Friday, June 11, 2021

The WHO seeks to end human rights violations in psychiatry

The mental health care services in Europe and globally in the main continues to be provided in psychiatric wards and hospitals. As The European Times is documenting human rights abuses and coercive practices in these facilities are common. The World Health Organization (WHO) in new guidance material released this week evidence that providing community-based mental health care that is both respectful of human rights and focused on recovery is proving successful and cost-effective.

Mental health care recommended in the new guidance by WHO should be located in the community and should not only encompass mental health care but also support for day-to-day living, such as facilitating access to accommodation and links with education and employment services.

WHO’s new “Guidance on community mental health services: promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches” further affirms that mental health care must be grounded in a human rights-based approach, as recommended by the WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2020-2030 endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2021.

Fast transition to redesigned mental health services required

“This comprehensive new guidance provides a strong argument for a much faster transition from mental health services that use coercion and focus almost exclusively on the use of medication to manage symptoms of mental health conditions, to a more holistic approach that takes into account the specific circumstances and wishes of the individual and offers a variety of approaches for treatment and support,” said Dr Michelle Funk of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Use, who led the development of the guidance.

Since the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006, an increasing number of countries have sought to reform their laws, policies and services related to mental health care. All European countries have signed and ratified this Convention. However, to date, few countries have established the frameworks necessary to meet the far-reaching changes required by international human rights standards.

Reports from around the world highlight that severe human rights abuses and coercive practices are still far too common in countries of all income levels. Examples include forced admission and forced treatment; manual, physical and chemical restraint; unsanitary living conditions; and physical and verbal abuse.

The majority of government mental health budgets still goes to psychiatric hospitals

According to WHO’s latest estimates, governments spend less than 2% of their health budgets on mental health. Furthermore, the majority of reported expenditure on mental health is allocated to psychiatric hospitals, except in high-income countries where the figure is around 43%.

The new guidance, which is intended primarily for people with responsibility for organizing and managing mental health care, presents details of what is required in areas such as mental health law, policy and strategy, service delivery, financing, workforce development and civil society participation in order for mental health services to be compliant with the CRPD.

It includes examples from countries including Brazil, India, Kenya, Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom of community-based mental health services that have demonstrated good practices in respect of non-coercive practices, community inclusion, and respect of people’s legal capacity (i.e. the right to make decisions about their treatment and life).

Services include crisis support, mental health services provided within general hospitals, outreach services, supported living approaches and support provided by peer groups. Information about financing and results of evaluations of the services presented are included. Cost comparisons provided indicate that the community-based services showcased produce good outcomes, are preferred by service users and can be provided at comparable cost to mainstream mental health services.

“Transformation of mental health service provision must, however, be accompanied by significant changes in the social sector,” said Gerard Quinn, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. “Until that happens, the discrimination that prevents people with mental health conditions from leading full and productive lives will continue.”

Saturday, June 5, 2021

Patients see psychiatric restraints as torture

The widespread use of a variety of coercive measures in psychiatry has a strong and traumatic impact on patients. Stronger than the psychiatric staff actually believe.

The European Times reported that studies have looked at the patient’s viewpoints of the use of coercion in psychiatric services. In a 2016 study by Paul McLaughlin of the Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development in England, he and the co-authors reported, that: “qualitative studies consistently show that coercive measures can be experienced by patients as humiliating and distressing.”

Studies make it clear that there may be very serious problems related to the use of force and coercion in psychiatry. The use of seclusion and restrain have been investigated and reported on in hundreds of publications that are available through the medical bibliographical database Medline.

Professor of psychiatry, Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino, carried out an analysis of the views of patients who had been subjected to the use of seclusion and restraints. The analysis was based on a review of 300 Medline publications that were available in 2004. In a lecture to the Association of European Psychiatrists’ 12th European Congress of Psychiatry she stated based on this review, that: “in all the studies that have studied patients’ negative experiences the patients have emphasized the experience that it has been a punishment.

Prof. Kaltiala-Heino specified,

So, many of the patients think that they have been secluded or restrained because they were punished for some behaviour that was unacceptable or because of a breaking of rules of the board. From more than half of the patients up to almost 90 percent of the patients in various studies have reported that they perceive seclusion as punishment even as torture.

Coercion causing psychiatric symptoms

Prof. Kaltiala-Heino added, “And patients have also reported increase in a number of psychiatric symptoms including depression, suicidal ideation, hallucinations, loss of contact with reality. So, they feel depersonalized and de-realization experiences have been reported. Patients have also reported persisting nightmares in which they in kind of in their eyes are featured in the seclusion processes, the seclusion situation, the seclusion room of being locking in or tied. It can easily be traced back to the experience of seclusion or restraint.

