The divide between the global north and the global south is quite prominent when it comes to the critical question of who pollutes more or who causes the more destruction of natural resources across the globe.
By Salam Rajesh
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2021 (16th Edition) has a fair set of risk analysis that could probably determine life for everyone in the next few years and onto decades, given the context of the current pandemic that upset life for millions across the globe. The latest Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS) of the WEF conducted beyond continents, warns that ‘among the highest likelihood risks of the next ten years are extreme weather, climate action failure and human-led environmental damage; as well as digital power concentration, digital inequality and cyber security failure’.
The report does not mince words when it says that ‘among the highest impact risks of the next decade, infectious diseases are in the top spot’, as well as ‘weapons of mass destruction, livelihood crises, debt crises and IT infrastructure breakdown’.
The Covid-19 pandemic which has cost the lives of more than two million people worldwide, is expected to disrupt life for many more beyond 2021 even as the year 2020 saw economic crises with markets failing and small scale businesses hit hard. School going children missed classes and friends entirely from March 2020 onwards, and most parts of the world had health related issues – besieged by the killer virus that spread from Wuhan.
The report spells it out quite clearly that the pandemic’s economic shockwave, wherein working hours equivalent to 495 million jobs were lost in the second quarter of 2020 alone, will immediately increase inequality particularly among the working class and the marginalized sections. This could be interpreted to have implications in society, widening the divide between the haves and the have-nots.
A worried analysis of the report is that a polarized industrial landscape may emerge in post-pandemic global scenario, more likely to hit the third world countries below the belt. The business risks induced by the crisis include ‘stagnation in advanced economies and lost potential in emerging and developing markets, the collapse of small businesses, widening the gaps between major and minor companies and reducing market dynamism, and exacerbation of inequality; making it harder to achieve long-term sustainable development’.
As in the other parts of the globe, small businesses in the region have considerably been impacted by the months-long shutdown of market and trade. Ranging from street vendors to small traders and struggling entrepreneurs, most economies have been impacted to a scale where recovery will be rather slow and none too possible for those without enough financial background and support. Many of the small-time entrepreneurs in the State are struggling to cope with their losing businesses, and in trying to achieve breakthrough in recovery against financial hardships. Only a few entrepreneurs received government support through the Startup schemes, but that too with some hassles.
Defining better pathways in post-pandemic scenario, WEF’s Global Risks Report outlines the global preparedness as basically looking at four key areas in response to the Covid-19 crisis and beyond, namely, (a) institutional authority, (b) risk financing, (c) information collection and sharing, and (d) equipment and vaccines. At the national level the risk responses focuses on five aspects, namely, (a) Government decision-making, (b) public communication, (c) health system capabilities, (d) lockdown management, and (e) financial assistance to the vulnerable. The daily wage-earners, workers, small-time traders and entrepreneurs fit in the definition of ‘vulnerable sector’.
The global level survey drew several responses varied in nature and in perception. In the first category of what people expect in the next two years (2021-2022) as part of the post-pandemic assessment, 58 percent of the respondents said the risk of infectious diseases is the most critical threat to the entire world. Next to this, 55.1 percent said livelihoods crises matters most, while 52.7 opined extreme weather conditions and 35.6 percent responded as human induced environmental damages.
In the second category of what people expect in the next 3 to 5 years, 52.9 percent responded that price instability is the most critical threat in post-pandemic scenario, while 52.7 percent said commodity shocks and 52.3 percent said debt crises would be the determining factors beyond 2022. In this age of information technology, 53.3 percent worried respondents said information technology breakdown is critical in the next half decade following the market shocks resulting from the pandemic.
In the third category of assessment of what people expect in the next 5 to 10 years in post-pandemic scenario, 62.7 percent responded that escalation in accumulation of weapons of mass destruction is the singular most critical threat for the world. This focuses on the emerging ‘cold war’ campaign of communist China targeted on capitalist United States. In this assessment, 51.8 percent responded that collapse of State (mechanism) is the next critical threat, while 51.2 percent responded on biodiversity loss and 38.3 percent on climate action failure as perceived threats.
Quite interestingly, while 39.7 percent respondents saw industry collapse as critical in next 10 years, 43.4 percent respondents said social security collapse would be highly critical in this decade. Both the assessment focuses on the related crises in market failures and economies failing with trade and businesses breaking down during the pandemic, more pronounced in the developing and the under-developed countries. In the midst of this market assessment, 43.9 percent respondents said they saw natural resource crises as equally critical in the coming years. This perception comes from the events enfolding wherein big time companies reportedly are making inroads into natural resource tapping with proactive support from governments.
The findings of WEF’s global risks factors, however, does not come as complete surprise given the reasoning that heads of states in Brazil, United States, Australia, Peru, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and several other countries have since been engaged in dilution of environmental laws and paving way for industrialists and mining companies to tap natural resources from pristine rainforests, peatlands, water bodies and other natural landscapes. The risks factor assessments naturally outline threats to biodiversity and natural resources as critical in this decade and beyond.
The United Nations’ subsidiary bodies like Convention on Biological Diversity, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Convention on Migratory Species, UN Convention to Combat Desertification, UN Convention on Climate Change, World Economic Forum, etc. have since been focusing on addressing myriad issues plaguing the world primary as a direct reason of negative human interventions. Prominent issues like damming rivers, large scale forest and peatland depletion for mining, oil and natural gas exploration, commercial plantations and cattle-rearing, urbanization and industrial expansion are being debated in the global forums.
The divide between the global north and the global south is quite prominent when it comes to the critical question of who pollutes more or who causes the more destruction of natural resources across the globe. The tipping balance between damages caused by developed nations in the Americas and Europe with the impacts on developing countries in Asia and the Pacific region has always been the touchy subject of discussion in international circles. It is world leaders like outgoing US President Donald Trump who create problems for everybody, irrespective of nations and races.
(The writer is a media professional and an environmentalist. He can be reached at [email protected])