Africa

Peruvian farmer Hilda Roca, 37, stands in her agro-ecological garden in Cusipata, a town located at more than 3,300 meters above sea level in the highlands of Cuzco, where she grows vegetables for her family and sells the surplus with the support of her adolescent daughter and son. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

By Mariela Jara
LIMA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

“Pachamama (Mother Earth) is upset with all the damage we are doing to her,” says Hilda Roca, an indigenous Peruvian farmer from Cusipata, in the Andes highlands of the department of Cuzco, referring to climate change and the havoc it is wreaking on her life and her environment.

From her town, more than 3,300 meters above sea level, she told IPS that if women were in power equally with men, measures in favor of nature that would alleviate the climate chaos would have been approved long ago. “But we need to fight sexism so that we are not discriminated against and so our rights are respected,” said the Quechua-speaking farmer.

The link between climate change and gender is the focus of the United Nations’ celebration of this year’s International Women’s Day, Mar. 8, under the theme “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.

The aim is to “make visible how the climate crisis is a problem that is closely related to inequality, and in particular to gender inequality, which is expressed in an unequal distribution of power, resources, wealth, work and time between women and men,” Ana Güezmes, director of the Gender Affairs Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), told IPS.

Latin America is highly vulnerable to the climate crisis despite the fact that it emits less than 10 percent of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

In addition, climate injustice has a female face in the region: lower-income population groups, where the proportion of women is higher, are more exposed to climate effects due to their limited access to opportunities, despite the fact that they are less responsible for emissions.

The extreme poverty rate in the region increased from 13.1 percent to 13.8 percent of the population – from 81 to 86 million people – between 2020 and 2021, according to data released by ECLAC in January. Women between 25 and 59 years of age are the most affected compared to their male counterparts. This situation is worse among indigenous and rural populations, who depend on nature for their livelihoods.

These aspects were highlighted at ECLAC’s 62nd Meeting of the Presiding Officers of the Regional Conference on Women, held Jan. 26-27, whose declaration warns that women and girls affected by the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters face specific barriers to access to water and sanitation, health and education services, and food security.

And it is women who are mainly responsible for feeding their families, fetching water and firewood, and taking care of the vegetable garden and animals.

“That is why we maintain that the post-pandemic recovery must be transformative in terms of sustainability and equality,” Güezmes emphasized from ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile.

To this end, she said, this recovery “must untie the four structural knots of gender inequality that affect the region so much: socioeconomic inequality and poverty; the sexual division of labor and the unjust organization of caregiving; the concentration of power and patriarchal, discriminatory and violent cultural patterns; and the predominance of the culture of privilege.”

Luz Mery Panche, an indigenous leader of the Nasa people of Colombia. : Courtesy of Luz Mery Panche

Reconciling with Mother Earth

Luz Mery Panche, an indigenous leader of the Nasa people, discussed the need to incorporate a gender perspective into the climate crisis. She talked to IPS from San Vicente del Caguán, in the department of Caquetá, in the Amazon region of Colombia, a country facing violent attacks on defenders of land and the environment.

For her, more than sustainable, “it is about moving towards a sustainable future.”

“We need to change the conditions that have generated war and chaos in the country, which is due to the hijacking of political and economic power by an elite that has been in the decision-making spaces since the country emerged 200 years ago,” she said.

Panche is a member of the National Ethnic Peace Coordination committee (Cenpaz) and in that capacity is part of the special high-level body with ethnic peoples for the implementation of the peace agreement in her country. She is a human rights activist and a defender of the Amazon rainforest.

She argued that to achieve a sustainable future “we must reconcile with Mother Earth and move towards the happy, joyful way of life that we deserve as human beings.”

This, she said, starts by changing the economic model violently imposed on many areas without taking into account the use of the soil, its capacities and benefits; by changing concepts of economy and the educational model; and by organizing local economies and focusing on a future of respect, solidarity and fraternity.

Panche said that in order to move towards this model, women “must have informed participation regarding the effects of climate change.

“Although we prefer to call Mother Earth’s fever ‘global warming’. And it is up to us to remember to make decisions that put us back on the ancestral path of harmony and balance, what we call returning to the origin, to the womb, to improve coexistence and the sense of humanity,” she said.

Uruguayan ecofeminist Lilian Celiberti carries a banner reading “Our body, our territory” in the streets of Tarapoto, a city in the central Peruvian jungle, during an edition of the Pan-Amazon Social Forum. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

Changing times: another kind of coexistence with nature and equality

Lilian Celiberti, Uruguayan ecofeminist and founder of the non-governmental Cotidiano Mujer and Colectivo Dafnias, told IPS from Montevideo that governments have the tools to work on gender equality today in order to have a sustainable future tomorrow, as this year’s Mar. 8 slogan states.

But against this, she said, there are economic interests at play that maintain a development proposal based on growth and extreme exploitation of nature.

She called for boosting local economies and agroecology among other community alternatives in the Latin American region that run counter to the dominant government approach.

“But I believe that we are at a very complex crossroads and that only social participation will be able to find paths of multiple, diverse participation and collective sustainability that incorporate care policies and awareness of the eco-dependence of human society,” she said.

Celiberti said “we are on a planet of finite resources and we have to generate a new relationship with nature, but I see that governments are far from this kind of thinking.”

ECLAC’s Güezmes emphasized that social movements, especially those led by young indigenous and non-indigenous women in the region, have exposed the multiple asymmetries and inequalities that exist.

Ana Güezmes is director of the Gender Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. CREDIT: ECLAC

“We have an intergenerational debt, where young women have put at the center of the debate the unsustainability of the current development style that has direct impacts on our future at a global level and direct impacts on their livelihoods, territories and communities,” said Güezmes, who is from Spain and has worked for years within the United Nations in several Latin American countries.

She recognized the contribution of feminist movements that focus on a redistribution of power, resources and time to move towards an egalitarian model that includes the reduction of violence.

And she warned that from a climate perspective, the window of opportunity for action is closing, so we must act quickly, creating synergies between gender equality and climate change responses.

Güezmes said that “we are looking at a change of era” with global challenges that require a profound transformation that recognizes how the economy, society and the environment are interrelated. “To leave no one behind and no woman out, we must advance synergistically among these three dimensions of development: economic, social and environmental,” she remarked.

The expert cited gender equality as a central element of sustainable development because women need to be at the center of the responses. To this end, ECLAC plans to promote affirmative actions that bolster comprehensive care systems, decent work and the full and effective participation of women in strategic sectors of the economy.

She also raised the need to build “a renewed global pact” to strengthen multilateralism and achieve greater solidarity with middle-income countries on issues central to inclusive growth, sustainable development and gender equality.

“We have reiterated the urgent need to advance new political, social and fiscal pacts focused on structural change for equality,” Güezmes stressed.

She stated that in this perspective, the participation of women in all their diversity in decision-making processes is very important, particularly with regard to climate change.

To this end, she remarked, it is necessary to monitor their degree of intervention at the local, national and international levels – where asymmetry persists – and to provide women’s organizations, especially grassroots ones, with the necessary resources to become involved in such spaces.

“It involves strengthening financial flows so that they reach women who are at the forefront of responses to climate change and who are familiar with the situation in their communities, and boosting their capacities so that women from indigenous, native and Afro-descendant peoples participate in decision-making spaces related to the environment to promote the exchange of their ancestral knowledge on adaptation and mitigation measures,” she said.

