The Ganges, a lifeline for hundreds of millions across South Asia, is drying at a rate scientists say is unprecedented in recorded history. , shifting monsoons, relentless extraction and damming are pushing the mighty river towards collapse, with consequences for food, water and livelihoods across the region.

For centuries, the Ganges and its tributaries have sustained one of the world’s most densely populated regions. Stretching from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal, the whole river basin supports over 650 million people, a quarter of India’s freshwater, and much of its food and economic value. Yet new research reveals the river’s decline is accelerating beyond anything seen in recorded history.

In recent decades, scientists have documented across many of the world’s big rivers, but the Ganges stands apart for its speed and scale.

In a , scientists reconstructed streamflow records going back 1,300 years to show that the basin has faced its worst droughts over the period in just the last few decades. And those droughts are well outside the range of natural climate variability.

Stretches of river that once supported year-round navigation are now impassable in summer. Large boats that once travelled the Ganges from Bengal and Bihar through Varanasi and Allahabad now run aground where water once flowed freely. Canals that used to irrigate fields for weeks longer a generation ago now dry up early. Even some wells that protected families for decades are yielding little more than a trickle.

Global climate models have failed to predict the severity of this drying, pointing to something deeply unsettling: human and environmental pressures are combining in ways we don’t yet understand.

Water has been diverted into irrigation canals, groundwater has been pumped for agriculture, and industries have proliferated along the river’s banks. More than a thousand dams and barrages have radically altered the river itself. And as the world warms, the monsoon which feeds the Ganges has grown increasingly erratic. The result is a river system increasingly unable to replenish itself.

Melting glaciers, vanishing rivers

At the river’s source high in the Himalayas, the Gangotri glacier has retreated in just two decades. The pattern is repeating across the world’s largest mountain range, as rising temperatures are melting glaciers faster than ever.

Initially, this brings . In the long-run, it means far less water flowing downstream during the dry season.

These glaciers are often termed the “water towers of Asia”. But as those towers shrink, the summer flow of water in the Ganges and its tributaries is dwindling too.

Humans are making things worse

The reckless extraction of is aggravating the situation. The Ganges-Brahmaputra basin is one of the most rapidly depleting aquifers in the world, with water levels falling by . Much of this groundwater is already contaminated with arsenic and fluoride, threatening both human health and .

The role of human engineering cannot be ignored either. Projects like the in India have reduced dry-season flows into Bangladesh, making the land saltier and threatening the Sundarbans, the world’s largest mangrove forest. Decisions to prioritise short-term economic gains have undermined the river’s ecological health.

Across and West Bengal, smaller rivers are already drying up in the summer, leaving communities without water for crops or livestock. The disappearance of these smaller tributaries is a harbinger of what may happen on a larger scale if the Ganges itself continues its downward spiral. If nothing changes, experts warn that millions of people across the basin could face within the next few decades.

Saving the Ganges

The need for urgent, coordinated action cannot be overstated. Piecemeal solutions will not be enough. It’s time for a comprehensive rethinking of how the river is managed.

That will mean reducing unsustainable extraction of groundwater so supplies can recharge. It will mean environmental flow requirements to keep enough water in the river for people and ecosystems. And it will require improved climate models that integrate human pressures (irrigation and damming, for example) with monsoon variability to guide water policy.

Transboundary cooperation is also a must. India, Bangladesh and Nepal must do better at sharing data, managing dams, and planning for climate change. International funding and political agreements must treat rivers like the Ganges as global priorities. Above all, governance must be inclusive, so local voices shape river restoration efforts alongside scientists and policymakers.

The Ganges is more than a river. It is a lifeline, a sacred symbol, and a cornerstone of South Asian civilisation. But it is drying faster than ever before, and the consequences of inaction are unthinkable. The time for warnings has passed. We must act now to ensure the Ganges continues to flow – not just for us, but for generations to come.

, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Geography,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

China recently of the world’s largest hydropower dam, across the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet. When fully up and running, it will be the world’s largest power plant – by some distance.

Yet many are worried the dam will displace local people and cause huge environmental disruption. This is particularly the case in the downstream nations of India and Bangladesh, where that same river is known as the Brahmaputra.

The proposed dam highlights some of the geopolitical issues raised by rivers that cross international borders. Who owns the river itself, and who has the right to use its water? Do countries have obligations not to pollute shared rivers, or to keep their shipping lanes open? And when a drop of rain falls on a mountain, do farmers in a different country thousands of miles downstream have a claim to use it? Ultimately, we still don’t know enough about these questions of river rights and ownership to settle disputes easily.

The Yarlung Tsangpo begins on the Tibetan Plateau, in a region sometimes referred to as the world’s third pole as its glaciers contain the largest stores of ice outside of the Arctic and Antarctica. A series of huge rivers tumble down from the plateau and spread across south and south-east Asia. Well over a billion people depend on them, from Pakistan to Vietnam.

Yet the region is already under immense stress as global warming melts glaciers and changes rainfall patterns. Reduced water flow in the dry season, coupled with sudden releases of water during monsoons, could intensify both water scarcity and flooding, endangering millions in India and Bangladesh.

The construction of has historically disrupted river flows, displaced people, destroyed fragile ecosystems and increased risks of floods. The Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Dam will likely be no exception.

The dam will sit along the tectonic boundary where the Indian and Eurasian plates converge to form the Himalayas. This makes the region particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, , and .

Downstream, the Brahmaputra is one of south Asia’s mightiest rivers and has been integral to human civilisation for thousands of years. It’s one of the world’s most sediment-rich rivers, which helps form a huge and fertile delta.

Yet a dam of this scale would trap massive amounts of sediment upstream, disrupting its flow downstream. This could make farming less productive, threatening food security in one of the world’s most densely populated regions.

The Sundarbans mangrove forest, a Unesco World Heritage Site that stretches across most of coastal Bangladesh and a portion of India, is particularly vulnerable. Any disruption to the balance of sediment could accelerate coastal erosion and make the already low lying area more vulnerable to sea-level rise.

The Brahmaputra eventually flows into a region of fertile fields and mangrove forests. Sk Hasan Ali / shutterstock

Unfortunately, despite the transboundary nature of the Brahmaputra, there is no comprehensive treaty governing it. This lack of formal agreements complicates efforts to ensure China, India and Bangladesh share the water equitably and work together to prepare for disasters.

These sorts of agreements are perfectly possible: 14 countries plus the European Union are parties to a , for instance. But the Brahmaputra is not alone. Many transboundary rivers in the global south face similar neglect and inadequate research.

Researching rivers

In our recent study, colleagues and I analysed . We wanted to assess how much academic research there was on each, what themes it focused on, and how that varied depending on the type of river. We found that, while large rivers in the global north receive considerable academic attention, many equally important rivers in the global south remain overlooked.

What research there is in the global south is predominantly led by institutions from the global north. This dynamic influences research themes and locations, often sidelining the most pressing local issues. We found that research in the global north tends to focus on technical aspects of river management and governance, whereas studies in the global south primarily examine conflicts and resource competition.

In Asia, research is concentrated on large, geopolitically significant basins like the Mekong and Indus. Smaller rivers where water crises are most acute are often neglected. Something similar is happening in Africa, where studies focus on climate change and water-sharing disputes, yet a lack of infrastructure limits broader research efforts.

Small and medium-sized river basins, critical to millions of people in the global south, are among the most neglected in research. This oversight has serious real-world consequences. We still don’t know enough about water scarcity, pollution, and climate change impacts in these regions, which makes it harder to develop effective governance and threatens the livelihoods of everyone who depends on these rivers.

A more inclusive approach to research will ensure the sustainable management of transboundary rivers, safeguarding these vital resources for future generations.

, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Geography,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

For years, nature has been blamed as a blocker of economic growth. After some ministerial about not letting get in the way of growth ambitions, the UK government released more details of its plans to .

The centrepiece of its aspirations to balance both nature and economic growth is a , to be set up in England through changes to habitat regulations. This should allow developers to stay within their legal obligations towards nature through a payment scheme without delaying their projects.

The is that, as an alternative to relocating important species or improving habitats on the site of a proposed development, a developer could pay into the nature restoration fund. This would pay for larger, more strategically located schemes to protect the species in question.

The fund simplifies and streamlines the regulations while collecting funds to promote more, bigger, better and increasingly .

Protecting nature is not just about bats and newts. According to trade association the Home Builders Federation (HBF), there are 160,000 homes being delayed by what are known as measures. These rules were a response to growing public concerns about land and water pollution caused by nutrient loads – pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus – associated with livestock farming and spillages from sewage works.

Government agency 74 local authorities that they should not allow any more house building in their areas unless this pollution could be mitigated. But this has led to lengthy and expensive project-by-project reviews to identify potential damage.

How will a fund help?

The fund will build on some schemes that are already known to work. One such scheme works for the protection of . Another successful scheme is project, working to protect and enhance heathland sites where rare birds such as nightingales breed. Crucially, this scheme allows new development to go ahead in adjacent areas.

The fund will be run by Natural England, which aims to draw on these experiences to unblock development at a large scale rather than at single-site level, pooling contributions from developers to pay for mitigation measures when there is a risk to nature.

If a particular “blocking” issue is identified, experts from Natural England will produce a plan, which must be approved by the environment secretary. A levy on developers will then pay for mitigation measures “in perpetuity” (often 30 years), allowing the development to get under way.

Environmental experts have the general principles and approach of the nature restoration fund. But there has also been about whether the plan is well enough thought through. There are also questions on how well it will integrate with other schemes.

A widespread worry is for the future of – which includes measures for creating and improving using biodiversity units, effectively a form of “nature market”. This approach sets a target of 10% for biodiversity improvement based upon the combined distinctness, condition and significance of affected habitats over the lifetime of the development. But these measures are only just .

The concern is that providers of sites for these habitat banks – which might be councils, landowners, charities or private businesses, for example – might get cold feet and if they can’t be certain that their plans will be compatible with the nature restoration fund.

There is concern, too, about how payments from the nature restoration fund would be calculated. These will need to be locally appropriate and not pit nature restoration and biodiversity net gain against each other if, for example, landowners are forced to choose a particular scheme for their land that they are then . With two parallel systems in play, the relationship between them must be crystal clear, otherwise shared goals could be missed.

Another question is whether Natural England can be both regulator and financial beneficiary of the new scheme. There have been calls from some of those already involved in nature markets for some form of .

And it will also be vital that the new scheme respects what’s known as the “mitigation hierarchy”. This hierarchy aims to avoid, reduce and then mitigate any impacts on nature on-site in that order. Then developers should consider off-site measures in areas where there could be greater .

But a danger here is that this could disconnect people from nature even further by mitigating ecological loss miles away from the site of the damage. This disconnection is considered to be a critical underlying cause of .

There is much to like about the nature restoration fund, but there is a risk that little will be achieved without the government showing genuine ambition and allocating enough money and staff to properly monitor and enforce it over the long term. Only time will tell whether it achieves the government’s goal of speeding up development.

At the moment, it is not clear how the fund will complement similar schemes and there is a danger of creating a complex patchwork in nature restoration funding. But if it works well, it could provide a richer funding ecosystem for nature recovery – a much-needed boost for England’s nature-depleted landscape.

, Professor, Urban and Environmental Planning and , Senior Lecturer in Planning and Environmental Management
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

The most recent statistics show that violence against women and girls affects one in 12 women in . A quarter of domestic abuse incidents reported to police involve known, repeat perpetrators. But despite being to identify and control the most serious perpetrators, police do not currently have systems good enough to do that.

