Africa

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec 15 2022 (IPS)

During November, soldiers of the March 23 Movement (M23) have been approaching Goma in the eastern territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), close to the Rwandan border. About 180.000 people are now leaving Goma, a city with a million inhabitants. Many stakeholders are involved in the conflict and there is an apparent danger that the overall carnage that affected the Congolese eastern border areas fifteen years ago will resume. At the same time, war is ranging in Ukraine, which name likely comes from the old Slavic term for borderland.

Disputed border areas have often been hotbeds for horrific and widespread wars. World War I began with border conflicts between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia, while World War II was ignited through German allegations of Czech and Polish mistreatment of Germans living on their side of the border. Tensions are constantly brewing along borders between India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Ethiopia and Sudan, Armenia and Azerbaijan – just to mention a few border conflicts present all over the world.

Throughout history, borderlands have suffered from looting, massacres and ethnic violence, generally triggered off by incursions from neighbouring countries, causing chaos and destruction. Borderlands are generally speaking a result of clearly defined borders between European nations, established after the Westphalian Peace Agreements in 1648, ending the Thirty Years’ War, a conflagration between religious factions that devastated Germany, killing 30 per cent of its population.

Before mid-17th century, European borders were quite diffuse. A royal realm had its heartland, a centre from which it could expand through wars, treaties and negotiations. In medieval Europe the more or less undefined areas between different sovereignties were called marks, or marches, words deriving from an Indo-European term meaning edge. A mark/march often served as a buffer zone, more or less independently governed by a marquis/margrave.

As a result of the Westphalian Peace, national borders became demarcated by border markings and lines drawn upon maps. Such boundaries were eventually introduced to the rest of the world. In Africa, border demarcations became common after the Berlin Conference, 1884-1885, when leaders of fourteen European nations and the United States agreed upon a “partitioning” of Africa, establishing rules for amicably dividing resources among Western nations. Notably missing was any representative from Africa.

One of the proclaimed aims of the Berlin Conference was to bring “civilization” to Africa, in the form of free trade and Christianity. Accordingly could King Leopold II of Belgium, by playing the part of a beneficent monarch, succeed in convincing his counterparts that he would personally bring order, faith and prosperity to the heart of Africa. Congo was thus formally recognized as Leopold’s personal possession. An extraordinarily rich territory, with ivory, minerals, palm oil, timber and rubber, was used by Leopold to increase his personal wealth. Missionary stations and trade routes were established, while slave labour extracted the natural resources. If production targets were not met, the autochthonous population risked severe punishment, ranging from having their families held hostage in concentration camps, to torture, the severing of a hand, and eventual execution.

Between 1900 and 1930, European colonial powers completed cartographic surveys of African territories. However, surveys focused solely on land control while disregarding the impact recently established borders might have on the well-being of the original population. Local communities suffered limitations to their daily activities and nomadic practices. Traditional life, administrative structures, and economic safety were negatively affected. Furthermore, colonial rule tended to instigate conflicts. Imposed borders gradually set off hostile relations among borderland dwellers and eventually enabled post-independent governments and political elites to use such divisions for political means.

The sheer size of the territory, which eventually became the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), made its governance extremely challenging. This vast nation is about the same size as Western Europe and has 10,500 kilometres of external borders. In the middle of the country is an almost impenetrable and vast jungle area. Border control is largely non-existent, providing neighbouring countries with an opportunity to exert influence into remote peripheries. For many Congolese, it is easier to reach the capital of a neighbouring state than travelling to the capital city, Kinshasa.

As in other areas of the world, people on both sides of Congolese borders exchange goods, spouses, languages and customs. Nevertheless, in spite of all this mixture and exchange, most people living along borders generally continue to be aware of their roots in different cultural settings. Even if they might share a lingua franca, several of them tend to maintain their original language and specific customs. Border communities thus find themselves in a precarious balance, which might be upheld for centuries but also runs the risk of becoming swiftly overturned by armed attacks from national armies, warlords, or hordes of bandits and uprooted former soldiers, as well as massive influxes of refugees.

During the so called First– and Second Congo Wars, and their aftermath, approximately 5.4 million died between 1994 and 2008, deaths mainly caused by disease and malnutrition, though massacres committed by all the warring factions also killed staggering numbers of civilians. Nine African nations and around twenty-five armed groups were involved in the wars. The mayhem began in April 1994, when about 1.5 million Rwandans settled in eastern DRC. These refugees included Tutsis fleeing Hutu mass murderers, and eventually one million Hutus fleeing the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s (RPF) subsequent retaliations.

The shooting down of a plane carrying Rwandan President Juevénal Habyarimana, a Hutu, served as catalyst for a genocide lasting for approximately 100 days. Between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus were in Rwanda killed during well-planned attacks, ordered by an interim government. This genocide ended when the Tutsi commanded Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) gained control and took over the Rwandan Government, making approximately two million Hutus fleeing across the border into neighbouring Zaire. Estimates of the number of Hutu civilians killed in subsequent revenge massacres by the RPF range from 25,000 to 100,000.

Rwandan incursions into Zaire occurred after years of Congolese internal strife, dictatorship and economic decline. Zaire, as the country was called at the time, was in 1994 a dying State. In many areas, increasingly corrupt state authorities had in all but name collapsed, with infighting militias, warlords, and rebel groups wielding local power.

International response to the Rwandan genocide had been lame and limited, though this time international opinion reacted immediately. Massive relief support was directed to refugees in eastern Zaire. In the meantime, several, heavily armed Rwandan gėnocidaires, genocide perpetrators, organized themselves among Hutu refugees. In their attacks on Banyamulenge, a Tutsi minority who for centuries had been living in Congo, the gėnocidaires were often joined by local militia. Banyamulenge were resented by several Congolese agriculturists, who suspected them of planning to take over their land.

Currently it is the rebel group M23, which is the main aggressor. The rebel group was in 2012, according the UN, created and commanded by the Rwandan army. The Rwandan Government did in 2013 officially cease its support to M23; its members surrendered and were transferred to a refugee camp in Uganda. However, M23 reappeared in 2017, evidently with renewed Rwandan support. The Congolese mayhem is just one example of what might happen in border areas when control and peaceful interaction between neighbours collapse under the pressure of foreign interventions and enter a bloody, anarchic chaos.

Like in central Africa, Ukraine border conflicts have at several occasions triggered massacres and bloody chaos. For more than 500 years, Ukraine was divided and ruled by a variety of external powers, including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Cossack Hetmanate, Poland, the Tsardom of Russia, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany

From the beginning of the last century to 1921, millions fled Ukraine, including more than 2 million Jews. Ukrainians were killed en masse by Austrians, Poles and warring political factions, while approximately 110,000 Jews were murdered during so called pogroms. Worse was yet to come when Nazi invaders within the same areas murdered approximately 1.7 million Jews. In Nazi-occupied Ukraine, 5.7 million locals died between 1941 and 1945. And now, during Russia’s aggressive invasion, the suffering and slaughter of innocents have been resumed.

