic crises in many countries, not least the United States, and the extent to which this impacts all countries is literally unquantifiable.
As the 10th Anniversary of 9-11 will arise only once, and the opportunity so impotant, this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives presents verbatim, key content from the Rideau report (Note: italics and bolding - our emphasis).
Reference:
1. White F. The case for an epidemiology of terrorism. Int J Epidemiology (2002) 31, 6: 1273-1274. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/6/1273.full
The RIDEAU REPORT:
The report, called "The Cost of 9/11: Tracking the Creation of a National Security Establishment", was written by economist David Macdonald, and examines how much federal government spending on Department of National Defence, Foreign Affairs, Public Safety and related agencies has increased over pre–9/11 levels.
“A decade after the attacks of 9/11 it’s time to re-evaluate whether we should continue the high level of national security spending,” says Steven Staples, President of the Rideau Institute. “The government has created a national security establishment in Canada.”
The report’s main findings include the following:
• Since 2000-01, the year before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Canada has devoted an additional $92 billion ($69 billion inflation-adjusted) to national security spending over and above the amount it would have spent had budgets remained in line with pre–9/11 levels.
• In this fiscal year, 2011-12, Canada will spend $34 billion on its national security, which is an additional $17 billion ($13 billion inflation-adjusted) more than the amount it would have spent had budgets remained in line with pre–9/11 levels. This is an increase of 105% (60% inflation-adjusted).
• Military expenditures have nearly doubled (+90%) since 9/11 (48% inflation-adjusted), and the Department of National Defence is by far the largest consumer of national security expenditures, at more than $21 billion this fiscal year.
• Security and Public Safety programs have nearly tripled in spending, from $3 billion to almost $9 billion annually ($3.9 billion to $8.7 billion inflation-adjusted), or 186% since 9/11 (123% inflation-adjusted).
Author David Macdonald hopes the report will launch a discussion about future spending. “At a time when the global economy seems to be a greater threat to Canadians’ security than global terrorism, should we spend another $92 billion or more over the coming decade on a national security establishment?” said MacDonald.
Source: Media Release, Rideau Institute, Sept 7, 2011
Conclusion
The following statement appears in the report:
“While other countries have been much harder hit by terrorism, Canada has nonetheless committed significant resources since 9/11 to national security. While some may feel that the $92 billion spent since 2001 has been worth it, others might argue that the money could have been better spent. The real question today is whether or not we should continue this level of expenditure. Should Canada spend another $100 billion or more over the coming decade on a national security establishment? Certainly the political situation today is much different than it was in 2001, and the global economy seems to be a greater threat to Canadians’ security than global terrorism. At the same time, pressures are mounting here in Canada, with high unemployment and large deficits at the federal level. The sum that has been already spent in the post–9/11 build-up could have provided significant benefits here in Canada. Those nearly 100 billion dollars could have easily rebuilt the transit systems in each of Canada’s ten largest cities, it could have provided a national $10-a-day childcare program, or eliminated all payments for prescription medications. Any one of these programs could have been fully implemented if the money spent on a national security establishment since 2001 had been used differently. It is time to re-evaluate whether the dramatic post–9/11 spending on national security could be more appropriately spent over the next ten years.”
Reference: Macdonald D, The Cost of 9/11- Tracking the Creation of a National Security Establishment in Canada. Rideau Institute. Ottawa, September 2011.
Monday 22 August 2011
REVITALIZING PHILANTHROPY IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:... The Bellagio Initiative
PREAMBLE: Our focus this month is on a recently announced initiative, jointly led by the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex UK), the Resource Alliance Ltd (London UK) and The Rockefeller Foundation (new York City, USA). The “Bellagio Series on the Future of International Development and the Role of the Philanthropic Sector: Promoting Human Well-being in a Challenging Global Context” is designed to explore future relationships between philanthropy and international development including a convening to be held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center (Lake Como, Italy), November 2011.
Our view at Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. (PacificSci) is that, given the continued lagging of donor countries in meeting their long standing financial commitments to development, particularly the G7 group of nations, the role of private philanthropy has become even more important in filling this gap than ever before.
The following report is abstracted from a press release from the Rockefeller Foundation.
THE BELLAGIO INITATIVE
Bellagio, Italy—As millions of people, multilateral organisations, and philanthropic foundations around the world dedicate time and resources for short and long-term solutions to the urgent food crisis in the Horn of Africa, a global dialogue is launched to foster innovative partnerships focused on the improvement of human well-being.
The Bellagio Initiative plans to bring together “the world’s most respected and innovative thinkers in the fields of philanthropy and international development”. Over the coming months they will consider the key issues likely to shape the future wellbeing of humanity and identify new opportunities for joint action by philanthropic and development organisations.
The initiative comes as philanthropic giving becomes ever-more important in the fight to eradicate poverty. It has more than doubled in size over the past decade, according to OECD figures, standing at over US$22bn in 2009.
Throughout the second half of 2011, the Bellagio Initiative will engage a diverse group of practitioners, opinion leaders, beneficiaries, social entrepreneurs and donors to consider innovative solutions to some of the major challenges affecting poor people today. The Initiative will convene global consultations on topics such as climate change, emerging markets, sustainability, migration and rights which, together with specially commissioned papers and commentary, will feed into debate at a high-level summit being held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre, Italy, in November.
This summit will explore joint solutions to poverty, drawing from the expertise of the invited participants and others from around the globe participating online.
In addition, the Bellagio Initiative will produce:
• A Timeline of Philanthropy, providing insights into the phenomenal growth of private giving.
• A Mapping of the Philanthropic Sector, revealing who the big private donors are today, what they spend their money on and which countries benefit most from their giving.
• A Framework for Action, focusing on building partnerships, across regions and sectors, for the promotion of human wellbeing.
All those interested in the future of development and the role of philanthropy can contribute to the discussion at the following newly launched WEBSITE which contains an interactive BLOG at http://www.bellagioinitiative.org/
Allister McGregor, a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Director of the Bellagio Initiative, states: “The process will involve creative thinking, and it will culminate in a concrete action plan that we hope will make a real difference to people’s lives.”
Neelam Makhijani, chief executive of the Resource Alliance (RA), said: "This represents a unique opportunity for those working at the grassroots level, improving wellbeing in their communities, to engage in cross-sector dialogue on today’s most pertinent issues. We anticipate that the innovative solutions to strengthening strategic and sustainable philanthropy discussed throughout the Bellagio Initiative will lead to constructive action in the years to come.”
For more information:
James Georgalakis
email: j.georgalakis@ids.ac.uk
tel: +44 (0)1273 915781
or +44 (0)7713 110579
Summary Notes:
1. The Bellagio Initiative: The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing high-level summit will be held at the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre, Italy, from 8-22 November 2011.
2. The Rockefeller Foundation’s mission to promote the wellbeing of people throughout the world has remained unchanged since its founding in 1913.
3. The Institute of Development Studies is a leading global charity for research, teaching and information on international development. It is based at the University of Sussex, Brighton UK.
4. The Resource Alliance is an international charity specialising in building the fundraising capacity of not-for-profit organisations
Source: Press Release, Rockefeller Foundation. August 8, 2011. http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/press-releases/rockefeller-foundation-partners-launch
Envoi: We at PacificSci wish the Bellagio Initiative the best possible success, and trust that its action plan will deliver on its central goal of global poverty alleviation over the coming years.
Our view at Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. (PacificSci) is that, given the continued lagging of donor countries in meeting their long standing financial commitments to development, particularly the G7 group of nations, the role of private philanthropy has become even more important in filling this gap than ever before.
The following report is abstracted from a press release from the Rockefeller Foundation.
THE BELLAGIO INITATIVE
Bellagio, Italy—As millions of people, multilateral organisations, and philanthropic foundations around the world dedicate time and resources for short and long-term solutions to the urgent food crisis in the Horn of Africa, a global dialogue is launched to foster innovative partnerships focused on the improvement of human well-being.
The Bellagio Initiative plans to bring together “the world’s most respected and innovative thinkers in the fields of philanthropy and international development”. Over the coming months they will consider the key issues likely to shape the future wellbeing of humanity and identify new opportunities for joint action by philanthropic and development organisations.
The initiative comes as philanthropic giving becomes ever-more important in the fight to eradicate poverty. It has more than doubled in size over the past decade, according to OECD figures, standing at over US$22bn in 2009.
Throughout the second half of 2011, the Bellagio Initiative will engage a diverse group of practitioners, opinion leaders, beneficiaries, social entrepreneurs and donors to consider innovative solutions to some of the major challenges affecting poor people today. The Initiative will convene global consultations on topics such as climate change, emerging markets, sustainability, migration and rights which, together with specially commissioned papers and commentary, will feed into debate at a high-level summit being held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre, Italy, in November.
This summit will explore joint solutions to poverty, drawing from the expertise of the invited participants and others from around the globe participating online.
In addition, the Bellagio Initiative will produce:
• A Timeline of Philanthropy, providing insights into the phenomenal growth of private giving.
• A Mapping of the Philanthropic Sector, revealing who the big private donors are today, what they spend their money on and which countries benefit most from their giving.
• A Framework for Action, focusing on building partnerships, across regions and sectors, for the promotion of human wellbeing.
All those interested in the future of development and the role of philanthropy can contribute to the discussion at the following newly launched WEBSITE which contains an interactive BLOG at http://www.bellagioinitiative.org/
Allister McGregor, a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Director of the Bellagio Initiative, states: “The process will involve creative thinking, and it will culminate in a concrete action plan that we hope will make a real difference to people’s lives.”
Neelam Makhijani, chief executive of the Resource Alliance (RA), said: "This represents a unique opportunity for those working at the grassroots level, improving wellbeing in their communities, to engage in cross-sector dialogue on today’s most pertinent issues. We anticipate that the innovative solutions to strengthening strategic and sustainable philanthropy discussed throughout the Bellagio Initiative will lead to constructive action in the years to come.”
For more information:
James Georgalakis
email: j.georgalakis@ids.ac.uk
tel: +44 (0)1273 915781
or +44 (0)7713 110579
Summary Notes:
1. The Bellagio Initiative: The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing high-level summit will be held at the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre, Italy, from 8-22 November 2011.
