Africa

Forestry loss: Up to 65 per cent of productive land is degraded, while desertification affects 45 per cent of Africa’s land area. Credit: FAO/Luis Tato.
Meanwhile, well over 100 countries (representing over 85% of the world’s forests) have signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, committing to work collectively to halt and reverse forestry loss and land degradation by 2030, while promoting an inclusive rural transformation.

By Tina Nybo Jensen
AMSTERDAM, the Netherlands, Nov 10 2021 (IPS)

With the UN climate change conference – COP26 – continuing this week in Glasgow, it’s obvious that there is consensus among a majority of world leaders and key stakeholders that much more needs to be done, if the ambition of keeping global warming to a 1.5-degree increase is to have any chance of being met. Yet talk, as they say, is cheap. Or, in the words of Greta: too much “blah, blah, blah” and not enough action.

Responding to the global climate crisis demands a global response, with public commitments backed up by resources and collaboration. We cannot have countries or organizations working in silos.

And we cannot de-couple climate considerations from the broader sustainability agenda, as exemplified by the Sustainable Development Goals – and SDG 13 (climate action), in particular.

Widening perspectives to understand all impacts

A catch-phrase doing the rounds on social media lately, coined by Jan Konietzko of Cognizant, is ‘carbon tunnel vision’. A clever play on words, yes, but beyond that it is a highly pertinent observation.

If we achieve net-zero emissions yet overlook human rights, or fail to safeguard biodiversity, what will this mean for the wellbeing of people and planet?

At Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), we provide the global common language for organizations to communicate their impacts. The GRI Standards broadly address a company’s impacts on the economy, environment and people, in a holistic and comprehensive way.

That is why, through GRI’s engagements at COP26 we have focused on how sustainability reporting can inform decision-making that achieves faster action on climate change and related sustainability issues.

At the heart of this is strengthening and highlighting the synergies between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda. It will only be through concerted and connected action on these commitments, informed by evidence and data, that we can seize the opportunities for an inclusive and sustainable future for all.

Collaboration between public and private sectors

Alongside transnational coordination between governments, we need to further engage the private sector as a key partner in the realization and implementation of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. Working closely with the UN Global Compact and other international organizations, GRI strives to highlight and increase the importance of corporate sustainability reporting for the SDGs.

Encouragingly, the Climate Confidence Barometer, published in September by WBCSD and FREUDS, highlights that 98% of companies surveyed reported confidence that they will meet net-zero targets by 2050. In addition, 55% are confident that the global business community will do so as well.

However, the transition does not stop at emissions; as identified in a recent report from the Future of Sustainable Data Alliance, there is a ‘ESG data hole’ when it comes to biodiversity and nature. KPMG research from December 2020 also found that less than a quarter of large companies at risk from biodiversity loss disclose on the topic.

In this context, GRI’s plans to launch a new Biodiversity Standard in 2022 are timely and much needed, while October’s UN Biodiversity Conference set the stage for work to resume next year to adopt a post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Action that delivers tangible results

However, it is encouraging that well over 100 countries (representing over 85% of the world’s forests) have signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, committing to work collectively to halt and reverse forestry loss and land degradation by 2030, while promoting an inclusive rural transformation.

This is a commendable vision – but we need to hold all parties to these commitments.

To secure tangible results – from safeguarding the environment to wider progress on the sustainability agenda – the action needs to start today. It cannot become a carte blanche to maintain ‘business as usual’ until 2030.

Regular and comprehensive reporting on sustainability impacts, with accountability from all organizations with an involvement, is essential to measure progress.

Effective sustainability reporting offers a unique perspective on the role of the private sector, helping countries to work towards the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda. While a multi-faceted approach is needed to reach these goals, we should be no means downplay the significance of reaching net-zero.

It is not a matter of either/or – we need to dramatically cut emissions and secure broader sustainable development in the process.

It’s time for true leadership

There are strong signs that business is already convinced of the urgency of the situation – and is, in fact, pressing governments to do much more. The We Mean Business Coalition call to action urges the G20 to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It has been signed so far by 778 business leaders – representing US$2.7 trillion in annual revenue. Furthermore, one-in-five companies around the world have set net-zero targets.