The curse of borders, between nations and people, continues to haunt us. To safeguard the future – for our earth and children – we have to learn that general well-being depends on collaboration between nations and peoples, regardless of ethnicity, gender, and ideologies. Wars, like Russia’s ruthless attack on a sovereign nation and the central African mayhem, are crimes against humanity and must be stopped through peaceful solutions. Time is running out and cannot be wasted on armed conquests and bloodshed.

Sources: Stearns, Jason K. (2011) Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. New York: PublicAffair and Veidlinger, Jeffrey (2021) In the Midst of Civilized Europe: The Pogroms of 1918-1921 and the Onset of the Holocaust. London: Picador.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Shihana Mohamed
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 15 2022 (IPS)

To commemorate the seventy-seventh UN Day, the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity & Inclusion (UN-ANDI) held a panel discussion on the topic “Making the UN Charter a reality”. The discussion took place virtually on 27 October, and the event was attended by diverse participants from around the world.

The keynote speaker, Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations (1996–2001), highlighted the need for the UN to be “proactive in oversight, accountability and transparency” and the importance of “practically ensuring gender diversity”.

UN-ANDI is a network of like-minded Asians of the UN system who strive to promote a more diverse and inclusive culture and mindset within the UN. This interest group was created in May 2021 after several years of groundwork.

UN-ANDI is the first ever effort to bring together the diverse group of personnel (i.e., current and former staff, consultants, interns, diplomats, etc.) from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system.

Gender, geographical and regional diversity

“Keeping in mind the event’s theme, ‘Making the UN Charter a reality’, I would underscore that the UN Charter is the first international agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men with explicit references in Article 8 asserting the unrestricted eligibility of both men and women to participate in various organs of the UN.

It would therefore be most essential for the UN to ensure equality, inclusion, and diversity in its staffing pattern in a real and meaningful sense”, said Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN (2002–2007).

Antonia Kirkland, who is the Global Lead on Legal Equality and Access to Justice at Equality Now, said “to keep the noble purpose of the UN and its Charter alive – encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all – we must continue to hold the UN accountable to do even more to cultivate a culture of equality and non-discrimination internally and externally, including by ensuring a work environment free of sexual harassment and abuse”.

“As we celebrate UN Day, we are hoping to inspire, raise awareness, and fight for a more inclusive, just, and transparent Organization. One of the UN core values is respect for diversity. It is important to have UN staff and personnel from different backgrounds (i.e., nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion/faith, etc.)”, declared Yuan Lin, one of the UN-ANDI coordinators.

“However, the UN hierarchy and staffing currently do not reflect this reality. UN personnel of Asian nationality, origin, or descent are not properly represented, especially at the senior management level. This glass ceiling has deprived the Organization of meaningful contribution from our community and created an unjust and discriminatory work environment”, said Lin, who is serving in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as Chief of the Business Relationship Management Unit.

In November this year, the world’s population reached 8 billion. The Asia-Pacific region is home to around 4.3 billion people, which is equivalent to 54 percent of the total world population.

Article 101 (3) of the UN Charter affirms that “due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible”.

In the organizations of the UN common system, however, staff from Asia and the Pacific constituted only about 19 percent of staff in the Professional and higher categories, according to the 2021 annual report of the International Civil Service Commission.

The largest numbers of unrepresented (17) and underrepresented (8) countries were in Asia and the Pacific. In 10 or more organizations with no formal guidelines for geographical distribution, 25 countries in Asia and the Pacific were not represented among staff.

The majority of senior and decision-making posts are held by staff from the global North. Most internships and JPO programs favor the global North, and this contributes to the issue further, as these are entry points to regular jobs in the UN system.

The report of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the United Nations Secretariat confirms that there is a significant lack of diversity in senior managerial positions (P-5, D-1, and D-2 levels) at the UN. Among staff at the P-5, D-1, and D-2 levels, only 16 percent were from Asia-Pacific States as of 31 December 2020.

Among promotions to the P-5, D-1, and D-2 levels, only 14.5 percent were from Asia-Pacific States during the period 2018–2020.

Racism and racial discrimination

The issue of racism in the UN system is deep-rooted with many forms and dimensions. There are also structural issues in the policies of the UN system enabling this situation.

Article 1 (3) of the UN Charter asserts that one of the purposes of the UN is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Aitor Arauz, President of the UN Staff Union and General Secretary, UN International Civil Servants Federation (UNISERV), pointed out that “creating an actively anti-racist work environment is not a passive gain – it requires active engagement and daily work to understand each other, value the cultural wealth that our differences bring to the UN, and overcome the biases we all inevitably have. Surveys and direct interaction with constituents reveal that UN personnel of Asian descent face specific forms of bias and discrimination that must be actively addressed.”

He renewed the Staff Union’s commitment to the cause of anti-racism.

Tamara Cummings-John, Steering Committee member of the UN People of African Descent, who is a Senior Human Resources Officer at the World Food Programme in Kinshasa, said, “There is still so much for us to do – and there is so much for us to learn from the outside world, particularly the private sector and above all by listening to our personnel to address the issues relating to racism and racial discrimination in the UN system.”

The report of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the United Nations Secretariat agrees that UN staff perceive national or ethnic origin as the primary grounds for racism and racial discrimination.

Staff are reluctant to report or act against racial discrimination when they witness it because they believe nothing will happen, lack trust, or fear retaliation, possibly suggesting a low level of solidarity with those who experience racial discrimination and a lack of faith in the established mechanisms in addressing this issue.

Efforts towards making the UN Charter a reality

Tanya Khokhar, who is Consultant of Gender Racial and Ethnic Justice – International at Ford Foundation, said, “Invisible and hidden power seeks to challenge certain norms and practices of who gets preferential treatment, who is promoted, when trying to build a transparent, inclusive and equitable culture in an organization. This is the hardest to do and it takes years of innovative practices both at the team and institutional levels”.

She further noted, “Going back to the work you all are doing through the network, it’s important to recognize the history, cultures, and rich diversity of the regions you represent and build a strong community, to advocate for one another, to align on agendas and lift each other up”.

UN-ANDI supports the initiatives implemented by the Secretary-General on addressing racism and promoting dignity for all in the UN. It works closely with the UN Staff Union in its efforts towards combating racism. It also promotes a collaborative spirit with other networks and institutions with similar objectives, within and outside the UN.

UN-ANDI contributed to the current review of measures and mechanisms for preventing and addressing racism and racial discrimination in the UN system organizations conducted by the Joint Inspection Unit.

In the summer of 2022, UN-ANDI conducted its first survey on racism and racial discrimination in the UN system faced by personnel of Asian descent or origin, offered in five languages. The purpose of the survey was to capture data and pertinent information, reflecting the Asian perspective, and identify the root causes of racism in the UN system.

UN-ANDI will issue a report on the survey findings to address many critical issues of racism and racial discrimination in the UN system.

Lin proclaimed that “as members of UN-ANDI, with our talent, education, experience, and diversity, we can make a difference and contribute immensely to the UN by engaging our community members in a variety of pressing issues facing the UN!”