The use of such interventions not only may be humiliating and seen as punishment or torture, they also cause strong feeling against the psychiatric staff. In the studies patients talk about, and discuss the anger against the staff who carried out the procedure.

Patients who themselves had been secluded also felt angry and threatened when others were being secluded indicating the lasting traumatic effect the use of seclusion and restraint may have.

Prof. Kaltiala-Heino further noted, that “in most of the studies that have concentrated on patients’ experiences of seclusion and restraint, the negative experiences reported greatly outnumber the positive aspects.

Psychiatric staff misperceive the actual negative effect

Prof. Kaltiala-Heino said, that from the review of the studies one can conclude that: “staff assumes that patients have a much more positive experiences than what patients actually have.” And she added: “The patients also report much greater variety of negative experiences and much more, much stronger feeling of negative experiences than staff assume they have.”

The misperception goes even further. Prof. Kaltiala-Heino found that: “While staff believes that the seclusion primarily helps the patients, all the patients, the other patients in the ward … when the one who is behaving in the most disturbing and violent way is removed from the interactions. And secondly it benefits the patient her or himself – the target patient. And only in the third rank it is useful for the staff. Then patients who have been secluded actually think that it is the staffs who gains the most benefit of this processes and the least themselves – the persons who was secluded, him or herself.

Prof. Kaltiala-Heino concluded that despite the research is sporadic and the methodology used is inconsistent that they all nevertheless point in the same direction, that: “the more powerful restriction and the more coercion is used, the more negative the experiences of the patients.

Friday, June 4, 2021

UN welcomes creation of GlobE Network to end cross-border corruption

 © UNODC

New York, 3 June 2021 — The first ever UN General Assembly special session against corruption welcomed the launch of a new global network today to “develop a quick, agile and efficient tool for combatting cross-border corruption offences.”

The Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE Network) offers UN Member States and States parties to the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) the ability to connect anti-corruption practitioners with their counterparts in different countries. It provides channels for secure and informal information exchange on specific cases, legislation, intelligence and anti-corruption tools.

“The Network will enable law enforcement authorities to navigate legal processes through informal cooperation across borders, helping to build trust and bring those guilty of corruption to justice,” said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in a special video message. “We expect the Globe Network to empower all countries with practical solutions and tools to track, investigate and prosecute corruption, complementing existing frameworks.”

The GlobE Network was officially launched today at an in-person event at the Vienna International Centre, along with an online option. More than 340 representatives of Member States, anti-corruption authorities and law enforcement networks participated. They discussed the importance of timely cross-border cooperation to end corruption and the unique role of the GlobE Network.

“Conceived during the G20’s first-ever ministerial meeting on anti-corruption in 2020, this network will put into action an important provision of the Convention: the improvement of direct cooperation between law enforcement authorities,” said Ms. Ghada Waly, Executive Director of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

“Many countries are still not able to access anti-corruption networks whether due to decentralized processes or lack of capacity and resources,“ said H.E. Mr. Mazin Ibrahim M Al Kahmous, President, Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority, Nazaha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. “The G20 ‘Riyadh Initiative’ to create the GlobE Network, is meant to address this gap.”

Initial funding for the GlobE Network was provided by the Government of Saudi Arabia during their G20 Presidency and as the chair of the Anti-Corruption Working Group of the G20. The GlobE Network will be headquartered in Vienna under the auspices of the UNODC.

For a list of speakers at today’s launch event, please click here.

A recording of today’s launch will be made available on the GlobE Network website at https://globenetwork.unodc.org

About the GlobE Network

The Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE Network) is a platform for secure peer-to-peer information exchange and informal cooperation to better track and prosecute cross-border corruption offences and recover stolen assets. Founded in 2021, the GlobE Network is open to anti-corruption law enforcement authorities in all UN Member States and States parties to the UN Convention against Corruption.

Visit: https://globenetwork.unodc.org

Thursday, June 3, 2021

The European Union and the United Kingdom agree on fishing quotas

RTL.de>

Negotiations lasted six months

After Brexit, many areas of life and the economy between the EU and Great Britain will have to be renegotiated, including fishing. Because important fish stocks will continue to be jointly managed even after Great Britain leaves the European Union. After nearly half a year of negotiations, it is now possible to determine the catch quotas for these commonly used fish stocks.

The European Union Commission announced on Wednesday evening that the successful conclusion of the negotiations that began in January will create a solid basis for further cooperation in the field of fisheries. The agreement sets the total allowable catch for 75 of the joint fishing stocks for 2021 and for some deep-sea stocks for the years 2021 and 2022. It will also provide clarification on access restrictions for species that are not subject to quotas.