Last week, WBCSD launched a manifesto that calls for a new ‘Corporate Determined Contributions’ mechanism to measure the private sector’s role in the global climate recovery. With a core focus on the imperatives to reduce, remove and report GHG emissions, this reflects a growing and welcome trend of responsible companies pressing for greater influence in support of climate action.

As COP26 draws to close, GRI calls on all stakeholders to raise their ambitions, act now on their commitments, and work together to deliver a holistic approach to the challenges of climate change. One that takes account of the environment and society – cutting emissions while also securing sustainable development. Failure on either front will mean tragic consequences for all.

Tina Nybo Jensen is International Policy Manager at Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). She leads on the development, management and implementation of GRI’s Sustainable Development Program, with a special focus on the SDGs and engagement with multilateral organizations.

Prior to joining GRI in 2014, Tina worked for the Danish Red Cross Youth in Jordan and the Westbank, and at the Danish Embassy in Thailand. She holds Master’s Degrees in Development & International Relations (Aalborg University, Denmark), and Political Science with Specialisation in Environmental Governance & International Relations (Vrije University Amsterdam, the Netherlands).

 

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');  

Cape Town, on South Africa's coast, was the first global city to come close to running out of water.

The UK Government's warning comes amid rising tensions between the Ethiopian government and rebels.

Datong, in China’s Shanxi Province, was an old-fashioned coal mining city. It has been a key city for an environmental clean-up. China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2. Credit: Trevor Page

By Marwa Awad
OTTAWA, Canada, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

Look up any map showing today’s global humanitarian crises and you’ll find it awash in red alerts more than ever before. Climate emergencies are fast emerging in new areas that have never previously witnessed them, and they are accelerating humanity’s march towards the precipice in regions long battered by conflict, hunger and displacement.

While developed countries are responsible for the lion’s share of CO2 emissions, developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are the ones suffering the most from the devastating effects of these climate-induced emergencies.

The adverse effects of climate change are already at an advanced stage, with many developing countries around the world living in climates 3 degrees higher than normal such as Mali and Burkina Faso. It is no longer enough to focus only on mitigating climate crises through reducing fossil fuels and transforming food systems.

Cracked earth due to drought in India’s north-eastern State of Bihar. Bihar was the epicenter of India’s last major famine in the mid 1960s. Credit: Trevor Page

With only a few days left of the UN COP26 climate talks, world leaders and experts negotiating mitigative measures to cap global warming at 1.5 C or face irreversible disaster would be remiss not to prioritize helping developing countries already devastated by the impact of global warming to quickly adapt to climate change.

“In parallel with mitigation, we need to help countries adapt to the new climactic stresses brought about by global warming,” says Amir Abdulla, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme. “Climate change adaptation is urgently needed in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America where people face climate extremes.”

Without the ability to adapt, people will have no other choice but to migrate to where they can survive. In 2020, 30 million people were internally displaced due to weather-related events, primarily storms and floods. That is three times as many as conflict, according to the Norwegian Refugee Committee.

“At WFP, we recognize that if we can keep people in their homes and on their land, we help reduce the number of people who become climate migrants and climate refugees. But to do so, we have to enable people not only survive but also thrive on their land,” said Abdulla.

Entire villages in the Fangak region of South Sudan have been submerged due to record floods that have swept across the country for the third consecutive year, displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Credit: Marwa Awad

WFP has had a strong record of working with communities to recover from climactic shocks and stresses that jeopardize their food security. In some of the most arid regions, WFP helps smallholder farmers and communities establish free nurseries to hold back the desert and recover agricultural land.

In central America and the Dry Corridor of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, WFP helped more than 32,000 people adapt to their changing climate by creating livelihoods and income generating activities that are suitable for the drought condition, while also implementing community projects on land restoration the result of which has been the reforestation of more than 1,300 hectares of degraded and marginal land as well as the construction of nearly 3,000 water harvesting systems.

Another pathway towards climate change adaptation is providing climate risk insurance, whether for drought or floods, to smallholder farmers who cannot buy insurance to protect their crops. Since the past couple of years, WFP has protected 1.5 million people in Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe and the Gambia from catastrophic drought events with climate risk insurance, through its African Risk Capacity Replica Initiative. Smallholder farmers received payouts from climate risk insurance, without which they would have been forced to move. These insurance schemes have also benefited vulnerable people coping with the impact of COVID-19.