Güezmes highlighted the contribution of women environmental activists and defenders to democracy, peace and sustainable development. It is necessary to “recognize their contribution to the protection of biodiversity and to development, despite doing so in conditions of fragility and exploitation and having less access to land, productive resources and their control,” she said.

For her part, Roca, who like other local women in the Peruvian Andes highlands practices agroecology to adapt to climate change and reconcile with Pachamama, calls for their voices to be heard.

“We have ideas and proposals and they need to be taken into account to improve the climate and our lives,” the indigenous farmer said.

With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change. Credit: Bigstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

While more than a half century ago the Twist was the craze in dance halls globally, today the Climate Change Shuffle is the craze in government halls and conference sites worldwide as officials dance around the dangers of climate change.

The first step in the Climate Change Shuffle is a straightforward maneuver: deny climate change. With feet solidly on the floor, confidently dismiss any scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, including it is caused by human activities. Deny that climate change is a threat to humanity and health of the planet as long as possible (Table 1).

 

Source: Author’s composition.

 

The second step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which is highly popular and easily done, is the delay. With body swaying gently from left to right, emphasize that the true answers to environmental issues are economic growth, advanced technologies, and human ingenuity, all of which will need some time and resources. Lean forward proposing the establishment of commissions to produce lengthy technical reports and continue to delay as long as possible.

The third and final step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which should be performed effortlessly without movement, is to do nothing. Simply remain still, don’t take any steps forward and let time slowly pass waltz by as long as possible. Climate change will likely soon be forgotten, displaced by something more immediate, such as gas prices, a sex scandal, or a military invasion.

Mounting scientific evidence, including the recent Sixth Assessment Report of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), indicates that global warming is reshaping the world more rapidly and severely than was known several years ago. Nevertheless, governments, especially the major emitters of greenhouse gases, continue dancing the Climate Change Shuffle.

The top ten emitters of greenhouse gases account for two-thirds of the world’s CO2 emissions. Far in first place is China, which is responsible for about 30 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. In a distant second place is the United States at 14 percent, followed by India at 7 percent and Russia at 5 percent (Figure 1).

 

Source: Statista.

 

Environmental scientists, naturalists, and concerned citizens, including young activists, worldwide have warned that human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people and calling for needed action. Ecosystems and populations least able to cope are expected to be hardest hit by the consequences of climate change.

Also, thousands of scientists have warned governments that the future habitability of planet earth depends on immediate, large-scale action in no less than six critical and interrelated areas: energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food, economy, and population.

Their recommended actions include limiting the burning of fossil fuels, restoring ecosystems, moving to plant-based diets, curtailing consumption or degrowth, and stabilizing world population.

However, most of the recommended actions are largely unappealing to governments and their constituents. Transitioning from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy, for example, is considered a difficult task. Global greenhouse gas emissions are broadly from energy, agriculture, industry, and waste, with almost three-quarters from energy consumption.

The alternatives to fossil fuels are not readily available to meet the rising global demand for electricity. Fossil fuels account about two-thirds of global electricity generation, with coal, natural gas, and oil contributing 38, 28 and 3 percent, respectively versus renewables contributing 9 percent.

Some progress has recently been achieved moving from meat to a plant-based diet. However, curtailing consumption, or shrinking the economy, is not likely to be embraced by most populations any time soon.

Also, attempts to stabilize populations are anathema to most governments, businesses, and many others. They consider demographic growth essential for economic growth, political power, and national identity. Consequently, rather than stabilization, world population is expected to increase from 8 billion today to 10 billion by around mid-century.

When confronted by the overwhelming evidence of climate change, governments that have a major impact on global warming glide to the Shuffle’s delay step. As witnessed at the disappointing Glasgow climate change summit (COP26) last November, many countries are simply not prepared to make firm commitments on needed actions with timetables.

An important reason why many governments perform the Climate Change Shuffle is the demand for electricity and the reliance on coal-fired power stations to meet that rising demand. The top four countries, namely, China, India, the United States, and Japan, were responsible for 76 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 (Figure 2).

 

Source: EMBER.

 

With its 1,110 coal-fired power stations, China alone accounted for approximately 53 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 and those power stations provided 61 percent of China’s electricity. Following China but at a considerably lower level is India, which is responsible for 14 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity with its coal-fired power stations providing 71 percent of India’s electricity.

In third and fourth place are the United States and Japan, which accounted for 11 and 9 percent, respectively of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020. However, in contrast to China and India, the contributions of the coal-fired power stations to domestic electricity consumption in the U.S. and Japan are substantially less, 19 and 29 percent, respectively.

Another important reason why some governments continue doing the Shuffle is because climate change has become a highly partisan issue. With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change.

In the United States, for example, 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress continue to deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. Also, Democratic and Republican voters in the U.S. are far apart in their views regarding climate change.

Whereas 78 percent of Democrats said climate change should be a top priority in 2020, 21 percent of Republicans said it should be. Moreover, the gap between them has widened over the past several years, with increasing proportions of Democrats saying climate change should be a top priority (Figure 3).

 

Source: Pew Research Center.

 

When faced with the unequivocal scientific evidence about climate change and the lack of needed actions, some observers, organizations, and funds have increased their efforts to urge governments to adopt the needed climate change policies.

However, others, including many students, have become incredibly worried by years of empty promises by political leaders and are pessimistic about the outlook for future.

They note that a quarter century ago when world population was nearly 6 billion, government leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed to curb greenhouse emissions. Seven years ago, when world population had reached more than 7 billion, governments adopted the Paris Agreement’s vision of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees. And today with world population at 8 billion and expected to reach 9 billion in 15 years, few nations are living up to their commitments.

Also, others have become fatalistic about global warming as they witness a rapidly closing window to secure a livable future as governments dance the Climate Change Shuffle. Additional scientific studies, they feel, will make little difference in the near certain outcomes. They are convinced that governments will not be able to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. With direct and clear language, many have simply concluded: “we’re screwed”.

In sum, whether one is optimistic, pessimistic, fatalistic, or indifferent regarding climate change and the responses of governments, three conclusions seem warranted.

First, the widely reported scientific evidence and findings of published reports on human-induced climate change and its far-reaching effects worldwide are clear, unequivocal, indisputable, and distressing.

Second, countries will continue to experience the consequences of climate change with serious disruptions to the planet’s natural environment and severe adverse effects on human populations, including flooding, droughts, heat waves, shortages of water and food, warming oceans, storms, rising sea levels, wildfires, and melting glaciers and polar ice caps.

Third, until governments are fully committed to taking the needed actions to address climate change, which does not appear likely any time soon, government officials will continue to dance the Climate Change Shuffle, i.e., deny, delay, and do nothing.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

By External Source
Mar 7 2022 (IPS-Partners)

One of our greatest challenges is advancing gender equality in the face of the climate crisis.

They constitute the majority of the world’s poor.

They are also more dependent on the natural resources threatened by climate change.

In the 21st Century, women are more vulnerable to climate impacts than men.

Of the 1.3 billion people on earth living in poverty, 70% are women.

In urban areas, 40% of the poorest households are headed by women.

80% of those displaced by climate related disasters are women and girls.

Women are more likely to be killed by natural disasters than men.

Women and girls are also more likely to go hungry.

The UN believes that without gender equality today, a sustainable and equal future will remain beyond our reach.

However, women and girls are effective and powerful leaders and change-makers for climate adaptation and mitigation.

They are involved in sustainability initiatives around the world.