Currently, police forces use an algorithm to determine which offenders pose the greatest risk to women and girls. This is known as the – perpetrators are propelled up or down a list based on the recency, frequency, gravity (seriousness) of reported incidents, and the vulnerability of the victim.

The gap in this approach is that it largely treats incidents as isolated, when they should be looked at as a whole. Research has also found it is used between forces.

Most police perpetrator lists contain hundreds or even thousands of people, making them difficult tools to use. They also do not seem to be able to distinguish who the most serious offenders are, with men with very similar profiles near the top, middle and bottom of the lists.

We propose an , which would assess the whole of a perpetrator’s record of incidents. This would allow police to identify not only the most dangerous perpetrators, but also opportunities to better address their offending earlier on. This might be with diversion to programmes designed to support better choices and rehabilitation, or arrest and incarceration to prevent them harming other people.

By joining together incidents recorded by police for individual perpetrators, we constructed detailed case studies using police officer’s notes. Here is a summary of two people who appear in one force’s perpetrator list.

1. Male born mid 1980s, involved in 340 incidents over 20 years

His offending begins with an indecent assault on a young teenage girl when he is 19. He is increasingly involved in drug-related offending in his 20s. He is later sentenced to six years in jail for arson endangering life. Released on conditional licence, he is re-convicted of the harassment of his ex-partner and recalled to prison.

Release is followed by further offences until the mid-2010s when he is imprisoned again. When released, his offending is erratic (low-level public order, violence, threats, drug-related offending).

Throughout his 30s, he frequently victimises partners and ex-partners. He has no settled address and is homeless at various points of his life. He is still subject to frequent mental health episodes.

2. Male born early 1980s, involved in 396 incidents over 25 years

In his teens he was involved in low-level thefts, criminal damage and breaches of an antisocial behaviour order. He was also suspected of selling drugs to schoolchildren, and imprisoned, aged 18, for drug-related violence.

In his 20s he “associates with” children and is found with a missing vulnerable schoolgirl hiding in his house. He continues to commit offences of criminal damage, drug dealing, and stealing vehicles. Another missing teenage girl is found to be living with him.

In his early 20s he very violently assaults and harasses much younger partners. He continues to commit public order offences and to threaten, harass, and assault current and ex-partners, kicking his pregnant partner in the stomach.

In the early 2020s, police attend his ex-partner’s house following abandoned 999 calls – they find him with his hand over her mouth to stop her calling out to the police. He continues to be violent to ex-partners and his involvement in drug-related offending deepens. He is currently in prison for a violent offence.

Who is the danger?

Both men pose a real and severe threat of violence to women and girls as well as the public. But the RFGV algorithm places the first man more than a thousand places higher than the second. Clearly treating the offences they commit in isolation is not sufficient to distinguish which man poses the greatest risk.

A life-course approach, which takes into account the type and pattern of offending as it develops over time, is less susceptible to fluctuations which move an offender rapidly up or down the priority lists. Therefore, it more reliably reflects who poses the greatest risk.

A better ranking system is clearly required. The RFGV algorithm provides a “score”, but a more sophisticated system would also evaluate the direction of offending of individuals – is it escalating, more frequent, more serious?

A life-course approach could be used separately or together with RFGV to allow police analysts to identify the most serious perpetrators. It may also be possible to use artificial intelligence to identify trends in offending and escalation of risk through analysis of thousands of police incident reports in real time.

The system could then identify opportunities for which have been shown to be effective in reducing re-offending against current and future victims. It could also automatically trigger warnings to neighbourhood officers, specialist domestic abuse-trained officers, mental health services and so on.

We won’t really know the full capability until new systems are tried, and evaluated. This also means including the voices of survivors and focusing on the lives of persistent perpetrators – often substance use, homelessness, estrangement, imprisonment and mental health problems are at play. The possibilities of learning from artificial intelligence or other technology should not be privileged over the very sources of the data such intelligence relies upon: victims’ experiences.

