MIL Submissions Engine

July 5, 2025

Preventing the next pandemic: One Health researcher calls for urgent action

Source: – By Hung Nguyen-Viet, Program Leader (ai), HEALTH at ILRI / CGIAR, International Livestock Research Institute

The world is facing daunting health challenges with the rise of zoonotic diseases – infections that are transmissible from animals to humans. These diseases – which include Ebola, avian flu, COVID-19 and HIV – show how the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and ecosystems are closely connected.

Zoonotic diseases have become more and more common due to factors such as urbanisation, deforestation, climate change and wildlife exploitation. These dangers are not limited by borders: they are global and demand a coordinated response.

By looking at health holistically, countries can address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.

The World Health Organization has a basis for such an approach: One Health. This recognises the interdependence of the health of people, animals and the environment and integrates these fields, rather than keeping them separate.

I lead the health programme at the International Livestock Research Institute, where we are looking for ways to effectively manage or eliminate livestock-related diseases, zoonotic infections and foodborne illnesses that disproportionately affect impoverished communities.

My work focuses on the link between health and agriculture, food safety, and infectious and zoonotic diseases.

For example in Kenya we are part of an initiative of the One Health Centre in Africa to roll out canine vaccination and have so far vaccinated 146,000 animals in Machakos county.

In Ethiopia and Vietnam we worked in a programme to improve the hygiene practices of butchers in traditional markets.

In another project we work in 11 countries to strengthen One Health curricula in universities.

The lessons from the One Health projects implemented with partners across Asia and Africa are that there’s an urgent need for action on three fronts. These are: stronger cross-sectoral collaboration; greater engagement with policymakers to translate research findings into actionable strategies; and the development of adaptable and context-specific interventions.

But, having been active in this area for the last decade, I am impatient with the slow pace of investment. We know that prevention is better than cure. The cost of prevention is significantly lower than that of managing pandemics once they occur. Urgent steps, including much higher levels of investment, need to be taken.

What’s in place

In 2022 the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Organisation for Animal Health developed a joint One Health plan of action. They identified key areas to respond more efficiently to health threats. These included:

Reducing risks from emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics. Actions include, for example, tightening regulations around farming and trade in wildlife and wild animal products.
Controlling and eliminating endemic, zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases by understanding the attitudes and knowledge of communities bearing the greatest burdens of these diseases. And boosting their capacity to fight them.
Strengthening action against food safety risks by monitoring new and emerging foodborne infections.
Curbing the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance, one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity.

Other collaborations include the Prezode (Preventing Zoonotic Disease Emergence) initiative to research all aspects of diseases of animal origin. This was launched in 2021 by French president Emmanuel Macron.

The Africa One Health University Network operates in ten African countries to address One Health workforce strengthening in Africa.

One Health has gained traction globally. But there’s still a great deal to be done.

The cost of inaction

According to a 2022 World Bank estimate, preventing a pandemic would cost approximately US$11 billion per year, while managing a pandemic can run up to US$31 billion annually. So the investment return of 3:1 is an important reason to call for investment in One Health.

The Pandemic Fund was launched in November 2022 by leaders of the Group of 20 nations and hosted by the World Bank Group to help low- and middle-income countries prepare better for emerging pandemic threats. US$885 million has been awarded to 47 projects to date through the two rounds in the last three years.

However, relative to the US$11 billion per year required for prevention, this investment is modest. Urgent investment in One Health needs to be made by countries themselves, in particular low- and middle-income countries.

The last two World One Health congresses (in Singapore in 2022, and in Cape Town in 2024) called for investment in One Health. There were also calls for investment in One Health at regional level to prevent zoonotic diseases and the next pandemic.

At the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) formally adopted by consensus the world’s first Pandemic Agreement. The landmark decision culminates more than three years of intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is major global progress in One Health and disease prevention.

But the lessons of COVID-19 have shown us that the cost of inaction is incalculable in terms of lives lost, economic turmoil and societal disruption. To date, there have been over 777 million cases of COVID-19, including more than 7 million deaths worldwide.

According to estimates by the International Monetary Fund, COVID will have caused a cumulative production loss of US$13.8 trillion by 2024.

The choice is clear: invest today to prevent tomorrow’s pandemics, or pay a heavy price in the future.

Hung Nguyen-Viet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Preventing the next pandemic: One Health researcher calls for urgent action – https://theconversation.com/preventing-the-next-pandemic-one-health-researcher-calls-for-urgent-action-255229

July 5, 2025

Sexism in science: 7 women whose trailblazing work shattered stereotypes

Source: – By Christa Kuljian, Research Associate, WiSER, University of the Witwatersrand

Seven women were part of a trailblazing network of feminist scientists in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s in the Boston area in the US. Christa Kuljian is a science writer and historian of science who focuses much of her research on issues of science and society, gender and race. She is the author of two previous books of narrative nonfiction – Sanctuary and Darwin’s Hunch. In her new book Our Science, Ourselves she focuses on the life stories of the seven women. We asked her about her book.

How did you choose the scientists you focused on in the book?

I grew up in the Boston area in the 1970s, and in high school, my parents gave me a copy of the revolutionary guide to women’s health, Our Bodies, Ourselves, which was published by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. In the early 1980s, I studied the history of science at Harvard and took a course with Ruth Hubbard called Bio 109: Biology and Women’s Issues.

Hubbard, in 1974, was the first woman to achieve tenure in biology at Harvard, and she features in the book. Her course taught about how scientists, including Charles Darwin, promoted stereotypes and myths about women’s biology. The idea for Our Science, Ourselves grew from that formative experience in Hubbard’s course.

But it also had roots in another, more recent experience. In 2016, I published Darwin’s Hunch: Science, Race and the Search for Human Origins, about the history of palaeoanthropology in South Africa. The book explores questions that some of my history of science professors might have asked. What influence did the social and political context of colonialism and apartheid have on the search for human origins?

After it was published, I was struck by several stories that brought science and sexism into the popular media. In July 2017, James Damore at Google wrote that “the gender gap in tech” likely existed because of biological differences between men and women, and he received support from popular psychologist Jordan Peterson.

In September 2018, an Italian physicist, Alessandro Strumia, said that the low number of women in physics was proof that women were innately less capable than men. He suggested that male scientists were being discriminated against to give opportunities to women.

