A/42/427
English
Page 317
58. Governments, individually and collectively, have the principal responsibility to collect this information symtematically and use it to assess risks. but to d&te only a few have developed capacity to do so. Some intergovernmental agencies have a cmpacity to collect and assess information rquired for risk assessment, such as FAO on soil and forest cover and on fisheries; WHO on climate; UNEP on deserts, pollutant., and regional seas. Quasi-governmental organizations like IUCN have a similar capacity. These are only a few examples from a long list, But no intergovernmental agency has been recognized as the centre of leadership to stimulate work on risk assessment and to provide an authoritative source of reports and advice on evolving risks. This gap needs to be filled both within and among governments. Beyond our proposal that the global environment assessment and reporting functions of UNEP should be significantly strengthened, the Commission would now propose that UNEP's Earthwatch be recognized as the centre of leadership on risk assessment in the UN system.
59. But neither UNEP nor other intergovernmental organization can be expected to carry out these important functions alone. To be effective, given the politically sensitive nature of many of the most critical risks, intergovernmental risk assessment needs to be supported by inpdepndent capacities outside of Government. Several national science academies and international scientific groups such as ICSU and its Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, with special programmes such as the newly inaugurated international Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (see Chapter 10); the Man and the Biosphere Programme of UNESCO; quasi-governmental bodies such as IUCN; and certain industry groups and NGOs are active in this field, But, again, there is no recognized international non-governmental centre of leadership through which they efforts of these groups can be focused and coordinated.
60. During the 197Os, the growing capacity of computers led various governments, institutes, and international bodies to develop models for integrated policy analysis. They have provided significant insights and offer great promise as a means of anticipating the consequences of interdependent tends and of establishing the policy options to address them.[1] Without suggesting any relationship between them, early attempts were all limited by serious inconsistencies in the methods and assumptions employed by the various sources on which they depended for data and information.[2] Although significant improvements have been made in the capability of models and other techniques, the data base remains weak.[3]
61. There is an urgent need to strengthen and focus the capacities of these and other bodies to complement and support IEP's monitoring and assessment functions by providing timely. objective, and authoritative assessments and public reports on critical threats and risks to the world community. To meet this need, we recommend the establishment of a Global Risks Assessment Programme:
- ↑ See M.C. McHale etal., 'Ominous Trends and Valid Hopes: A Comparison of Five World Reports (Minneapolis, Minn.: Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, (year)) for a comparison of North-South: A Programme for Survival (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980): World Bank, World Development Report 1980 (Washington, DC: 1980); U.S. Department of Sate and Council on Environmental Quality, Global 2000 Report to the president: Entering the Twenty-First Century (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980): IUCN/WIIF/UNEP, World Conservation Strategy (Gland, Switzerland: 1980); and OECD, Interfutures: Facing the Future , Mastering the Probable and Managing the Unpredictable (Paris: 1979). See also D. Meadows et al Groping in the Dark – The First Decade of Global Modelling (Chicheser, UK: John Wiley G Sons, 1982 for an analysis of various models.
- ↑ See C.O. Barney, Study Director, Global 2000 epo, op. cit.
- ↑ See OECD, Econmic and Ecological Interdependence, (Part: 1982).
