On 10 January 2020, Chinese scientists released the sequence of the COVID-19 genome on the internet. This provided the starting gun for scientists around the world to start developing vaccines or therapies. With at least 80 different vaccines in development, many governments are pinning their hopes on a quick solution. However, there are many hurdles to overcome. 

Vaccine development

Firstly, vaccine development is normally a very long process to ensure vaccines are safe and effective before they are used. 

Safety is not a given: a recent dengue vaccine caused heightened disease in vaccinated children when they later were exposed to dengue, while Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine caused the same problem. Nor is effectiveness a given. Candidate vaccines that use novel techniques where minute fragments of the viruses’ genetic code are either injected directly into humans or incorporated into a vaccine (as is being pursued, or could be pursued for COVID-19) have higher risks of failure simply because they haven’t worked before. For some vaccines, we know what levels of immunity post-vaccination are likely to be protective. This is not the case for coronavirus. 

Clinical trials will have to be done for efficacy. This is not optional – regulators will need to know extensive testing has taken place before licencing any vaccine. Even if animal tests are done in parallel with early human tests, the remainder of the process is still lengthy. 

There is also great interest in the use of passive immunization, whereby antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (collected from people who have recovered from infection or laboratory-created) are given to people who are currently ill. Antivirals may prove to be a quicker route than vaccine development, as the testing requirements would be shorter, manufacturing may be easier and only ill people would need to be treated, as opposed to all at-risk individuals being vaccinated.

Vaccine manufacturing

Developers, especially small biotechs, will have to make partnerships with large vaccine manufacturers in order to bring products to market. One notorious bottleneck in vaccine development is getting from proof-of-principle to commercial development: about 95 per cent of vaccines fail at this step. Another bottleneck is at the end of production. The final stages of vaccine production involve detailed testing to ensure that the vaccine meets the necessary criteria and there are always constraints on access to the technologies necessary to finalize the product. Only large vaccine manufacturers have these capacities. There is a graveyard of failed vaccine candidates that have not managed to pass through this development and manufacturing process.

Another consideration is adverse or unintended consequences. Highly specialized scientists may have to defer their work on other new vaccines to work on COVID-19 products and production of existing products may have to be set aside, raising the possibility of shortages of other essential vaccines. 

Cost is another challenge. Vaccines for industrialized markets can be very lucrative for pharmaceutical companies, but many countries have price caps on vaccines. Important lessons have been learned from the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic when industrialized countries took all the vaccines first. Supplies were made available to lower-income countries at a lower price but this was much later in the evolution of the pandemic. For the recent Ebola outbreaks, vaccines were made available at low or no cost. 

Geopolitics may also play a role. Should countries that manufacture a vaccine share it widely with other countries or prioritize their own populations first? It has been reported that President Trump attempted to purchase CureVac, a German company with a candidate vaccine.  There are certainly precedents for countries prioritizing their own populations. With H1N1 flu in 2009, the Australian Government required a vaccine company to meet the needs of the Australian population first. 

Vaccine distribution

Global leadership and a coordinated and coherent response will be needed to ensure that any vaccine is distributed equitably. There have been recent calls for a G20 on health, but existing global bodies such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and GAVI are working on vaccines and worldwide access to them. Any new bodies should seek to boost funding for these entities so they can ensure products reach the most disadvantaged. 

While countries that cannot afford vaccines may be priced out of markets, access for poor, vulnerable or marginalized peoples, whether in developed or developing countries, is of concern. Developing countries are at particular risk from the impacts of COVID-19. People living in conflict-affected and fragile states – whether they are refugees or asylum seekers, internally displaced or stateless, or in detention facilities – are at especially high risk of devastating impacts. 

Mature economies will also face challenges. Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccine will be challenging where inequalities and unequal access to essential services have been compromised within some political systems. 

The need for global leadership 

There is an urgent need for international coordination on COVID-19 vaccines. While the WHO provides technical support and UNICEF acts as a procurement agency, responding to coronavirus needs clarity of global leadership that arches over national interests and is capable of mobilizing resources at a time when economies are facing painful recessions. We see vaccines as a salvation but remain ill-equipped to accelerate their development.

While everyone hopes for rapid availability of safe, effective and affordable vaccines that will be produced in sufficient quantities to meet everyone’s needs, realistically, we face huge hurdles. 