The responsible EU commissioner, Virginius Syncevicius, commented that the agreement creates predictability and continuity for the rest of the year. It is beneficial for fishermen, coastal communities and ports, but is also beneficial for the sustainable use of marine resources.

The negotiations were based on the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom agreed upon after Brexit at the end of 2020. In it, the contracting parties set themselves a common goal of “the application of the quota system to the management of common stocks, with a view to preserving the stocks of species that They are caught and gradually reduced by biomass values ​​at the highest possible level that a sustainable yield can be achieved.”

Together with Great Britain, the European Union manages large parts of the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. Fisheries has been the hardest part of the post-Brexit trade deal negotiations between the EU and the UK.(dpa/aze)

EU Bishops address President von der Leyen: “The EU Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion should have adequate resources"

 

EU Bishops address President von der Leyen: “The EU Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion should have adequate resources” 

In a letter addressed to EC President von der Leyen on Wednesday 2 June 2021, the Bishops of the European Union recall the need of strengthening the EU Special Envoy of Freedom of Religion or Belief with institutional and financial support. Card. Hollerich: “reasonable and adequate resources are needed to promote this fundamental right under threat in many parts of the world.” 

 

On behalf of the Bishops of the European Union, H. Em. Jean-Claude Cardinal Hollerich SJ, President of COMECE, addressed a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, following the early-May 2021 statement welcoming the appointment of Christos Stylianides as ‘EU Special Envoy on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion and Belief outside the EU’. 

 

Cardinal Hollerich emphasises the remarkable work done by the EU mechanism since its creation in May 2016. The previous EU Special Envoy addressed challenging situations in many countries where freedom of thought, conscience and religion is seriously threatened or violented, “despite its limited mandate and resources”. 

 

In the letter, Cardinal Hollerich recalls the need of strengthening the EU mechanism, and requests EC President von der Leyen to support it “with reasonable and adequate human and financial resources that enable the EU Special Envoy to carry on his high responsibility, with a more ambitious and defined mandate and capacity”, as expressed by the January 2021 resolution of the European Parliament. 

 

The President of COMECE expresses Bishops’ satisfaction with the recent appointment of Stylianides, whose previous commitment as Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid opened “fresh space for cooperation with Churches and Faith-Based Organisations in humanitarian activities as well as for interreligious dialogue leading to a better protection of human rights and mutual understanding in conflict situations.” 

 

“His appointment – continues the letter – will give voice to the voiceless individuals and communities whose freedom of thought, conscience, and religion are violated, being subject to intolerance, discrimination and, in some cases, even, persecution.”

Download

Letter (EN)

Press Release: FR – DE – ES – IT

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Council of Europe in big controversy on human rights abuse

The Committee on Bioethics, a Committee working at the Committee of Ministers’ level of the Council of Europe is meeting this week to discuss a final draft of a new legal instrument that was to protect human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders. The document however has received severe criticism culminating in the United Nations stepping in with a joint statement of its human rights experts requesting the delegates of the meeting to “object to the draft Additional Protocol in the upcoming meeting and we urge the Council of Europe to end legitimising forced institutionalization and the use of coercion against persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities.”

we urge the Council of Europe to end legitimising forced institutionalization and the use of coercion against persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities“.

UN Experts

About the draft of Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe.

The United Nations experts, which include their Special Rapporteurs on rights to physical and mental health and on disability and the UN Committee specialised on Disability, stated that, “The coercive approach to mental health is doing harm to people with disabilities and we should not go backwards to authorize this outdated approach. People with psychosocial disabilities have the right to live in the community and to refuse medical treatment.”

Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE against the drafted Protocol

The statement follows a long series of protests already voiced. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has worked over several years looking in to the matter and already in 2016 issued a recommendation stating that “Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment procedures give rise to a large number of human rights violations in many member States, in particular in the context of psychiatry.

The Parliamentary Assembly with the Recommendation stated, “While the Parliamentary Assembly understands the concerns that prompted the Committee on Bioethics to work on this issue, it has serious doubts about the added value of a new legal instrument in this field. Nevertheless, the Assembly’s main concern about the future additional protocol relates to an even more essential question: that of its compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” (read full Recommendation here)

The Parliamentary Assembly noted that the United Nations’ Committee monitoring this Convention “interprets Article 14 as prohibiting the deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability even if additional criteria, such as dangerousness to one’s self or others, are also used to justify it. The committee considers that mental health laws providing for such instances are incompatible with Article 14, are discriminatory in nature and amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”

Since then, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly issued another recommendation in 2019, “Ending coercion in mental health: the need for a human rights-based approach.” The Assembly reiterated “the urgent need for the Council of Europe, as the leading regional human rights organisation, to fully integrate the paradigm shift initiated by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) into its work regarding the protection of human rights and dignity of persons with mental health conditions or psychosocial disabilities.(full recommendation here)

In a follow-up Resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly noted that “The overall increase in the use of involuntary measures in mental health settings mainly results from a culture of confinement which focuses and relies on coercion to “control” and “treat” patients who are considered potentially “dangerous” to themselves or others.”