These statements reminded me of what former Harvard president Larry Summers had said back in 2005. Drawing on the work of psychologist and popular writer Steven Pinker, Summers spoke of women having a “different availability of aptitude” in science and math.

Why were these myths about women’s biology still having an impact in the 21st century? I decided to go back to my class notes and look more closely at Hubbard’s research. Who had she worked with at the time? What were other scientists with a feminist awareness saying in the 1970s and 1980s?

As a result of many interviews, and research in the archives, I discovered a fascinating network of women, all of whom contributed to feminist critiques of science, and ultimately to the field of feminist science studies.

Our Science, Ourselves follows the lives of Ruth Hubbard, Rita Arditti, Evelyn Fox Keller, Evelynn Hammonds, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Banu Subramaniam and Nancy Hopkins.

None of these women scientists were born in Boston, but they all moved there to study, take a job, conduct research, or network with other scientists. Part of what made Boston interesting to me was the critical mass of colleges, universities and scientists, but also the presence of social movements that influenced these women, including Science for the People, the Combahee River Collective and others.

Could you tell us about one or two of these women’s stories?

One of them is Rita Arditti. An Argentinian geneticist at Harvard Medical School, she led a protest in December 1969 at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. Along with 12 colleagues carrying posters and pamphlets, she arrived unannounced at a special luncheon for women scientists, calling for an end to discrimination against women in science. Most of the women ignored Arditti, but Hubbard was in the audience and paid attention. The protest did have a ripple effect on the association.

Over time, Arditti and Hubbard became friends, became active in a new organisation called Science for the People, and began to write not only about discrimination against women scientists, but also about how science portrayed women’s biology in stereotypical ways.

Another is Evelynn Hammonds, who studied physics at Spelman College, a historically Black women’s college in Atlanta. In 1976, she read an important report, The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science, co-authored by Shirley Malcom and published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

With Malcom’s encouragement, Hammonds applied to and was accepted at MIT in the Boston area. Over time, she joined a growing network of women who were critiquing their science. She became a teaching assistant for Hubbard and rented an apartment from Arditti, and became a foundational influence in gender, race and the history of science.

Hammonds emphasised that when speaking out against scientific sexism it was important to speak out against scientific racism as well, and that it was critical to address both.

How do the current US administration policies on science and diversity relate to your book?

Sudip Parikh, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in testimony before the US Senate appropriations committee on 30 April 2025:

The scientific community is in paralysis right now.

The current attack on science has had a major impact, ending funding for important scientific research. Young scientists and science students are concerned for their future. The US administration’s policy of cutting funds to any programmes related to diversity or equity is an onslaught on decades of progress in this area, and will have a grave impact on the scientific research agenda.

There is a growing list of words that have been scrubbed from US government websites and documents, including “women”, “race”, “racism”, “feminism”, “activist” and “bias”. The use of any of these words in scientific research proposals can result in federal funding being cut. For example, the US Food and Drug Administration published an announcement in mid-2024 that discussed the importance of diversity in clinical trials. That document is no longer available on the website.

The women in Our Science, Ourselves made important contributions by highlighting how scientific institutions historically have been exclusionary. They also shone a light on how scientific research questions and analysis can be biased (rather than always neutral or objective), thereby affecting the knowledge they produce.

The tools that feminist science studies has developed are critical to the sciences because they ask new questions, and develop new methodologies that help science account for gender and racial bias. Who is doing science? Who decides on the research questions? Who offers analysis and who benefits?

The US administration’s actions are a major setback for science and scientific research, as well as gender, race and sexuality studies, which have made vital contributions to science, medicine and technology. The history of these fields and the life stories of some of the dynamic women in them, can offer readers inspiration for the present moment.

Our Science, Ourselves is available from University of Massachusetts Press and Amazon in the US, on Kindle, and from Love Books in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Christa Kuljian received research funding from Harvard University’s Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America and from the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM) in Philadelphia. She is a member of the History of Science Society.

– ref. Sexism in science: 7 women whose trailblazing work shattered stereotypes – https://theconversation.com/sexism-in-science-7-women-whose-trailblazing-work-shattered-stereotypes-257265

July 5, 2025

In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power

Source: The Conversation – in French – By George Newth, Lecturer in Politics and member of Reactionary Politics Research Network, University of Bath

It’s one year since Keir Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory. Starmer’s manifesto, “Change” had proposed “securonomics” as a solution to the UK’s many crises. This was sold as a way of ensuring “sustained economic growth as the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people”.

The document mentioned “working people” a total of 21 times. It was clear this demographic had been identified as the key target beneficiary of “securonomics”, otherwise referred to as “the plan for change”.

But there is a paradox at the heart of the proposal to deliver “change” to “working people” – one that helps explain the chaos of Labour’s first year in government. By obsessively pitting this demographic against “non-working people”, Labour is in fact not promising any real change at all.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

One of the key premises of Labour’s securonomics is that growth must precede any significant investment. “Working people’s” priorities are therefore presented as being in line with that of a fiscally responsible state.

In the autumn budget, there was a pledge to “fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people”. To do this, the chancellor needed to fix a “black hole” of £22 billion in government finances.

The refusal to lift the two-child benefit cap, alongside “reforming the state to ensure […] welfare spending is targeted towards those that need it the most”, was framed as “putting more money in working people’s pockets”. There has, meanwhile, been a continued emphasis on encouraging those on benefits back to work.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Besides the clear deepening of inequality wrought by similar reforms in the past, welfare cuts make no sense on an economic or societal level. They undermine the economy, and the consequences put additional pressure on already underfunded social services.

As highlighted by the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR), such cuts fail to deliver the promised behavioural change to force people into work. People instead become more focused on day-to-day survival.

Despite the government’s last ditch climbdown to save its flagship welfare reform policy its cuts are still forecast to push more than 150,000 people into poverty

Such reforms carried out in the name of “working people” perpetuate a pernicious myth of us v them. Not only are people in work also affected by these cuts but people’s lives – including their jobs, income, family situations, and health – shift regularly, making the “strivers v skivers” divide both simplistic and inaccurate.