2. The Rockefeller Foundation’s mission to promote the wellbeing of people throughout the world has remained unchanged since its founding in 1913.
3. The Institute of Development Studies is a leading global charity for research, teaching and information on international development. It is based at the University of Sussex, Brighton UK.
4. The Resource Alliance is an international charity specialising in building the fundraising capacity of not-for-profit organisations
Source: Press Release, Rockefeller Foundation. August 8, 2011. http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/press-releases/rockefeller-foundation-partners-launch
Envoi: We at PacificSci wish the Bellagio Initiative the best possible success, and trust that its action plan will deliver on its central goal of global poverty alleviation over the coming years.
Friday 15 July 2011
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION: REVISITING THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION (2005-15)
PREAMBLE: Continuing from last month’s theme, linking extreme weather patterns to longer term climate change and impacts on human displacement, this month we focus more broadly on the phenomenon of disasters. Our primary sources for this material are IDMC, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Council of the Norwegian Refugee Centre, and the 2011 United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, both referenced below [1,3]. Our selections of material are captured verbatim, with only minor editorial amendments e.g., subheadings, paragraph breaks and use of italics, to emphasize aspects that we believe to be of interest to our readers. NOTE: This does not mean that we agree with each and every interpretation, but we do believe that the essence of the material is accurate and in the public interest. Readers who find our selection to be of value of course may visit the original documents as cited.
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
The United Nations has defined a disaster as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources”[2]. By this definition, only those events where the losses exceed a society’s ability to cope and external aid is required constitute a disaster.
Most classifications of disaster identify two main types: natural and human-made. Natural disasters are subcategorized as sudden impact, slow-onset, and epidemic diseases; human-made disasters include two sub-categories— industrial/technological disasters and complex emergencies:
1. Sudden impact disasters include floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, tropical storms, volcanic eruptions, and landslides. Floods are most frequently associated with sudden migration of large populations and food shortages. Earthquakes cause the greatest number of deaths and overwhelming infrastructural damage.
2. Slow-onset disasters include droughts, famine, environmental degradation, deforestation, pest infestation, and desertification. These disasters are usually the result of adverse weather conditions combined with poor land use.
3. Epidemic diseases such as cholera, measles, dysentery, respiratory infections, malaria, and, increasingly, HIV, generally do not trigger large-scale displacement even during a severe outbreak although they often threaten displaced populations, especially those clustered in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions following a major disaster.
4. Industrial/technological disasters result from a society’s industrial and technological activities that lead to pollution, spillage of hazardous materials, explosions, and fires. Earthquakes, floods as well as human factors such as armed conflict may trigger secondary disasters such as fires, industrial explosions and pollution/contamination.
5. Complex emergencies are usually human-made with multiple contributing factors (e.g., war, internal conflict and natural disaster) and are marked by large-scale displacement, food insecurity, human rights violations and elevated mortality.
DISASTER TRENDS
Over the past two decades, the number of natural and technological disasters has climbed. From 1994 to 1999, reported disasters averaged 459 per year; from 2000 to 2004, this average shot up to 728 disaster events each year, with Asia experiencing the most events. Both hydro-meteorological and geophysical disasters are more common, becoming respectively 68 % and 62% more frequent between 1993 and 2003. This reflects longer-term trends:
• between 1960 and 2003, the number of reported hydro-meteorological disasters has risen x7, while geophysical disasters have risen x5
• despite the increased number of disasters, average annual death toll dropped, from over 75,000 per year (1994-1998) to 59,000 per year (1999-2003); the death toll from natural and technological disasters during 2004 soared to around 250,000, mainly due to the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December 2004
• numbers of people affected (people requiring immediate assistance for basic needs, injured or homeless) continued to climb; an average 250 million people per year were affected by disasters between 1994 and 2004. Disasters during 2000-2004 affected one-third more people than during 1995-1999. Over this period, the numbers of people affected by disasters in countries of low development doubled, with Africa showing the greatest increase
• that more people are being affected by disasters reflects a range of factors. Overall numbers of reported disasters are increasing, driven partly by a more variable global climate. Meanwhile, a rapid increase of population in poorer parts of the world – combined with rapid, unplanned development (particularly in urban areas) – is putting more people at risk.
Disaster Risk Reduction: The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 [1]
The World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Hyogo, Japan, in January 2005, pledged to reduce the risks facing millions of people who are exposed to natural disasters. The 168 delegations adopted a framework for action calling on States to put DRR at the centre of political agendas and national policies. The “Hyogo Framework for Action: 2005 – 2015” aims to strengthen the capacity of disaster-prone countries to address risk and invest heavily in disaster preparedness.
The conference also adopted a declaration recommending, among other things, that a “culture of disaster prevention and resilience” must be fostered at all levels, and recognised the relationship between disaster reduction, sustainable development and poverty reduction. These non-binding documents were to serve as a “blueprint” to guide nations and individuals to build disaster-resilient communities, calling on the international community to pursue an integrated multi-hazard approach for sustainable development to reduce the incidence and severity of disasters.
Progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action [1]
Disaster-related economic losses are increasing across all regions, critically threatening the economies of low-income countries and even outstripping wealth creation across many of the world’s richer nations.
The 2nd edition of the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11) shows that damage to infrastructure continues to rise, especially in low- and middle-income countries where governments are still struggling to address the underlying risk drivers [1,3]. And while the risk of being killed by cyclone and floods in East Asian countries is today markedly lower than it was 20 years ago, the risk of economic loss due to floods has increased by over 160% and to tropical cyclones by 262% since 1980 in the high-income countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). During that time, the absolute value of global GDP exposed to risk tripled from US$525.7 billion in the 1970s to US$1.6 trillion in the 2000s.
Drawing from country examples, the report highlights that since 1982 each Mexican government has absorbed disaster losses of over US$10 billion, which is now rising to almost US$20 billion in the new millennium – a clear illustration of the loss governments have to deal with in the absence of investments in disaster risk management. The GAR11 report makes the direct correlation between disaster-related economic losses and the limited investment in risk management particularly at the local level, with resulting skewed actions. On the one hand, there is good progress in early warning, preparedness and response for example, but on the other hand, countries are struggling with addressing the underlying risk drivers such as unplanned urbanization, ecosystem degradation and vulnerable livelihoods as well as critical issues such as public awareness or gender.
This current economic scenario affects all regions, and governments need to decide how they can tip the balance so that the scale of public investment no longer dwarfs current investment in disaster risk management. They must also decide now on how much risk they are willing to retain and how much they can afford to transfer. Drawing on a large volume of new and enhanced data on both risks and risk management taken from UN, governmental, civil society, scientific and academic sources, as well as from almost 100 governments and regional inter-governmental organizations about their progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action, the report gives an important overview of trends and patterns in disaster risk globally and regionally. This includes analysis of new emerging risks, such as technological break-downs in highly interdependent systems, as experienced in Europe recently after the Iceland volcanic eruptions and in Japan after the Great East Japan Earthquake. The report also provides new information on earthquake mortality, which is increasing exponentially in low- and middle-income countries, and points to drought risk as mainly the product of economic decisions and social choices.
As half of humanity is now living in cities - commitment to resilience is urgently needed particularly in vulnerable groups, localities, and regions. Governments, institutions, communities and individuals need to place disaster risk reduction at the forefront of efforts to preserve and protect the balance of nature, and ensure sustainable development and well-being for generations to come. More action is needed to reduce disaster risk including supporting local governments, building on the role of women as agents of change, involving children and youth in decisions that affect their future, and fully engaging the private sector as leaders in the construction of resilient infrastructure and systems for sustainable development. Well-planned and coordinated recovery will achieve better results at lower cost, and support sustainability and disaster-resilience.
Conclusion: The imperative of disaster risk reduction [3]
Each country has its own unique risk profile or signature with different kinds and proportions of extensive, intensive and emerging risks. To reduce their risks, therefore, governments will need to adopt a mix of prospective, corrective and compensatory risk management strategies together with strategies to manage disasters and anticipate emerging risks.
Countries that have invested in strengthening their disaster management capacities have witnessed a steady decline in mortality risk, at least with respect to weather-related hazards. However, much more needs to be done to reduce economic losses fuelled by the rapid growth of asset exposure. If the objective of the Hyogo Framework for Action – the significant reduction of disaster losses – is to be achieved and if progress is to be made towards the UN’s Millenium Development Goals, a new paradigm in disaster risk reduction must emerge.
Reducing disaster risk is primarily an issue of identifying the political and economic incentives and negotiating the different trade-offs. Unfortunately, without systematically accounting for disaster impacts and comprehensively assessing the full range of risks they face, few countries have been able to find these incentives, let alone to identify the costs, benefits and trade-offs that would inform a balanced and effective portfolio of risk management strategies.
The good news is that a new paradigm is indeed emerging. It is driven by innovations in accounting for disaster losses and assessing risk, in the adaptation of development planning and public investment, and in efforts to strengthen risk governance by those governments that have recognized the importance of investing today for a safer tomorrow. An opportunity to reduce disaster risk is now appearing: learning from, building on, and scaling up these innovations; revealing risk; and redefining development.
References:
1. Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs. http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/(httpInfoFiles)/7CE8640E88EEB381C125711500479885/$file/Protection%20during%20module%20handout%20natural%20disaster.pdf Accessed July 15, 2011.
2. From: Risks and Rights: the Causes, Consequences and Challenges of Development-Induced Displacement, by W. Courtland Robinson, the Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement, May 2003, as cited by : Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs.
3. 2011 United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11). http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/executive.html Accessed July 15, 2011.
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
The United Nations has defined a disaster as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources”[2]. By this definition, only those events where the losses exceed a society’s ability to cope and external aid is required constitute a disaster.
Most classifications of disaster identify two main types: natural and human-made. Natural disasters are subcategorized as sudden impact, slow-onset, and epidemic diseases; human-made disasters include two sub-categories— industrial/technological disasters and complex emergencies:
1. Sudden impact disasters include floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, tropical storms, volcanic eruptions, and landslides. Floods are most frequently associated with sudden migration of large populations and food shortages. Earthquakes cause the greatest number of deaths and overwhelming infrastructural damage.
2. Slow-onset disasters include droughts, famine, environmental degradation, deforestation, pest infestation, and desertification. These disasters are usually the result of adverse weather conditions combined with poor land use.