, Professor of Criminology, and , Professor of Social Justice,  
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

The UK government has published its , a cornerstone of its strategy for growth. The bill aims to and includes the hugely ambitious target of building in England over this parliament.

The bill is ambitious in scope – 160 pages long and very technical. But what does it promise exactly?

On , it outlines reforms to limit vexatious repeat use of judicial review to block development. There are also some measures for a stronger electricity grid to ease the move towards renewable energy. While the plan to reward people living with ÂŁ250 off their bills grabbed headlines, just as important are measures for energy storage to level out peaks in demand and supply.

On the side, planning departments will be allowed to charge more to those making applications. This should speed up decisions by funding more planning officer roles. But there are no measures to increase funding for drawing up local plans. This is important because councils often fall behind schedule in producing these. And where there is no up-to-date plan, there is a danger that developers will push through controversial proposals.

The bill also provides for more decisions to be delegated to planning officials rather than planning committees – this means council staff rather than elected representatives. This already happens for smaller planning applications, so is not entirely new. But it does raise concerns about democratic scrutiny.

The government argues that local democracy will not be undermined, as planning officers will be making their decisions in the context of democratically approved local plans as well as national legislation. But this could be misleading, unless planning authorities have the funds to update local plans regularly.

There are also changes to existing legislation, to support the building of new towns. Particularly welcome is the responsibility on development corporations – government organisations dealing with urban development – to consider climate change and design quality. This is in order to hit net-zero targets and avoid cookie-cutter housing estates.

Other measures are aimed at ensuring appropriate infrastructure is built to serve these new towns.

There are changes planned too on when orders can be used to buy sites that are broadly to be used for the public good. This could be for affordable homes, health or education facilities, for instance. It would work by reducing payments to the actual value of the land rather than its “hope value” (when landholders hold out for price rises once planning permission is granted).

There is also a commitment to creating a fund, which the government hopes will overcome some of the delays to approving new housing caused by potential threats to wildlife.

The fund will aim to unblock development in general rather than specific sites, as happens at the moment, and will pool contributions from developers to fund nature recovery. Where there are concerns for wildlife, experts will develop a long-term mitigation plan that will be paid for by the fund while allowing the development to go ahead in the meantime.

Will it work?

As a professor of urban and environmental planning, the question for me is will the bill encourage development to progress more speedily? Almost certainly – probably mostly in terms of bringing forward improvements to critical national infrastructure schemes such as the electric grid. For residential development, some incremental speeding up is likely as developers crave certainty in planning decisions.

But on their own, these measures are unlikely to be enough to provide the 1.5 million new homes set out in the government’s target. They offer nothing to tackle critical bottlenecks in terms of both . It is also difficult to see the target being met without much more government involvement – by building social housing in particular.

Will the bill result in better quality development? There is surprisingly little in the plans about improving design quality, other than in areas. This is disappointing, and a missed opportunity to ensure that developers raise their game in residential building and neighbourhood quality.

And might it override local democracy? Arguably yes, but in practice not as much as some critics might argue. Most of the reforms are finessing existing practices, such as delegated powers to planning officers. Much depends on what the national government guidance turns out to be.

The biggest concern is that it might increase invisible political pressures on planning officers by councillors and senior officials. It would have been good to have seen more measures to protect their independence and professional judgement.

Hopefully the bill will speed up delivery of nationally important schemes for critical infrastructure. This means things like modernising the electricity grid and removing repeated use of judicial review to block a development. These elements should create jobs sooner and support economic growth.

Where the bill will make absolutely no difference is in improving living standards for people with older homes. This bill is focused on new builds and has little to offer those hoping for support in retrofitting ageing housing stock with more energy-efficient features or creating green spaces in areas where new development is increasingly in demand.