Their participation and leadership results in more effective climate action.

This International Women’s Day, let’s claim “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.

Families carry their belongings through the Zosin border crossing in Poland after fleeing Ukraine. Credit: UNHCR/Chris Melzer

By Rachael Reilly and Michael Flynn
GENEVA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Russia’s brutal and devastating invasion of Ukraine has triggered the largest and fastest refugee movement in Europe since World War II. After only a single week, more than one million people had already fled the country.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) initially predicted that as many as four million people would flee; the UN now thinks that some 10 million will eventually be displaced.

While the EU calls this the largest humanitarian crisis that Europe has witnessed in “many, many years,” it is important to remember that it was not so long ago that the continent faced another critical humanitarian challenge, the 2015 refugee “crisis” spurred by the conflict in Syria.

But the starkly different responses that Europe has directed at these two situations—in addition to its draconian response to ongoing African migration across the Mediterranean—provide a cautionary lesson for those hoping for a more humane, generous Europe.

These differences also help explain why some of those fleeing Ukraine—in particular, nationals from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—are not receiving the same generous treatment as the citizens of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s neighbours have thus far responded with an outpouring of public and political support for the refugees. Political leaders have said publicly that refugees from Ukraine are welcome and countries have been preparing to receive refugees on their borders with teams of volunteers handing out food, water, clothing, and medicines.

Slovakia and Poland have said that refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine will be allowed to enter their countries even without passports, or other valid travel documents; other EU countries, such as Ireland, have announced the immediate lifting of visa requirements for people coming from Ukraine.

Across Europe, free public transport and phone communication is being provided for Ukrainian refugees. On 3 March, the EU voted to activate the Temporary Protection Directive, introduced in the 1990’s to manage large-scale refugee movements during the Balkans crisis.

Under this scheme, refugees from Ukraine will be offered up to three years temporary protection in EU countries, without having to apply for asylum, with rights to a residence permit and access to education, housing, and the labour market.

The EU also proposed simplifying border controls and entry conditions for people fleeing Ukraine. Ukrainian refugees can travel for 90 days visa-free throughout EU countries, and many have been moving on from neighbouring countries to join family and friends in other EU countries. Throughout Europe, the public and politicians are mobilizing to show solidarity and support for those fleeing Ukraine.

This is how the international refugee protection regime should work, especially in times of crisis: countries keep their borders open to those fleeing wars and conflict; unnecessary identity and security checks are avoided; those fleeing warfare are not penalized for arriving without valid identity and travel documents; detention measures are not used; refugees are able to freely join family members in other countries; communities and their leaders welcome refugees with generosity and solidarity.

But we know that this is not how the international protection regime has always operated in Europe, particularly in those same countries that are now welcoming refugees from Ukraine.

Public discourse in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania is often tainted by racist and xenophobic rhetoric about refugees and migrants, in particular those from Middle Eastern and African countries, and they have adopted hostile policies like border push-backs and draconian detention measures.

A case in point is Hungary: The country has refused to admit refugees from non-EU countries since the 2015 “refugee crisis.” Prime Minister Victor Orbán has described non-European refugees as “Muslim invaders” and migrants as “a poison,” claiming that Hungary should not accept refugees from different cultures and religions to “preserve its cultural and ethnic homogeneity.”

In May 2020, The European Court of Justice found that Hungary’s arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in transit zones on its border with Serbia was illegal.

Hungary was not alone in its harsh response to the 2015 “crisis.” In their book Immigration Detention in the European Union: In the Shadow of the “Crisis” (Springer 2020), Global Detention Project (GDP) researchers detailed the evolution of the detention systems of all EU Members States before, during, and after the 2015 refugee crisis.

Among their key findings: During the years leading up to 2015, migration-related detention had largely plateaued across the EU, but refugee pressures spurred important increases in detention regimes across the entire region, which remained in place long after the “crisis” had subsided.

Fuelling these increases was anti-migrant rhetoric that spread from Brussels across the entire continent, abetted by EU-wide migration directives that allowed for lengthy detention periods. Then-European Council President Donald Tusk argued at that time that all arriving refugees could be detained for up to 18 months, in line with the limits in EU directives, while their claims were processed.

More recently, in late 2021, the terrible treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, most of them from Iraq and Afghanistan, trapped on Belarus’s borders with Poland and Lithuania sparked outrage across Europe. Belarus was accused of weaponizing the plight of these people, luring them to Belarus in order to travel on to EU countries as retaliation against EU sanctions.

Polish border guards were brutal in their treatment of these refugees and migrants, many of whom sustained serious injuries from Polish and Belarussian border guards. Thousands were left stranded in the forests between the two countries in deplorable conditions with no food, shelter, blankets, or medicines: at least 19 migrants died in the freezing winter temperatures.

In response to this situation, Poland sent soldiers to its border, erected razor-wire fencing, and started the construction of a 186-kilometre wall to prevent asylum seekers entering from Belarus. It also adopted legislation that would allow it to expel anyone who irregularly crossed its border and banned their re-entry.

Even before the stand-off between Poland and Belarus, refugees in Poland did not receive a warm welcome. Very few asylum seekers were granted refugee status (in 2020 out of 2,803 applications, only 161 were granted refugee status) and large numbers of refugees and migrants were detained: a total of 1,675 migrants and asylum seekers were in detention in January 2022, compared to just 122 people during all of 2020.

With this recent history as backdrop, the double standards and racism inherent in Europe’s refugee responses are glaring. There are no calls from Brussels today to detain refugees fleeing Ukraine for up to 18 months.

Why? Because, as Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov said recently about people from Ukraine: “These are not the refugees we are used to. … These people are Europeans. … These people are intelligent, they are educated people. … This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists.”

Similarly, Hungary’s Orban has said that every refugee coming from Ukraine will be “welcomed by friends in Hungary,” adding that one doesn’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to see the difference between “masses arriving from Muslim regions in hope of a better life in Europe” and helping Ukrainian refugees who have come to Hungary because of the war.

Sadly, these double standards have reared in the response to non-Ukrainians fleeing the war in Ukraine. There are a growing number of accounts of students and migrants from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia who have faced racist treatment, obstruction, and violence trying to flee Ukraine.

Many described being prevented from boarding trains and buses in Ukrainian towns while priority was given to Ukrainian nationals; others described being aggressively pulled aside and stopped by Ukrainian border guards when trying to cross into neighbouring countries.

There are also accounts of Polish authorities taking aside African students and refusing them entry into Poland, although the Polish Ambassador to the UN told a General Assembly meeting on 28 February that assertions of race or religion-based discrimination at Poland’s border were “a complete lie and a terrible insult to us.”

He asserted that “nationals of all countries who suffered from Russian aggression or whose life is at risk can seek shelter in my country.” According to the Ambassador, people from 125 different nationalities have been admitted into Poland from Ukraine.

Several African leaders have strongly criticized the discrimination on the borders of Ukraine, saying everyone has the same right to cross international borders to flee conflict and seek safety.

The African Union stated that “reports that Africans are singled out for unacceptable dissimilar treatment would be shockingly racist and in breach of international law,” and called for all countries to “show the same empathy and support to all people fleeing war notwithstanding their racial identity.”

Similar messages were shared by the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, who said in a Tweet: “I am grateful for the compassion, generosity and solidarity of Ukraine’s neighbours who are taking in those seeking safety. It is important that this solidarity is extended without any discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity,” and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees who stressed that “it is crucial that receiving countries continue to welcome all those fleeing conflict and insecurity—irrespective of nationality and race.”