Even “secure borders” and “smashing the criminal gangs” were positioned as “grown up politics back in the service of working people”. This association of working people with anti-immigrant attitudes links to a broader homogenisation of “working people” as both “patriotic” and in search of “security”. “Fixing the foundations” has been depicted in several social media posts as a patriotic act via use of the Union Jack.

Keir Starmer with his hand on the shoulder of a man wearing a tshirt saying 'British steel'. — Starmer meets ‘working people: steel category’.
Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Meanwhile, stage-managed photoshoots of Starmer in factories with people wearing hard hats and hi-visibility jackets give a clear impression of the types of manufacturing jobs the government believes “working people” carry out. This gives an impressions that belies the reality of modern Britain – and an economy that is dominated by the service sector,, not manufacturing or building.

Old wine in new bottles

While Starmer framed his “plan for change” as a break with previous administrations, his “working people” narrative betrays this claim as anything but.

The idea that the deserving “working people” are different and separate from people who don’t (or can’t) work has been deployed by government after government to justify austerity and cuts to services. It has always been useful to separate the “scroungers from the strivers” and there is no sign of Labour changing course.

Keir Starmer talking to a pilot sitting in a fighter jet. — Hello! Are you working people?
Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

The term “working people” also builds on a previous trope of the “hard-working family”.

While initially coined by New Labour, this term has roots in Margaret Thatcher’s idea of the family, rather than the state, as the locus of welfare. It was not for the state to take care of you but your own kin.

Like “working people” now, “hard-working families” were those who played by the rules and knuckled down to earn a living. Previous Conservative administrations have depicted “hard-working families” as burdened by the unemployed, the poor, the sick and disabled and immigrants.

Add to this, the signalling continues to imply that the “authentic” working class of Britain are solely white – sometimes also male – and typically older, manual labourers, who are assumed to hold socially conservative views. This is another divide-and-rule trope which neglects the reality of the multiracial and multiethnic composition of the working classes.

In light of all this, any real “change” promised in Labour’s manifesto has been betrayed by a continuity with tired and damaging tropes of deserving and undeserving people. This is contributing to the sense, a year in, that this Labour government is merely repeating past government failures rather than striking out in a new direction.

George Newth works for University of Bath and is a member of the Green Party

– ref. In search of Labour’s ‘working people’ – the paradox at the heart of Keir Starmer’s first year in power – https://theconversation.com/in-search-of-labours-working-people-the-paradox-at-the-heart-of-keir-starmers-first-year-in-power-260230

July 5, 2025

NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Judith Smith, Professor of Health Policy and Management, University of Birmingham

The UK government has published its eagerly awaited ten-year health plan for England, setting out how billions of pounds in NHS funding will be used to transform healthcare delivery across the country.

As anticipated, the plan is framed around the government’s three missions for the NHS: shifting care from hospital into the community, moving from analogue to digital communication, and focusing on preventing ill health rather than treating illness.

The 168-page document responds to a stark warning that the NHS is “in serious trouble”. It is remarkable for the sheer number of ideas and proposals. As well as describing major new developments to improve people’s access to local in-person and virtual NHS care and disease prevention, it sets out a blizzard of other proposals.

These include abolishing Healthwatch (a national watchdog that listens to people’s views on health and social care services to improve them), and bringing back some of the reforms of the Tony Blair era such as “new foundation trusts” and using private funding for new buildings.

From hospital to community

The big idea in the ten-year plan is a neighbourhood health service: large local health centres where people can access GP, nursing, dental, pharmacy, diagnostic and other services six days a week, 12 hours a day. These are intended to relieve pressure on hospitals and emergency departments, eventually replacing many outpatient clinics.

The idea of shifting care into the community is not new. It has been advocated for over 30 years, including in the NHS white paper of 1997, the 2006 policy paper Our health, our care, our say, the NHS five-year forward view of 2014, and the NHS long-term plan of 2019.

Some progress has been made in this direction. For example, much of the care for people living with asthma and diabetes is now provided in local general practices. Many general practices already have large teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and other staff who offer aspects of the wider “neighbourhood care” described in the new plan.

But what has not been achieved is having larger-scale primary care teams consistently available across the NHS. The new plan proposes new contracts and shifts of funding to enable wider change, and while welcome, these will be challenging to put into practice against a backdrop of major service pressures.

From analogue to digital

The plan emphasises strongly the need to extend the role of the NHS app, with it becoming the “doctor in your pocket” and the main route into NHS services. It proposes that the app holds your full patient record, enables you to book GP and hospital appointments and becomes a key source of healthcare advice.

This sounds very attractive. However, the devil will be in the detail. There are so many NHS IT systems to harmonise, and major data security and privacy issues to overcome.

Most critically, much attention must be given to sorting out basic NHS admin systems that are too often confusing and paper-based. This will entail lots of work with NHS clinical and administrative staff, changing long-standing ways of working, introducing new technology and adapting “the way we do things round here”.

Using AI to record doctor visits, understand test results and give health advice could really change how healthcare works. But this will take lots of time and money to train staff, try out new systems and put them in place. Also, people will need clear information about what to expect from their local health services in the future.

From sickness to prevention

England is getting sicker, and there are stark inequalities between the richest and the poorest.

To achieve the plan’s goal of empowering people to make healthier choices, robust cross-government action is essential across sectors, including housing, education and welfare. While some important measures such as the tobacco and vapes bill, plans to measure supermarkets’ sales of healthy foods, and the expansion of free school meals are included in the plan, others such as minimum alcohol pricing have been notably excluded.

Integrated care boards (ICBs), the regional bodies who plan and fund NHS services in England, and local councils will be vital in enabling these public health measures to be implemented. However, this will be difficult in the short to medium term as ICBs are being forced to merge, cut headcount and reorganise their work.

Making it work

For the ten-year plan to succeed, three key elements are essential.

First, there is an urgent need to set priorities. The public expects much swifter access to on-the-day GP appointments, an end to excessive waits in accident and emergency departments, and reductions in waiting lists for operations.

The Department of Health and Social Care must guide the NHS in which aspects of the plan are to be addressed first. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

Second, implementation really matters. There is only so much management capacity, staff time, funding and goodwill to introduce new technologies and services. This government has already embarked on another “redisorganisation” of the oversight agency NHS England, and now plans to axe or merge a number of other national and local NHS bodies. NHS managers are vital to implementing the plan, but need to feel valued and supported, not denigrated as superfluous.