The Assembly based a concern on evidence from sociological research in the field on persons with mental health conditions “points to overwhelmingly negative experiences of coercive measures, including pain, trauma and fear. Involuntary “treatments” administered against the will of patients, such as forced medication and forced electroshocks, are perceived as particularly traumatic. They also raise major ethical issues, as they can cause irreversible damage to health.”

The Assembly further considered that “Mental health systems across Europe should be reformed to adopt a human rights-based approach which is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and is respectful of medical ethics and of the human rights of the people concerned, including of their right to health care on the basis of free and informed consent.”

Commissioner on Human Rights: the draft endanger protection

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner on Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, in a written comment to the Committee on Bioethics called on the Committee to not adopt the new legal instrument. She added that “While noting that the Committee on Bioethics started this work with the commendable intention of improving the protection of persons with psychosocial disabilities with regard to involuntary measures ordered in a medical context, she considers that the draft Additional Protocol [the new legal instrument], rather than satisfying that ambition, unfortunately risks provoking the opposite result.”

Civil society is against the draft

The International NGO Human Rights Watch in a statement on the Committee on Bioethics’ document noted “In what may seem like a contradiction, the Council of Europe—the continent’s leading human rights body—continues to pursue a new legal instrument that would undermine the rights of people with disabilities. Today’s meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Bioethics— the body responsible for this treaty known as the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Bioethics, signals that states are prepared to adopt new rules regarding forced treatment and detention of people with psychosocial disabilities, despite existing human rights obligations.”

The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) earlier called upon the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics to withdraw the document. They followed up with a new statement, that “The draft Additional Protocol creates the risk of a conflict between international norms at the global and European levels” as the document “lacks clear, strong procedural safeguards to ensure respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.”

The European Disability Forum, an umbrella organisation of persons with disabilities defending the interests of over 100 million persons with disabilities in the European Union, together with their members, in particular the European Network of (Ex)-Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Mental Health Europe, Autism-Europe, Inclusion Europe and the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities, have been in strong opposition to the drafted new legal instrument and expressed deep concerns over the human rights violations potentially about to be undertaken by the Council of Europe.

These comments of the European disability representative organizations were also endorsed by the International Disability Alliance, an umbrella organisation bringing together over 1,100 organisations of persons with disabilities and their families from across eight global and six regional networks.

Committee on Bioethics is aware of the critics

Ms. Laurence Lwoff, the Head of Council of Europe’s Bioethics Unit told The European Times, that “The delegations to the Committee on Bioethics are aware of the statement released by UN Rights experts which will also be referred to at the meeting by the Chair of the Committee on Bioethics.” She refused that the Committee does have the intention to disregard the views expressed by the UN Rights experts.

The meeting at which the possible new legal instrument will be reviewed starts today. The European Times was informed that “it is not possible to attend the meetings of the Committee on Bioethics (as this is the general rule for any other intergovernmental committees’ meeting) which are not opened to the press.”

The meeting at which the possible new Legal instrument will be reviewed starts today. When the meeting is done, the Committee either have tied down the Council of Europe or as the UN Experts put it, used the “unique opportunity to shift away from old-fashioned coercive approaches to mental health, towards concrete steps to promote supportive mental health services in the community, and the realization of human rights for all without discrimination on the grounds of disability.”

This article has been referenced by the EDF

UNGASS 2021 – World leaders gather at first-ever UN General Assembly Special Session against corruption

© UNIS Vienna

Corruption thrives in times of crisis and the ongoing global COVID-19 health crisis has not been an exception . The urgent responses required during the pandemic create significant opportunities for corruption.

It is against this backdrop that for the first time in its history, the UN General Assembly is devoting a special session to corruption. From 2 to 4 June 2021, the world will come together at the UN headquarters in New York to discuss challenges and measures to prevent and combat corruption and strengthen international cooperation.

The programme of UNGASS 2021 is available here.

SIDE EVENTS

Starting on 1 June, around 40 events on the sidelines of UNGASS 2021 will be held online, covering such topics as  corruption in the health sector, gender equality and anti-corruption efforts, stolen-asset recovery, whistleblower protection, and the  launch of the GlobE Network an initiative that promotes  quick and efficient global cross-border cooperation to end corruption.