3. Epidemic diseases such as cholera, measles, dysentery, respiratory infections, malaria, and, increasingly, HIV, generally do not trigger large-scale displacement even during a severe outbreak although they often threaten displaced populations, especially those clustered in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions following a major disaster.
4. Industrial/technological disasters result from a society’s industrial and technological activities that lead to pollution, spillage of hazardous materials, explosions, and fires. Earthquakes, floods as well as human factors such as armed conflict may trigger secondary disasters such as fires, industrial explosions and pollution/contamination.
5. Complex emergencies are usually human-made with multiple contributing factors (e.g., war, internal conflict and natural disaster) and are marked by large-scale displacement, food insecurity, human rights violations and elevated mortality.
DISASTER TRENDS
Over the past two decades, the number of natural and technological disasters has climbed. From 1994 to 1999, reported disasters averaged 459 per year; from 2000 to 2004, this average shot up to 728 disaster events each year, with Asia experiencing the most events. Both hydro-meteorological and geophysical disasters are more common, becoming respectively 68 % and 62% more frequent between 1993 and 2003. This reflects longer-term trends:
• between 1960 and 2003, the number of reported hydro-meteorological disasters has risen x7, while geophysical disasters have risen x5
• despite the increased number of disasters, average annual death toll dropped, from over 75,000 per year (1994-1998) to 59,000 per year (1999-2003); the death toll from natural and technological disasters during 2004 soared to around 250,000, mainly due to the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December 2004
• numbers of people affected (people requiring immediate assistance for basic needs, injured or homeless) continued to climb; an average 250 million people per year were affected by disasters between 1994 and 2004. Disasters during 2000-2004 affected one-third more people than during 1995-1999. Over this period, the numbers of people affected by disasters in countries of low development doubled, with Africa showing the greatest increase
• that more people are being affected by disasters reflects a range of factors. Overall numbers of reported disasters are increasing, driven partly by a more variable global climate. Meanwhile, a rapid increase of population in poorer parts of the world – combined with rapid, unplanned development (particularly in urban areas) – is putting more people at risk.
Disaster Risk Reduction: The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 [1]
The World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Hyogo, Japan, in January 2005, pledged to reduce the risks facing millions of people who are exposed to natural disasters. The 168 delegations adopted a framework for action calling on States to put DRR at the centre of political agendas and national policies. The “Hyogo Framework for Action: 2005 – 2015” aims to strengthen the capacity of disaster-prone countries to address risk and invest heavily in disaster preparedness.
The conference also adopted a declaration recommending, among other things, that a “culture of disaster prevention and resilience” must be fostered at all levels, and recognised the relationship between disaster reduction, sustainable development and poverty reduction. These non-binding documents were to serve as a “blueprint” to guide nations and individuals to build disaster-resilient communities, calling on the international community to pursue an integrated multi-hazard approach for sustainable development to reduce the incidence and severity of disasters.
Progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action [1]
Disaster-related economic losses are increasing across all regions, critically threatening the economies of low-income countries and even outstripping wealth creation across many of the world’s richer nations.
The 2nd edition of the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11) shows that damage to infrastructure continues to rise, especially in low- and middle-income countries where governments are still struggling to address the underlying risk drivers [1,3]. And while the risk of being killed by cyclone and floods in East Asian countries is today markedly lower than it was 20 years ago, the risk of economic loss due to floods has increased by over 160% and to tropical cyclones by 262% since 1980 in the high-income countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). During that time, the absolute value of global GDP exposed to risk tripled from US$525.7 billion in the 1970s to US$1.6 trillion in the 2000s.
Drawing from country examples, the report highlights that since 1982 each Mexican government has absorbed disaster losses of over US$10 billion, which is now rising to almost US$20 billion in the new millennium – a clear illustration of the loss governments have to deal with in the absence of investments in disaster risk management. The GAR11 report makes the direct correlation between disaster-related economic losses and the limited investment in risk management particularly at the local level, with resulting skewed actions. On the one hand, there is good progress in early warning, preparedness and response for example, but on the other hand, countries are struggling with addressing the underlying risk drivers such as unplanned urbanization, ecosystem degradation and vulnerable livelihoods as well as critical issues such as public awareness or gender.
This current economic scenario affects all regions, and governments need to decide how they can tip the balance so that the scale of public investment no longer dwarfs current investment in disaster risk management. They must also decide now on how much risk they are willing to retain and how much they can afford to transfer. Drawing on a large volume of new and enhanced data on both risks and risk management taken from UN, governmental, civil society, scientific and academic sources, as well as from almost 100 governments and regional inter-governmental organizations about their progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action, the report gives an important overview of trends and patterns in disaster risk globally and regionally. This includes analysis of new emerging risks, such as technological break-downs in highly interdependent systems, as experienced in Europe recently after the Iceland volcanic eruptions and in Japan after the Great East Japan Earthquake. The report also provides new information on earthquake mortality, which is increasing exponentially in low- and middle-income countries, and points to drought risk as mainly the product of economic decisions and social choices.
As half of humanity is now living in cities - commitment to resilience is urgently needed particularly in vulnerable groups, localities, and regions. Governments, institutions, communities and individuals need to place disaster risk reduction at the forefront of efforts to preserve and protect the balance of nature, and ensure sustainable development and well-being for generations to come. More action is needed to reduce disaster risk including supporting local governments, building on the role of women as agents of change, involving children and youth in decisions that affect their future, and fully engaging the private sector as leaders in the construction of resilient infrastructure and systems for sustainable development. Well-planned and coordinated recovery will achieve better results at lower cost, and support sustainability and disaster-resilience.
Conclusion: The imperative of disaster risk reduction [3]
Each country has its own unique risk profile or signature with different kinds and proportions of extensive, intensive and emerging risks. To reduce their risks, therefore, governments will need to adopt a mix of prospective, corrective and compensatory risk management strategies together with strategies to manage disasters and anticipate emerging risks.
Countries that have invested in strengthening their disaster management capacities have witnessed a steady decline in mortality risk, at least with respect to weather-related hazards. However, much more needs to be done to reduce economic losses fuelled by the rapid growth of asset exposure. If the objective of the Hyogo Framework for Action – the significant reduction of disaster losses – is to be achieved and if progress is to be made towards the UN’s Millenium Development Goals, a new paradigm in disaster risk reduction must emerge.
Reducing disaster risk is primarily an issue of identifying the political and economic incentives and negotiating the different trade-offs. Unfortunately, without systematically accounting for disaster impacts and comprehensively assessing the full range of risks they face, few countries have been able to find these incentives, let alone to identify the costs, benefits and trade-offs that would inform a balanced and effective portfolio of risk management strategies.
The good news is that a new paradigm is indeed emerging. It is driven by innovations in accounting for disaster losses and assessing risk, in the adaptation of development planning and public investment, and in efforts to strengthen risk governance by those governments that have recognized the importance of investing today for a safer tomorrow. An opportunity to reduce disaster risk is now appearing: learning from, building on, and scaling up these innovations; revealing risk; and redefining development.
References:
1. Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs. http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/(httpInfoFiles)/7CE8640E88EEB381C125711500479885/$file/Protection%20during%20module%20handout%20natural%20disaster.pdf Accessed July 15, 2011.
2. From: Risks and Rights: the Causes, Consequences and Challenges of Development-Induced Displacement, by W. Courtland Robinson, the Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement, May 2003, as cited by : Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs.
3. 2011 United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11). http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/executive.html Accessed July 15, 2011.
Wednesday 15 June 2011
EXTREME WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN DISPLACEMENT
PREAMBLE: In this issue of Global Perspectives, we report on the essence of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century, convened in Oslo Norway, June 6-7, 2011. As summarized by IISD reporting services (1):
Climate change is the world’s most serious threat to sustainable development, with adverse impacts projected for the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. While global climate varies naturally, rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes which, over the short- and long-term, lead to an increase in the severity of droughts, land degradation, desertification, salinization, riverbank and coastal erosion, sea-level rise and the intensity of floods, tropical cyclones and other geophysical events. This in turn will negatively affect crop yields and food production, water supplies, livelihoods and human settlements.
An impact of particular concern is the potential for human displacement and migration (1): it is projected that climate change and the increasing frequency of natural disasters will trigger larger and more complex movements of people, including large-scale displacement of people, both within and across borders, and has the potential to render some people stateless. The implications for human welfare and security, and for strategies for adaptation, DRR, humanitarian aid and protection of displaced people, could be far-reaching.
While environmental migration is not officially recognized, according to the International Organization on Migration (IOM), the number of persons forced to move due to climate change and environmental degradation by 2050 is forecast to vary by a factor of 40 (between 25 million and 1 billion) and largely depends on which climate scenario unfolds. The world’s poorest and most crisis-prone countries will be disproportionately affected, with the level of vulnerability, exposure to risk and capacities of people being among the determinants of this migration (1).
BACKGROUND: This issue of Global Perspectives was stimulated mostly by media reports from the conference, particularly that which appeared on June 8th, 2011 in the Guardian newspaper (2). In “A perfect storm of stupid” Amy Goodman notes that “the news is full of extreme weather headlines – floods, wildfires, droughts, tornadoes – but the US still doesn't get climate change”. We feel obliged to add that nor do a lot of other countries that also should know better. For examples, neither Canada and Australia, both of whom have recently endured unprecedented flooding while the prospect of historically hotter and drier weather now confronts them, have in place serious policies to combat global warming. All three countries mentioned are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as are many other countries around the world.
Goodman quotes Bill McKibben, founder of the grassroots climate action organisation 350.org, who has been advocating to stop climate change for more than two decades:
"We're making the Earth a more dynamic and violent place … We're trapping more of the sun's energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that's now expressing itself in many ways. We don't know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we're seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about."