Conclusion

In a post-COVID-19 world compounded by an increase in climate emergencies, humanitarian needs will always outpace available resources and finances. Meanwhile achieving zero hunger by 2030 has already become a dream out of reach. But those with influence can carve out pathways to a safer, more stable future for all by working with humanitarian organisations and actors in a globally coordinated manner to establish early warning systems that can anticipate risk and map out preventative measures to mitigate climate hazards before they spiral into natural disasters. As for the sake of those living on the frontlines of the climate crisis who have not the luxury of time and cannot wait for developed countries to deliver on their promise of cutting down their CO2 emissions, these vulnerable communities need immediate help to adapt to their already changed and riskier world.

Marwa Awad, a resident of Ottawa, Canada, works for the World Food Programme. She is the co-host of “The WFP PEOPLE Show”.

 

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 Theodore van der Pluijm
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

Tensions and hostilities persisted until early 2019, when the regime of Omar al-Bashir – to a large extent symbolized by oppressing minority groups in the Darfurs, Blue Nile state and South Kordofan – finally ended. Meanwhile, many inhabitants of the Nuba Mountains and other parts of South Kordofan, had escaped to South Sudan, which had become independent in 2011. There, they found, however, a country with even more interethnic strains and assaults, resulting, in addition to the innumerable internally displaced persons, the flight of 2.3 million citizens to six countries in the region. An area characterized by perpetual political and ethnic tensions which often resulted in border crossings in opposite ways. The present case of refugees from Ethiopia to the Republic of Sudan is an example of this phenomenon in the IGAD-region. (The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is an eight-country trade bloc in Africa that includes governments from the Horn of Africa, the Nile Valley and the African Great Lakes. Its headquaters is in Djibouti City)

The author on the road between Dilling and Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan in February 1999.

Through the ‘Juba Peace Agreement’ of October 2020, internal reconciliation would finally be realized in The Sudan. By this, creating an environment in which sustained rural and agricultural development programs could be implemented without major ideological or inter-ethnic frictions, including in Darfur and in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan.

The Transitional Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok aimed at political and ethnic appeasement in order to foster development initiativeves all over the country. However, the military coup led by general Al-Burhan arrested Hamdok and all other civilian members of this interim government. Once again, many people went into the streets to protest. Once more demonstrators were arrested or killed. In addition, during the past two weeks the pressure from outside has gained momentum. The US and other countries, now even including Saudi Arabia and the UAE have urged Al-Burhan to release all persons and to return to civilian rule with Hamdok as Prime Minister.

The book ‘West of The Nile and Around The Sudd’ – published in May 2021 with 142 pp. containing a large number of pictures taken in the field – is about efforts by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a United Nations specialized agency and financing institution, aimed at designing of and monitoring the implementation of agricultural and rural development projects in the Republic of The Sudan. The country has ample natural resources for achieving food security and adequate income and living standards for the entire population, including the inhabitants of rural areas where there are no armed conflicts.

More specifically, the purpose of this book is to show how local data are collected as indispensable tools for the preparation of new development projects or for the supervision of on-going investment programs. Considering the latter, the book starts with the process of data-gathering during a supervision mission for the World Bank-led Southern Region Agricultural Project (SRAP) in October 1980, about two years after its start. This promising region-wide scheme, however, had to be terminated already in 1984, an effect of the conflict between the central government and forces of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

The way of assembling information during the formulation mission in early 1999 for the design of the South Kordofan Rural Development Project is reflected in parts Three, Four and Five of the book. During meetings in villages and hamlets we were impressed both by the willingness of the local authorities to provide maximum information and the friendliness and openness of the inhabitants – families and individuals – in the way they received us and provided their opinions.

This project started its promising operations at the end of the year 2000. However, also in this case, during its implementation, time and time again, project activities have been affected by armed conflicts between government forces – frequently assisted by militias – and insurgents, historically located in the Nuba Mountains and other zones of South Kordofan. However, different from the SRAP, its implementation could continue. Nevertheless, as part Six in the book explains, time-wise and regionally, project activities had frequently to be halted in order to avoid clashes and combats. Moreover, in the final stages of 2012-2013, project activities had to be stopped, when, despite the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CAP), hostilities in South Kordofan expanded significantly.