UN-ANDI believes that its perspectives and observations will facilitate the journey towards the paradigm that is ingrained in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Shihana Mohamed, a founding member and one of the coordinators of UN-ANDI and a Sri Lankan national, is a Human Resources Policies Officer at the International Civil Service Commission.

The opinions quoted in this article represent the personal views of the individuals who expressed them. Please contact via email at UnitedNationsAsiaNetwork@gmail.com to connect or/and collaborate with UN-ANDI.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

President Joe Biden announces a huge funding boost to the continent during a summit in Washington.

Activists at COP15 believe that keeping infrastructure off the radar is a problem and have expressed concern about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China which impacts on biodiversity hotspots and Indigenous communities. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 15 2022 (IPS)

As the COP entered its crucial second week, negotiations are intensifying now. A slew of new contact groups – meeting mostly behind closed doors – are discussing the minutest details of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the contentious issues within or around it, such as Digital Sequencing Information, Access, and Benefit Sharing. The core aim of all these groups is to talk and resolve all issues and produce a draft treaty that will be acceptable to all parties.

In this flurry of activities, however, there’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to see: The impact of mega infrastructural projects on biodiversity. Leading the table of these most impacting mega projects is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China – the president of COP15.

BRI: A Mammoth Project Like No Other

China launched BRI in 2013, intending to revive and strengthen its trade links with the rest of the world. Today, it’s a mammoth project involving several regions of Asia, Africa and Europe with plans to construct roads, railways, ports, and, more recently, health, digital, and space projects, building physical and economic links, enhancing trade and interconnectivity.

It is, however, not a single Chinese government initiative but consists of many different projects in multiple countries, financed through multiple avenues, including Chinese and international banks and investment funds.

According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), the BRI was likely to boost world GDP by $7.1 trillion annually within the next two decades. The Information Office of the Chinese government also reports that BRI has created more than 244,000 jobs for locals abroad.

However, a vast majority of BRI projects require the use of Chinese companies, labour, and raw materials, meaning the GDP gains from BRI will go to the Chinese ‘locals,’ not to the locals of the countries in which China has invested.

An Ambition Vehicle or a Debt Trap

Today, at least sixty-four countries fall within its ambit, and the number is increasing.  The terrestrial route of BRI aims to cut across Central Asia, Russia, India, Pakistan and Europe, and the maritime route runs along the coast of Asia, East Africa, and Europe.

However, many of these small countries saw themselves falling into mounting debts. The first is Sri Lanka which recently plunged into a financial crisis from debts owed to China for highways, ports, airports, and a coal power plant. Sri Lanka owes China lenders over $7.4 billion – 20% of its total foreign debt. Other countries following the footsteps of Sri Lanka are Kyrgyzstan and Montenegro; while Kyrgyzstan owes 40% of its foreign debt, including $1.8 billion to Chinese lenders, the European Union (EU) refused to pay off a $1 billion Chinese loan for the BRI but has offered help on other infrastructure projects.

Impacts on Environment, Gender and Indigenous Peoples

The financial crisis put aside, the implication of the BRI on the region’s biodiversity is huge as it includes many different environmentally important areas such as protected areas, key landscapes, Global 200 Ecoregions (a list of ecoregions identified by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as priorities for conservation), and biodiversity hotspots that cover the distribution range of flagship species.  In fact, the study found that 32% of the total area of all protected areas in countries crossed by BRI corridors were potentially affected by the project. There are also areas that are important for delivering ecosystem services that provide social and economic benefits to people.

According to a geospatial study done by WWF, which examined the environmental impacts of BRI, the initiative will affect 1,700 biodiversity hotspots, threaten 265 species, and potentially introduce hundreds of alien species that threaten these fragile ecosystems.

The BRI corridors also overlap with 1,739 Important Bird Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas and 46 biodiversity hotspots or Global 200 Ecoregions5. This is in addition to the range of 265 IUCN threatened species, including 39 critically endangered species and 81 endangered species – including saiga antelopes, tigers and giant pandas.

According to Allie Constantine, Gender and Indigenous rights Advisor to Global Forest Coalition, there is still no impact assessment on how the BRI affects women, and China has not released data on gender and the BRI. However, given that China has signed and ratified most UN human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 5 being “Gender Equality”), the country is obliged to report on gender impacts of BRI projects it operates.

While China’s 14th Five-Year plan discusses women’s equality and gender rights, there is no indication of how China will implement or enforce this within the BRI.

“However, even without this data, we can still make certain inferences regarding gendered impacts,” says Constantine, who recently conducted a study on the impact of BRI on women and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia.

The study reveals that BRI’s expansion through important ecological corridors, including Chinese-backed hydropower projects built along the Mekong River that cause changes in river flow, directly puts specific communities and fragile ecosystems at risk. In turn, this impacts fish migrations and creates a further loss of livelihoods for downstream communities in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam that rely on the river for sustenance.

It also says that specific BRI projects often negatively affect indigenous and forest communities. For example, the Indigenous Mah Meri community in Malaysia is frequently harmed by government processes, including the development of BRI ports in Mah Meri territories. Although Malaysia supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), it frequently acts against Indigenous land and human rights, Constantine’s study reveals.

Greening or Greenwashing

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China has been intensifying “Green BRI” efforts, including research on how to make BRI projects more environmentally sound. For example, in 2021, the Chinese ministries of Foreign Commerce and Ecology and Environment released “Green Development Guidelines.” China has also committed to ending coal-fired power plants and investing in renewable energy sources.

Speaking to IPS, Li Shuo, Global Policy Advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, said that within China, there is a growing concern over the country’s investment overseas, especially in high-carbon projects such as coal plants.

“It’s a little hard to say if BRI is a good thing or a bad thing for the local economy or local environment. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis,“ says Shuo, “But there is a clear recognition that some of the BRI projects are quite problematic from an environmental point of view. I think there is a realization from the Chinese side as well, and that is why a year ago, there was this Chinese commitment to not fund coal-fired power projects. The announcement was made in September 2021 in the UN General Assembly.”

Shuo, however, says that there is still no such recognition or public debate when it comes to biodiversity.

“There is a recognition that China should not invest in high-carbon projects, so there is a slow transition, but on the other hand, where biodiversity is feeding into all these, I think you are in need of more recognition on the Chinese side on the biodiversity implications of the BRI projects. I think climate recognition is slowly getting there but not necessarily on biodiversity. And if you think about it, a lot of the infrastructural projects will have a negative footprint,” Shuo says.

Observers at COP15, however, are saying that with many destructive projects under the BRI, such as large dams built along the Mekong River, which also threaten biodiversity, forests, and forest communities—simply defunding coal and investing in other potentially harmful projects is not the solution.

Exclusion of Infrastructure in GBF

Infrastructure has not been included in the current biodiversity draft framework. On Dec 8, at a side event of the ongoing COP15, Amy Fraenkel, Executive Secretary, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), expressed alarm that infrastructure is not addressed in the GBF.