The Ukraine refugee crisis presents Europe with not only an important opportunity to demonstrate its generosity, humanitarian values, and commitment to the international refugee protection regime; it is also a critical moment of reflection: Can the peoples of Europe overcome their widespread racism and animosity and embrace the universalist spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention?

As Article 3 of the Convention holds, all member states “shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.”

Rachael Reilly and Michael Flynn are based at the Global Detention Project in Geneva.

 

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');  

Dr Lesley Ann Foster is Executive Director Masimanyane Women’s Rights International, South Africa
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

By Lesley Ann Foster
EAST LONDON, South Africa, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

 

WAR

The world is currently facing a devastating war with dire prospects for our global security. Men are waging this war while women seek peace and security for their families, communities and our global society. Women are give birth and nurture while some men actively seek death and destruction. This is one of the fundamental differences between the sexes which underpins patriarchy and generates inequality on many levels. Women and girls bear the brunt of this unbalanced approach to life.

Lesley Ann Foster

WANT

Women come to International Women’s day 2022 having fought, struggled, suffered, gained and lost with the COVID 19 pandemic deepening existing fissures across political, economic, social and technological spheres. All gender struggles were widened and deepened by the pandemic with violence against women being among the most pronounced. Gender inequality was the largest fissure that COVID 19 ruptured globally.

It was striking that the spike in violence against women was identified very early on in the pandemic with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guiterres, warning about the risk of such a spike due to the shelter in place regulations required to stem the spread of the virus. The same call was made by the World Health Organisation. Yet, very little was put in place to provide women and girls with protection against the violence that inevitable occurred as a result of the lock down regulations. The world saw and pre-empted the violence but the political will to address it holistically and comprehensively was not there. Inequality was allowed to fester and grow.

The North South divide was striking in the loss of jobs, food insecurity, increased care burdens and, of course, the access to vaccines programme where the South has fought hard to get its populations vaccinated and virtually no promises by countries in the North materialised. Africa still has only 7% vaccine coverage with women the least likely to be vaccinated.

In South Africa 2,6 million jobs were lost with 2 out of 3 being lost by women. Jobs continue to be lost with large swarths of essential workers, mainly women, still being retrenched. The economic fall out is not restricted to these job losses but include the build back policies and programmes where the World Bank and IMF are re introducing Struggle Adjustment policies to countries forced to borrow money from them to counter the impact of the pandemic. There has been no genuine investment from the North to address poverty and inequality in these processes. Women are left wanting on all fronts.

WEATHER (Climate and environmental change)

Perhaps the biggest and most profound challenges to the women for the world are in the Climate change and environmental disaster movement as these intersecting issues are amongst the most challenging sustainable development problems of our current times because so many aspects of human rights are eroded and lost especially for women and girls in marginalised communities. The first risk at the time of a natural disaster is that of violence to vulnerable communities as women and girls in those communities experience poor resourcing. Homes are lost, livelihoods affected, food security threatened and rapes become a reality for far too many women and girls.

Climate change and environmental disaster programmes continue to fail to apply a gender analysis to the disaster management initiatives and most do not take into account the lived realities of women and girls leaving them at continued great risk of various forms of abuse. This sets back development goals and create more barriers to eliminating gender based violence and achieving equality.

The world needs a comprehensive risk reduction framework based on a human rights approach that ensues that there are policies, programmes and resources allocated to comprehensively address the climate change and environmental disaster challenges.

WELLBEING

There are several positive developments that offer hope and inspiration for the wellbeing of our global community but women and girls specifically. Young women activists from around the world are fighting for just transitions after environmental or climate change disasters. Their struggle for equal participation in rebuilding efforts is taking hold in Africa, South America, India and across other developing nations.

The gender-based violence movement has heard the voices of young women as they come to the fore in the #MeToo campaign, the Totalshutdown campaign and the #TimesUp campaign to name a few.

The Generation Equality forum, an initiative of UN Women, is also contributing in a significant way to get states from both the North and the South to make renewed commitments to addressing gender inequality by 2030. The Action Coalitions are global multistakeholder partnerships that are working jointly to catalyze collective action, initiate conversations intergenerationally from the local to the global level, while also eliciting increased resources mobilization from individuals, institutions and the private sector. These initiatives build on each other with the main aim being to secure significant changes for women and girls.

We must take heart from the fact that while women everywhere are experiencing multiple threats to their safety, their security and their overall wellbeing; advances are being made through actions small and large and we must celebrate these achievements on this International Women’s day 2022.

 

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');  

Excerpt:

Dr Lesley Ann Foster is Executive Director Masimanyane Women’s Rights International, South Africa
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

The 193-member UN General Assembly, which held an Emergency Special Session on Ukraine last week, overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding that Russia immediately end its military operations in Ukraine. A total of 141 countries voted in favour of the resolution, which reaffirmed Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Five countries -- Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Russia and Syria -- voted against it, while 35 abstained. There were also 12 member states who were MIAs (missing in action) – absent from the chamber either for political reasons or denied voting rights for non-payment of UN dues. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

The overwhelming condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine—which triggered a veto from Russia and an abstention from China last week – has raised a challenging question about the legitimacy of UN memberships of both countries which are permanent members of the Security Council.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) ceased to exist back in 1991, with the Russian Federation assuming the rights and obligations as a successor state.

And the Republic of China (Taiwan) was expelled from the United Nations– and ousted from its highly-prized permanent seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC)– about 51 years ago.

But according to the UN charter, “the USSR and the Republic of China” – not the “Russian Federation” or “the People’s Republic of China” (PRC)—are still two of the five permanent members of the most powerful body in the Organization.

If both countries assume they are rightful successors, why aren’t they going before the General Assembly to help amend the Charter? As a result of the anomaly, the un-amended UN charter remains outdated and a relic of a distant past.

According to Article 108 of the Charter, amendments must be adopted by two thirds of the 193 members of the General Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all five permanent members of the Security Council, namely the US, UK, France, China and Russia.

The Charter has been amended five times:

• In 1965, Articles 23 was amended to enlarge the Security Council from 11 to 15 members
• In 1965, Article 27 was amended to increase the required number of Security Council votes from 7 to 9
• In 1965, Article 61 was amended to enlarge the Economic and Social Council from 18 to 27 members
• In 1968, Article 109 was amended to change the requirements for a General Conference of Member States for reviewing the Charter
• In 1973, Article 61 was amended again to further enlarge the Economic and Social Council from 27 to 54 members

But it was never amended to reflect the two successor states, namely the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China (PRC)

During the Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly last week, Ukraine’s Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, pointed out that while “the Russian Federation has done everything possible to legitimize its presence at the United Nations, its membership is not legitimate, as the General Assembly never voted on its admission to the Organization following the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991”.

With the collapse of the USSR in late 1991,the Commonwealth of Independent States signed a declaration agreeing that “Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council.”

And in October 1971, the General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations.

But one longstanding question remains: why has Russia and PRC not moved for an amendment of the charter?

Is it that both countries fear they will not be able to garner the two thirds majority needed in the General Assembly for any amendments to the charter?

In a December 1991 inter-office memo, the UN’s Office of Legal Affairs said: “For the present, the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics remains a member of the United Nations with all the rights and obligations of memberships. Its representatives, whose credentials have been approved by the Credentials Committee, continue to occupy the seat of the USSR in all organs of the United Nations.”