(On 19 December 2018, a few weeks before starting this book, I visited the ambassador of the Republic of Sudan in The Netherlands. During an informative, frank and pleasant meeting, I stressed that the time had come for President Omar al-Bashir to change his policies radically. Evidently, I was completely unaware that on the very same day in the historic city of Atbara, massive protests took place. These eventually triggered demonstrations and protests all over the country in which women played a major role. Finally, on 11 April 2019 Al Bashir was arrested. A promising era could commence).

The author of the book is a former United Nations IFAD senior official who was Director of the Near East and North Africa Division., in addition to other responsibilities.

 

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 new analysis of global drug policies looks at how countries’ drug policies and implementation align with the UN principles of human rights, health and development. Credit: Michael Longmire/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

A “radically innovative” new analysis of global drug policies has laid bare the full impact repressive drug laws and their implementation have on millions of people worldwide, civil society groups behind its creation have said.

The inaugural Global Drug Policy Index (GDPI) www.globaldrugpolicyindex.net, developed by the Harm Reduction Consortium (HRC) – a collaboration of civil society groups – ranks countries on their drug policies against a series of indicators related to health, development, and human rights.

Groups in the HRC say it is the first tool of its kind to document, measure, and compare countries’ drug policies, and their implementation, across the world.

And the results of the first index have underlined how even the best-ranked countries are falling dramatically short in aligning policies and their implementation with UN principles of human rights, health, and development.

Ann Fordham, Director at the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), which was involved in creating the index, told IPS: “The message is that no country is doing well. They all have huge room for improvement.”

HRC organisations say that for decades, tracking how well – or badly – governments are doing in drug policy has been difficult.

Until now, many governments have measured the ‘success’ of drug policies not against health, development, and human rights outcomes, but instead by prioritising indicators such as the numbers of people imprisoned for drug offences, the volume of drugs seized, or the number of hectares of drug crops eradicated.

The net result, drug law reform groups argue, is a severe lack of accountability when it comes to the repressive approaches to drugs favoured by many governments and which blight the lives of millions of people, invariably among the most vulnerable and marginalised populations.

But they believe the GDPI will change that.

It uses 75 indicators running across five broad dimensions of drug policy: criminal justice, extreme responses, health and harm reduction, access to internationally controlled medicines, and development.

Thirty countries – the HRC plans to expand the project to include more states in future – are given a score in each of these five areas and ranked according to an overall score out of 100.

The scores are decided on not just extant data but, crucially, expert local perspectives on policy implementation.

This, the team behind the index’s methodology says, helped create a more accurate picture of how people were being affected by a given state’s drug policies, and objectively quantifying the effects of their implementation.

Professor David Bewley-Taylor, of Swansea University told IPS: “Our work was a deliberate effort to include affected communities at the heart of the index. It allows lazy assumptions about countries’ drug policies to be challenged and adds nuance to the debate about drug policy.”

His colleague, Dr Matthew Wall, added: “Even with the best data records there can be gaps. Because we were working with civil society, we could get extra data, get an on the ground evaluation of policy implementation.

“Without civil society perspectives, there would have been something missing, especially in measuring equity of implementation in some areas, for instance, access to harm reduction treatment.”

Some of the findings in the index highlighted the dire impact of policy implementation on communities.

It showed that a militarised and law enforcement approach to drug control remains prevalent globally, with lethal force by military or police reported in half of the countries surveyed. Drug law enforcement is also predominantly targeted at non-violent offences, especially people who use drugs.

Meanwhile, to some extent, in all countries, there is a disproportionate impact of drug control on marginalised people based on gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.

The index also pointed out sometimes large gaps between policy and its implementation, and how some countries are doing well in some areas but poorly in others.

For instance, in ensuring access to controlled medicines, countries like India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Senegal score high on policy but get 0/100 for actual availability for those in need.

It also found that inequality is deeply seated in global drug policies, with the five top-ranking countries scoring three times as much as the lowest-ranking five countries. According to the report, this is partly due to the colonial legacy of the ‘war on drugs’ approach.

While Norway topped the index, even it did not perform well in all areas and gained an overall score of 74/100. The median score across all 30 countries in the index was just 48/100.

Campaigners believe that by framing the ‘success’ of countries’ drug policies in terms of indicators of human rights, health, and development, and especially because it involves data gathered from on the ground experience of implementation, the index can be a powerful tool in trying to persuade governments to change their approach to drugs.