Drawing attention to the plight of climate refugees, at the Nansen Conference, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres warned of two threats: slow onset disasters like drought and desertification that lead to "a tipping point at which people's lives and livelihoods come under such serious threat that they have no choice but to leave their homes", and "natural disasters [that] uproot large numbers of people in a matter of hours" (2). He noted that most climate refugees will be internally displaced within their home countries. However, Naomi Klein (author of The Shock Doctrine – the Rise of Disaster Capitalism) goes further in a recent warning, "This crisis will be exploited to militarise our societies, to create fortress continents”. (2)
According to Linda Ngyen of PostMedia News (3), Lester Brown, for the Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. stated:
“We know the best way to manage disasters is to prevent them in the first place.” “We should’ve done something about climate change years ago, which makes it all the more urgent now to begin to get serious about cutting carbon emissions,… we don’t know the point of no return… nature sets these… thresholds…”
Brown will deliver this message in Toronto to more than 1,500 participants from around the world at the upcoming 21st World Conference on Disaster Management, June 19-22.
According to Brown, the world is ill-prepared and may not survive an impending colossal natural disaster such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or record-breaking heat waves that are triggered by climate change. “At some point, these disasters will be unmanageable at the societal level,” said Brown. Furthermore, a number of recent weather-related incidents should act as a warning for the world to take action. He notes that one of the most troubling impending disasters is the current “irreversible” rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If temperatures continue to rise, it is feared the ice sheet will melt completely and raise sea levels by a projected seven metres, which will disrupt rice production in the river deltas in Asia, where 60% of the world’s population lives. (3)
Envoi: It is sadly obvious that it is the poor and the dispossessed who are so far bearing the burden of climate change, not the overpaid CEOs in the fossil fuel and financial industries, nor for that matter the politicians and media sycophants who support them. However, a more positive scenario than the one painted still appears to be largely a matter of choice, even as most of our current political “leaders” remain negligent in not making a serious decision to come to grips with this potentially terminal threat. To quote again from the conference summary (1):
“Responding to climate change has the potential for millions of green jobs, to transform societies to energy systems that are safe, that are stable and that are based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is being embraced now by more and more countries, although funding for alternative systems pales in comparison to subsidies for oil, gas and coal.”
References:
1) Summary of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century. 6-7 June 2011. Linkages. IISD Reporting Services. http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/climate/nansen/html/ymbvol189num1e.html
2) Goodman A. A Perfect Storm of Stupid. The Guardian June 8, 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/climate-change-extreme-weather
3) Nguyen L, World needs to manage weather disasters by preventing climate change: environmentalist. Postmedia News June 12, 2011. http://www.canada.com/news/World+needs+manage+weather+disasters+preventing+climate+change+environmentalist/4933889/story.html#ixzz1PITTzgJ7
Climate change is the world’s most serious threat to sustainable development, with adverse impacts projected for the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. While global climate varies naturally, rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes which, over the short- and long-term, lead to an increase in the severity of droughts, land degradation, desertification, salinization, riverbank and coastal erosion, sea-level rise and the intensity of floods, tropical cyclones and other geophysical events. This in turn will negatively affect crop yields and food production, water supplies, livelihoods and human settlements.
An impact of particular concern is the potential for human displacement and migration (1): it is projected that climate change and the increasing frequency of natural disasters will trigger larger and more complex movements of people, including large-scale displacement of people, both within and across borders, and has the potential to render some people stateless. The implications for human welfare and security, and for strategies for adaptation, DRR, humanitarian aid and protection of displaced people, could be far-reaching.
While environmental migration is not officially recognized, according to the International Organization on Migration (IOM), the number of persons forced to move due to climate change and environmental degradation by 2050 is forecast to vary by a factor of 40 (between 25 million and 1 billion) and largely depends on which climate scenario unfolds. The world’s poorest and most crisis-prone countries will be disproportionately affected, with the level of vulnerability, exposure to risk and capacities of people being among the determinants of this migration (1).
BACKGROUND: This issue of Global Perspectives was stimulated mostly by media reports from the conference, particularly that which appeared on June 8th, 2011 in the Guardian newspaper (2). In “A perfect storm of stupid” Amy Goodman notes that “the news is full of extreme weather headlines – floods, wildfires, droughts, tornadoes – but the US still doesn't get climate change”. We feel obliged to add that nor do a lot of other countries that also should know better. For examples, neither Canada and Australia, both of whom have recently endured unprecedented flooding while the prospect of historically hotter and drier weather now confronts them, have in place serious policies to combat global warming. All three countries mentioned are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as are many other countries around the world.
Goodman quotes Bill McKibben, founder of the grassroots climate action organisation 350.org, who has been advocating to stop climate change for more than two decades:
"We're making the Earth a more dynamic and violent place … We're trapping more of the sun's energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that's now expressing itself in many ways. We don't know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we're seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about."
Drawing attention to the plight of climate refugees, at the Nansen Conference, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres warned of two threats: slow onset disasters like drought and desertification that lead to "a tipping point at which people's lives and livelihoods come under such serious threat that they have no choice but to leave their homes", and "natural disasters [that] uproot large numbers of people in a matter of hours" (2). He noted that most climate refugees will be internally displaced within their home countries. However, Naomi Klein (author of The Shock Doctrine – the Rise of Disaster Capitalism) goes further in a recent warning, "This crisis will be exploited to militarise our societies, to create fortress continents”. (2)
According to Linda Ngyen of PostMedia News (3), Lester Brown, for the Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. stated:
“We know the best way to manage disasters is to prevent them in the first place.” “We should’ve done something about climate change years ago, which makes it all the more urgent now to begin to get serious about cutting carbon emissions,… we don’t know the point of no return… nature sets these… thresholds…”
Brown will deliver this message in Toronto to more than 1,500 participants from around the world at the upcoming 21st World Conference on Disaster Management, June 19-22.
According to Brown, the world is ill-prepared and may not survive an impending colossal natural disaster such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or record-breaking heat waves that are triggered by climate change. “At some point, these disasters will be unmanageable at the societal level,” said Brown. Furthermore, a number of recent weather-related incidents should act as a warning for the world to take action. He notes that one of the most troubling impending disasters is the current “irreversible” rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If temperatures continue to rise, it is feared the ice sheet will melt completely and raise sea levels by a projected seven metres, which will disrupt rice production in the river deltas in Asia, where 60% of the world’s population lives. (3)
Envoi: It is sadly obvious that it is the poor and the dispossessed who are so far bearing the burden of climate change, not the overpaid CEOs in the fossil fuel and financial industries, nor for that matter the politicians and media sycophants who support them. However, a more positive scenario than the one painted still appears to be largely a matter of choice, even as most of our current political “leaders” remain negligent in not making a serious decision to come to grips with this potentially terminal threat. To quote again from the conference summary (1):
“Responding to climate change has the potential for millions of green jobs, to transform societies to energy systems that are safe, that are stable and that are based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is being embraced now by more and more countries, although funding for alternative systems pales in comparison to subsidies for oil, gas and coal.”
References:
1) Summary of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century. 6-7 June 2011. Linkages. IISD Reporting Services. http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/climate/nansen/html/ymbvol189num1e.html
2) Goodman A. A Perfect Storm of Stupid. The Guardian June 8, 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/climate-change-extreme-weather
3) Nguyen L, World needs to manage weather disasters by preventing climate change: environmentalist. Postmedia News June 12, 2011. http://www.canada.com/news/World+needs+manage+weather+disasters+preventing+climate+change+environmentalist/4933889/story.html#ixzz1PITTzgJ7
Monday 16 May 2011
CANADIAN OIL SPILL THREATENS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
PREAMBLE: On April 29, 2011, there was a major oil spill from a pipeline in Northern Alberta, Canada. This adversely affects the Lubicon Cree people living in the area, as well as wildlife, forests, streams and lakes.
By way of background, in November 2009, citing a report by Amnesty International, Global Perspectives drew attention to the estimated $14 billion in revenue generated on Lubicon lands, even as traditional water sources have been contaminated since the onset of resource exploration. Despite this, Lubicon houses lack running water and plumbing. Within 3 years of the first oil wells the number of people dependent on social assistance increased from 10 to 90%. As a matter of human rights, action is required to alleviate these appalling health conditions. In addition, it is now clear also that a competent and independent health team must be provided to the community to address new concerns about the headaches, nausea and other illness experienced since the April 29 spill.
The main aim of this edition of Global Perspectives is to support Amnesty’s call that both federal and provincial (majority Conservative) governments have a responsibility to ensure that such an assessment is carried out with the results fully available to the community as a whole, and to the general public.
Apparently also, access to the spill site is controlled. We therefore also support Amnesty’s call to ensure that the Lubicon people have full access to the spill site so as to document the spill for themselves.
The main focus of this issue is to capture the content of two current information sources: A. A post by Melina Laboucan-Massimo on the Greenpeace site, dated May 4, 2011; and B. A new Amnesty Factsheet which outlines the situation in more technical detail. Both items are reproduced verbatim below:
A. RESIDENTS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, SICK AFTER LARGE OIL SPILL IN ALBERTA’S PEACE REGION
by Melina Laboucan-Massimo - May 4, 2011 at 13:43 on Greenpeace site (cited below)
Little Buffalo community members, including school children, continue to experience nausea, burning eyes and headaches after one of the largest pipeline spills in Alberta history last Friday by Plains All American leaked nearly 30,000 barrels of oil into Lubicon traditional territory in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta.
Instead of attending an in-person community meeting, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) faxed a one-page fact sheet to Little Buffalo School. The fact sheet indicates that 28,000 barrels of crude oil, or 4,500 cubic metres, has spread into nearby stands of “stagnant water.” The spill, April 29 at 7:30 a.m., occurred only 300 metres from local waterways. The ERCB said the spill has been contained, but community members report that the oil is still leaking into the surrounding forest and bog. The ERCB also said to the community that there is “no threat to public safety as a result of the leak.” Yet people are still getting sick, the local school has been shut down and children ordered to stay at home. An investigation into the incident is underway.
“It has been four days since classes were suspended due to the noxious odours in the air. The children and staff at the school were disorientated, getting headaches and feeling sick to their stomachs,” said Brian Alexander, the principle of Little Buffalo School. “We tried to send the children outside to get fresh air as it seemed worse in the school but when we sent them out they were getting sick as well.
“The company and the ERCB have given us little information in the past five days. What we do know is that the health of our community is at stake,” said Chief Steve Nosky. “Our children cannot attend school until there is a resolution, The ERCB is not being accountable to our community; they did not even show up to our community meeting to inform us of the unsettling situation we are dealing with. The company is failing to provide sufficient information to us so we can ensure that the health and safety of our community is protected.”