“In considering the changes which may come about in the near future and their implications within the internal constitutional order of the United Nations, it should be borne in mind that the United Nations will, of necessity, be obliged to proceed from whatever arrangements are made internally in the Soviet Union in relation to the break—up of the USSR and the decisions which are taken by the republics regarding their individual status in international law and that of any collective entity which might emerges.”

The memo lays out several scenarios over succession states, including “a similar issue following the partition of India and Pakistan when certain Members objected to India’s automatic retention of its seat while Pakistan had to apply as a new state.”

But the question of an un-amended Charter remains unanswered.

In response to a question, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters March 4, the UN’s Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) had “undertaken a review of its relevant files”.

“I was informed that the search is continuing through the paper-based files, and non-digitized files, and that some related documents have been found, including an interoffice memo dated 19 December 1991”.

He said it has been declassified, and “I can share it with you if you are interested.”

The interoffice memo, he pointed out, does not in any way alter the Secretariat position, which is that, in accordance with the UN Charter, “the question of UN membership is the responsibility of Member States”.

In his 165-page book on the Security Council titled “Of Foxes and Chickens– Oligarchy and Global Power in the Security Council”, James Paul, then Executive Director of the New York-based Global Police Forum, writes the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991 provided another act in this strange drama (following the admission of PRC).

A number of successor states came into being of which the Russian Federation was the largest.

“It was certainly not the major power that the USSR had been, having a far reduced population and economy. The new state was not clearly the same as the old, but the permanent members did not want to open up the dreaded membership question.”

“With most diplomats celebrating a holiday (at the time) or out of town on vacation, no delegation raised immediate objections. Without even calling a meeting to examine the matter, the Council President took silence as consent.”

Meanwhile, any attempts to expel or suspend Russia from the General Assembly—primarily because of its invasion of Ukraine– will be difficult to justify judging by the track record of some of the member states.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS this proposal seems like a stretch.

The United Nations technically might be able to remove Russia from the Security Council, but politically it would come across as vindictive and would likely weaken the United Nations’ authority, he said.

“There would also be the question of double-standards,” he pointed out.

Morocco was elected to a non-permanent seat in the Security Council in the 1990s despite its invasion, occupation, and illegal annexation of Western Sahara.

Indonesia was elected to the Council during the same decade following its conquest and occupation of East Timor.

And Israel’s admission into the United Nations, he argued, was conditional on the grounds “that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter, and is able and willing to carry out those obligations,” which it clearly has not done, as exemplified through its conquests of neighboring countries, its illegal colonization of occupied territories, and its illegal annexation of parts of them, he noted.

“For the United Nations to take such drastic action targeting Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, it would need to have a more consistent policy towards aggressor nations,” declared Zunes.

Since the international community has pretty recognized there is only one China and plenty of member states have changed their formal names over time, he pointed out, “I don’t think the representation of China is an issue. If it did come to a vote, I’m quite confident they would get a two-thirds majority.”

The Soviet/Russia case is more complicated, he noted. “Even here, though, since a case could be made that the Soviet Union was the successor state to the Russian Empire, a reduced Soviet Union would still be Russia. I don’t think Russia would have had any problems getting the two-thirds support either—until recently,” he declared.

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');  

A nurse on a maternity ward in a rural hospital powered by solar energy through the UNDP-led Solar for Heath initiative in Zimbabwe. Credit: Karin Schermbrucker for Slingshot/UNDP

By Lucia Cortina
PANAMA CITY, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Access to clean energy improves women’s lives in a myriad of ways. It supports access to education and quality healthcare, opens new economic opportunities, and reduces unpaid domestic labour and gender-based violence. Yet too often, the sector as a whole – from industry to policymaking – still fails to include women as energy users, decision-makers and agents of change of the energy transition.

To succeed, the energy transition must be just. It must be done in a way that delivers sustainable energy access for all, leaving no one behind. It must be done with women. Here are three ways the clean energy sector and related policies can help to unleash the power of women for a just energy transition.

1. Accelerating action on clean cooking, which is a vast health crisis impacting women disproportionately

Household air pollution leads to a staggering 3.8 million premature deaths each year — nearly half of all air pollution-related deaths – and 60% of which are women and children. This is driven by a lack of access to clean technologies and fuels for cooking, which directly impacts a third of the world’s population yet receives little attention and action. 2.6 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking, which comes at significant health and social costs that disproportionately impact women and children. Most of them live in sub-Saharan Africa, in the world’s poorest and most remote communities.

In these communities, women and children are often in charge of collecting wood for cooking and heating, spending up to 18 hours a week doing so. They are vulnerable to sexual violence on their routes. They also breathe in harmful gas every day from open fires or inefficient stoves while cooking.

A woman using an electrical blender in a remote village in Cambodia. Cerdit: Okra Solar

Clean cooking solutions such as electrical or more efficient stoves not only improve the lives of billions of women by freeing up time that can be used for education, income-generating activities, or rest and leisure; it also saves millions of women’s and children’s lives each year.

Yet too often, clean cooking is not seen as the policy priority it is. While a lot of progress has been made in the past decade when it comes to access to electricity – with the share of people lacking electricity decreasing from 1.2 billion in 2010 to 759 million in 2019 –, relative progress on clean cooking has been much slower, with the share of people lacking access to clean cooking only decreasing from 3 billion to 2.6 billion since 2010. This lack of progress maintains gender inequalities. Women’s energy needs must be identified, prioritized, and adequately addressed. This includes involving women in the design and promotion of clean cooking technologies to ensure that these adequately meet their needs.

2. Empowering women with new economic opportunities

Beyond clean cooking, access to clean energy can also open up new economic opportunities for women by supporting livelihoods and generating new sources of income.

In Yemen for instance, with UNDP’s support, a group of women have set up a private solar micro-grid near the frontlines of the conflict– bringing much-needed electricity from clean energy to their community while earning an income and pushing gender boundaries. In Peru, an energy school trains women to become clean energy entrepreneurs by teaching them to install, maintain and commercialize solar panels and improved cookstoves.

In India, in the remote village of Khunti in Jharkhand, women entrepreneurs produce face masks and sanitary pads thanks to solar-powered, electric sewing machines – enabling women to earn an income while providing women in rural areas with much-needed menstrual hygiene products.

Access to clean energy, especially when it supports the productive uses of energy, is a powerful means to advance socio-economic development in a way that reduces inequalities and increases women’s resilience. When this gender perspective is foreseen and included in clean energy projects and policies, these become transformational for the entire community.

3. Improving women’s representation at all levels of the clean energy sector

The energy sector is one of the sectors with the lowest levels of women representation – even though the renewable energy sector fares better than the fossil fuel sector, with women representing on average 32 percent of the renewable energy workforce compared with an average of 22 percent in the oil and gas sector.

But while the energy transition is expected to create 30 million jobs worldwide by 2030, current predictions show that the proportion of women in the clean energy sector will decrease because the subsectors expected to drive this job creation such as in construction and electric machinery equipment, are the ones with the lowest women representation.

The clean energy sector must do more to identify and address the barriers preventing women from entering and thriving in the sector.

To be just and effective, the energy transition must be done with all parts of society – including with women, and in a way that addresses women’s needs and preferences.

Women need to be included as agents of change not only as beneficiaries. As part of UNDP’s Sustainable Energy Hub, UNDP’s gender and energy strategy ensures that gender is a pillar of our programming on energy, and feeds in every policy and program that we support countries with.