Highlighting that migratory species must be able to reach new habitats, she noted the CMS tackles threats posed to these species by infrastructure. She also called on governments and investors to consider whether there is a real need for new infrastructure developments and to look into alternatives, including “no new infrastructure” options.

Simone Lovera of the Global Forest Coalition has been more vocal in her criticism of BRI, the exclusion of infrastructure in the biodiversity framework and China’s silence on the initiative’s impact on biodiversity. She especially spoke out on how the current financing mechanism – already a contentious issue at COP15 could further fail if mega projects like BRI were continued to be ignored.

“It doesn’t make any sense to just close the financing gap; even US100 billion dollars per year, we have 1.3 trillion US dollars that are going to destructive activities. Sadly, China’s own Belt and Road Initiative is an example of initiatives that are still financing very harmful projects. They are trying to green it up, but they are not doing any gender analysis, and a lot of BRI activities are actually very harmful on the ground. So first and foremost, the thing China should do is look at its own Belt and Road Initiative and make sure that that is aligned. On the one hand, they claim to have ecological civilization at home, but they export the destruction to other countries,” Lovera told IPS News.

Speaking to IPS, Basile Van Havre- Co-chair of the GBF, said negotiators were now “focusing on not adding any new texts to the draft and instead were working to shift as much existing text as possible out of the brackets”. This means if infrastructure has been excluded from the GBF, it is not likely to be included now.

The onus of curbing the harms caused to biodiversity by projects like BRI falls entirely on the countries that own and run them – such as China.

“The European Union just banned commodities that come from deforestation and biodiversity destruction. It’s possible. Let us have an agreement here so they (China) also have a legal alignment. They can say, ‘okay, in line with this multilateral agreement, we will start banning products caused by biodiversity destruction, and I think the EU legislation will show it’s possible. It is a good example, and we very much look at China to do that,” Lovera says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• As COP15 Begins, Biodiversity’s ‘Paris Moment’ Looks a Distant Dream
• COP15: Shift in Societal Values Needed to Address Biodiversity Loss
• Iconic Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Less Troubled Waters

Runners must forage for food and make their own fires to keep warm in a new ultra-marathon in the Tanzanian bushlands.

Francis Ogwal (L) of Uganda and Basile van Havre (C) of Canada, co-chairs of the group responsible for drafting the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, explain the status of negotiations at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal on Dec. 14, 2022. Discussions are entering the final stretch to approve the new biodiversity protection targets. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
MONTREAL, Dec 15 2022 (IPS)

Created in 2016, the Mexican Caribbean Biosphere Reserve (MCBR) hosts 1900 species of animals and plants and contains half of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, the second largest in the world after Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

This ecosystem is under pressure from the construction of two of the seven routes of the Maya Train (TM), the Mexican government’s flagship megaproject, whose construction, which began in 2020, alters the environment of the Maya Forest, the largest tropical rainforest in Latin America after the Amazon.

This is recognized in two technical reports obtained in Mexico by IPS through public information requests, which state that, although the project is outside the marine area itself, it is located within its zone of influence.

Regarding the 257-km section 4, a document from October 2021 acknowledges the impact on two high priority hydrological regions.

And with respect to the impact on the 110-km section 5, another document dated from May 2022 states that “there is no previous study or information on the monitoring and sampling sites. The presence and state of the fauna that inhabit the trees are unknown.”

The MCBR administration recognizes impacts on two priority marine regions and on the coastline of the southeastern state of Quintana Roo, which is protected by the reserve.

For this reason, the MCBR refused to issue a technical opinion on section 5 due to lack of “sufficient information and elements” and, for T4, issued an opinion that demanded the presentation of additional data and prevention, management, and oversight measures.

Despite the impact that the railroad will have in the region, the government’s National Fund for Tourism Development (Fonatur) did not request reports from at least four other nature reserves.

Fonatur will be in charge of the TM, which will run for some 1,500 kilometers, with 21 stations and 14 stops, through five states in southern and southeastern Mexico.

The case of the railway exemplifies the contradictions between the attempt to protect nature and the development of infrastructure that sabotages that aim, a theme present at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which began on Dec. 7 in the Canadian city of Montreal and is due to end on Dec. 19.

Moreover, the railway’s cost of some 15 billion dollars is classified as forming part of the harmful subsidies to biodiversity, which total 542 billion dollars a year globally. The investment needed for the conservation and sustainable use of nature is estimated at 967 billion dollars a year.

In the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, which is due to be adopted at the summit, one of the main 21 measures being negotiated is called in UN jargon 30×30: the protection of 30 percent of the planet’s marine and terrestrial areas through conservation measures by 2030, in an attempt to halt the loss of biodiversity on the planet.

The plan has attracted support from more than 100 countries but has awakened distrust among indigenous peoples, who have suffered from the imposition of natural protected areas without due information and consultation.

The summit, which has brought together some 15,000 people representing governments, non-governmental organizations, academia, international organizations and companies, will also discuss the post-2020 global framework, financing for conservation and guidelines on digital sequencing of genetic material, degraded ecosystems, protected areas, endangered species, the role of corporations and gender equality.

The 196 States Parties to the CBD, in force since 1993 and whose slogan at this year’s COP is “Ecological civilization. Building a shared future for all life on earth”, have not yet agreed in Montreal on the percentage of the oceans that should be protected and whether it should include waters under international jurisdiction.

The global framework is to succeed the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010 in that Japanese city during the CBD COP10 and due to be met by 2020, which have failed. Target 11 stipulated the protection of 17 percent of terrestrial areas and inland waters and 10 percent of marine and coastal areas.

The Maya Train, the Mexican government’s main megaproject, threatens protected natural areas, such as the Mexican Caribbean Biosphere Reserve in the southeastern state of Quintana Roo, according to a Google Earth capture. In the COP15 negotiations in Montreal, a central issue is the declaration of more natural protected areas, but one of the threats is infrastructure works. Image: Google Earth

Insufficient rules

Manuel Pulgar Vidal of Peru, WWF global leader of Climate and Energy, who is attending COP15, said the problem lies in the regulation of protected areas.
“Nations such as Colombia, Ecuador and Chile have strengthened the system of natural areas. But in general the systems are weak and need to be reinforced, and money, staff and regulations are needed,” he told IPS.

Mexico has 185 protected areas, covering almost 91 million hectares -19 percent of the national territory-, six of which are marine areas, encompassing 69 million hectares. Despite their importance, the Mexican government dedicated less than one dollar per hectare to their protection in 2022.

In addition, management plans have not been updated to cover works such as the Maya Train.

Colombia, meanwhile, protects 15 percent of its territory in 1,483 protected areas covering 35.5 million hectares, including 12 million hectares in marine areas.

Chile, for its part, has 106 protected areas covering 15 million hectares of land – 20 percent of the total surface area – and 105 million hectares in the sea, in 22 of the conservation areas.

Among the 49 governments that make up the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People, aimed at promoting 30×30, are 10 Latin American countries: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru.