The ERCB fact sheet states that air monitors are in place on site and have “detected no hydrocarbon levels above Alberta Ambient Air Quality guidelines.” But this is little consolation for a community that is scared to breathe the air. Veronica Okemow has six children, the youngest one attending the school, and she is very worried. “We are deeply concerned about the health effects on the community,” Okemow said. “It is a scary thing when your children are feeling sick from the air. People are scared to breathe in the fumes.”
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation and also a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner said: “The Plains All American spill marks the second pipeline spill in Alberta in just a week, with Kinder Morgan spilling just days before. This is an alarm bell for Alberta residents. If this 45-year-old pipeline were to break elsewhere along its route there would be more safety and health hazards. Communities across Alberta and B.C. are demanding an end to this type of risky development; yet the government refuses to listen. Instead it continues on as business as usual without plans for the cleaner, healthier, sustainable future that is possible.”
Source: Greenpeace Canada. Blogpost by Melina Laboucan-Massimo May 4, 2011. http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/residents-including-children-sick-after-large/blog/34569
B. FACTSHEET - BACKGROUND TO THE PIPELINE SPILL ON TRADITIONAL LUBICON LANDS
1. Pipelines and Lubicon lands
There are more than 2300 kms of oil and gas pipe¬lines through the traditional lands of the Lubicon.
According to an Alberta government study, from 1983 to 1997, there were between one and eight leaks or ruptures per year for every 1000 km of pipeline in the province, depending on the kind of pipeline.
In 2008, when the Province of Alberta approved the last major pipeline across Lubicon land (TransCanada Pipeline’s North Central Corridor project) the Alberta Utility Commission denied the Lubicon the opportu¬nity to present their concerns. The Commission ruled that the Lubicon had not established that the project was harmful to their rights. The pipeline was then built over the community’s objections.
2. Indigenous rights denied
The Lubicon Cree have never entered into a treaty with the Government of Canada. They have not given up their rights to their lands and resources through any other legal agreement. Resolution of the dispute requires a negotiated settlement but there have been no negotiations since 2003.
Large-scale development began on Lubicon territory in 1979. Since then, more than 2600 oil and gas wells have been drilled, along with some in situ oil sands extraction.
The scale of development led to the rapid collapse of the Lubicon hunting and trapping economy. At the same time, the community has been denied basic services that most other communities in Canada take for granted, such as running water and sanitation.
Since the early 1980s, the Lubicon have reported pervasive health problems associated with poverty, environmental degradation and cultural erosion. These problems include high rates of infectious dis¬ease such as tuberculosis; disproportionate numbers of miscarriages, stillbirth and other maternal health concerns; and high youth suicide.
The Alberta government has leased approximately 70 percent of Lubicon territory for future oil, gas and minerals development.
3. Repeatedly condemned by the United Nations
In 1990, the United Human Rights Committee ruled that Canada was violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by failing to properly protect Lubicon land rights from the impact of re¬source extraction activities.
Since then, the treatment of the Lubicon Cree has been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee again in 2006 and 2007, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2006, and by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Ad¬equate Housing in 2008. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns about pipeline development in 2008.
In 2010 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples submitted a detailed report to the UN Human Rights Council in which he said there should be no further development on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon people give their consent.
Source: Amnesty International (Canada). Fact Sheet: Background to the pipeline spill on traditional Lubicon lands http://www.amnesty.ca/files/factsheet_context_of_pipeline_spill.pdf
EPILOGUE: On May 15, 2011, efforts at clean up and to contain the impact were suspended due to numerous uncontained forest fires in the region.
By way of background, in November 2009, citing a report by Amnesty International, Global Perspectives drew attention to the estimated $14 billion in revenue generated on Lubicon lands, even as traditional water sources have been contaminated since the onset of resource exploration. Despite this, Lubicon houses lack running water and plumbing. Within 3 years of the first oil wells the number of people dependent on social assistance increased from 10 to 90%. As a matter of human rights, action is required to alleviate these appalling health conditions. In addition, it is now clear also that a competent and independent health team must be provided to the community to address new concerns about the headaches, nausea and other illness experienced since the April 29 spill.
The main aim of this edition of Global Perspectives is to support Amnesty’s call that both federal and provincial (majority Conservative) governments have a responsibility to ensure that such an assessment is carried out with the results fully available to the community as a whole, and to the general public.
Apparently also, access to the spill site is controlled. We therefore also support Amnesty’s call to ensure that the Lubicon people have full access to the spill site so as to document the spill for themselves.
The main focus of this issue is to capture the content of two current information sources: A. A post by Melina Laboucan-Massimo on the Greenpeace site, dated May 4, 2011; and B. A new Amnesty Factsheet which outlines the situation in more technical detail. Both items are reproduced verbatim below:
A. RESIDENTS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, SICK AFTER LARGE OIL SPILL IN ALBERTA’S PEACE REGION
by Melina Laboucan-Massimo - May 4, 2011 at 13:43 on Greenpeace site (cited below)
Little Buffalo community members, including school children, continue to experience nausea, burning eyes and headaches after one of the largest pipeline spills in Alberta history last Friday by Plains All American leaked nearly 30,000 barrels of oil into Lubicon traditional territory in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta.
Instead of attending an in-person community meeting, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) faxed a one-page fact sheet to Little Buffalo School. The fact sheet indicates that 28,000 barrels of crude oil, or 4,500 cubic metres, has spread into nearby stands of “stagnant water.” The spill, April 29 at 7:30 a.m., occurred only 300 metres from local waterways. The ERCB said the spill has been contained, but community members report that the oil is still leaking into the surrounding forest and bog. The ERCB also said to the community that there is “no threat to public safety as a result of the leak.” Yet people are still getting sick, the local school has been shut down and children ordered to stay at home. An investigation into the incident is underway.
“It has been four days since classes were suspended due to the noxious odours in the air. The children and staff at the school were disorientated, getting headaches and feeling sick to their stomachs,” said Brian Alexander, the principle of Little Buffalo School. “We tried to send the children outside to get fresh air as it seemed worse in the school but when we sent them out they were getting sick as well.
“The company and the ERCB have given us little information in the past five days. What we do know is that the health of our community is at stake,” said Chief Steve Nosky. “Our children cannot attend school until there is a resolution, The ERCB is not being accountable to our community; they did not even show up to our community meeting to inform us of the unsettling situation we are dealing with. The company is failing to provide sufficient information to us so we can ensure that the health and safety of our community is protected.”
The ERCB fact sheet states that air monitors are in place on site and have “detected no hydrocarbon levels above Alberta Ambient Air Quality guidelines.” But this is little consolation for a community that is scared to breathe the air. Veronica Okemow has six children, the youngest one attending the school, and she is very worried. “We are deeply concerned about the health effects on the community,” Okemow said. “It is a scary thing when your children are feeling sick from the air. People are scared to breathe in the fumes.”
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation and also a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner said: “The Plains All American spill marks the second pipeline spill in Alberta in just a week, with Kinder Morgan spilling just days before. This is an alarm bell for Alberta residents. If this 45-year-old pipeline were to break elsewhere along its route there would be more safety and health hazards. Communities across Alberta and B.C. are demanding an end to this type of risky development; yet the government refuses to listen. Instead it continues on as business as usual without plans for the cleaner, healthier, sustainable future that is possible.”
Source: Greenpeace Canada. Blogpost by Melina Laboucan-Massimo May 4, 2011. http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/residents-including-children-sick-after-large/blog/34569
B. FACTSHEET - BACKGROUND TO THE PIPELINE SPILL ON TRADITIONAL LUBICON LANDS
1. Pipelines and Lubicon lands
There are more than 2300 kms of oil and gas pipe¬lines through the traditional lands of the Lubicon.
According to an Alberta government study, from 1983 to 1997, there were between one and eight leaks or ruptures per year for every 1000 km of pipeline in the province, depending on the kind of pipeline.
In 2008, when the Province of Alberta approved the last major pipeline across Lubicon land (TransCanada Pipeline’s North Central Corridor project) the Alberta Utility Commission denied the Lubicon the opportu¬nity to present their concerns. The Commission ruled that the Lubicon had not established that the project was harmful to their rights. The pipeline was then built over the community’s objections.
2. Indigenous rights denied
The Lubicon Cree have never entered into a treaty with the Government of Canada. They have not given up their rights to their lands and resources through any other legal agreement. Resolution of the dispute requires a negotiated settlement but there have been no negotiations since 2003.
Large-scale development began on Lubicon territory in 1979. Since then, more than 2600 oil and gas wells have been drilled, along with some in situ oil sands extraction.
The scale of development led to the rapid collapse of the Lubicon hunting and trapping economy. At the same time, the community has been denied basic services that most other communities in Canada take for granted, such as running water and sanitation.
Since the early 1980s, the Lubicon have reported pervasive health problems associated with poverty, environmental degradation and cultural erosion. These problems include high rates of infectious dis¬ease such as tuberculosis; disproportionate numbers of miscarriages, stillbirth and other maternal health concerns; and high youth suicide.
The Alberta government has leased approximately 70 percent of Lubicon territory for future oil, gas and minerals development.
3. Repeatedly condemned by the United Nations
In 1990, the United Human Rights Committee ruled that Canada was violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by failing to properly protect Lubicon land rights from the impact of re¬source extraction activities.
Since then, the treatment of the Lubicon Cree has been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee again in 2006 and 2007, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2006, and by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Ad¬equate Housing in 2008. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concerns about pipeline development in 2008.
In 2010 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples submitted a detailed report to the UN Human Rights Council in which he said there should be no further development on Lubicon land unless the Lubicon people give their consent.
Source: Amnesty International (Canada). Fact Sheet: Background to the pipeline spill on traditional Lubicon lands http://www.amnesty.ca/files/factsheet_context_of_pipeline_spill.pdf
EPILOGUE: On May 15, 2011, efforts at clean up and to contain the impact were suspended due to numerous uncontained forest fires in the region.
Thursday 14 April 2011
WHY IS CANADA FOLLOWING FAILED U.S. PRISON POLICIES? And What It Could Learn from NAACP's "Misplaced Priorities" Report
PREAMBLE: Canada’s Conservative government is copying failed US prison policies even as its favoured role model, the US Republican Party, repudiates them: policies that lead the US to having the highest incarceration rates in the world.