For the list of side events and the agenda go to: ungass2021.unodc.org

UNGASS YOUTH FORUM

From 24 to 26 May, 850 young people from 122 countries gathered online for the UNGASS Youth Forum against Corruption to discuss the effect of corruption on young people, and how the international community can better empower youth to actively engage in and help lead the design of future anti-corruption efforts.

Discussions at the UNGASS Youth Forum are being summarized in a Statement. This call to action from young people will be presented by a Youth Forum representative to world leaders at UNGASS 2021.

More information about the UNGASS Youth Forum is available at: https://ungass2021.unodc.org/ungass2021/en/youth-forum.html

Monday, May 31, 2021

Masks in the sea became more than jellyfish

Global Marine Conservation

Divers on the Greek island of Corfu found more used protective masks than jellyfish at sea.

It turns out that the pandemic has exacerbated the problem of garbage in the seas and oceans.

Disposable masks, which are supposed to protect against the virus, often end up in the water. According to environmental groups, almost 2 billion masks were found last year alone.There are many other organizations working on marine conservation and other environmental issues such as biodiversity and global warming. We list them here both as a public service and to spread the word.

A group of divers from the Organization for the Protection of the Ocean regularly clean the sea near Corfu. They find a lot of plastic, but also more and more waste from the COVID crisis.

Currently, about 130 billion disposable masks are used worldwide – per month. The big problem with these preservatives is that once released into the environment, they do not decompose for up to 450 years.

“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth.”– Henry Beston (authjor of The Outermost House: A Year of Life On The Great Beach of Cape Cod).

There are many other organizations working on marine conservation and other environmental issues such as biodiversity and global warming, they are deeply committed to marine conservation and founded on the concept that, by sharing the wonders of the ocean and marine life, people will be inspired to protect it. We list part of them here both as a public service and to spread the word.

Blue Frontier Campaign: founded in 2003 by David Helvarg, author of Blue Frontier – Saving America’s Living Seas and 50 Ways to Save the Ocean. Blue Frontier works to support seaweed (marine grassroots) efforts at the local, regional and national level, with an emphasis on bottom up organizing to bring the voice of citizen-activists into national decision-making that will impact our public seas.

Conservation International: a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC and operating in more than 30 countries worldwide to apply innovations in science, economics, policy and community participation to protect the Earth’s plant and animal biodiversity in major tropical wilderness areas and key marine ecosystems.

Deep Sea Conservation Coalition: “The NGOs listed in this document jointly call on the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution declaring an immediate moratorium on high seas bottom trawling, and to simultaneously initiate a process under the auspices of the UN General Assembly to 1) assess deep sea biodiversity and ecosystems, including populations of fish species, and their vulnerability to deep sea fishing on the high seas; and 2) adopt and implement legally binding regimes to protect deep sea biodiversity from high seas bottom trawling and to conserve and manage bottom fisheries of the high seas consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982), UN Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA 1995), UN FAO Compliance Agreement (1993), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), and the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Code 1995).”

Environmental Defense: a non-profit organization based in New York bringing together experts in science, law and economics to tackle complex environmental issues that affect our oceans, our air, our natural resources, the livability of our man-made environment, and the species with whom we share our world.

European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS): a network of common databases on alien and invasive species of the region. By establishing a common portal access to IAS-related data, information and knowledge in the region is facilitated.

Fauna and Flora International (FFI): aims to change the policy and behavior that contribute to biodiversity loss by engaging a wide range of governments and non-governmental organizations, and by raising the profile of biodiversity within the wider global development debate.

Global Coral Reef Alliance (GCRA): a coalition of volunteer scientists, divers, environmentalists and other individuals and organizations, committed to coral reef preservation. Focuses on coral reef restoration, marine diseases and other issues caused by global climate change, environmental stress, and pollution.

Greenpeace International: Greenpeace’s oceans campaign focusing on three major threats to the world’s oceans: overfishing, pirate fishing, whaling, and intensive shrimp aquaculture.

Institute for Ocean Conservation Science: to advance ocean conservation through science. They conduct world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. The Institute’s research focuses on advancing ecosystem-based fisheries management, a strategy which recognizes that the oceans’ problems are interconnected and that species and habitats cannot be successfully managed in isolation; as well as on advancing knowledge about vulnerable and ecologically important marine animals that are understudied. They are dedicated to developing scientific approaches to sustainably manage forage fish, small schooling fish that are food for marine mammals and seabirds but are being depleted from our oceans.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC has been established by World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) is an informal partnership between Nations and organizations which strives to preserve coral reefs and related ecosystems around the world. Although the Initiative is an informal group whose decisions are not binding on its members, its actions have been pivotal in continuing to highlight globally the importance of coral reefs and related ecosystems to environmental sustainability, food security and social and cultural wellbeing. The work of ICRI is regularly acknowledged in United Nations documents, highlighting the Initiative’s important cooperation, collaboration and advocacy role within the international arena.