Political leaders, policy-makers and academics routinely refer to development as an objective process of social change through the use of technical, value-free terms. Images of poverty and inequality are regularly presented as evidence of a world that exists ‘out there’ where development unfolds. This way of seeing reflects the value of scientific forms of knowledge but also sits in tension with the normative foundations of development that take European modernization and industrialization as the benchmark for comparison. The role images play in this process is often overlooked. This article argues that a dominant mode of visuality based on a Cartesian separation between subject and object, underpinning the ascendance of European hegemony and colonialism, aligns with the core premises of orthodox development discourse. An example of how visual representations of development matter is presented through images of Africa–China relations in western media sources. Using widely circulated images depicting China's impact on African development in western news media sources as an example of why visual politics matters for policy-making, the article examines how images play a role in legitimizing development planning by rendering associated forms of epistemological and structural violence ‘invisible to the viewer’.

At face value, recent years have seen a deepening in Sino-Russian cooperation, from energy agreements, to the recent Huawei-MTS deal developing a 5G network in Russia. Ever larger-in-scale joint military exercises add to fears by some that the 'axis of convenience' is now a more genuine – and threatening – partnership.

This workshop will offer a sober assessment of the latest developments in Sino-Russian relations, shedding light on the underpinnings and practical realities of the relationship as well as on the long-term challenges of upholding cooperation.

The panel will discuss the different and potentially diverging interpretations of contemporary Sino-Russian relations as well as the implications for the rules-based international order.

This event is co-organized by the Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme and the University of Exeter and is supported by the British International Studies Association.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only. 

This event is part of the Inaugural Virtual Roundtable Series on the US, Americas and the State of the World and will take place virtually only. Participants should not come to Chatham House for these events.

This event is part of the US and Americas Programme Inaugural Virtual Roundtable Series on the US and the State of the World and will take place virtually only.

This event will take place from 14:00 – 15:00 BST.

At face value, recent years have seen a deepening in Sino-Russian cooperation, from energy agreements, to the recent Huawei-MTS deal developing a 5G network in Russia. Ever larger-in-scale joint military exercises add to fears by some that the 'axis of convenience' is now a more genuine – and threatening – partnership.

This workshop will offer a sober assessment of the latest developments in Sino-Russian relations, shedding light on the underpinnings and practical realities of the relationship as well as on the long-term challenges of upholding cooperation.

The panel will discuss the different and potentially diverging interpretations of contemporary Sino-Russian relations as well as the implications for the rules-based international order.

This event is co-organized by the Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme and the University of Exeter and is supported by the British International Studies Association.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only. 

The discovery of valuable natural resources such as hydrocarbons or minerals in conflict-affected states or disputed regions can be a double-edged sword. While economic growth may help overcome conflict and consolidate peace, much of the academic literature links the economic, social and environmental impacts of resource development with an increased risk of violent conflict between or within fragile states. 

Recently however, the role of business in advancing peace has emerged as a topic of increasing discussion in academia and in forums such as the UN Global Compact. Resource development has also become a key objective for donor development strategies in fragile states such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Myanmar, on the assumption that extractive sector development can contribute to stability and security. 

This event will gather key stakeholders from business and policy to investigate if and where natural resource development has contributed to peace-building, built cooperation among stakeholders or helped to resolve, rather than exacerbate, tensions. If so, it will endeavour to draw out common, replicable lessons of what made these developments successful from a peace-building perspective.

The event will be held under the Chatham House Rule.

Katanga Province in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is immensely wealthy in minerals such as copper, uranium and gold, and is home to around fifty per cent of the world’s cobalt reserves. Rising outputs from the province’s copper and cobalt mines have contributed to the DRC’s average GDP growth of 8.5 per cent over the past two years. However, despite visible infrastructure developments in the province to service the industry, few Congolese are benefiting from the revenues and the economy is yet to diversify.

Moïse Katumbi Chapwe, the governor of Katanga Province, will discuss his approach to resource governance and will examine how regional governments can capitalise on resource revenues to improve livelihoods. 

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Today Indonesia begins issuing the first ever FLEGT licenses for timber exports bound for the EU market. A major step in the battle against illegal logging and trade in illegal timber, these licenses are issued under a national system to verify the legality of all timber and timber products. A commitment to licensing its timber exports to Europe was made in the country’s Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the EU, although the licensing system applies to all exports and to the domestic market. The scale of this achievement can not be underestimated given the size of the country and of its forest sector – there are hundreds of thousands of forest enterprises ranging from large-scale concession holders and processing industries, to smallholders and micro-scale loggers, saw-millers and manufacturers.

It is also remarkable given the state of Indonesia’s forest sector at the turn of the century. Looking back to 2000, rule of law was all but absent and corruption was rife - with the allocation of concessions and timber industries closely tied with the country’s ruling elite. Widespread logging contributed to the high rates of deforestation seen at the turn of the century, which stood at over one per cent per year.

In 2016, the forest sector is vastly different – there are much higher levels of accountability and legal compliance, the result of the considerable effort and resources that have been put into enforcement and anti-corruption efforts. The sector is also much more open, reflected both in the significant improvements in the availability of forest data and legislation as well as the increased space that has been made available to civil society to participate both in policy processes and in monitoring of the sector.