In Canada, a $2-billion prison-building bonanza is about to spawn more than two dozen new prisons as Conservative candidates make pre-election announcements on 8 prisons in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, while in Ontario 3 minimum-security prisons will each get 50 new cells, and Quebec’s medium-security Cowansville Institution a 96 cell addition, in addition to new cells at another Quebec prison.[1]
The motivations behind Prime Minister Harper’s prison obsession appear ideologically driven and politically motivated. There is no evidence of increasing crime in Canada (the overall trend is actually down), nor is there good scientific evidence that incarceration is an effective solution to most of the crime that does occur. Nonetheless, Canada is now scrambling to expand the penitentiary system to house a surging inmate population due to legislative changes that were not properly costed in the first instance. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, abolition of the 2-for-1 pre-trial custody credit will add 4,000 more inmates over the next 5 years, and other proposals including tightened parole rules and more mandatory minimum sentences will have similar effects. These ill considered legislative measures are creating a level of overcrowding that contravenes international standards on treatment of prisoners. It does nothing for rehabilitation, even as it displaces resources away from measures that could prevent crime in the first place.
It is difficult to imagine that any political party now so far into the throes of an election campaign could reverse its own “tough on crime” platform. However, we live in hope, and for this reason offer the following review of the just released and already much acclaimed NAACP policy report from the USA.
We have taken the liberty of minor paraphrasing, so as to focus on what is most relevant to Canada. However, the full report should be required reading by federal politicians of all stripes. Let us learn from this report which documents how Harperian “tough on crime” policies have already been shown to fail south of the border. QUESTION FOR THE ELECTION: Why copy failure?
References
1. Robb Tripp. Harper Government to announce more prison expansion. iPolitics.ca Postmedia News. January 10, 2010. http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/10/harper-government-to-announce-more-prison-expansions/
2. NAACP. Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate. April, 2011. http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Accessed April 13, 2011.
MISPLACED PRIORITIES – The Report
Misplaced Priorities, released by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), America’s leading Civil Rights group, focuses on the over-funding of prisons and under-funding of education in the USA (reference 2 above). The Report reveals how that nation is wasting financial resources on over-incarceration while depriving schools of resources that would help children in distressed communities - who, without adequate education, are at greatest risk of becoming the next generation of prisoners.
Misplaced Priorities examines research and analysis from leading experts on crime, public safety, and education policy, and analyzes new information gathered at neighborhood level to provide a unique local perspective on the national incarceration crisis in the USA. It was released in the context of a Smart and Safe policy framework that ensures public safety as a civil and human right for all communities, especially for the many communities in crisis. Instead of calling for “lock ‘em' up" practices to solve social problems, Smart and Safe was developed to meet public safety goals by meeting community needs and more effectively addressing violent crimes.
Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate
The report’s key conclusion is that excessive spending on incarceration undermines educational opportunity and public safety in communities. States are thereby urged to lock away fewer prisoners for drug offenses, and to redirect some of the massive amount of money that goes to jails to schools.
The report has been endorsed by some politically unexpected allies: former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist, conservative founder of Americans for Tax Reform. "You have Tea Party activists and NAACP activists pushing the same bills," NAACP president Ben Jealous said during a PBS NewsHour report, referencing the prison reform movement in Texas.
Executive Summary – Selected Extracts
In Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate, NAACP researchers assembled data from leading research organizations and profiled 6 cities to show how escalating investments in incarceration over the past 30 years have undermined educational opportunities. Misplaced Priorities is a call to action for public officials, policymakers, and local NAACP units and members by providing a framework to implement a policy agenda that will financially prioritize investments in education over incarceration, provide equal protection under the law, eliminate sentencing policies responsible for over incarceration, and advance public safety strategies that effectively increase healthy community development.
Misplaced Priorities echoes existing research on the impact excessive prison spending has on education budgets. Over the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars nationwide, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education. In 2009, as the nation plummeted into the deepest recession in 30 years, funding for K–12 and higher education declined; however, in that same year, 33 states spent a larger proportion of their discretionary dollars on prisons than they had the year before.
Other Important Findings from Misplaced Priorities:
1. Over incarceration impacts vulnerable populations and destabilizes communities.
• The majority of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails are people of color, people with mental health issues and drug addiction, people with low levels of educational attainment, and people with a history of unemployment or underemployment.
[Ed: In Canada, the situation is similar: for example, under current legal frameworks and practices, aboriginals are 7 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-aboriginals. Nothing in the Conservative “tough on crime” platform addresses these inequities.]
• The (USA) nation’s reliance on incarceration to respond to social and behavioral health issues is evidenced by the large numbers of people who are incarcerated for drug offenses. Among people in federal prisons, people in local jails, and young people held in the nation’s detention centers and local secure facilities, more than 500,000 people—nearly a quarter of all those incarcerated—are incarcerated as the result of a drug conviction.
• During the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education.
2. In the six cities profiled in the report, the NAACP research team found stark disparities. Approximately each year:
• In Texas, taxpayers will spend more than $175 million to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from just 10 of Houston’s 75 neighborhoods (by zip code). These neighborhoods are home to only about 10 percent of the city’s population but account for more than one-third of the state’s $500 million in prison spending.
• In Pennsylvania, taxpayers will spend nearly $290 million to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from just 11 of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods (by zip code). These neighborhoods are home to just over a quarter of the city’s population but account for more than half of the state’s roughly $500 million in prison spending.
• In New York, taxpayers will spend more than half a billion dollars ($539million) to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from 24 of New York City’s approximately 200 neighborhoods (by zip code). These areas are home to only about 16 percent of the city’s population but account for nearly half of the state’s $1.1 billion in prison spending.
3. Incarceration impacts educational performance at the local level.
• For three cities—Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston—the research team examined the spatial relationship between “high-incarceration communities” and “low-performing schools” (as measured by mathematics proficiency). By grouping five different ranges of incarceration from the two lowest to the two highest, the authors have shown where high- and low-performing schools tend to be clustered:
◦◦In Los Angeles, 69 of the 90 low-performing schools (67 percent) are in neighborhoods with the highest incarceration rates;
◦◦In Philadelphia, 23 of the 35 low-performing schools (66 percent) are clustered in or very near neighborhoods with the highest rates of incarceration; and
◦◦In Houston, 5 of the 6 low-performing schools (83 percent) are in neighborhoods with the highest rates of incarceration.
Call to Action & Recommendations
Among a growing number of states that are finding better ways to manage their corrections systems, four states—Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York—have seen significant declines in their prison population as a result of policy changes that seek to re¬verse the trend of overspending on incarceration. However, the relative successes in these states have yet to spread across the nation or result in increased investments in education.
It is critical that all states prioritize education over incarceration. The NAACP calls for the downsizing of prisons and the shifting of financial resources from secure corrections budgets to education budgets. This can be accomplished if states accept the following recommendations:
1. Study the problem: Support federal, state, and local efforts to create a blue-ribbon commission that will conduct a thorough evaluation of the criminal justice system and offer recommendations for reform in a range of areas, including: sentencing policy, rates of incarceration, law enforcement, crime prevention, substance abuse and mental health treatment, corrections, and reentry.
2. Create reinvestment commissions: Support commissions charged with identifying legislative and policy avenues to downsize prison populations and shift savings from prison closures to education budgets.
3. Eliminate disparities in drug laws: Support efforts to eliminate disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine at the state and federal level.
4. Increase earned time: Support reforms that would allow prisoners to earn an earlier release by participating in educational and vocational programming as well as drug and mental health treatment.
5. Support youth violence reduction programs: Support programs and policies to develop a comprehensive plan for implementing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies for at-risk youth to prevent gang activity and criminal justice involvement.
6. Reform sentencing and drug policies: Eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses that help fuel drug imprisonment.
7. Use diversion for drug-involved individuals: Reform prosecutorial guidelines to divert people to treatment who would otherwise serve a mandatory prison term.
8. Shorten prison terms: Send young offenders who would otherwise receive mandatory sentences to structured programs to help them earn their GED and shave time off their prison sentences.
9. Increase parole release rates: Improve parole boards’ ability to use evidence-based strategies when making decisions to parole prisoners, thus improving parolees’ chances for success and increasing parole approval rates.
10. Reduce revocations of people under community supervision: Develop alternative-to-incarceration programs that will reduce the number of people sent to prison for technical violations.
11. Support reentry and the sealing of records: Support legislation that will close criminal records of certain offenders after they have not committed another crime within a certain number of years.
Reference: NAACP. Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate. April, 2011. http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Accessed April 13, 2011.
OUR COMMENT
Given this backdrop of serious reexamination of failed US prison policies, and the sane response to the ensuing recommendations not only by Democrats but also Republicans, surely it is time that our own Conservative Party of Canada did some serious homework, and cleaned up its own misguided policies on crime? The current divergence between Canadian and US conservative thinking is odd indeed, especially given their otherwise close ideological bonds and operational ties. If a US Republican Party Epiphany was possible, then all is not lost here in Canada: how about a Conservative Epiphany? Alternatively why not throw the blighters out, or at least consider this as yet one more reason to continue to deny them a majority in parliament?
In Canada, a $2-billion prison-building bonanza is about to spawn more than two dozen new prisons as Conservative candidates make pre-election announcements on 8 prisons in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, while in Ontario 3 minimum-security prisons will each get 50 new cells, and Quebec’s medium-security Cowansville Institution a 96 cell addition, in addition to new cells at another Quebec prison.[1]
The motivations behind Prime Minister Harper’s prison obsession appear ideologically driven and politically motivated. There is no evidence of increasing crime in Canada (the overall trend is actually down), nor is there good scientific evidence that incarceration is an effective solution to most of the crime that does occur. Nonetheless, Canada is now scrambling to expand the penitentiary system to house a surging inmate population due to legislative changes that were not properly costed in the first instance. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, abolition of the 2-for-1 pre-trial custody credit will add 4,000 more inmates over the next 5 years, and other proposals including tightened parole rules and more mandatory minimum sentences will have similar effects. These ill considered legislative measures are creating a level of overcrowding that contravenes international standards on treatment of prisoners. It does nothing for rehabilitation, even as it displaces resources away from measures that could prevent crime in the first place.