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW): engages communities, government leaders, and like-minded organizations around the world to achieve lasting solutions to pressing animal welfare and conservation challenges-solutions that benefit both animals and people.

International Maritime Organization (IMO) – IMO’s Intervention Convention affirms the right of a coastal State to take measures on the high seas to prevent, mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline from a maritime casualty. The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990 provides a global framework for international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution. A protocol to this convention (HNS Protocol) covers marine pollution by hazardous and noxious substances.

IUCN Global Marine Programme provides vital linkages for the Union and its members to all the IUCN activities that deal with marine issues, including projects and initiatives of the Regional offices and the 6 IUCN Commissions. Its co-ordination role is above and beyond the policy development and thematic guidance that it undertakes to provide to assist governments, communities and NGOs alike.

IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group: a global group of 146 scientific and policy experts on invasive species from 41 countries. ISSG provides advice on threats from invasives and control or eradication methods to IUCN members, conservation practitioners, and policy-makers. The group’s activities focus primarily on invasive species that cause biodiversity loss, with particular attention to those that threaten oceanic islands.

Nature Conservancy: Climate change isn’t a distant threat it is happening now. The past three years were hotter than any other time in recorded history. The Nature Conservancy is focused on innovative solutions that match the urgency of this crisis. We are protecting & restoring forests, improving working lands, helping communities build resilience & working to ensure a clean energy future. Together with supporters like you, we can halt the catastrophic march of climate change so that our communities can thrive & natural places that renew our spirits can endure.

Ocean Conservancy: serves to protect ocean ecosystems and conserve the global abundance and diversity of marine wildlife through science-based advocacy, research, and public education.

Oceana: a non-profit international advocacy organization dedicated to restoring and protecting the world’s oceans through policy advocacy, science, law, and public education.

Ocean Project: an initiative to raise awareness of the importance, value, and sensitivity of the oceans through a network of aquariums, zoos, and conservation organizations.

OceanCare: committed to marine wildlife protection since 1989. Through research and conservation projects, campaigns, environmental education, and involvement in a range of important international committees, OceanCare undertakes concrete steps to improve the situation for wildlife in the world’s oceans. In 2011, OceanCare was granted Special Consultative Status on marine issues with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

Project Aware Foundation: PADI’s foundation established to help conserve underwater environments through a wide variety of activities including education, advocacy, and action.

Project Seahorse: an international and interdisciplinary marine conservation organization comprised of biologists, development specialists, and other professionals committed to conserving and managing seahorses, their relatives and habitats, through research, education, empowering communities, establishing marine-protected areas, managing subsistence fisheries, restructuring international trade, redressing habitat loss.

Polar Bears International: a nonprofit organization dedicated to the worldwide conservation of the polar bear and its habitat through research, stewardship, and education. We provide scientific resources and information on polar bears and their habitat to institutions and the general public worldwide.

Reef Check: a volunteer, community-based monitoring mechanism operating in more than 60 countries designed to measure and maintain the health of coral reefs.

Reef Relief: dedicated to preserve and protect living coral reef ecosystems through local, regional, and global efforts focusing on science to educate the public and advocate policymakers to achieve conservation, protection, and restoration of coral reefs.

ReefBase: created to facilitate sustainable management of coral reefs and related coastal/marine environments, in order to benefit poor people in developing countries whose livelihoods depend on these natural resources.

The Safina Center: Led by ecologist and author Carl Safina, the Safina Center is comprised of StaffFellows and Creative Affiliates who together create a body of scientific and creative works that advance the conservation of wildlife and the environment, and give a voice to nature.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society: an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization whos mission is to end the destruction of habitat and the slaughter of wildlife in the world’s oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species. Sea Shepherd uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas.

Turtle Island Restoration Network: fights to protect endangered sea turtles in ways that make cultural and economic sense to the communities that share the beaches and waters with these gentle creatures. With offices in California and Costa Rica, STRP has been leading the international fight to protect sea turtle populations worldwide.

Seal Conservation Society: a non-profit organization protecting and conserving pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walrus) worldwide by monitoring and minimizing threats to pinnipeds, providing comprehensive information on pinniped-related issues to individuals, groups and the media, and by working with other conservation groups, rescue and rehabilitation centers, research establishments, and governments.