Despite some of the ministerial bluster about , much of the content of this bill is not about removing planning regulations. It is much more about improving them. Some measures will work better than others, but overall, given the government’s electoral mandate to deliver growth and protect the environment, this is a reasonable balancing act.

It’s unlikely to deliver much growth in its own right, but as an enabler of growth, it is promising. More worrying is whether it will lead to poor-quality housing built at pace and massive scale to inadequate energy-efficiency and design standards. This would fail to deliver on net-zero and biodiversity ambitions. It is very much a minor win for facilitating growth, but for nature it is nothing more than maintaining the status quo.

, Professor, Urban and Environmental Planning,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

This article is written as part of #CoveringClimateNow – a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate emergency.

We’re constantly encouraged to think of the next big climate summit, conference or protest as the most important one, the one that is about to make the all-important breakthrough. The  on September 23 in New York is no different. The UN’s Secretary General António Guterres is calling on world leaders to come with concrete and realistic plans to bring their national net carbon emissions down to zero by 2050.

But amid the hype, it’s worth putting this UN summit in context against the history of 30 years of such international meetings. Is it a vain hope for 197 countries to agree on any meaningful climate action at all, especially when it involves so much money and power?

Scientists  that carbon dioxide was building up and that this could be a problem. By the late 1970s, they knew it would be – it was just a question of when. By 1985, at  the answer became “sooner than we thought”.

Scientists and activists mobilised and in 1988 the stars aligned. An , a NASA scientist called James Hansen willing to  and an  in Toronto meant politicians had to respond.

On the 1988 American presidential campaign trail, George Bush Senior  to convene a global conference on the environment at the White House to “talk about global warming”. But when it finally happened .

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born the same year, endorsed by the UN general assembly, and produced its . By then, there had been fine declarations of motherhood-and-apple-pie in various European cities, such as  and . However, negotiations towards an international treaty to do something about climate change itself  February 1991. The world’s media largely ignored them, as the 1991 Gulf War was underway.

UNFCCC birth pangs

Very little progress was made – a sign of things to come – and with a hard deadline of May 1992 approaching, a month before the world’s nations were to gather in Rio de Janeiro for an “Earth Summit”, powerful countries .

The birth pangs of this search for an international UN treaty on climate change still shape what is and isn’t possible today.

The sticking point was – and still is – what the US government, and the business lobbies behind it, . The French government was keen that any treaty include actual commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, with targets and timetables for the rich nations. The Bush government warned that if these were included in the text they would not attend the Rio summit, leaving any treaty languishing. The French blinked, the UK acted as a middleman, and a deal was done.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , two years after the Rio summit.

The French, and others, had hoped that once the UNFCCC was signed and ratified, they could quickly address the question of rich country commitments to reduce CO2 emmissions. But this didn’t happen.

When the , which extended the UNFCCC, was agreed in 1997, despite the fact that carbon trading and other economic instruments within it were designed to keep the Americans happy, no serious commitment to reductions was made. The Americans then pulled out of the  in 2001, when George W Bush became president.

The process staggered on and there was another helping of motherhood-and-apple-pie at Copenhagen in 2009. Finally, in 2015 a non-binding Paris Agreement was cobbled together, based on a previously discarded , which has created an endless round of promises that haven’t been met.

The scientist who had warned that climate change was upon us in 1988 – James Hansen – , and since 2015,  nations are failing to meet their Paris commitments. Even if they did, global average temperature rise this century would be  of the two degrees above pre-industrial levels that the deal is supposed to ensure.

The US pulled out of the . A clear pattern has emerged.

The role of the UN

Some would argue that trying to get 197 countries to agree on anything is a fool’s errand. For 20 years, critics such as the international relations expert David Victor  whether the UN is the appropriate venue for climate negotiations. Victor argues that such a forum is inevitably going to lead to gridlock. He’s not alone in this – as early as 1983  were saying that such a global problem could not be solved because of the complexity of its politics.