Of the 586 commitments that organizations, companies and individuals have already made voluntarily at COP15, held at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal, only 93 deal with marine, coastal and freshwater ecosystems, while 294 address terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration; 185 involve alliances and partnerships; and climate change adaptation and emission reductions are the focus of 155.

A group of government delegates discuss the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with new biodiversity protection targets to be approved at COP15, which is being held at the Palais des Congrès in the Canadian city of Montreal. CREDIT: IISD

Aleksandar Rankovic of the international NGO Avaaz said the key challenge goes beyond a specific protection figure.

“The hows are not in the debate. It’s up to each country how it will implement it. It’s left to each country to decide what’s appropriate. There is little openness on how to achieve the goals,” the activist from the U.S.-based organization dedicated to citizen activism on issues of global interest, such as biodiversity, told IPS.

Only eight percent of the world’s oceans are protected and only seven percent are protected from fishing activities. Avaaz calls for the care of 50 percent of marine and terrestrial areas, with the direct participation of indigenous peoples.

The protection of marine areas is tied to other international instruments, such as the Global Ocean Treaty, which nations have been negotiating since 2018 within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and which aims to protect 30 percent of these ecosystems by 2030.

Pulgar Vidal, for his part, called for the approval of the 30×30 scheme. “Implementing these initiatives takes time. And you need an international financing mechanism,” he stressed.

In Rankovic’s view, a strong global framework is needed. “The issue is broader, because fisheries are not well regulated. Without this, marine areas will be part of a weak program,” he warned.

COP15 has also coincided with the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, both components of the CBD and part of its architecture for preserving biodiversity.

IPS produced this article with support from Internews’ Earth Journalism Network.

About 60% of the poorest countries are already at high risk of debt distress or already in distress. Credit: Pixabay.

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Dec 14 2022 (IPS)

The external debt of the world’s low and middle-income countries at the end of 2021 totalled 9 trillion US dollars, more than double the amount a decade ago. Such debt is expected to increase by an additional 1.1 trillion US dollars in 2023.

Moreover, the debt-service payments, projected to top 62 billion US dollars in 2022, put the biggest squeeze on poor countries since 2000, according to the World Bank.

The poorest countries eligible to borrow from the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) now spend over a tenth of their export revenues to service their long-term public and publicly guaranteed external debt—the highest proportion since 2000

As defined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), debt service refers to payments in respect of both principal and interest.

Actual debt service is the set of payments actually made to satisfy a debt obligation, including principal, interest, and any late payment fees. Scheduled debt service is the set of payments, including principal and interest, that is required to be made through the life of the debt, OECD goes on.

 

High risk of debt stress

According to the World Bank’s report: International Debt Report, the poorest countries eligible to borrow from the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) now spend over a tenth of their export revenues to service their long-term public and publicly guaranteed external debt—the highest proportion since 2000.

In addition, rising interest rates and slowing global growth risk tipping a large number of countries into debt crises. “About 60% of the poorest countries are already at high risk of debt distress or already in distress.”

Over the past decade, the composition of debt owed by IDA countries has changed significantly. The share of external debt owed to private creditors has increased sharply. At the end of 2021, low- and middle-income economies owed 61% of their public and publicly guaranteed debt to private creditors—an increase of 15 percentage points from 2010.

 

Unbearable impact

The same day the World Bank’s report was released, 6 December 2022, another international institution: the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), warned that the spiralling debt in low and middle-income countries has compromised their chances of sustainable development.

Rebeca Grynspan, the head of this UN trade facilitation agency, reported that between 70% and 85% of the debt that emerging and low-income countries are responsible for, is in a foreign currency.

“This has left them highly vulnerable to the kind of large currency shocks that hit public spending – precisely at a time when populations need financial support from their governments.”

Speaking at the 13th UNCTAD Debt Management Conference, UNCTAD’s chief explained that so far this year, at least 88 countries have seen their currencies depreciate against the powerful US dollar, which is still the reserve currency of choice for many in times of global economic stress.

And in 31 of these countries, their currencies have dropped by more than 10 percent.

This has had a hugely negative impact on many African nations, where the UNCTAD chief noted that currency depreciations have increased the cost of debt repayments “by the equivalent of public health spending in the continent”.

 

Wave of global crises

UNCTAD’s conference –held online on 6 to 7 December in Geneva– took place as a “wave of global crises has led many developing countries to take on more debt to help citizens cope with the fallout.”

Government debt levels as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased in over 100 developing countries between 2019 and 2021, said UNCTAD.

“Excluding China, this increase is estimated at about $2 trillion.”

This has not happened because of the bad behaviour of one country. This has happened because of systemic shocks that have hit many countries at the same time, Grynspan said.

 

Sharp rise of interest rates

With interest rates rising sharply, the debt crisis is putting enormous strain on public finances, especially in developing countries that need to invest in education, health care, their economies and adapting to climate change.

“Debt cannot and must not become an obstacle for achieving the 2030 Agenda and the climate transition the world desperately needs”, she argued.

UNCTAD advocates for the creation of a multilateral legal framework for debt restructuring and relief.

Such a framework is needed to facilitate timely and orderly debt crisis resolution with the involvement of all creditors, building on the debt reduction programme established by the Group of 20 major economies (G20) known as the Common Framework.

 

Debts to increase to 10 trillion dollars

UNCTAD said that if the median increase in rated sovereign debts since 2019 were fully reflected in interest payments, then governments would pay an additional 1.1 trillion US dollars on the global debt stock in 2023, estimates show.

This amount is almost four times the estimated annual investment of 250 billion US dollars required for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, according to an UNCTAD report.

Indebted countries have reiterated once and again that they have already exceeded several times the total amount of their debts in the form of interest rates they have been paying.

Alongside a high number of economists and experts, they have reiterated their appeals for cancelling those debts.

Uselessly: such a fair –and due– step continues to fall on deaf ears.

 

Moroccan hopes of being the first African side to reach the last two ended in a 2-0 defeat by France.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who leads the UN public health body, says more than 50 others were killed.

Celebrations for Les Bleus as Moroccan fans are left in silent despair.

Defending world champions France edge past Morocco at Al Bayt Stadium to set up a World Cup final against Argentina.

By External Source
Dec 14 2022 (IPS-Partners)

 
Dr. Liesbet Steer is the Executive Director of the Education Commission, chaired by UN Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of the ECW High-Level Steering Group, The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown. Under Liesbet’s leadership, the Commission has been at the forefront of new thinking in education financing calling for more effective and “progressive” domestic spending, innovative international and private financing (through the International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd), the Education Outcomes Fund and Greater Share) and better coordination of external funding (including through her leadership of the Global Education Forum and Save Our Future).

Liesbet has over 20 years of experience in international development and finance across the world – working for the World Bank, IFC, Asia Foundation, ODI and the Brookings Institution. Between 1997 and 2007, she lived in Viet Nam and Indonesia where she worked on economic development in the Asia region. Liesbet has written widely on development finance and education, and presented in a wide range of fora and advisory panels. She currently serves on the Board of Greater Share, the Global Leadership Council of Generation Unlimited (UNICEF), the High-Level Steering Group of the Education Outcomes Fund and the World Economic Forum Education 4.0 Alliance. Liesbet was educated at the Universities of Antwerp and East Anglia, and the London School of Economics. She holds a M.Sc. in Quantitative Economics, and Ph.D. in Development Economics. She is married to Andrew Steer and has two college-age children.

