Global Shield Newsletter (13 September 2023)
Reducing the impact of GCR on more vulnerable countries, and governing shared GCR characteristics
This twice-monthly newsletter highlights the latest policy, research and news on global catastrophic risk (GCR).
Reducing the impact of GCR on more vulnerable countries
Last week, Kenya hosted the inaugural Africa Climate Summit as part of Africa Climate Week, a UN-organized event for governments, businesses, international organizations and civil society to explore ways to reduce the impact of climate change. Africa is facing a huge financing, technology and capability gap in its climate resilience. A new Oxfam report highlights that over 31 million people are facing acute hunger across Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and South Sudan due to extreme droughts and flooding. A paper in Nature also highlights the toll that climate and weather events are having on Africa compared to many other countries. As highlighted in a report by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction earlier this year, deficits in resilience to disasters throughout the world are also inhibiting progress to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Meanwhile, debates around an already controversial pandemic treaty are hampered by a divide in access to resources by wealthy countries versus countries with less wealth. Yet, many of the countries that face the greatest pandemic risk are low-and-middle-income countries in tropical regions, where urban development is infringing on natural habitats and leading to an increase in exposure to diseases that can jump from animals to humans. As a report from Reuters points out, “Already struggling for resources to strengthen their public health systems, governments of developing nations need even more funds if they are to invest in prevention.”
Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are generally more vulnerable to global catastrophic risk. Although these countries are justifiably concerned about the current and future effects of climate change, they are also at greater risk than many high-income countries from pandemics, major disruptions to food production and supply, and conflict, particularly driven by advanced technologies. In many cases, these LMICs will bear a disproportionate proportion of its impacts. Additionally, as a result of internal instability, poor governance and lack of infrastructure, LMICs can be very unprepared to deal with GCR in the coming years.
High-income countries and other countries that are better prepared for GCR must take increased measures to support these countries’ resilience to GCR. Actions could include fulfilling commitments to climate financing, increasing development and finance assistance, establishing monitoring and early-warning systems - particularly for tracking weather conditions - and increasing technology transfer. High-income countries should also incentivize and use advanced artificial intelligence that progresses peace and security outcomes. For example, AI could help achieve the SDGs in a variety of ways while also reducing GCR, including with mediating conflicts, breaking down communication barriers, and supporting decisions around humanitarian assistance, disaster recovery and climate resilience.
See also:
A recently published book chapter on the vulnerability of LMICs to “a Toxic Triumvirate of climate change, conflict, and contagion”.
Governing shared GCR characteristics
A new report by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction suggests that current governance systems “are not fit for purpose to address worst-case scenarios, which are emerging, exponential and global in scope.” The report was written in conjunction with the Simon Institute for Longterm Governance, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and the International Science Council. It identifies ten geological, biological, technological and social hazards that have global escalation potential, including volcanic gases and aerosols, pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, harmful algal blooms, nuclear agents and nuclear winter, and international armed conflict. These hazards share a number of common characteristics, including technological origins, erosion of trust and cooperation, and severe, fatal and rapid cascading impacts across multiple ecosystems and geographies.
An all-hazards approach to GCR can focus on governing the shared risk characteristics across multiple hazards and threats. As the report’s authors state, “governance can be designed and organized around their impacts and implications and could thus adapt to new potential hazards which, even if difficult to predict, will likely share the same characteristics.” Reducing GCR will need governance arrangements that better coordinate between stakeholders - particularly between national and sub-national (i.e., state) levels, and with private sector and civil society. Sufficient assessment and warning protocols can inform governments when urgent attention or action is needed to nip escalating hazards early. Extreme hazards typically overwhelm multiple systems, requiring societal, economic and infrastructure systems to be prepared for a range of risk and stress-tested for scenarios that could cause them to collapse. Although governments should take action on individual hazards, these efforts would be more effective and long-lasting if supported by policies that tackle the linkages and similarities between the hazards.
See also:
Our previous newsletter on taking an all-hazards approach to GCR.
New paper from Global Shield’s Rumtin Sepasspour
Rumtin, our Director of Policy, has a new publication in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on the global governance of artificial intelligence titled, “A reality check and a way forward for the global governance of artificial intelligence.” Find the article on the Bulletin website or on tandfonline. It provides a pragmatic yet optimistic path for developing global AI governance, which faces major institutional, technological and geopolitical challenges. The article is part of a special edition on AI, covering topics relating to military technology, chatbots, public health and nuclear material.
Abstract: Global governance of artificial intelligence (AI) must grapple with four monumental challenges. AI is a tough problem to govern given the speed, scale, and uncertainty of its progress. Various aspects of the AI problem require governing because of the range of benefits, risks, and impacts on other global issues. Multilateral efforts on AI are nascent, as is national-level policy. And the multilateral system is under immense pressure from institutional gridlock, fragmentation, and geopolitical competition. No one global governance model for AI is perfect, or desirable. Instead, policymakers must pursue several governance models, each starting in a targeted and focused manner before evolving. They must make clear what policy outcomes are being sought and which institutional functions are needed to reach those outcomes. AI governance within regional and multilateral issue-based groupings would commit nations to action and test models for governing AI globally. And national champions will be critical to success. This pragmatic yet optimistic path will allow humanity to maximize the benefits of artificial intelligence applications and distribute them as widely as possible, while mitigating harms and reducing risks as effectively as possible.
Reach out on rumtin.sepasspour [@] globalshieldpolicy.org if you have any questions or comments on this paper.