It is difficult to imagine that any political party now so far into the throes of an election campaign could reverse its own “tough on crime” platform. However, we live in hope, and for this reason offer the following review of the just released and already much acclaimed NAACP policy report from the USA.
We have taken the liberty of minor paraphrasing, so as to focus on what is most relevant to Canada. However, the full report should be required reading by federal politicians of all stripes. Let us learn from this report which documents how Harperian “tough on crime” policies have already been shown to fail south of the border. QUESTION FOR THE ELECTION: Why copy failure?
References
1. Robb Tripp. Harper Government to announce more prison expansion. iPolitics.ca Postmedia News. January 10, 2010. http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/10/harper-government-to-announce-more-prison-expansions/
2. NAACP. Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate. April, 2011. http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Accessed April 13, 2011.
MISPLACED PRIORITIES – The Report
Misplaced Priorities, released by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), America’s leading Civil Rights group, focuses on the over-funding of prisons and under-funding of education in the USA (reference 2 above). The Report reveals how that nation is wasting financial resources on over-incarceration while depriving schools of resources that would help children in distressed communities - who, without adequate education, are at greatest risk of becoming the next generation of prisoners.
Misplaced Priorities examines research and analysis from leading experts on crime, public safety, and education policy, and analyzes new information gathered at neighborhood level to provide a unique local perspective on the national incarceration crisis in the USA. It was released in the context of a Smart and Safe policy framework that ensures public safety as a civil and human right for all communities, especially for the many communities in crisis. Instead of calling for “lock ‘em' up" practices to solve social problems, Smart and Safe was developed to meet public safety goals by meeting community needs and more effectively addressing violent crimes.
Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate
The report’s key conclusion is that excessive spending on incarceration undermines educational opportunity and public safety in communities. States are thereby urged to lock away fewer prisoners for drug offenses, and to redirect some of the massive amount of money that goes to jails to schools.
The report has been endorsed by some politically unexpected allies: former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist, conservative founder of Americans for Tax Reform. "You have Tea Party activists and NAACP activists pushing the same bills," NAACP president Ben Jealous said during a PBS NewsHour report, referencing the prison reform movement in Texas.
Executive Summary – Selected Extracts
In Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate, NAACP researchers assembled data from leading research organizations and profiled 6 cities to show how escalating investments in incarceration over the past 30 years have undermined educational opportunities. Misplaced Priorities is a call to action for public officials, policymakers, and local NAACP units and members by providing a framework to implement a policy agenda that will financially prioritize investments in education over incarceration, provide equal protection under the law, eliminate sentencing policies responsible for over incarceration, and advance public safety strategies that effectively increase healthy community development.
Misplaced Priorities echoes existing research on the impact excessive prison spending has on education budgets. Over the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars nationwide, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education. In 2009, as the nation plummeted into the deepest recession in 30 years, funding for K–12 and higher education declined; however, in that same year, 33 states spent a larger proportion of their discretionary dollars on prisons than they had the year before.
Other Important Findings from Misplaced Priorities:
1. Over incarceration impacts vulnerable populations and destabilizes communities.
• The majority of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails are people of color, people with mental health issues and drug addiction, people with low levels of educational attainment, and people with a history of unemployment or underemployment.
[Ed: In Canada, the situation is similar: for example, under current legal frameworks and practices, aboriginals are 7 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-aboriginals. Nothing in the Conservative “tough on crime” platform addresses these inequities.]
• The (USA) nation’s reliance on incarceration to respond to social and behavioral health issues is evidenced by the large numbers of people who are incarcerated for drug offenses. Among people in federal prisons, people in local jails, and young people held in the nation’s detention centers and local secure facilities, more than 500,000 people—nearly a quarter of all those incarcerated—are incarcerated as the result of a drug conviction.
• During the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education.
2. In the six cities profiled in the report, the NAACP research team found stark disparities. Approximately each year:
• In Texas, taxpayers will spend more than $175 million to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from just 10 of Houston’s 75 neighborhoods (by zip code). These neighborhoods are home to only about 10 percent of the city’s population but account for more than one-third of the state’s $500 million in prison spending.
• In Pennsylvania, taxpayers will spend nearly $290 million to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from just 11 of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods (by zip code). These neighborhoods are home to just over a quarter of the city’s population but account for more than half of the state’s roughly $500 million in prison spending.
• In New York, taxpayers will spend more than half a billion dollars ($539million) to imprison residents sentenced in 2008 from 24 of New York City’s approximately 200 neighborhoods (by zip code). These areas are home to only about 16 percent of the city’s population but account for nearly half of the state’s $1.1 billion in prison spending.
3. Incarceration impacts educational performance at the local level.
• For three cities—Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston—the research team examined the spatial relationship between “high-incarceration communities” and “low-performing schools” (as measured by mathematics proficiency). By grouping five different ranges of incarceration from the two lowest to the two highest, the authors have shown where high- and low-performing schools tend to be clustered:
◦◦In Los Angeles, 69 of the 90 low-performing schools (67 percent) are in neighborhoods with the highest incarceration rates;
◦◦In Philadelphia, 23 of the 35 low-performing schools (66 percent) are clustered in or very near neighborhoods with the highest rates of incarceration; and
◦◦In Houston, 5 of the 6 low-performing schools (83 percent) are in neighborhoods with the highest rates of incarceration.
Call to Action & Recommendations
Among a growing number of states that are finding better ways to manage their corrections systems, four states—Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York—have seen significant declines in their prison population as a result of policy changes that seek to re¬verse the trend of overspending on incarceration. However, the relative successes in these states have yet to spread across the nation or result in increased investments in education.
It is critical that all states prioritize education over incarceration. The NAACP calls for the downsizing of prisons and the shifting of financial resources from secure corrections budgets to education budgets. This can be accomplished if states accept the following recommendations:
1. Study the problem: Support federal, state, and local efforts to create a blue-ribbon commission that will conduct a thorough evaluation of the criminal justice system and offer recommendations for reform in a range of areas, including: sentencing policy, rates of incarceration, law enforcement, crime prevention, substance abuse and mental health treatment, corrections, and reentry.
2. Create reinvestment commissions: Support commissions charged with identifying legislative and policy avenues to downsize prison populations and shift savings from prison closures to education budgets.
3. Eliminate disparities in drug laws: Support efforts to eliminate disparities in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine at the state and federal level.
4. Increase earned time: Support reforms that would allow prisoners to earn an earlier release by participating in educational and vocational programming as well as drug and mental health treatment.
5. Support youth violence reduction programs: Support programs and policies to develop a comprehensive plan for implementing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies for at-risk youth to prevent gang activity and criminal justice involvement.
6. Reform sentencing and drug policies: Eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses that help fuel drug imprisonment.
7. Use diversion for drug-involved individuals: Reform prosecutorial guidelines to divert people to treatment who would otherwise serve a mandatory prison term.
8. Shorten prison terms: Send young offenders who would otherwise receive mandatory sentences to structured programs to help them earn their GED and shave time off their prison sentences.
9. Increase parole release rates: Improve parole boards’ ability to use evidence-based strategies when making decisions to parole prisoners, thus improving parolees’ chances for success and increasing parole approval rates.
10. Reduce revocations of people under community supervision: Develop alternative-to-incarceration programs that will reduce the number of people sent to prison for technical violations.
11. Support reentry and the sealing of records: Support legislation that will close criminal records of certain offenders after they have not committed another crime within a certain number of years.
Reference: NAACP. Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate. April, 2011. http://naacp.3cdn.net/01d6f368edbe135234_bq0m68x5h.pdf Accessed April 13, 2011.
OUR COMMENT
Given this backdrop of serious reexamination of failed US prison policies, and the sane response to the ensuing recommendations not only by Democrats but also Republicans, surely it is time that our own Conservative Party of Canada did some serious homework, and cleaned up its own misguided policies on crime? The current divergence between Canadian and US conservative thinking is odd indeed, especially given their otherwise close ideological bonds and operational ties. If a US Republican Party Epiphany was possible, then all is not lost here in Canada: how about a Conservative Epiphany? Alternatively why not throw the blighters out, or at least consider this as yet one more reason to continue to deny them a majority in parliament?
Monday 14 March 2011
COMPARATIVE RISKS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
PREAMBLE: Need for Objectivity in light of Japan’s Emergency.
The situation of Japan, following the world’s fifth largest recorded earthquake since 1900 and resulting tsunami, is catastrophic. It is possible that tens of thousands may have drowned, swept away with their coastal infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, have been displaced and lost family members and their livelihoods.
The catastrophe has given rise to a new emergency as a result of damage to several nuclear power plants. There is a risk of reactor meltdown. Containment efforts now underway are in a dynamic phase, with changes in status reported on a continuous basis.
Although there appears to have been comprehensive coverage of Japan’s humanitarian disaster, the global media is also monitoring this sub-story with an intensity that may turn out to be disproportionate to the overall catastrophe, or perhaps not, giving time to both nuclear power proponents and adversaries to vent their opportunistic viewpoints.
Even some mainstream media in Canada (e.g., CTV 10 pm News, March 14 Pacific DST) appeared to hype this aspect of the disaster, seemingly appealing to populist fear about nuclear power, rather than objectively placing this in the perspective of the far greater human impact of a massive earthquake and tsunami. American PBS Newshour at 6pm was more balanced.
In light of these observations, we searched for up to date sources of scientific information on nuclear safety, and selected as a primary reference for this issue a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources [1]. We refer readers to it (reference below) for a policy-relevant technical document, written for intelligent lay readers.
A RATIONAL APPROACH TO ENERGY CHOICES
Some Observations (our italics added for selective emphasis)
As the 2010 OECD report notes, many countries are reconsidering the role of nuclear energy in their energy mix, as a means to alleviate the concerns over climate change, security of energy supply and the price and price volatility of fossil fuels. However, nuclear energy remains a contentious technology in some political circles and in the minds of many members of the public.
One of the common themes of concern is the safety of nuclear power plants. However a rational choice of energy sources should involve an even handed comparison of risks across the various energy chains available.
There is little value in rejecting one source if that which replaces it presents even greater hazards. The purpose of the OECD document therefore, is said to provide energy policy makers with quality data and information that will enable understanding of how accident risks are managed in nuclear plants and also to provide a rational analysis of the relative risks presented by the various major energy chains used for the production of electricity.