Credit: Ilya Savenok/IFFEd

ECW: At this year’s Transforming Education Summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, UN Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of the ECW High-Level Steering Group, launched the International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd). How will the new facility help address the growing global education funding crisis along with other funds?

Dr. Liesbet Steer: The launch of IFFEd in September with the UN Secretary-General was a special moment for all of us involved in the IFFEd journey! We are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the ECW team!

IFFEd will bring much needed additional finance to address the global education and learning crisis, which has been exacerbated by the global pandemic and other shocks as a result of climate change and conflict. IFFEd aims to unlock an additional $10 billion of concessional low-cost financing for education and skills by 2030.

IFFEd uses a new form of sovereign guarantees and combines these with donor grants to mobilize additional affordable education financing through the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). While guarantees are used to expand the lending capacity of MDBs, grants are used to buy down the interest rates. This combination allows IFFEd to multiply every donor dollar seven times, compared to traditional aid. This is a great deal for donors and partners in the current resource-constrained environment. This is also why IFFEd has been recognized as a major financial innovation for development finance, including in the recent G20 review of the Multilateral Development Banks.

IFFEd fills a gap by targeting the urgent needs of lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), which are home to more than half of the world’s children and youth and host a large share of refugees and displaced young people. In LMICs, 1 in 5 children are out of school and 3 out of 4 young people leave school without the basic skills to thrive. The financing gaps in these countries are too large to be filled by traditional grant aid. IFFEd complements grant-based instruments like ECW and GPE.

ECW: From 2019-2020, 43 donors reduced their bilateral aid to education, and 40% of low- and lower-middle-income countries reduced their education budgets. How will IFFEd work with Education Cannot Wait and other relevant organizations to address the funding gap and build complementary supports to deliver on our collective goal of ensuring education for all by 2030 (SDG4)?

Dr. Liesbet Steer: The long-term future of #222MillionDreams will be determined by our ability to complement the critical short- and medium-term support ECW provides with the longer-term support IFFEd provides to help rebuild and improve systems. While ECW can respond immediately with critical finance in the wake of natural disasters like the recent floods in Pakistan, IFFEd can provide longer-term financing to rebuild and recover.

As LMICs develop or recover from crises, they often have large financing gaps that prevent them from meeting their education needs. They often face a structural finance problem because as LMICs enter middle income status, their international assistance tends to fall faster than tax revenues rise. To fill the gap, they can afford to borrow for education at very low cost, but not at commercial rates which are typically offered to them. IFFEd offers this low-cost finance to invest in education.

Working through the MDBs, IFFEd also encourages countries to increase domestic resource mobilization, which is a key eligibility requirement and an important strategy towards long-term sustainability. In an environment with scarce resources, it is essential to tap all available finance and use it effectively. Like ECW, IFFEd’s results framework is focused on improving learning and skills outcomes with a focus on those furthest behind. Program priorities will be developed based on an assessment of the impact of investments in education or related issues (e.g. health and nutrition) with an impact on learning outcomes.

ECW: As the Executive Director of the Education Commission, you oversee five key transformations that have been identified through The Learning Generation Report, including learning models, education workforce, service delivery, financing and cross-sectoral action. How can these transformational approaches benefit 222 million crisis-impacted children and adolescents who urgently need support?

Dr. Liesbet Steer: We focus on these key transformations because we know they can unlock and accelerate the change needed to achieve a learning generation – including the 222 million crisis-impacted children and youth.

We need more financing, but we also must spend it more wisely. Harnessing technology to enable teaching at the right level, rethinking the education workforce in support of the needs of the whole child, and developing systems that can deliver results are key priorities for future education systems.

As a sector, it would be strategic if we could speak with one voice and rally around a shared effort to prioritize effective solutions and increase education funding as we did in the Save Our Future campaign during the pandemic, which united some of the world’s largest education development organizations around shared priorities!

But education must also become everyone’s business! Many of the transformations needed in education require us to work across sectors and approach challenges using a systems lens. In our recent Rewiring Education for People and Planet report, we called on the global community to collaborate across sectors around six “win-win” solutions that can transform education as well as trigger co-benefits for people and planet.

One of these solutions that could provide concrete and immediate benefits to the 222 million crisis-impacted children is the scaling of school meals and school health interventions to end hunger and improve health and well-being. This is the primary objective of the School Meals Coalition. The Education Commission is working with the Coalition to identify sustainable financing options for countries as they progress towards self-reliance.

Hungry children cannot learn. School meals have a significant impact on learning outcomes, especially for the most vulnerable including in emergency contexts, and from a finance perspective represent outstanding value for money – each $1 spent generates $9 of impact.

ECW: ECW and our strategic partners work in several middle-income countries across Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia – e.g. Bangladesh, Colombia and Pakistan. Many have received large refugee and asylum seeker influxes due to conflict, climate change and COVID-19. How can we work together to deliver across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus to ensure economic and social progress?

Dr. Liesbet Steer: ECW and IFFEd are highly complementary and can work hand-in-hand to deliver impactful support to countries that are recovering from recent conflict, climate shocks, and the COVID-19 crisis.

Together they could support countries’ progress from humanitarian to development priorities. ECW is equipped to provide immediate to medium-term emergency support that allows countries to move towards the rebuilding phase of the recovery more quickly. IFFEd can come in with medium- to long-term support as countries look to rebuild after the initial emergency has passed and invest in their human capital development.

As Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan said recently:

“The recent floods have destroyed over 23,700 schools in our country and have affected 22,000 other schools due to closures, damages, or sheltering families afflicted by the flood damages. The impact on the lives and minds of millions of our children and youth will be felt for years to come. As we work to rebuild from this catastrophe, the new stream of affordable education financing from IFFEd will be crucial to help meet our financing needs to provide an inclusive and quality education for our most vulnerable children and youth.”

ECW: Our readers would like to know a little about you on a personal level and we know that readers are leaders. What are some of the books that have most influenced you, personally and professionally, and why would you recommend them to others?

Dr. Liesbet Steer: As a child I loved reading the Adventures of Tintin (my compatriot) – the brave and inquisitive Belgian reporter who went around the world fighting for justice. I always loved Tintin’s taste for adventure and the positive attitude he brought to challenges.

Another book that inspires me is The Four Loves by CS Lewis. In addition to affection, friendship and romantic love, the fourth kind of love is “charitable love” giving of yourself for humanity – it’s the kind you extend without expectations for anything in return. It’s what is critical for us all to overcome the challenges in this world!

Finally, I loved reading The Human Element this year. A book about how to overcome resistance to new ideas (like IFFEd). It compares innovations to a bullet. It argues that the speed of a bullet is determined by the gun powder (compare that to the strength of the innovation) as well as the resistance as it moves through the air (compare that to headwinds like feelings of inertia, threat, and complexity associated with change).