 

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');  

Excerpt:

The writer is Climate Change and Energy Policy Advisor, UNDP, Panama
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

Credit: UN Women/Narendra Shrestha

By Lina Taing and Grace Oluwasanya
HAMILTON, Ontario, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

UN Women estimates 150 million women and girls are emerging from poverty by 2030, thanks largely to comprehensive education, labor, and social protection strategies and reforms implemented by governments around the world.

Celebration of this anticipated Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) progress is tempered, however, by the realization that a majority — roughly two-thirds — of the 435 million women and girls experiencing extreme poverty will likely be left behind.

The impact of gender inequality has severe costs and consequences for entire societies. Women and girls in 80% of households without on-premises drinking water access miss out on innumerable economic and educational opportunities due to daily water collection responsibilities.

Women also are underrepresented in leadership and decision-making roles despite making up nearly half of the world’s population. Moreover, lifetime earnings of women could increase by more than half – that is, US $24,586 per person or $170 trillion globally – if women earned as much as men.

This year’s International Women’s Day, celebrated since 1911, aims to further raise awareness of and break the bias that perpetuates gender inequality in the 21st century.

This bias continues despite gender mainstreaming and other public policy measures that unequivocally affirm the equal rights of women and men and officially integrate gendered perspectives in legislation, research, resource allocation, and project management and monitoring.

Farmers in Laikipia County constructing vertical gardens – a climate smart approach that reduces labour input, creates diversity in crops and increases water preservation. Credit: UN Women/James Ochweri

In the water sector, blind spots pose a particular barrier to progress.

Blind spots due to limited data, discriminatory structural and systemic violations such as stereotypes and norms, need to be urgently addressed.

Even within the SDGs there are blind spots: none of the 11 indicators for SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) are related to gender, for example.

While “paying special attention to the needs of women and girls” is descriptively highlighted in Target 6.2 (adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene), all of SDG 6’s indicators are actually gender-blind as data such as the proportion of women and girls accessing safe services or involved in decision-making are not monitored.

The water sector needs to collect gender-disaggregated data measuring women’s ability to meet their water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) needs, access resources, and exercise agency if it is to develop evidence-based gender equality policies and interventions.

The water sector can draw from the SDG Agenda’s 53 gender-specific indicators, a recent review on gender-related WASH measures and quantitative measures of social change informed by a feminist perspective to build gender-specific monitoring system at programmatic, national and global scales.

Meanwhile, less than half of 109 countries reporting on gender mainstreaming in water laws and policies specifically mention women’s participation in resource management and rural sanitation.

And in places where women’s equality seems most advanced, some of the women that managed to get a seat at the table have complained of their participation being tokenistic in both community and government structures.

When women’s perspectives are not incorporated in policies and the construction and location of supposedly gender-neutral water infrastructure, resulting interventions can actually constrain women’s economic and educational opportunities.

Women also can feel insecure with having to use services that put their personal safety at risk, as well as not meet their basic menstrual hygiene disposal and personal cleansing needs.

Meaningful and substantial women’s empowerment efforts and representation are critical to ensure that current systems are transformed to tackle the harmful roots of inequality in the water sector. The causes of these violations need to be uprooted if everlasting change is to be achieved.

Outdated stereotypes and social norms – such as women being steered to traditional caregiving domestic and professional roles – are at the root of gender bias and barriers in the water sector.

Additionally, socio-institutional expectations and patriarchal practices limit many women’s ability to reconcile the time and energy committed to caregiving and work.

Consequently, women are overrepresented in unpaid work roles (including water carriage) and underrepresented in industrial leadership or decision-making roles.

While sectoral interventions have targeted gender imbalances in domestic roles and decision-making, gender mainstreaming in the workplace continues to be an uphill struggle.

Globally, less than one in five water sector workers are women, with underrepresentation in both technical and managerial positions.

To break this institutional barrier, the World Bank advises addressing salary inequities by assessing gender pay gaps for equivalent work, offering staff training opportunities informed by a gender lens, and adopting a four-pronged approach that attracts, recruits, retains and offers career advancement opportunities for the next generation of female water leaders.

The realization of gender equality is a key component of the global development agenda, and essential if the water sector is to contribute to the achievement of SDGs 1 (no poverty), 5 (gender equality), 6 (clean water and sanitation), and 10 (reduced inequalities).

Putting gender-disaggregated data measures, supportive legal and physical infrastructure, and inclusive social systems and institutions in place can help #breakthebias by overcoming gender blind spots that perpetuate harmful and inequitable divisions of control, power, and labor.

Lina Taing is the Water and Health research lead, and Grace Oluwasanya is a Water, Gender and Climate Change research lead at the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), a Canadian-based think tank supported by the Government of Canada and hosted at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

 

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');  

Excerpt:

The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

South Africa's Stephen Mokoka breaks the 50km record in his first race at the distance.

The global response to the conflict in Ukraine highlights a double standard, writes Maher Mezahi.

BBC Africa can spoken to several Africans still trapped across Ukraine.

Zimbabwean student Korrine Sky is trying to help African students trapped in Ukraine.

The Nigerian Afrobeats star talks to the BBC about his future plans, and why he won't take up politics.

By Daud Khan
ROME, Mar 4 2022 (IPS)

This aphorism which dates back to the late 1940s points out that one’s position on issues (where you stand) is shaped by your relationship with the events taking place (where you sit).

Since the start of the Ukrainian war I have been working in a small country very much in Russia’s shadow. Local TV channels are dominated by broadcasts from Russia. Russian is widely understood here, much more than English, and these channels provide a major source of news.

Daud Khan

Not having any Russian, most of my information over the past week has come through listening to the BBC World Service on the radio. By chance the other day I stumbled across the English language channel of Russian state TV and was fascinated by their well-argued and highly polished presentation of the Russian version of facts. It was interesting, although not surprising, to see how differently the war is presented by the two sides.

What is seen in as an invasion of a free democratic country in the West is presented by Moscow as a necessary intervention to halt the interrupted eastern creep of NATO – an issue that threatens their very survival and on which they have repeatedly warned NATO leaders.

The West sees the events as the imposition of Russian rule on freedom loving Ukrainians, while Moscow presents it as the liberation of the Russian speaking people of the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics from Ukrainian bullying and thuggery. The West calls it an invasion and a war; Moscow calls it an operation.

Reporters from each side interview “ordinary citizens” to provide support for their point of view. News agencies such as the BBC and CNN interview ordinary Ukrainians who say how they love their country and want to live in peace but are prepared to defend their homes and families; the other side also interview ordinary people of the Donbas who offer tearful thanks to their Russian liberators.

The arming of ordinary citizens by the Ukrainian Government is seen in western media as giving patriots the means to defend their homeland; in Moscow’s version all this does in armed criminal gangs – some of these have been turning up in pickup trucks to load up dozens of machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunitions. Moscow say 500 of their soldiers have lost the life, the other side reports a number more than 10 times that.

It is quite futile to ask who is right and about what. Maybe the Russians are right about the eastern creep of NATO but maybe they are lying about the number of deaths. Or maybe both sides are partly right – say about the distribution of arms; it may well be that ordinary patriotic Ukrainians as well as criminal gangs are arming themselves.

In the age of internet and social media, most people have access to both versions of the facts and have a choice about which narrative to believe? And there is where Miles’ Law kicks in – most people will choose the narrative that fits in with their past experiences and their current needs and desires.