The OECD report presented data compiled by the Paul Scherrer Institute (Switzerland) on accidents causing five or more prompt deaths in the energy industry between 1969 and 2000, during which there were 1870 such severe accidents globally resulting in 81,258 deaths. The only severe accident at a nuclear power plant (Chernobyl) killed 31 plant and emergency workers.
Regarding long range health impacts in areas affected by Chernobyl, one set of OECD estimates project up to 33,000 eventual deaths over 70 years, using a particular assumption. However, the assumption is that of a "linear dose response relationship with no threshold" (LNT), and if the same logic is applied to background radiation (normally experienced by all people) … "for the 70 years…the collective dose from natural background would be… 1500 times larger, therefore theoretically causing 1500 times as many fatalities (~50 million) due to exposure to natural background radiation…” Clearly the validity of the LNT model is controversial at best, and some consider it discredited.
With nuclear accidents being so rare, and data on resulting adverse health and safety outcomes therefore being so limited, the OECD analysis also uses an alternative technique called “probabilistic safety analysis”. Applied to a Swiss nuclear power plant, this shows a 1 in 1 million-year probability of an accident serious enough to cause 2000 latent fatalities. Overall, the likelihood of an accident and radiological release at a new nuclear plant is 1600 times lower than it was when the first reactors were built.
Interestingly, latent deaths from accidents in non-nuclear energy sources were not included, although premature deaths caused by particulates from fossil fuel generation are estimated at around 288,000 per year worldwide.
Translation: Consider this in terms of over a million dead every four years from inhaling the emissions of burning fossil fuel!
From such OECD analyses and observations therefore, it is difficult not to recognize and concur with their observation that...
"Overall, accident-related deaths from (nuclear) energy use are much smaller than those that result from the health effects of fossil fuel emissions, but they attract much more media and public attention."
Discussion
The US Academy of Sciences, like scientific advisory bodies of other nations, has recognized for decades that all energy systems entail some health, environmental, or socio-political risks. But there is considerable difference among various energy systems in the magnitude, timing, and nature of these associated risks. It is this difference that allows (and requires) a degree of choice,…with regard to selecting energy alternatives.[2]
However, Japan’s current nuclear power plant emergency is being utilized by at least some of the world media to focus concern on the global expansion of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel. Although there may be some special interests also involved in this position, such concerns have a completely legitimate foundation, especially in Japan, the only country ever to have experienced the human tragedy of nuclear bombing. Nonetheless, issues surrounding the development of nuclear power are highly complex and choices between nuclear and alternative sources should involve relevant comparisons of risks and benefits.
The body of up to date scientific evidence presented in the referenced OECD report indicates that nuclear power may be the safest available option to meet the energy demands of developed and developing nations.[1] By contrast, based on the evidence, fossil fuels are actually the most hazardous, whether through the perspective of human health (short or long term) and environmental impacts e.g., global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectricity appears safe (notwithstanding that the worst energy-related accident is the Banqiao/Shimantan dam failure in China, when ~30,000 people were killed in 1975), but the reality is that most hydro opportunities are already exploited. The potential of biofuels, wind and tidal power, also appear to have significant trade-offs (e.g., crops for food versus fuel; environmental and aestheic impacts of wind power; fish migration, bird habitat disruption, silt build up with regard to tidal power); however, there may be more potential in these options than currently realized as technologies advance, and this may be true also for solar and geothermal power.
Conclusion
In the end, it is obvious that risks are associated with every source of energy. And of course, in each setting decisions must be made as to the viability of available choices. However, rather than the media exploiting reactor damage associated with Japan’s major earthquake and tsunami, surely it would be more responsible journalism to promote a debate better informed by scientific evidence, taking into account long term biological and environmental sustainability, and placed in the global context.
References:
1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources OECD Nuclear Energy Agency NEA No. 6861. ISBN 978-92-64-99122-4. http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf Accessed March 14, 2011.
2. Energy Policy and Strategy. National Center for Atmospheric Research. In: Proceedings of a Conference on Non-Fossil Fuel and Non-Nuclear Fuel Energy Strategies. Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1979, Pages 919-931 Honolulu, Hawaii.
The situation of Japan, following the world’s fifth largest recorded earthquake since 1900 and resulting tsunami, is catastrophic. It is possible that tens of thousands may have drowned, swept away with their coastal infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, have been displaced and lost family members and their livelihoods.
The catastrophe has given rise to a new emergency as a result of damage to several nuclear power plants. There is a risk of reactor meltdown. Containment efforts now underway are in a dynamic phase, with changes in status reported on a continuous basis.
Although there appears to have been comprehensive coverage of Japan’s humanitarian disaster, the global media is also monitoring this sub-story with an intensity that may turn out to be disproportionate to the overall catastrophe, or perhaps not, giving time to both nuclear power proponents and adversaries to vent their opportunistic viewpoints.
Even some mainstream media in Canada (e.g., CTV 10 pm News, March 14 Pacific DST) appeared to hype this aspect of the disaster, seemingly appealing to populist fear about nuclear power, rather than objectively placing this in the perspective of the far greater human impact of a massive earthquake and tsunami. American PBS Newshour at 6pm was more balanced.
In light of these observations, we searched for up to date sources of scientific information on nuclear safety, and selected as a primary reference for this issue a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources [1]. We refer readers to it (reference below) for a policy-relevant technical document, written for intelligent lay readers.
A RATIONAL APPROACH TO ENERGY CHOICES
Some Observations (our italics added for selective emphasis)
As the 2010 OECD report notes, many countries are reconsidering the role of nuclear energy in their energy mix, as a means to alleviate the concerns over climate change, security of energy supply and the price and price volatility of fossil fuels. However, nuclear energy remains a contentious technology in some political circles and in the minds of many members of the public.
One of the common themes of concern is the safety of nuclear power plants. However a rational choice of energy sources should involve an even handed comparison of risks across the various energy chains available.
There is little value in rejecting one source if that which replaces it presents even greater hazards. The purpose of the OECD document therefore, is said to provide energy policy makers with quality data and information that will enable understanding of how accident risks are managed in nuclear plants and also to provide a rational analysis of the relative risks presented by the various major energy chains used for the production of electricity.
The OECD report presented data compiled by the Paul Scherrer Institute (Switzerland) on accidents causing five or more prompt deaths in the energy industry between 1969 and 2000, during which there were 1870 such severe accidents globally resulting in 81,258 deaths. The only severe accident at a nuclear power plant (Chernobyl) killed 31 plant and emergency workers.
Regarding long range health impacts in areas affected by Chernobyl, one set of OECD estimates project up to 33,000 eventual deaths over 70 years, using a particular assumption. However, the assumption is that of a "linear dose response relationship with no threshold" (LNT), and if the same logic is applied to background radiation (normally experienced by all people) … "for the 70 years…the collective dose from natural background would be… 1500 times larger, therefore theoretically causing 1500 times as many fatalities (~50 million) due to exposure to natural background radiation…” Clearly the validity of the LNT model is controversial at best, and some consider it discredited.
With nuclear accidents being so rare, and data on resulting adverse health and safety outcomes therefore being so limited, the OECD analysis also uses an alternative technique called “probabilistic safety analysis”. Applied to a Swiss nuclear power plant, this shows a 1 in 1 million-year probability of an accident serious enough to cause 2000 latent fatalities. Overall, the likelihood of an accident and radiological release at a new nuclear plant is 1600 times lower than it was when the first reactors were built.
Interestingly, latent deaths from accidents in non-nuclear energy sources were not included, although premature deaths caused by particulates from fossil fuel generation are estimated at around 288,000 per year worldwide.
Translation: Consider this in terms of over a million dead every four years from inhaling the emissions of burning fossil fuel!
From such OECD analyses and observations therefore, it is difficult not to recognize and concur with their observation that...
"Overall, accident-related deaths from (nuclear) energy use are much smaller than those that result from the health effects of fossil fuel emissions, but they attract much more media and public attention."
Discussion
The US Academy of Sciences, like scientific advisory bodies of other nations, has recognized for decades that all energy systems entail some health, environmental, or socio-political risks. But there is considerable difference among various energy systems in the magnitude, timing, and nature of these associated risks. It is this difference that allows (and requires) a degree of choice,…with regard to selecting energy alternatives.[2]
However, Japan’s current nuclear power plant emergency is being utilized by at least some of the world media to focus concern on the global expansion of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel. Although there may be some special interests also involved in this position, such concerns have a completely legitimate foundation, especially in Japan, the only country ever to have experienced the human tragedy of nuclear bombing. Nonetheless, issues surrounding the development of nuclear power are highly complex and choices between nuclear and alternative sources should involve relevant comparisons of risks and benefits.
The body of up to date scientific evidence presented in the referenced OECD report indicates that nuclear power may be the safest available option to meet the energy demands of developed and developing nations.[1] By contrast, based on the evidence, fossil fuels are actually the most hazardous, whether through the perspective of human health (short or long term) and environmental impacts e.g., global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectricity appears safe (notwithstanding that the worst energy-related accident is the Banqiao/Shimantan dam failure in China, when ~30,000 people were killed in 1975), but the reality is that most hydro opportunities are already exploited. The potential of biofuels, wind and tidal power, also appear to have significant trade-offs (e.g., crops for food versus fuel; environmental and aestheic impacts of wind power; fish migration, bird habitat disruption, silt build up with regard to tidal power); however, there may be more potential in these options than currently realized as technologies advance, and this may be true also for solar and geothermal power.
Conclusion
In the end, it is obvious that risks are associated with every source of energy. And of course, in each setting decisions must be made as to the viability of available choices. However, rather than the media exploiting reactor damage associated with Japan’s major earthquake and tsunami, surely it would be more responsible journalism to promote a debate better informed by scientific evidence, taking into account long term biological and environmental sustainability, and placed in the global context.
References:
1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources OECD Nuclear Energy Agency NEA No. 6861. ISBN 978-92-64-99122-4. http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf Accessed March 14, 2011.
2. Energy Policy and Strategy. National Center for Atmospheric Research. In: Proceedings of a Conference on Non-Fossil Fuel and Non-Nuclear Fuel Energy Strategies. Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1979, Pages 919-931 Honolulu, Hawaii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