“The Global Drug Policy Index is nothing short of a radical innovation,” said Helen Clark, Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy and former Prime Minister of New Zealand.

“Good, accurate data is power, and it can help us end the `war on drugs´ sooner rather than later.”

Writing in the report’s foreword, she added: “For decision-makers wishing to understand the consequences of drug control, as well as for those who seek to hold governments accountable, the index sheds light on critical aspects of drug policies that have been historically neglected, such as the intersection of drug policy and development, or the differentiated impacts of drug law enforcement on ethnic groups, Indigenous peoples, women and the poorest members of society.”

The index’s accompanying report illustrates the effects of drug policies on communities, including real-life stories of people who use drugs, often documenting the stigma, violence, and persecution drug users face because of repressive drug policies and their implementation.

It also has a series of recommendations for governments, including calls for an end to violence, arbitrary detention, extreme sentencing and disproportionate penalties, and the promotion of access to health, medicines, and harm reduction services and a long-term development approach for marginalised communities worldwide.

However, it is unclear to what extent the GDPI would sway policymakers in countries where repressive drugs policies have been the norm for decades and where regimes have repeatedly resisted calls for reform.

Groups campaigning for drug law reform in Belarus, for instance, which has some of the most repressive drug legislation globally and notoriously harsh implementation of it, told IPS the index is unlikely to change the regime’s legislation, nor its hard-line approach to drug use.

Piotr Markielau of Legalize Belarus told IPS: “This index is a great idea, but it has very little chance of influencing drug policy in Belarus or any other non-democratic country.”

But Fordham said even if the index was ignored by policymakers in some states, it does not diminish its worth.

“We appreciate that there are some countries which will remain impervious to our efforts, but we hope that the index will at least ignite conversation about the metrics used to measure drug policies.

“We have to keep banging the drum and shining a light on repressive drug policies and the harm they are doing.”

She added: “Governments don’t like accountability on this, so we expect some pushback on the index. But one thing I am proud of with the index is the incredibly robust methodology that has been used. It is a very considered piece of work, and it will put us on solid ground when we talk to governments.”

 

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

• Fair Tax Plan Could Prejudice Global South
• Are We Fighting a Losing Battle in the War Against Drugs?

At an event in the so-called Green Zone, Canadian native leaders and the non-governmental Indigenous Clean Energy launched a global hub of social enterprises to pass on knowledge and advice during the Glasgow climate summit. In the picture, Mihskakwan James Harper (R) of the Cree indigenous community explains a mixed battery energy storage project built by a private firm and an indigenous company in the province of Ontario, Canada. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
GLASGOW, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

In the community of Bella Bella on Turtle Island in the western Canadian province of British Columbia, the indigenous Heiltsuk people capture heat from the air through devices in 40 percent of their homes, in a plan aimed at sustainable energy sovereignty.

“We use less energy, pay less, and that’s good for our health,” Leona Humchitt, a member of the Heiltsuk community, told IPS during a forum on indigenous micro-grids in the so-called Green Zone of the climate summit being hosted by Glasgow, Scotland since Oct. 31. “The project coincides with our view. We need to have a good relationship with nature.”

For native groups, these initiatives mean moving towards energy sovereignty to avoid dependence on projects that have no connection to local populations, combating energy poverty, paving the transition to cleaner sources and combating the exclusion they suffer in the renewable energies sector due to government policies and corporate decisions.

The modernisation process that began in the first quarter of 2021 lowered electricity rates from 2,880 dollars a year to about 1,200 dollars for each participating household.

In addition, the switch to heat pumps eliminates five tons of pollutant emissions per year and has reduced the community’s annual diesel consumption of 2,000 litres per household, which is usually supplied by a private hydroelectric plant.

Funded by the Canadian government and non-governmental organisations, the “Strategic Fuel Switching” project is part of the Heiltsuk Climate Action plan, which also includes measures such as biofuel and biomass from marine algae and carbon credits from marine ecosystems.

In 2017, more than 250 remote indigenous communities, out of 292 in Canada, relied on their own electricity microgeneration grids, dependent especially on diesel generators.

The venture in the Heiltsuk community, which is part of the three major Canadian native peoples, is included in a portfolio of indigenous transitional energy initiatives that have been incorporated into the non-governmental Indigenous Clean Energy (ICE) social enterprise in Canada.