At Government level the choice of which narrative to accept, and what positions to take, for example at the UN, will be based on the economic, political and strategic interests of the country or of its rulers. Did Palau (population 18,000) make any objective assessment of facts before cosponsoring the UN motion condemning Russia, or did they simply go along with the wishes of Australia and New Zealand their largest trading partners and donors? Did the Government of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka assess the evidence or did they abstain in the General Assembly vote in order to have the option to make deals with whichever side offers better terms? And did China abstain because it wants to prepare the ground for its own invasion of Taiwan? And what about Afghanistan? Is their vote condemning Russia based on what they believe are the facts of the matter, or is it simply because their representative at the UN is still the one appointed by the Ashraf Ghani Government and whose salaries and expenses are likely paid by the USA?

And what about “ordinary individuals”? What do they believe? Those who have lived in Iraq or in Afghanistan, or in other places where USA and western countries have played havoc, will tend to have sympathies with the Russian narrative. For them someone is finally standing up to western bullying; someone is prepared to give NATO a bloody nose.

In contrast many in Europe will believe the Western version of facts – that Putin is a power hunger lunatic, a megalomaniac who is single handedly driving the invasion, and he will soon be replaced by the oligarchs who see their wealth and privileges dwindling due to sanctions. Their views and predictions are based not only on cultural ties with the Ukraine but is influenced by the fact that most Europeans have benefited from closer economic links with Russia and in particular on plentiful Russian energy supplies – supplies that are at now at risk. For them the quicker the war is over and Russians booted out of the Ukraine the better for everyone. And what if the war is not over quickly? What if energy supplies are cut off, if prices go on rising, and millions of refugees continue to turn up? Will positions change?

But whatever views we hold, and however strongly we wish to argue about who is right and who is wrong, let us not forget that the vast majority of the people on the planet don’t give a hoot about who is right and who is wrong. They will simply curse the big powers whose ambitions have raised the price of food and fuel, making their life ever harder.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

 

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 Heike Kuhn
BONN, Mar 4 2022 (IPS)

Again we commemorate International Women’s Day – it is March, 8. We want to celebrate women’s achievements and raise awareness for their successes, taking action for equality. Today I would like to draw your attention to women in science and in particular to one outstanding scientist.

Dr. Heike Kuhn

Did you ever hear of Professor Francine Ntoumi? If so, you may already know that she is a Congolese parasitologist specializing in epidemiology of malaria. As the first African person in charge of the secretariat of the Multilateral Initiative on Malaria in Dar es Salaam/Tanzania (2006-2010), she became well-known for her research. Today, she focuses on other infectious diseases, leading important research activities.

To give some background on her career: Born 1961 in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, she received her education both in Brazzaville and Paris. After finishing her Ph.D., she started her career at the Pasteur Institute of Paris, then moving as a researcher to Gabon and taking over the position as Scientific Director for the European Developing Countries Trials Partnership in The Hague/Netherlands (2006/2007). Due to her outstanding career and knowledge, she became a member of many scientific and advisory bodies, including the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, the WHO and the Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In my country, Germany, she has received the Georg Forster Research Award in 2015, a highly respected distinction for scientists. And just recently, in January 2022, she was appointed as Assistant Professor for tropical diseases at the University of Tuebingen, a place where she had already been working before. On her Facebook account she is telling us that this recent appointment goads her to spread her knowledge to others.

Impressed by her career, I was drawn to reflect on women in science altogether. Is it a fact that women are less attracted by science and what are the obstacles once a career has started? Let us have a closer look at what happens after the birth of a girl: She finds a surrounding either encouraging or not – her family, kindergarten, school, higher education. A smart girl will learn and compete, not getting discouraged by persons who may disesteem her simply because she is a girl. But there are signals, words, sometimes threats, telling her that smarter toys or jobs are not for her, but for boys. Suppose, she did not falter and was not impressed by these actions and will instead succeed, climbing the steps on her education and get her degrees with distinction, followed by a Ph.D.

When she gets a young adult, there is another important choice to make: continuing the research activities or to start a family, often with taking over more burden than her partner will. Being in charge of a newborn or a toddler is a most enriching and, however, time-consuming experience. Depending on your partner’s availability you manage spare time for your (scientific) obligations – or you simply do not. Some young women even do reject to start a family – a choice a man by our culture is not requested to make. Maybe there are female role models to encourage her in finding her way.

From my point of view, Professor Francine Ntoumi depicts such a role model, inspiring others: On February 11, 2022, the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, she advocated for this day, calling it a reminder to work and encouraging young girls committed to scientific work to follow their aspirations. “It is to us, it is to you to act” she is calling upon them, because “no one will do it instead of us” (all to be seen on her Facebook account). What is also seen and understood: Science is hard work, her career was a long and persistent effort, but she did climb this ladder in one direction – always upstairs.

And yet – despite her experience of 40 years, her membership in many scientific bodies, she pointed publicly to the fact that she is often regarded as an UFO as African women in science are highly underrepresented (see an interview with Ntoumi in Agence d’Information d’Afrique Centrale March 2, 2014). What a comparison! Reading this, I did remember the famous American biographical film “Hidden Figures” (2016), telling the story of African American female mathematicians who supported the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with their extraordinary analytic skills. The exclusion of these women from the relevant high-level meetings and the removal of their names from reports did soon end when their male supervisors understood their exceptional capacities securing the success of space flights and the reputation of the country.

Reflecting on these remarkable achievements of women in science I firmly believe that we should recognize the contribution of girls and women in building a more sustainable world for all of us. As intellect has no gender, we will need ideas and concepts from all experts worldwide. And there are female experts, everywhere. Let us empower them and listen to them. This very day.

Dr. Heike Kuhn is Head of Division, Education, Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany

 

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');  

Chiedza Murindo decided to do something about the power poverty in rural Zimbabwe. She installed a three-light solar home system and now has light. Women are playing an increasing role in alternative energy strategies. Credit: Tonderayi Mukeredzi/IPS

By Tonderayi Mukeredzi
Harare, Zimbabwe , Mar 4 2022 (IPS)

Electricity transmission lines run through Chiedza Murindo’s home in Murombedzi, a small town in Zvimba district in Mashonaland West province, but her house has no electricity. That is the harsh reality for much of Zimbabwe’s rural population, where only 13% of households live without power compared to 83% of urban households.

Disgusted by the energy poverty around her, Murindo became one of the first customers in her area to purchase a three-light solar home system from PowerLive Zimbabwe. This woman-led social enterprise uses mostly women to sell, distribute and install solar energy systems on a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) model to off-grid rural households.

“The Home 60 has three lights, including a sensor light. We don’t have electricity right now, so we use the system to light the home, charge phones, and security at night. Our neighbours who don’t have the system also come to charge their phones with us,” she tells IPS.

Murindo, a teacher at Sabina Mugabe High School, is among dozens of women that PowerLive Zimbabwe has employed to sell and install its products.

“I get a commission for the sales I make from marketing and selling the solar systems, so that adds to my income and help in bringing food to the table,” she says.

Sharon Yeti, the founder and CEO of PowerLive Zimbabwe, says 75 percent of her company’s workers are women, and 85 percent of the 40 sales agents are women. Forty percent of the technicians or installers are women too.

“I’ve always wanted to do something to empower the girl children. The ‘how’ part came later. But having worked for a solar energy company, I thought I could provide solar systems to off-grid rural areas with women as our sales agents. After all, women are more affected by energy poverty,” Yeti, who founded the company in 2018, tells IPS.