Finally, the plan is almost silent on the two most pressing needs for government health reform. Without a properly funded system of adult social care to support older people and those living with enduring mental health needs, it is hard to see how hospital care can be transformed.

And without an urgent and significant shift of resources to general practice and community services, neighbourhood health services will remain more of a dream than reality.

Judith Smith receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research and evaluation. Judith is Senior Visiting Fellow at the Health Foundation.

– ref. NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work – https://theconversation.com/nhs-ten-year-plan-for-england-whats-in-it-and-whats-needed-to-make-it-work-260077

July 5, 2025

Hope for a ceasefire in Gaza (but not much)

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Each day that has passed recently has brought another report of mass killings in Gaza. Today’s headline was as grim as any: according to reports from Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, another 118 people were killed in the past 24 hours, including 12 people trying to get aid supplies. This is a particularly unpalatable feature of a wretched conflict: the number of people being killed as they queue for food.

A bulletin carried on the United Nations website bore the headline: “GAZA: Starvation or Gunfire – This is Not a Humanitarian Response.” It said that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and almost 4,000 injured just trying to access or distribute food.

There are, however, hopes of a hiatus in the violence. Donald Trump announced on July 2 that Israel had accepted terms for a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas is reportedly reviewing the conditions. Donald Trump on his TruthSocial platform wrote: “I hope… that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better – IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

For his part, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said: “There will be no Hamas [in postwar Gaza]”. This doesn’t bode well for the longevity of any deal, writes Julie M. Norman.

Norman, an expert in international security at UCL who specialises in the Middle East, says we’ve been here before. The ceasefire deal negotiated with great fanfare as the Biden presidency passed over to Trump’s second term in January, fell to bits after phase one of a mooted three-phase deal, with accusations of bad faith on both sides.

Further talk of a new deal in May never got any further than the drawing board. And the two sides’ positions seem to remain utterly irreconcilable. Hamas wants the ceasefire to end in a permanent peace deal and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel wants Hamas dismantled, out of Gaza and out of the picture, full stop.

Netanyahu is due to visit Washington next week, for the third time in less than six months. Whether the US president can bring pressure to bear on Netanyahu to compromise remains to be seen.

As Norman points out after the 12-day war against Iran, which both Trump and Netanyahu have been trumpeting as a huge success, the Israeli prime minister may have the political clout to defy his more hardline colleagues in pursuit of a deal. Trump, meanwhile, having done everything he can to help Netanyahu, can call in some big favours in his quest to play dealmaker. Hamas is seriously weakened and its main ally in the region, Iran, seems unlikely to intervene after its recent conflict with Israel and the US.

So while recent history makes a cessation of violence in Gaza seem as far off as ever, there is at least some reason for hope.

As noted higher up, one of the more terrible features of this wretched conflict of late has been the number of people being killed as they queue to get food. The death toll at aid distribution centres has mounted steadily since Israel, with US backing, introduced a new system run by an American company: Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This organisation replaced more than 400 aid points (previously run by a UN agency) with just four, mainly in the south of the Gaza Strip.

This was always going to cause problems, writes Leonie Fleischmann of City St George’s, University of London, who specialises in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. While Israel says the new system is designed to prevent Hamas taking control of aid supplies, all reports are that the scenes around the four distribution centres are descending into anarchy. According to a UN report, “Thousands [of people] released into chaotic enclosures to fight for limited food supplies … These areas have become sites of repeated massacres in blatant disregard for international humanitarian law.”

“Arguably, this chaos and violence is inbuilt in the new aid delivery system,” writes Fleischmann, who concludes that the new system should be seen as a “a mechanism of forced displacement” which is part of a plan by the Netanyahu government “relocate Palestinians to a ‘sterile zone’ in Gaza’s far south” as it continues to clear the north of the Gaza strip.

The 12-day war

But if Trump and Netanyahu think the recent short war will lead to a complete reset in the region, leaving a crippled Iran licking its wounds, they way well have miscalculated. That’s the assessment of the situation by Bamo Nouri, a Middle East specialist at City St George’s, University of London. He believes that the 12-day war may prove to have been a strategic blunder by Israel and the US.

For a start, he writes, one outcome of the conflict is that Iran suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme with no oversight. And its response to Israel’s airstrikes, involving more than 1,000 missiles and drones, breached the country’s “iron dome” defensive system, causing considerable damage and inflicting a serious psychological blow against Israel.

Tehran has also deepened its relationships with both Moscow and Beijing. And far from prompting regime change, the war appears to have prompted an upsurge in nationalist sentiment in Iran.

Nouri concludes: “Israel emerges militarily capable but politically shaken and economically strained. Iran, though damaged, stands more unified, with fewer international constraints on its nuclear ambitions.”

It’s hard to get a clear picture of what was achieved, which isn’t surprising when you consider that there remains considerable doubt, even in this information age, what was achieved by the US bombing raid against Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear installations.

First they were “completely obliterated”. Or at least that was what Donald Trump posted on the night of the raid. Then it seemed that they may not have been as obliterated as first thought. In fact an initial assessment prepared by the US Office of Defense Intelligence thought that the damage may only have hindered Iran’s nuclear programme by a few months.

Cue outrage from the US president and his senior colleagues, amplified by their friends in the US media. There followed some new intelligence which seemed to favour Trump’s position. Then the head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, weighed in, saying Iran could be enriching uranium again in a “matter of months”. The latest contribution was from the Pentagon which is saying that timescale is actually closer to “one to two years”. Clear as mud then.

But as Rob Dover reminds us, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once pronounced: “If it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence.” Dover, who is an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull, explains that intelligence almost always has a political dimension and should be viewed through that prism.

“The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration,” writes Dover. This is not necessarily a bad thing, he concludes as “security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors”. Or at least it used to be. Now the US president seems happy to discuss sensitive information in public.

The medium is the message

But then, as Sara Polak observes, Donald Trump’s use of social media is changing the way government is conducted in the US. Polak is a specialist in US politics at Leiden University with a particular interest in the way politics and media intersect.

As she writes, for more than a century since Teddy Roosevelt cultivated print journalists, through FDR’s adept use of radio and JFK’s mastery of television, each new media platform has its master. For Trump it is social media. And he is using it to remake politics.