These improvements are the result in large part of the reform processes that have been enabled and supported by the VPA process, for which negotiations began in 2007. However, the process is far from complete and the issuance of FLEGT licences is best viewed as a marking point in an ongoing trajectory towards establishing a legal and sustainable sector.

If we take 2000 as the starting point of this trajectory, with FLEGT licensing as the midway point, this brings us to just beyond 2030, the target date for the UN’s global agenda for sustainable development of which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are an integral part. The SDGs provide a broader framework for considering what further progress is needed in the coming years both to improve legality and to ensure that the forest sector makes a positive contribution towards achieving widespread sustainable development in Indonesia.

There are a number of factors that risk the achievement of these aims. Key challenges that remain in the country’s forest sector include the high levels of informality in the small-scale sector, corruption, limited transparency and pressure on forests from other sectors (as highlighted in the report 'Illegal Logging and Related Trade. The Response in Indonesia').

As noted, there are hundreds of thousands of forest enterprises in the country, many of which – particularly small-scale businesses – operate informally. Further concerted efforts are needed to ensure that these enterprises are not excluded from the formal market, but are able to contribute to a thriving economy – for example, through continued support for certification, as well as much greater investment in the provision of extension services and further reforms to establish a policy framework that facilitates the growth of small businesses (see 'Improving Legality Among Small-Scale Forest Enterprises'). This will make an important contribution to the achievement of SDG 8, to enable ‘decent work and economic growth’, this including the target [8.3] to encourage the growth of small enterprises.

Both corruption and limited transparency also need to be addressed if widespread legality and sustainability are to be achieved in the forest sector. Transparency has improved greatly in the forest sector, with significant improvements to the availability of information and the establishment of independent monitoring by civil society. However, further progress is needed to improve the accessibility of information, not least to ensure that NGOs are able to fulfil this monitoring role. In relation to corruption, the anti-corruption agency has made good progress, but it remains under threat and needs to be strengthened. Improving governance is a priority under the SDGs, Goal 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) including targets to reduce corruption, develop transparent institutions and ensure public access to information.  

The progress made in these areas also needs to be replicated outside the forest sector. A major threat to Indonesia’s forests comes from conversion to other land-uses, in particular agricultural plantations. Effective land-use planning, including transparent and participatory decision-making, is needed if the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources is to be achieved and deforestation slowed – as set out under SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 15 (life on land).

An important means to drive progress is to ensure close monitoring of progress as well as the evaluation of the measures being adopted. A framework for monitoring the impact of FLEGT licences, as well as the related measures being implemented under the VPA, is under development. This will need to link up to national efforts to monitor progress towards the SDGs – both to contribute towards the monitoring of these goals and to facilitate communication of the progress and lessons being learnt in the forest sector.

To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback

During the resources boom of the last decade, countries, companies and communities alike were quick to highlight the transformative potential of the mining sector. With appropriate governance advice and capacity-building support, it seemed the ‘resource curse’ could be overcome. Yet as companies have adjusted their spending in response to declining global commodities prices and longer-term supply and demand projections, low- and middle-income resource-rich economies appear to have increased their dependence on the minerals sector. But how far has the potential of the mining sector been realised to date, and how different does this potential look today?

Taking ICMM’s third edition of the ‘Role of Mining in National Economies’ as the starting point, this meeting will critically assess the contribution that mining has made to development over the past decade, the prospects for ‘mining-led’ growth in the new global context, and the relevance of classic fiscal, employment and governance prescriptions.

Summary

• There is growing optimism about the potential of the ‘circular economy’ (CE) as a new model for sustainable growth in developing countries. A CE is one in which products are recycled, repaired or reused rather than thrown away, and in which waste from one process becomes an input into other processes. In recent months there has been CE-related activity in countries as diverse as Laos, Rwanda and Colombia.
• A CE strategy could help lower-income countries ‘leapfrog’ to a more sustainable development pathway that avoids locking in resource-intensive practices and infrastructure. But a stronger evidence base is needed to show how the agenda can deliver opportunities for industrialization, as well as addressing environmental insecurity.
• Lower-income countries are in many ways more ‘circular’ than their developed-economy counterparts – the question is how to turn this into a development opportunity. Much economic activity in lower-income countries revolves around sorting and reusing waste. However, higher-value, employment-generating opportunities for reuse and remanufacturing are yet to be captured.
• The existence of circular activities in developing countries provides excellent political ‘entry points’, which could enable governments, the private sector, civil society and other actors to promote innovative economic models. The CE could provide a powerful narrative, helping to build momentum around a set of ideas that can be applied in and tailored to multiple sectors or cities.
• There is a window of opportunity in which to align the efforts of development organizations and partner countries. Donors are exploring how the agenda should be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Wider international cooperation on the CE could involve trade partnerships, regional hubs or pilot zones.