Shifting Baselines: a “media project” — a partnership between ocean conservation and Hollywood to help bring attention to the severity of ocean decline.

Sierra Club: the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.5+ million members and supporters to defend everyone’s right to a healthy world.

Society for Conservation Biology (SCB): an international professional organization dedicated to promoting the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity. The Society’s membership comprises a wide range of people interested in the conservation and study of biological diversity: resource managers, educators, government and private conservation workers, and students.

The Species Survival Commission (SSC): “the world’s greatest source of information about species and their conservation needs”. The SSC is a network of some 8,000 volunteer members from almost every country of the world, all working to stop the loss of plants, animals, and their habitats. Members include researchers, government officials, wildlife veterinarians, zoo and botanical institute employees, marine biologists, protected area managers, and experts on plants, birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. SSC produces the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, provides technical and scientific advice to governments, international environmental treaties, and conservation organizations, publishes species Action Plans, and policy guidelines, and implements on-ground conservation projects.

Surfrider Foundation: a non-profit organization that works to protect our oceans, waves, and beaches through its chapters located along the East, West, Gulf, Puerto Rican, and Hawaiian coasts, and with its members in the USA and International Surfrider Foundation chapters and affiliates in Japan, Brazil, Australia, France and Spain.

TRAFFIC: wildlife trade monitoring network that works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. TRAFFIC is a joint programme of WWF and IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an international treaty to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. Recently, a number of nations have approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures. The UNFCCC secretariat supports all institutions involved in the climate change process.

Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS): an international non-profit working toward the conservation and welfare of all cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) by reducing threats to cetaceans and their habitats and by raising awareness about the need to address the continuing threats to their welfare and survival.

WildAid: The illegal wildlife trade is a multi-billion dollar global industry largely driven by consumer demand in expanding economies. While most wildlife conservation groups focus on scientific studies and anti-poaching efforts, WildAid works to reduce global consumption of wildlife products and to increase local support for conservation efforts. We also work with governments and partners to protect fragile marine reserves from illegal fishing and shark finning, to enhance public and political will for anti-poaching efforts, and to reduce climate change impacts.

World Resources Institute: environmental think tank working to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth’s environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations. WRI provides objective information and practical proposals for policy and institutional change that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitable development for.

World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA): WSPA works with more than 449 member organisations to raise the standards of animal welfare throughout the world. Our vision is a world in which the welfare of animals is understood and respected by everyone, and protected by effective legislation.

World Wildlife Fund: WWF’s Endangered Seas Program works in more than 40 countries to campaign, lobby, develop and advocate solutions, commission and publish impartial data, advise, and champion the conservation of the marine environment and sustainable livelihoods.

Saturday, May 29, 2021

The pope asks the Vatican media who reads their news

Pope Francis called on Vatican media officials to justify their work by asking how many people read their news at all. Francis asked this during a visit to the Media and Public Relations Office, which costs the Holy See more than all its embassies around the world. The pope visited the Dicastero per la Comunicazione on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of Vatican Radio and the 160th anniversary of the Vatican newspaper L’Oservatore Romano. Faced with a major pension shortfall and a projected Vatican deficit of 50m euros this year, Pope Francis has ordered a three to 10 percent pay cut for senior Vatican officials and suspended two-year seniority bonuses.

The Holy Father has vowed not to fire anyone to make up for the loss of the financial crisis as a result of the pandemic, which affected one of the Vatican’s main sources of income – ticket sales for Vatican museums. But in a sort of warning to Vatican communications staff, he began his unannounced remarks with the question: “There are many reasons for concern about radio, the newspaper, but one thing touches my heart: How many people listen to radio?” How many people read L’Osservatore Romano? ”The pope asks. He said that they work well, their offices are nice and organized, but there is a “danger” that the result of their work will not go where it should. He warned them not to fall victim to “deadly” functionality – when they do everything they need to do, but they really don’t achieve anything.

The question of the relationship between the costs and benefits of the Vatican’s media operations has been raised many times, as the communications service spends more on the Holy See’s annual budget than any other department. According to the latest figures, the Dicastero per la Comunicazione has a budget of € 43 million for 2021, which is about 20 percent of the Vatican’s total budget. The cost of the service is higher than the total cost of ten other Vatican departments. The Vatican has long justified these costs because communication operations are paramount to the Holy See’s core mission: to spread the Catholic faith throughout the world.

The head of this service, Paolo Rufini, said he understood the pope’s words as an invitation to a creative vision for the future, although he acknowledged the harsh media reality today. He recalled that Francis had told officials to “let reality slap them” and that the comment was a kind of call to wake up. Vatican Radio broadcasts 1,000 radio networks around the world in various languages. L’Oservatore Romano says 21,500 readers read it every day through the print and online versions, although that number rises to 40,000 when the different languages ​​distributed by the dioceses are taken into account.