Nowhere has Trump’s mastery of art of issuing simple messages which make for effective soundbites been displayed so clearly than in the name of his landmark tax-cutting legislation still being wrangled over in the US Congress at the time of writing: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

While undoubtedly big – it runs to 940 pages – its beauty is what the US House of Representatives has been debating fiercely for 24 hours or more, after it passed the Senate with the help of a casting vote from US president J.D. Vance when three Republican senators voted against it.

Dafydd Townley from the University of Portsmouth, who writes regularly for The Conversation about US politics, has written this incisive analysis of the politics around the legislation which appears set to continue for some time to come.

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

– ref. Hope for a ceasefire in Gaza (but not much) – https://theconversation.com/hope-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-but-not-much-260460

July 5, 2025

Can the NHS shift from treatment to prevention? What healthcare bosses think

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Lisa Knight, Head of External Engagement & Professional Programmes, Liverpool John Moores University

Imagine a healthcare system where preventing illness is just as important as treating it. This is the vision for the English NHS – but right now, it’s still far from reality. To become more sustainable and better serve patients in the long run, the NHS needs to shift its focus from reactive care to proactive, preventative support.

On July 3 2025, the UK government published its Fit for the Future: Ten-Year Health Plan for England, laying out a blueprint to rebalance the health service toward prevention, digital transformation and localised care. The plan includes:

expanding up to 300 neighbourhood health centres to bring preventative services closer to communities
digitising services with 24/7 access through the NHS app, AI triage – the use of artificial intelligence to help prioritise and assess patients more efficiently, particularly in high-demand areas like emergency departments, GP surgeries and outpatient care – and robot-assisted surgery
tackling chronic illness earlier, including more support for obesity, smoking cessation and mental health
integrating prevention into everyday care, with a shift in national performance targets to better reflect long-term health outcomes.

Prime minister Keir Starmer described it as a shift “from a sickness service to a health service,” marking a deliberate move away from crisis response toward early intervention and community-based support.

But making this vision real won’t be easy.

System still isn’t built for prevention

In my research, I’ve looked at what good leadership should look like in the NHS – especially within England’s new integrated care systems (ICSs). A key part of these systems is place-based partnerships.

These are local collaborations between NHS services, councils, charities and community groups, all working together to improve people’s health. The idea is to better join up care in each area and tackle the broader issues that affect health, such as housing, education and access to support.

I spoke to NHS leaders, including chief executives of major health organisations, on the basis of anonymity, who agree that the system needs to change. But many of them say it will face major obstacles – especially financial constraints and fragmented funding models that continue to reward reactive care, such as A&E. As one NHS leader put it:

All the things that come down from NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care respond to the now, rather than where we are going.

While the ten-year plan lays out ambitions for rebalanced funding, existing financial mechanisms won’t support this shift. The NHS can overspend during emergencies, but local authorities – who fund most social care and public health – must stay within strict budgets.

This undermines integration and creates unequal footing between services. One senior leader noted”

Local authorities will never consider us as a partner until we get our act together on finance… you’ve got to sit back and look at what impression that gives them – that we’re not equals.

The ten-year plan acknowledges these disparities but offers limited detail on how to resolve them. Without concrete reform of funding flows and accountability structures, prevention may remain a priority in name only.

In 2024, the health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, described the NHS as “broken” and called for a review to expose the “hard truths” needed to fix it. He has been outspoken in championing both prevention and better integration with social care, viewing these as key to reforming a system overwhelmed by rising demand and worsening outcomes.

Improving housing, social care, education, and jobs can reduce reliance on costly hospital treatments and significantly enhance overall health. In 2022, the NHS took a structural step toward this by merging health and social care services into “integrated care systems”, aiming to better coordinate services across sectors.

However, it has now been more than a decade since key targets for emergency care, hospital waiting times, or cancer services were met – raising questions about whether structural changes alone are enough.

The COVID pandemic deepened these pressures. Waiting lists for treatment surged, while NHS staff faced soaring stress levels. Many healthcare leaders describe the current moment as a perfect storm, in which long-term planning is increasingly difficult while trying to meet immediate needs.

Why risk and measurement matter

Preventative services, new technologies and integrated care models carry uncertainty. Leaders are understandably hesitant to shift resources away from acute services when “hospitals get the headlines.” One told me:

We’re shuffling public service delivery cash around and not thinking through how we develop something fundamentally different.

National performance frameworks also reinforce this inertia. Most targets still focus on wait times, emergency response, and treatment outcomes. As one executive put it:

We manage what’s measured… If we were made to look at deprivation figures and elective recovery figures based on postcode and ethnicity, that might change the conversation.“

The ten-year plan promises new indicators and better data sharing, but it remains to be seen whether these tools will actually shift behaviour at scale.

Listening to communities?

An effective shift to prevention requires more than structural reform – it needs genuine community engagement. One of the aims of integrated care systems was to involve local people in decisions about their health. Most leaders I have interviewed support this principle, but many admit that public involvement remains limited: “We’re not doing enough to listen… We’re not giving people opportunities.”

The ten-year plan reiterates the importance of local voices and promises a stronger focus on “co-produced care,” but delivery will depend on time, trust and cultural change within the system.

My research suggests that the NHS won’t be fixed by continuing to treat illness after it happens. It must evolve into a service that prevents poor health at its root – in homes, schools, workplaces and local communities.

The government’s ten-year plan offers a renewed opportunity to make this shift. But if the plan is to succeed, it will require more than bold promises. It demands redesigned funding, rebalanced risk, shared power with communities – and, above all, the political will to change the system before it collapses under its own weight.

Lisa Knight is affiliated with Mersey and West Lancashire NHS Trust as a Non-Executive Director

– ref. Can the NHS shift from treatment to prevention? What healthcare bosses think – https://theconversation.com/can-the-nhs-shift-from-treatment-to-prevention-what-healthcare-bosses-think-234601

July 5, 2025

Pets get hay fever too – how to spot it and manage it

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Jacqueline Boyd, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Nottingham Trent University

Summer often brings with it the unmistakable sniffles and sneezes of hay fever. As plants and trees release pollen into the air, many of us start to feel the effects – itchy eyes, runny noses and general discomfort. But hay fever doesn’t just affect people – our pets can suffer too.