A positive spirit, charitable love, and overcoming headwinds… that is what’s needed now more than ever!

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Sold to a local chief aged 12, Hadizatou Mani spent a decade as a slave before fighting for justice in Niger.

Morocco have drawn football fans' support around the globe ahead of their game against France.

Charlene Ruto's high public profile have led some to call her a "low budget version of Ivanka [Trump]".

The last-minute cancellations sees many fans unable to travel to Wednesday's World Cup semi-final.

John Njau Kibue, a Kenyan security guard at the Lusail Stadium, dies after falling from the World Cup venue in Qatar.

Don’t Gas Africa protest during COP27. Credit: Don't Gas Africa

By Paul Virgo
ROME, Dec 14 2022 (IPS)

One of the knock-on effects of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine is that European countries have embarked on a ‘dash for gas’ to find alternatives to Russian energy supplies.

A flurry of deals has ensued with several African States being enticed by the prospect of lucrative energy contracts.

A new report, however, has warned that helping Europe continue its addiction to imported fossil fuels risks having devastating long-term effects for African societies.

The Fossil Fuelled Fallacy: How the Dash for Gas in Africa will Fail to Deliver Development argues the pitfalls are plentiful.

The first is that feeding the West’s fossil-fuel habit will accelerate the climate crisis, which is already having disproportionately severe effects on African communities.

The idea that fossil gas will bring prosperity and opportunities to Africans is a tired and overused fallacy, promulgated by those that stand to benefit the most: multinational fossil fuel firms and the elite politicians that aid and abet them

Drought, wildfires, flooding, disease and pest invasions will increase in their severity and frequency with this ‘new scramble for Africa’, pushing developmental goals further out of reach.

The report, which was presented at COP27, also argues that, even if the planet were not overheating because of human-caused emissions, further facilitating the ‘dash for gas’ would not be wise.

Many African states looking to expand gas production will be building the infrastructure from scratch, so projects will take years, perhaps decades, to become operative, it says.

With renewable energy sources increasingly competitive, the projects are unlikely to benefit from the current favourable prices, so there is a risk they will not be able to operate for their entire intended lifespan, saddling African States with debts, forgone revenues and huge clean-up costs.

“African countries’ plight to help satisfy Europe’s dash for gas is a dangerous and short-sighted vision fuelled by a capitalist utopian dream that has no place in Africa’s energy future,” Dean Bhebhe, the Co-Facilitator of Don’t Gas Africa, a network of African-led civil society organisations that produced the report, told IPS .

“Investment in fossil gas production will lock Africa into another cycle of poverty, inequality and exploitation while creating a firewall for Africa to leapfrog towards renewable energy”.

The reports points out that fossil-fuel infrastructure projects do not have a good track record on combatting energy poverty and advancing development on the continent.

It gives the example of Nigeria, saying that, despite decades of fossil-fuel production, only 55% of the population had access to electricity there in 2019.

It says that jobs in fossil-fuel industries in Africa tend to be short-term, precarious, and concentrated in construction, while green jobs are longer term and have the potential to bring benefits to the entire continent, rather than just a handful of nations with fossil-fuel reserves.

Furthermore, the pollution and environmental degradation caused by expanding gas production would endanger the lives and livelihoods of many, the report says, arguing fossil-fuel infrastructure in Africa has been shown to force communities from their land and disrupt key fisheries, crops and biodiversity.

Among the examples it gives is that of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which will run from Uganda to Tanzania and is set to force around 14,000 households across the two countries to move.

The report also argues that allowing high rates of foreign ownership of Africa’s energy system would pull wealth out of the continent at the expense of African citizens.

It says that any investment in fossil fuels displaces investment from clean, affordable renewable energy systems that can bring immediate benefits to African communities.

It says, for example, that the potential for wind power in Africa is almost 180,000 terawatt hours per year, enough to satisfy the entire continent’s current electricity demands 250 times over.

“As the UN Secretary General António Guterres said this year, investing in new fossil fuel production and power plants is moral and economic madness” Bhebhe said.

“New gas production would not come on-line in time to address Europe’s fossil-fuel energy crisis and would saddle the African continent with stranded assets”.

The report says that the arguments used by some African leaders and elites to justify expansion in gas production on the basis of climate justice, on the grounds that now it’s ‘own turn’ to exploit fossil fuels to deliver prosperity, are bogus.

The conclusion is that, rather than replicating the fossil-fuelled development pathways of the past,

Africa should opt for a rapid deployment of renewables to stimulate economies, create inclusive jobs, boost energy access, free up government revenues for the provision of public goods, and improve the health and wellbeing of human and non-human communities.

“We need an end to fossil-fuel-induced energy Apartheid in Africa which has left 600 million Africans without access to modern clean renewable energy,”Bhebhe said.

“Scaling up cost-effective, clean, decentralized, renewable energy is the fastest and best way to end energy exclusion and meet the needs of Africa’s people. Policymakers in Africa need to reject the dumping of dirty, dangerous and obsolete fossil-fuel and nuclear energy systems into Africa.

“Africa must not become a dumping ground for obsolete technologies that continue to pollute and impoverish”.

Freddie Daley, the lead author of the report, echoed those sentiments.

“The idea that fossil gas will bring prosperity and opportunities to Africans is a tired and overused fallacy, promulgated by those that stand to benefit the most: multinational fossil fuel firms and the elite politicians that aid and abet them,” said Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex in the UK.

“Africa has the opportunity to chart a different development path, paved with clean, distributed, and cheap energy systems, funded by African governments and those of wealthy nations that did the most to create this crisis. We cannot let Africa get locked-in to fossil fuel production because it will lock-out Africans from affordable energy, a thriving natural world, and clean air.”

Major roads in the city were submerged as heavy rains continued for hours and several homes collapsed.

Credit: United Nations
 
ESSENTIAL FUTURE STEPS FORWARD FOR COPs PROCESS

By Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Dec 14 2022 (IPS)

As COP27 was coming to a close, the leader of the Youth Constayituency of UNFCCC declared in an emotion-choked voice that “Incredible young people from the global North and the global South are standing together in solidarity asking for action. We need to look for more than hope. We need those in power to actually listen and implement the solutions”.

Action for implementation is the clarion call of the younger generation to tod’s decision-makers. It would be prudent to listen to the future decision-makers in the best interest our people and planet.

SDGs, G20 & GOAL 5 ON GENDER EQUALITY:

First, G20 Declaration last month in Bali, Indonesia resolved, “We will demonstrate leadership and take collective actions to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and accelerate the achievement of the SDGs by 2030 and address developmental challenges by reinvigorating a more inclusive multilateralism and reform aimed at implementing the 2030 Agenda.”

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

As we get energized by this commitment of the G20 leadership, a sobering UN Women 2022 research report tells us that the world is not on track to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 5 – in fact it is almost 300 years off. Our planet absolutely require the full and equal participation of women and girls, in all their diversity.