The counter argument is that if a deal is agreed outside of the UN process, between the world’s major emitters – the EU, US and China – then it will be perceived as illegitimate, and will likely involve an even greater reliance  than the current Paris Agreement.

Ultimately, it becomes a matter of trust: do those already suffering the impacts of climate change trust those who have caused it to sort it out.

In my experience of talking to people who work in and around the UNFCCC’s bodies, many speak knowledgeably without hesitation, deviation or repetition about the alphabet soup of climate change acronyms, but are completely oblivious of much of this awkward history. Yet what happened – straightforward veto power by the US of anything that would look like real action – remains with us today, and it doesn’t help to pretend otherwise.

Whether the world can a transition to sustainability – the stated aims of both the UNFCCC and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – remains to be seen. But the stakes could not be higher. If political, economic, technological and cultural solutions aren’t now found, the outlook for humanity – and the other species we share this planet with – is exceptionally bleak.

Marc Hudson, The University of ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ, is co-founder of Climate Emergency ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ, which is trying to get ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ City Council to turn its many fine words about 'zero carbon' into meaningful action. This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. .

The development of new Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is often subject to bias, and the resulting systems can be discriminatory, meaning more should be done by policymakers to ensure its development is democratic and socially responsible.

This is according to Dr Barbara Ribeiro of at The University of ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ, in , a new policy report on the role of AI and Robotics in society, being published today.

Dr Ribeiro adds because investment into AI will essentially be paid for by tax-payers in the long-term, policymakers need to make sure that the benefits of such technologies are fairly distributed throughout society.

She says: “Ensuring social justice in AI development is essential. AI technologies rely on big data and the use of algorithms, which influence decision-making in public life and on matters such as social welfare, public safety and urban planning.”

“In these ‘data-driven’ decision-making processes some social groups may be excluded, either because they lack access to devices necessary to participate or because the selected datasets do not consider the needs, preferences and interests of marginalised and disadvantaged people.”

is a comprehensive report written, developed and published by with leading experts and academics from across the University.

The publication is designed to help employers, regulators and policymakers understand the potential effects of AI in areas such as industry, healthcare, research and international policy.

However, the report doesn’t just focus on AI. It also looks at robotics, explaining the differences and similarities between the two separate areas of research and development (R&D) and the challenges policymakers face with each.

Professor Anna Scaife, Co-Director of the University’s  team, explains: “Although the challenges that companies and policymakers are facing with respect to AI and robotic systems are similar in many ways, these are two entirely separate technologies – something which is often misunderstood, not just by the general public, but policymakers and employers too. This is something that has to be addressed.”

One particular area the report highlights where robotics can have a positive impact is in the world of hazardous working environments, such a nuclear decommissioning and clean-up.

Professor Barry Lennox, Professor of Applied Control and Head of the UOM Robotics Group, adds: “The transfer of robotics technology into industry, and in particular the nuclear industry, requires cultural and societal changes as well as technological advances.

“It is really important that regulators are aware of what robotic technology is and is not capable of doing today, as well as understanding what the technology might be capable of doing over the next -5 years.”

The report also highlights the importance of big data and AI in healthcare, for example in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

Lord Jim O'Neill, Honorary Professor of Economics at The University of ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ and Chair of the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance explains: “An important example of this is the international effort to limit the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The AMR Review gave 27 specific recommendations covering 10 broad areas, which became known as the ‘10 Commandments’.

“All 10 are necessary, and none are sufficient on their own, but if there is one that I find myself increasingly believing is a permanent game-changer, it is state of the art diagnostics. We need a 'Google for doctors' to reduce the rate of over prescription.”

The versatile nature of AI and robotics is leading many experts to predict that the technologies will have a significant impact on a wide variety of fields in the coming years. Policy@ňňň˝ÎŃĘÓƵ hopes that the On AI and Robotics report will contribute to helping policymakers, industry stakeholders and regulators better understand the range of issues they will face as the technologies play ever greater roles in our everyday lives.