Like us, dogs, cats, horses and even small animals like rabbits and guinea pigs can struggle during pollen season. So how can you spot the signs – and more importantly, how can you help?

What is hay fever?

Hay fever is an allergic reaction to airborne pollen. Grass pollen is considered the most common trigger, though pollen from trees and weeds can also play a part. Normally, the immune system protects us from harmful invaders like bacteria and viruses. But sometimes, it becomes oversensitive and reacts to things that aren’t dangerous.

Allergies like hay fever happen when the immune system mistakenly treats harmless substances – such as dust or pollen – as threats. When exposed again, the body tries to defend itself, triggering a cascade of reactions including itching, sneezing, congestion, watery eyes and coughing. These symptoms, although frustrating, are the body’s attempt to shield itself – just against the wrong enemy.

What are the signs of hay fever in pets?

Humans with hay fever usually experience an itchy throat, sneezing, watery eyes and a runny nose. Pets show many of the same symptoms: sneezing, nasal discharge and eye irritation are all common.

Dogs and cats often show signs through their skin, rubbing or scratching at itchy areas and sometimes chewing their paws or belly. These parts of the body are more likely to come into contact with pollen when outdoors. In more severe cases, pets can develop dermatitis – an intensely itchy and inflamed skin condition that may require veterinary care.

If you think your pet might be suffering, it’s important to speak with your vet. Many people with hay fever learn to tell the difference between colds, flu and pollen allergies. But our pets can also catch colds and other infections, which may look similar. To treat the problem properly, it’s best to get a clear diagnosis.

How to help your pet with hay fever

If you or your pet are dealing with hay fever, there are steps you can take to make things more manageable.

Start by keeping a diary of symptoms – it might help you connect flare-ups with particular plants or trees. In the UK, tree pollen tends to peak in April and May, while grass pollen is highest in June and July. If grass seems to be the culprit, keeping lawns short can help. You might also need to remove problem plants from your garden or restrict access to them.

Regular grooming and washing your pet – along with cleaning their bedding – can reduce the amount of pollen they’re exposed to. Less pollen means fewer symptoms.

Pollen forecasts are also a helpful tool. On days when pollen levels are particularly high – usually during warm, dry spells – you can take extra precautions.

Pollen tends to be most concentrated during the day, especially when it’s hot and humid. Try walking your dog early in the morning or later in the evening when levels are lower, which also helps protect them from dangerously high temperatures.

Keeping cats indoors and ensuring horses have appropriate shelter and rugging can also reduce exposure.

While antihistamines are a common remedy for people, don’t be tempted to use them on pets unless prescribed by your veterinary surgeon. Many over-the-counter options are not safe for animals and could cause harm. Your vet can recommend safe alternatives and help create a management plan tailored to your pet.

A vet holding a cat. — Don’t use over-the-counter antihistamines to treat your pet. Speak to your vet about the correct treatment.
Juice Flair/Shutterstock.com

Pollen allergies are expected to become more common, with climate change and pollution both playing a role. Higher temperatures prompt plants to release more pollen, and pollution can make our immune systems more reactive to it. Even thunderstorms can worsen hay fever by breaking pollen into smaller particles that are more easily inhaled.

Spotting the signs early and taking steps to limit your pet’s exposure can make a big difference, helping them stay comfortable, healthy and happy during the pollen-heavy months.

In addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and support from the Institute for Knowledge Exchange Practice (IKEP) at NTU, Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Kennel Club (UK) through membership and as advisor to the Health Advisory Group. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583). She also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis.

– ref. Pets get hay fever too – how to spot it and manage it – https://theconversation.com/pets-get-hay-fever-too-how-to-spot-it-and-manage-it-259155

July 5, 2025

Mental health in England really is getting worse – our survey found one in five adults are struggling

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Sally McManus, Professor of Social Epidemiology, City St George’s, University of London

Anxiety and depression were among the most common mental health issues people struggled with. Inna Kot/ Shutterstock

The proportion of people in England with poor mental health has risen sharply over the past 30 years, according to England’s most robust national mental health survey. While in 1993 15% of 16- to 64-year-olds surveyed were found to have an anxiety disorder or depression, this reached 23% in 2024.

The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) is the longest running mental health survey series in the world. It began in 1993 and has published five waves of data since. The survey series is commissioned by NHS England and conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, alongside the University of Leicester and City St George’s, University of London.

The findings from this series are our best barometer of trends in the nation’s mental health because of the quality of the survey samples and the rigour of the mental health assessments. Each wave, a random sample of addresses are invited to take part. By drawing from the whole population, and not just those in contact with health services, we can examine population change.

Around 7,000 adults aged 16 to 100 took part in the most recent survey. The detailed, at-home interviews asked participants questions from the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) – a detailed mental health assessment tool with over 130 questions.

This recent survey revealed many things about the state of mental health in England. While it’s clear the prevalence of several mental health conditions have risen this century, there are also signs that access to mental healthcare has also increased.

Young people are a priority group

A quarter of 16- to 24-year-olds in this latest survey had a common mental health condition – the highest level observed since the APMS series began. An upward trajectory was also evident for rates of self-harm.

Evidence from a sister survey we conducted suggests that for young people, the Covid pandemic had a sustained effect on mental health. However, both surveys show the upward trend in young people’s poor mental health predated the pandemic.

Although concerns have been linked to social media, evidence for this as a key causal factor is weak. There’s likely multiple causes: environmental, social, economic, technological and political changes may all play a part.

Anxiety disorders have increased

Generalised anxiety disorder is now one of the most prevalent types of mental health condition in England – present in one in 12 adults. The condition is characterised by feelings of stress or worry that affects daily life, are difficult to control and which have persisted longer than six months.

The proportion of 16- to 64-year-olds meeting generalised anxiety disorder criteria also doubled since the series began – from 4.4% in 1993 to 8.5% in 2023-2024. The steepest increase was seen in 16- to 24-year-olds – with prevalence rising from just over 2% in 1993 to nearly 8% in 2024.

Socioeconomic inequalities persist

The survey also confirmed that people struggling financially and those with a limiting physical health condition (such as asthma, cancer or diabetes), were particularly at risk of experiencing poor mental health. About 40% of people who were unemployed had depression or an anxiety disorder.