The 2019–20 fire season in Australia has been unprecedented. To date, an estimated 18 million hectares of fire has cut swathes through the bush – an area greater than that of the average European country and over five times the size of blazes in the Amazon.

This reflects previous predictions of Australian science. Since 2008 and as recently as 2018, scientific bodies have warned that climate change will exacerbate existing conditions for fires and other climatic disasters in Australia. What used to be once-in-a-generation fires now re-appear within 10–15 years with increased ferocity, over longer seasons.

In a country known for climate denial and division, debate has erupted around bushfire management and climate change. One of these is whether controlled burns are the answer to Australia’s climate-affected fire conditions.

There is no single risk reduction strategy. Controlled burning remains key, if adapted to the environment and climate. 

But when three out of four seasons in a year can support destructive bushfires, there are clear limits to what controlled burning and other fire management techniques can achieve. Other ‘adaptation’ measures are also likely to provoke intense debate – including bush clearance. As one Australian expert offered to highlight where Australia has got to, families should probably not go on holiday to bush and beach during the height of summer when temperatures and fire risk peaks. 

So, unless Australia is prepared to debate radical changes to where people live and how land is used, the limits to adaptation imply the need for mitigation. This means supporting ambitious global greenhouse emissions reductions targets. As research from Victoria, one fire-prone state in Australia, highlights, ‘the emissions pathway we follow is the largest determinant of change to many variables [such as temperature] beyond the next few decades.’

Can Australia become a more active global partner on emissions?

Australia accounts for just over one per cent of global emissions, so reducing domestic emissions – even though on a per capita basis they are the highest in the world – will not reduce Australia’s climate risk. Showing international leadership and supporting a powerful coalition of the willing to tackle climate change is the only way ahead. By showing a willingness to adopt climate ambition, Australia can help more constructive worldwide action, and thereby reduce its own risk exposure. 

Leading by example is a politically difficult issue for Australia. Prime Minister Scott Morrison was re-elected in May 2019 on an economic stability platform, and a promise not to imperil employment growth through climate action. Australia has contested UN estimates that it will not meet its existing modest goals for domestic emissions, by seeking to rely on carryover credits from action under the Kyoto Protocol as proof of progress.

It has also distanced itself from concerns over global supply and demand in fossil fuels. Australia remains a global supplier for fossil fuels, including coal – the nation’s coal exports accounted for $67 billion in revenues in 2019 in an expanding but changing Asian market, supplying ‘some of the cheapest electricity in the world’.

Possible influencers of change

With Australians experiencing first-hand the risks of climate change, there is already pressure to do more. Many are sceptical this will translate into domestic targets or export policies that give Australia the moral authority to ask for more action on the global stage.

Here, diverse groups who share a common interest in seeing Australia recover from the bushfires and address future climate risks could be key.

Importantly this includes rural and urban-fringe communities affected by the bushfires. They were part of Morrison’s traditional supporter-base but are angry at the government’s handling of the crisis and increasingly see how tiptoeing around emissions (including exports) has also ‘buried’ open discussion at home on climate-readiness.

Australian states could also find themselves taking a lead role. Virtually all jurisdictions have now committed to their own goals, most based on zero-carbon goals by 2050 (as has New Zealand). These can support modelling for Australia’s energy transition from coal, through gas, to market competitive renewables, while also help to ensure this reflects community expectations on jobs, electricity prices and other costs. 

Other emerging voices include the insurance and banking sectors (the Reserve Bank of Australia warned of the long-term financial stability risks of climate change before the fires) and indigenous Australians (one group of Torres Strait Islanders have filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee which, if heard, will place Australia’s emissions record under the spotlight again). Their challenge now is finding a common language on what a cohesive approach to addressing climate change risk looks like. 

The international picture is mixed. The United States’ poor federal climate policy is a buffer for Australia. French President Emmanuel Macron has tried to raise the cost of inaction for Australia in current EU–Australia trade negotiations, but many large emitters in the Indo-Pacific region remain key Australian trading partners, investors and buyers of Australian coal. 

In the meantime, the United Kingdom is preparing for the meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement in Glasgow in November. A key global event following Brexit, the UK will no doubt be hoping to encourage a leadership circle with national commitments that meet global need to make the Glasgow meeting a success.

The UK public has expressed enormous sympathy for Australia in the bushfires and outrage over ‘climate denialism.’ Australia’s experience will be a cautionary tale of the effects of climate change at the meeting. Could the UK also support Australia to become a less reluctant partner in global climate action?