Vatican News, the Holy See’s main Internet portal, has an average of 21 million page views per month, but it’s not clear how many readers it is.

Friday, May 28, 2021

Council of Europe wants to enforce harmful coercive psychiatric treaments – UN experts oppose

Independent UN human rights experts called on Friday for a European body of intergovernmental experts to stop legislation supporting coercive mental health measures.

Five UN experts issued a statement calling upon the Council of Europe’s Committee on Bioethics to withdraw a draft  Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention – a treaty protecting the human rights of people with regard to biology and medicine – that would codify a  mental health policy based on coercion and bring “stigmatization and fear to people with psychosocial disabilities”. “Overwhelming evidence from the European Disability Forum, Mental Health Europe and other organizations and growing consensus within the United Nations including at the World Health Organization (WHO), show that forced admission to medical institutions and coercive treatments in institutions will bring harmful effects such as pain, trauma, humiliation [and] shame”, the experts said. This is incompatible with contemporary human rights principles and standards.

Quell the draft

If adopted during a vote in early June, the draft Additional Protocol would continue to allow all the 47 State parties of the Council of Europe to use coercive measures against people with mental health conditions, including their forcible committment to psychiatric institutions.

The coercive approach to mental health is “doing harm to people with disabilities” and “we should not go backwards to authorize this outdated approach”, the experts said, adding that individutals with psychosocial disabilities “have the right to live in the community and to refuse medical treatment”.

“We call upon all State delegations to object to the draft Additional Protocol in the upcoming meeting and we urge the Council of Europe to end legitimizing forced institutionalization and the use of coercion against persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities”, they underscored.

Be part of the future

The controversial draft treaty has also aroused opposition within Europe and from the international community.

Voices within the Council of Europe, such as the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights have all been vocal against the draft Protocol.

“When there are efforts worldwide to reform mental health policy, it comes to our surprise that the Council of Europe, a major regional human rights organization, is planning to adopt a treaty that would be a setback to reverse all positive developments in Europe and spread a chilling effect elsewhere in the world”, the experts said.

They stressed that the Council of Europe now has “a unique opportunity to shift away from old-fashioned coercive approaches” to mental health, towards concrete steps to promote supportive mental health services and realize human rights for all “without discrimination on the grounds of disability”.

“We urge the Council of Europe to be part of the future and not part of the past in mental health”, concluded the experts.

Click here for the names of the experts who endorsed in this statement.

Special Rapporteurs and independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. They are not UN staff nor paid for their work.

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Hackers attack 70 times per minute

Hackers attack 70 times per minute: what happens when a computer is left unsecured on the internet

Every device connected to the internet has a unique IP address. Those IP addresses are public, and they allow computers to find and communicate with each other via the Internet Protocol. Normally, we want to allow legitimate parties to connect to our IP addresses, and keep out adversaries by using firewalls, authentication, and access control.

But what if we didn’t take any of those precautions? How long would it take for malicious hackers to find and attack your device? What methods would they use? What do they seek? And where do they come from?

Comparitech researchers sought to find the answers to these questions by setting up honeypots—dummy computers designed to lure in attackers so we can record their every step.

Researchers set up honeypot devices emulating a range of internet-accessible services and supporting a wide range of protocols including RDP, SSH, MySQL, VNC, and more. The honeypots were left unsecured so that no authentication was required to access and attack it. Using this method, Comparitech researchers sought to find out which types of attacks would occur, at what frequency, and where they come from.

In total, our researchers found 101,545 attacks in a 24-hour period, or 70 attacks per minute. To give you some idea of how much attacks have increased, a 2007 University of Maryland study recorded a mere 2,244 attacks per day, a fraction of what we recorded in 2021. Read more on the FULL STUDY– Comparitech Study

About Comparitech: A pro-consumer website providing information, tools, and comparisons to help consumers in the US, UK and further afield to research and compare tech services. Founded in 2015, it is now a remote team of 30 researchers, writers, developers, and editors covering a wide range of online services including VPNs, password managers, ID theft protection, antivirus, internet providers, network monitoring. Each month, over 1 million people visit Comparitech.com and trust them to help them make more savvy decisions. Collectively they have produced over 1,200 reviews and guides. They conduct a battery of tests on all products and services they review, such as the 200+ automated speed tests that they perform daily on a wide range of VPNs.

MEP Hilde Vautmans actively supports the recognition Sikhs in Belgium By Newsdesk Discover the need for Belgium and the EU to recognize Sikh...