The survey also revealed area-level disparities, with common mental health conditions being more prevalent among those living in the most deprived fifth of neighbourhoods. In these areas, 26% of people had a common mental health condition – compared with 16% of those living in the least deprived areas.

A man sits on his bed, looking out the window. — Mental health conditions were more prevalent in deprived regions.
WPixz/ Shutterstock

Regional disparities emerged as well – with people living in more deprived regions of England experiencing worse mental health. Around 25% of adults in the East Midlands and the north-east had a common mental health condition – compared with around 19% of people living in the south-west and 16% of those in the south-east.

Age and ethnic inequalities in treatment persist

Likelihood of receiving mental health treatment varied between groups. People aged 75 and over were the least likely to receive treatment compared to people from other age groups. This could partly stem from lack of help-seeking.

Ethnic inequalities were also observed, with people from Asian or black backgrounds less likely to receive treatment compared to people from white backgrounds. Ethnic disparities in treatment access have also been noted in linked primary care data – disparities which may also have worsened during the pandemic.

Persistent treatment inequalities have been attributed to problems with recognition and diagnosis of symptoms in people from ethnic minority backgrounds by healthcare workers. Cultural variations in expressions of distress may also be missed in consultation processes – affecting whether or not treatments are offered.

Men may be seeking help more

A decade ago, the survey found that among people with a common mental health condition, women were around 1.58 times more likely than men to get treatment.

This difference was no longer evident in the latest results. It may be that mental health services have become better at recognising and responding to mental health need in men, or that reduced stigma around mental health has meant more men are seeking help.

People are now more likely to get treatment

The proportion of people with depression or an anxiety disorder receiving mental health treatment – either in the form of prescription medication or psychological therapy – has increased substantially since the survey began.

Between 2000 and 2007, one in four people with a common mental health condition received treatment. This increased to 39% in 2014 – and nearly half in the latest survey. The increase was evident for both psychological therapies (rising from 10% in 2007 to 18% in 2024) and prescription medication (rising from 20% in 2007 to 38% in 2024).

Future of mental health

The APMS has been conducted with consistent methods over decades, using the same robust mental health assessments with large, random samples of the population. This means the results are largely not affected by changes in levels of mental health awareness or stigma, and changes in levels of diagnosis or service contact.

As such, this gives us confidence in the figures: that mental health in England really is getting worse, and that access to mental health treatment among people with a condition has increased.

It will now be important for future research to consider what are the drivers of change in population mental health, and how we can improve mental health care for all.

Sally McManus receives funding from UKRI Violence, Health and Society (VISION) consortium (MR/V049879/1). The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey was conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, with Leicester University and City St George’s, University of London. The latest survey in the series was commissioned by NHS England with funding from England’s Department for Health and Social Care.

Sarah Morris leads the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey and works on the Health Survey for England at the National Centre for Social Research, which is commissioned by NHS England, with funding from England’s Department of Health and Social Care.

– ref. Mental health in England really is getting worse – our survey found one in five adults are struggling – https://theconversation.com/mental-health-in-england-really-is-getting-worse-our-survey-found-one-in-five-adults-are-struggling-260120

July 5, 2025

Lack of justice in Indonesia’s climate plan may backfire, harming people and environment

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Wira A. Swadana, Climate Action Senior Lead, World Resources Institute

Indonesia has developed several climate documents as pathways to curb climate change and adapt to its impacts. These impacts influence many elements of life, including displacement, the spread of infectious diseases, and even fatalities.

Some of these documents include Enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions, Long-Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience 2050 (LTS-LCCR), and Low Carbon Development Indonesia (LCDI).

As a scholar in social development and environmental policy, I conducted a descriptive analysis of more than five Indonesia’s climate documents to learn how the concept of a just transition is being integrated into Indonesia’s climate policies. My analisis reveals that the current narrative in those documents is limited to the outcomes of climate-related approaches.

I found that these climate documents have failed to adequately address the social and environmental aspects that are fundamental to a ‘just transition’ — a global effort to combat climate change and shift towards a sustainable economy while improving the condition of people and the environment.

Indonesia’s climate action is important because the country is home to vast tropical forests and extensive peatlands, which act as important carbon sinks. Yet, it remains one of the world’s largest emitters.

Indonesia’s just transition is essential as it supports global efforts to mitigate climate change while ensuring that the shift is more sustainable and inclusive. Neglecting these factors in the transition can risk equity, justice, and inclusion for affected communities and ecosystems in Indonesia’s climate actions.

The risks it posed

So far, Indonesia’s just transition narrative concentrates mainly on the energy sector. For instance, the government’s white paper on just transition, released in September last year, centres solely on the energy aspect.

Additionally, the use of the word just in the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) — an international partnership aiming at speeding Indonesia’s renewable energy development and coal phase-out — has helped popularise the notion.

A just transition should include broader efforts to limit and adapt to climate change, given these changes directly impact communities. Despite its increasing recognition in the energy sector, just transition remains a long way from being completely integrated into Indonesia’s climate initiatives.

In the forestry sector, Indonesia’s strategy to apply Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices, which includes selective logging practices to minimise damage, may lead to the prohibition of traditional slash-and-burn farming in some areas. This threatens local communities that have long practised controlled burning as a sustainable land management method.

Similarly, under FOLU Net Sink 2030 — Indonesia’s plan to reduce emissions from forestry and land-use — the government has introduced community forestry initiatives to improve livelihood. However, the strategy does not yet address the potential consequences for people who rely on forests for their livelihoods and cultural heritage, which could be jeopardised by by SFM practices.

Moreover, Indonesia’s climate resilience strategies for coastal communities overlook the socio-cultural importance of fishing as a key source of income. For example, the government plans to provide business development training to assist fishing families in diversifying their income in response to extreme weather conditions. However, without acknowledging the deep cultural and economic ties these communities have to fishing, such initiatives risk being ineffective.

The cost we bear

The lack of justice in Indonesia’s transition agenda has backfired, with negative consequences for both people and the environment.

For example, the energy shift demands Indonesia to exploit more of its abundant nickel resources for EV batteries, particularly in central and eastern Indonesia. To assist nickel mining and processing, the government has implemented several policies.