She says the project has raised the standard of living for many households, particularly women whose confidence has grown because they can earn money. Children benefit from being able to study after dark. And people’s health has improved away from the toxic use of fuel-based lighting.

Since its inception, the energy start-up has distributed 4 789 solar homes systems to over 20 000 households in ten of the country’s districts. The project isn’t just focused on solar lights but distributes solar products for productive uses like solar water pumps, fridges, hair clippers and entertainment.

According to the African Development Bank, Africa has the highest percentage of women entrepreneurs globally. Yet, they face a cocktail of gender-specific challenges in accessing finance, with a finance gap of around $42 billion.

But for a start-up, Yeti’s PowerLive has been particularly lucky in accessing finance. In 2020, it got a 350 000 Euro grant from a clean energy financier, EEP Africa; then, in late 2020 and 2021 secured a combined US$400 000 from the Energy Access Relief Funding (EARF) and the Distributed Finance Fund (DFF).

“The funding had helped us a lot, to buy more systems, employ more sales agents, and employ more people and pay salaries when we were in lockdown for seven months,” she says.

“Going down to December 2020, we hadn’t made any sales, and in as much as we were paying salaries, we had no income, our customers were not paying, and our stock had run out. So, it was a challenge. That’s when we got funding from AERF, meant to assist companies that had been affected by COVID-19.

“It came just at the perfect time when I was beginning to think we need to start downsizing, but we didn’t, which was also the same for the funding from the DFF. It just helped us get more stock and to maintain people,” she says.

A woman installs electricity in a rural home. A woman-owned solar energy project targets women customers and benefits women as sales agents and technicians. Credit: PowerLive Zimbabwe

Dorothy Hove, executive director of Women Resource Centre Network, a gender and development organization, says the establishment costs of available renewable options like solar were still high for rural households, who are unwilling to change from traditional energy sources to modern technology.

Although girls and women are primarily responsible for the bulk of household work, access to modern energy alternatives was not sufficient to guarantee gender equality.

“Women can play a key role in the green energy transition as responsible consumers, particularly in the household, but also in business and policymaking where measures to support greater access by women to clean and affordable renewable energy are lacking.

“Women’s empowerment and leadership in the energy sector could help accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by promoting clean energy and more efficient energy use, as well as help to tackle energy poverty. The just transition should also include a gender perspective, to guarantee equal opportunities for both men and women in the workforce,” she says.

According to a 2019 report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewable energy employs about 32% of women globally compared to 22% in the energy sector overall.

In Zimbabwe, Hove estimates women account for less than a quarter of employees in the energy sector, which decreases with seniority levels.

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

• International Women’s Day, 2022 Women Demanding Justice & Peace in the Streets of Myanmar
• International Women’s Day, 2022 Collective Solutions to Improve Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights in Climate Action
• International Women’s Day, 2022 Sexual Violence Laws are Failing Adolescents

Excerpt:

This feature is part of a series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

The release of Freeman Mbowe could herald the end of political repression, analysts say.

BBC Africa correspondents explain why 17 African countries abstained from voting on the UN resolution on Ukraine.

On 25 February 2022, people shelter in a school during ongoing military operations in Kyiv, Ukraine. Credit: UNICEF/Victor Kovalchuk/UNIAN
 
“We must help Ukrainians to help each other through this terrible time. We and our partners are committed to supporting all those affected, in accordance with the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity-- Secretary-General António Guterres in remarks at launch of Ukraine flash appeal, 1 March '22

By Inge Kaul
BERLIN, Mar 4 2022 (IPS)

The majority of the world wants peace. This is clear by now. Just consider the many large-scale anti-war demonstrations taking place around the world; and the outpour of solidarity and support for the people in the Ukraine and the more than one million Ukrainians who fled from their country.

Or think of the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 2 March 2022, condemning not only the Russian Federation’s decision to launch a military offensive against Ukraine but also its decision to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces.

These actions are in clear violation of the UN Charter; and, within only a few days’ time, they have shown once again that military interventions cause unconscionable pain and destructions on the side of the warrying parties themselves and, directly and indirectly, also for the world at large. Most importantly, in and by themselves, they fail to resolve the underlying causes of conflict.

Yes, the UNGA resolution of is of historic importance, given that 141 out of a total of 193 UN member states voted for it. However, what historic follow-up of is being planned?

To me, the operative paragraphs of the resolution sound too much like ‘business as usual’. For example, in its paragraph 7, the resolution calls “upon the Russian Federation to abide by the principles set forth in the Charter and the Declaration on Friendly Relations”; and in its paragraph 14, it “[u]rges the immediate peaceful resolution of the conflict … through political dialogue, negotiations, mediation and other peaceful means”.

Yet, who is to break the spiral of violence? The resolution is silent on that. A historic UNGA resolution deserves an equally historic follow-up.

Therefore, Mr. Secretary-General, please, do what you promised in your tweet following the General Assembly vote on the Ukraine. You said: “I will do everything in my power to contribute to an immediate cessation of hostilities and urgent negotiations for peace.”

In my view, you are the person who could bring the involved parties back to the table to dialogue and jointly search for ways to silence the guns and restore peace. You need to lead.

The reason is that peace is a global public good (GPG). Once it exists, even if it is only peace within a particular region, it is there for all, the whole world, because it is an important contribution to global peace.

As many other public goods, the GPG ‘peace’ is likely to suffer from collective action problems. Each of the concerned parties will wait for the other parties to step forward and initiate change.

Mr. Secretary-General, you could be the one to step forward first. I would even say, you must step forward. A core principle of the UN Charter has been violated; and a strong majority of UN Member States want military operations end.

The matter is too serious to wait and see whether one or the other Member State or a group of Member States may launch a ‘stop the war’ initiative. You are the most legitimate person to play this role.

Moreover, some time ago, you reminded the international community that, if there is a war to fight, then it is the war against global warming. One could add further global battles that all of us need to fight and win together, including that against COVID-19. We have no time to lose.

Therefore, Mr. Secretary-General, my request to you is to consider the following steps:

• Announcing that you will, as soon as possible, host a high-level meeting in Geneva the primary goal of which is to end the military operations in the Ukraine and start the search for a return to peace;
• Inviting all the concerned parties, including the Russian Federation, Ukraine, NATO members, representatives of the EU, UK, Australia, Japan and perhaps others to the inaugural meeting;
• Aiming at achieving at the first meeting agreement on follow meetings needed to consolidate the rewon peace;
• Appointing two or three eminent personalities to assist you in this peace negotiation process; and
• Publishing an open letter in select Western and Russian newspapers as well as on the world’s most important news websites and blogs requesting Russian business oligarchs to consider contributing to a dedicated Ukraine Peace Fund that you, Mr. Secretary-General, would establish for the purpose of mobilizing some US$ 100 billion needed to finance humanitarian assistance, peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in the Ukraine and compensate neighboring countries of the Ukraine for any extra burdens the war may have placed on them.

Mr. Secretary-General, irrespective of whether you take the aforementioned steps and/or others, but please, ensure that there will be a historic follow-up to the historic UNGA resolution of 2 March 2022.

The world is waiting for it.

 

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');  

Excerpt:

The writer is is Senior Fellow, Hertie School, Berlin and Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for Global Governance, Washington DC.

More must be done to encourage female coaches, says the first woman to take charge of a Basketball Africa League club.