Without gender equality, there is no climate justice. Gender equality is the crucial missing link in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 5. Let us always be deliberate and consistent in ensuring space for young women and girls who have been leading global and national climate movements.

Only an estimated 0.01 per cent of global official development assistance addresses both climate change and women’s rights. The necessary structural measures require intentional, meaningful global investments that respond to the climate crisis and support women’s organizations and programmes. Astonishingly, less than 1 percent of international philanthropy goes to women’s environmental initiatives. That must change.

IGNORANCE OF WOMEN’S CONTRIBUTION:

Second, activists express frustration saying that “Gender is still largely seen as an isolated issue that is discussed in a room away from the main debates about mitigation, financing, and technology. Thus, it does not appear to be an issue integrated within the intersecting policies of different ministries.

This reinforces the ignorant notion that women in all their diversity are neither key actors nor agents of change but merely victims of the climate crisis.” That mindset should go as it results in the continuation of patriarchal hegemony.

Women’s and girl’s full and equal participation in decision-making processes is a top priority in the fight against climate change. Without gender equality today, a sustainable, more equal future remains beyond our reach. Give power and platforms to the next generation of Earth champions. As has been said recently, “Our best counter-measure to the threat multiplier of climate change is the benefit multiplier of gender equality.”

COPs ARE NOT FOR FOSSIL FUEL LOBBY:

Third, the current process continues to fail to meet the urgency and clarity of purpose that science and experience are calling for—a full-scale, just, equitable and gender-just transition away from a fossil fuel based extractive economy to a care and social protection centered regenerative economy.

Globally, for every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 are spent on fossil fuel subsidies. These subsidies are intended to protect companies and consumers from fluctuating fuel prices, but what they actually do is keep dirty energy companies very profitable. We are subsidizing the very behavior that is destroying our planet.

The UN should not allow future COPs to be an open platform for the presence of the fossil fuel lobby. Concrete action is needed to stop the toxic practices of the fossil fuel industry that is causing more damage to the climate than any other industry.

CHILDREN & YOUTH ‘RECOGNISED’ AS AGENTS OF CHANGE:

Fourth, the full impact of climate change on kids is becoming clearer and more alarming. Children’s developing brains and growing bodies make them particularly vulnerable. The very experience of childhood is at risk. Research reports concluded that with the increasing frequency and severity of climate crisis, young children are at risk of severe trauma during the period of life when neural connections in the brain are forming and susceptible to disruption. Reports found that “This trauma can have lifelong impacts on learning, health, and the ability to form meaningful relationships.”

Bearing this in mind, a much-needed step was taken at COP27 by recognizing “the role of children and youth as agents of change in addressing and responding to climate change”. It also encouraged “Parties to include children and youth in their processes for designing and implementing climate policy and action, and, as appropriate, to consider including young representatives and negotiators into their national delegations, recognizing the importance of intergenerational equity and maintaining the stability of the climate system for future generations.”

The decision expressed appreciation to COP27 Presidency “for its leadership in promoting the full, meaningful and equal participation of children and youth, including by co-organizing the first youth-led climate forum (the Sharm el-Sheikh youth climate dialogue), hosting the first children and youth pavilion and appointing the first youth envoy of a Presidency of the Conference of the Parties and encourages future incoming Presidencies of the Conference of the Parties to consider doing the same.” It would be more meaningful if the hard-headed negotiators and fossil-fuel lobby were exposed to the children and youth events at the main conference hall at COP27. Hopefully COP28 would arrange for that to happen.

HUMAN RIGHT TO A CLEAN, HEALTHY, AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT:

Fifth, another positive outcome at COP27 is the first multilateral environmental agreement to include an explicit reference to the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This should open a path for this right to be recognized across all environmental governance and also codified by the United Nations.

STRONG CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION NEEDED:

Sixth, key civil society leaders were critical of their exclusion complaining that “Observers were consistently locked out of the negotiation rooms for a repeated ‘lack of sitting space’ excuse … We have also witnessed painful orchestration of last-minute decisions with few Parties.” They alerted the organizers and hosts of future COPs by saying that “This needs to be called out and ended.”

Strong civil society organizations are a critical counterbalance to powerful state and corporate actors. They help to keep governments accountable to the people they are meant to serve –– both key to climate action that prioritizes the wellbeing of people and planet.

ECOFEMINISM IS THE WAY AHEAD:

Seventh, bringing together feminism and environmentalism, ecofeminism argues that the domination of women and the degradation of the environment are consequences of patriarchy and capitalism. Ecofeminism uses an intersectional feminist approach when striving to abolish structural obstacles that prevent women and girls from enjoying equal and livable planet. This is a smart and inclusive policy not only for women, but for the humankind as a whole.

Vandana Shiva, one of the world’s most prominent ecofeminist, propounds, “We are either going to have a future where women lead the way to make peace with the Earth or we are not going to have a human future at all.” Any strategy to address one must take into account its impact on the other so that women’s equality should not be achieved at the expense of worsening the environment, and neither should environmental improvements be gained at the expense of women. Indeed, ecofeminism proposes that only by reversing current values, thereby privileging care and cooperation over more aggressive and dominating behaviors, can both society and environment benefit.

FOOD FOR RETHINKING: ELITIST MULTILATERISM CANNOT DELIVER:

Civil society representatives at COP27 verbalized their anger by announcing that “Even as we call out the hypocrisy, inaction and injustice of this space, as civil society and movements connected in the fight for climate justice, we refuse to cede the space of multilateralism to short-sighted politicians and fossil-fuel driven corporate interests.”

Patricia Wattimena of Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development pushes the point further to say, “We can’t keep on negotiating people’s rights at global climate talks. The rich must stop commodifying our rights especially women’s human rights and start paying for their ecological debt.”

With the 2030 deadline for SDGs knocking at the door, the call in the Bali G-20 Summit declaration for “inclusive multilateralism” is a timely alert to realise that current form of multilateralism dominated by rich and powerful countries and well-organized vested interests, on most occasions working with co-aligned objectives, cannot deliver the world we want for all. That elitist multilateralism has failed.

Minimalistic, divisive, dismissive, and arrogant multilateralism that we are experiencing now gives honest multilateralism a bad name. Multilateralism has become a sneaky slogan under which each country is hiding their narrow self-interest to the detriment of global humanity’s best interest. It is a sad reality that these days negotiators play “politicking and wordsmithing” at the cost of substance and action.

Multilateralism – as we are experiencing now – clearly shows it has lost its soul and objectivity. There is no genuine engagement, no honest desire to mutually accommodate and no willingness to rise above narrow self-interest-triggered agenda. It has become a one-way street, a mono-directional pathway for the rich and powerful. Today’s multilateralism needs redefining!

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• COP27 Fails Women & Girls – High Time to Redefine Multilateralism
• COP27 Fails Women and Girls – High Time to Redefine Multilateralism

Excerpt:

The writer is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations, former Ambassador of Bangladesh to the UN and former President of the Security Council.