While the nickel boom has helped resource-rich provinces like North Maluku and Central Sulawesi boost their economic growth, it has also had serious impacts. Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emissions climbed by 20% between 2022 and 2023, owing to the dependency on coal for nickel processing facilities.

Beyond emissions, nickel mining has also led to deforestation and pollution, affecting local communities who rely on natural resources for their livelihoods and cultural preservation, while also harming biodiversity in mining areas.

The expense of the nickel rush demonstrates how an unjust energy transition can exacerbate challenges faced by vulnerable communities and further degrade the environment.

Next steps

To integrate just transition principles effectively, Indonesia must first redefine the term ‘just transition’ within its own context. Currently, the term has not been properly incorporated into any of Indonesia’s climate-related documents.

A clear and context-specific definition will allow Indonesia to pursue a transition that is both equitable and inclusive.

To accomplish this, the government must engage a wide range of stakeholders in defining and planning the transition to all climate-related initiatives. This encompasses, but is not limited to, all sectors. The goal is to secure broad participation — not only from the public and private sectors, but also from local communities, vulnerable groups including women and Indigenous peoples, as well as other key actors.

A more defined concept and well-structured plan will make it easier to implement, monitor, and evaluate the change. Simultaneously, this inclusive strategy should ensure a fair and equitable distribution of both benefits and burdens. All actors must be able to participate in decision-making and take action prior to and during the transition process.

Indonesia must also have a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism in place to support its climate actions. The country can learn from Scotland, which has developed a just transition framework with clear outcomes and measurable indicators while ensuring participation and continuous learning from all stakeholders.

Drawing on insights from existing literature and reports will help Indonesia develop a framework that is well-suited to its unique context.

Wira A. Swadana tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Lack of justice in Indonesia’s climate plan may backfire, harming people and environment – https://theconversation.com/lack-of-justice-in-indonesias-climate-plan-may-backfire-harming-people-and-environment-249246

July 5, 2025

Peatlands and mangroves: Southeast Asian countries must protect these major carbon pools to boost climate ambitions

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Sigit Sasmito, Senior Research Officer, James Cook University

Peat swamp in Danau Sentarum National Park, West Kalimantan. (Bramanthya Fathi Makarim/Shutterstock)

Protecting and restoring peatlands and mangroves can strengthen Southeast Asian countries’ efforts to combat climate change, according to new findings from an international team of researchers.

Carbon-dense peatlands and mangroves comprise only 5% of Southeast Asia’s surface. Protecting and restoring them, however, can reduce approximately 770±97 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) annually. This is equal to more than half of the carbon emissions from land use in the region.

Conserving offers larger mitigation potential through reduced emissions from ecosystem loss in the region compared to gains from restoration. If optimally implemented, restoration can still play an important role in nature-based carbon sequestration.

Having peatlands and mangroves included in the new climate pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions 3.0) can help countries set higher emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2035.

More benefits to offer

The study reports extensive climate benefits from conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves. Therefore, they make effective natural climate solutions for Southeast Asian countries.

Both ecosystems protect organic matter from decay under natural conditions, acting as net carbon sinks. This means that carbon uptake exceeds carbon loss.

Net carbon gains are mainly accumulated in their soils instead of their vegetation. More than 90% of carbon stocks in peatlands and 78% in mangroves are in their soils.

At scale, protecting and restoring both types of wetlands also supports other valuable co-benefits. These include biodiversity preservation, water quality improvement, coastal protection, food security and rural development for millions of coastal people across Southeast Asian countries.

Challenges remain

Despite the benefits, many challenges and risks persist in conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves.

When peatlands and mangroves are disturbed – commonly due to land use change – they release large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. This release can later exacerbate climate change.

The new estimates suggest that changes in their land use for the past two decades (2001-2022) had caused the release of approximately 691±97 MtCO2e of excess emissions.

Indonesia accounts for the largest portion of the region’s emissions, accounting for 73%. Malaysia (14%), Myanmar (7%), and Vietnam (2%) follow. The other seven Southeast Asian countries generate the remaining 4% of emissions.

In Southeast Asia, mangroves and peatlands are often treated as unproductive land. Still, they have long been subject to agricultural land expansion planning.

Moreover, unclear or multi-land ownership and lack of long-term participatory monitoring programs are critical challenges for prioritising and implementing restoration on the ground.

Despite these challenges, government and corporate interest in developing conservation and restoration-based carbon projects for peatlands and mangroves is rapidly increasing.

That is why now is a good opportunity to recognise their vital roles — not only for climate change mitigation — but also for people and nature.

Implications for national emissions reduction targets

The new study addresses a critical gap in climate policy for Southeast Asian by providing annual climate change mitigation potentials from peatlands and mangroves.

Climate mitigation potential for national land-use emissions varies widely between countries.

The findings suggest that it could reduce national land-use emissions by up to 88% in Malaysia, 64% in Indonesia, and 60% in Brunei. Other countries include Myanmar at 39%, the Philippines at 26%, Cambodia at 18%, Vietnam at 13%, Thailand at 10%, Laos at 9%, Singapore at 2%, and Timor-Leste at 0.04%.

Our study also shows that mitigation potential from peatlands and mangroves in Indonesia can fulfil country Forestry and Other Land-use (FOLU) Net Sink targets by 2030.

In its 2022 NDCs, Indonesia plans to reduce its annual emissions from FOLU by 2030 between 500-729 MtCO2e, depending on the level of external support. According to the study, this figure is within the same order of mitigation potential as peatlands and mangroves can collectively generate.

However, peatland and mangrove mitigation potentials are insufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change in the future.

Decarbonisation remains the most effective means of curbing climate change and its impacts, with peatland and mangrove protection enhancing these efforts.

Susan Elizabeth Page menerima dana dari University of Leicester, UK.

Dan Friess, David Taylor, Massimo Lupascu, Pierre Taillardat, Sigit Sasmito, dan Wahyu Catur Adinugroho tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Peatlands and mangroves: Southeast Asian countries must protect these major carbon pools to boost climate ambitions – https://theconversation.com/peatlands-and-mangroves-southeast-asian-countries-must-protect-these-major-carbon-pools-to-boost-climate-ambitions-247570