A global hub for social entrepreneurship was one of the initiatives launched in the Green Zone, an open event held parallel to the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose annual session ends Nov. 12.

ICE has a list of 197 projects – 72 in bioenergy, 127 in energy efficiency, and 19 in other alternative sources – with more than one megawatt of installed capacity. These initiatives together represent 1.49 billion dollars in revenue over 10 years.

Mihskakwan James Harper, an indigenous man from the Cree people of Sturgeon Lake in the western Canadian province of Alberta, said it is not only about energy sovereignty, but also about community power to dispose of their own resources.

“We change our self-consumption and the communities benefit themselves from the energy, and the earth get benefits as well. Without us, we are not going to reach the climate goals. We show that indigenous peoples can bring innovations and solutions to the climate crisis,” Harper, who is development manager at the NR Stor energy company, told IPS.

NR Stor Inc. and the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation in the Canadian province of Ontario are building the Oneida battery storage project – with a capacity of 250 MW and an investment of 400 million dollars – in the south of the province.

The facility, which will prevent some 4.1 million tons of pollutant emissions, the largest of its kind in Canada and one of the largest in the world, will provide clean and stable energy capacity by storing renewable energy off-peak for release when demand rises.

ICE estimates 4.3 billion dollars in investments are needed to underpin this energy efficiency that would create some 73,000 direct and indirect jobs and would cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than five million tons over 10 years.

Electric vehicles are still a pipe dream in many indigenous communities, due to their price and the lack of charging infrastructure. In the picture, an electric car is charged at a station in downtown Glasgow, near COP26. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

Slow progress

The increase in clean sources plays a decisive role in achieving one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in 2015 by the international community in the 2030 Agenda, within the framework of the United Nations.

SDG 7 is aimed at affordable, modern energy for all.

But processes similar to Canada’s ICE are proceeding at a slow pace.

Two projects of the Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples (REP), launched in 2018 by the non-governmental Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable Development, are being implemented in El Salvador and Honduras.

In El Salvador, the project is “Access to photovoltaic energy for indigenous peoples”, carried out since 2020 in conjunction with the non-governmental National Salvadoran Indigenous Coordination Council (CCNIS).

It is financed with 150,000 dollars from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants Programme to provide 24 solar power systems to three communities in the town of Guatajiagua, in the eastern department of Morazán.

In Honduras, the Lenca Indigenous Community Council and the Pro Construction Committee are installing a mini-hydroelectric plant to benefit two Lenca indigenous communities in the municipality of San Francisco de Opalaca, in the southwestern department of Intibucá.

The project “Hydroelectric power generation for environmental protection and socioeconomic development in the Lenca communities of Plan de Barrios and El Zapotillo”, launched in 2019, received 150,000 dollars in GEF funding.

Clean alternative sources face community distrust due to human rights violations committed by wind, solar and hydroelectric plant owners in countries such as Colombia, Honduras and Mexico, including land dispossession, contracts harmful to local communities and lack of free consultation and adequate information prior to project design.

Amazonian indigenous people participate in protests by social movements in Glasgow, in which they claimed that their voices were not adequately heard at COP26. CREDIT: Arturo Contreras/Pie de Página

The evolution of energy initiatives has been slow, due to funding barriers and the limitations imposed by the covid-19 pandemic.

“Our main interest is to enable access to affordable renewable energy and for indigenous peoples to participate in the projects,” Eileen Mairena-Cunningham, REP project coordinator, told IPS.

“These processes should be led by indigenous organisations. Of course we are interested in participating in the global networks,” added the Miskita indigenous woman from Nicaragua.

After the always difficult first step, indigenous communities want to accelerate progress towards these goals.

In Bella Bella, Canada, the hope is to progressively replace diesel with biofuel in vehicles and in the boats that are vital to the fishing community.

“We are not going to electrify transportation overnight,” Humchitt said. “But we see an opportunity in biodiesel. We have to go forward on this issue.”

Harper concurred with that vision. “Of course we want EVs, as they become accessible and satisfy our own needs. We want to get rid of diesel. The communities have to lead the process of the local transition,” he said.

Mairena-Cunningham stressed that indigenous peoples attach primary importance to participating in global networks.

“Existing projects leave us with lessons of what can be done in our territory,” said the activist. “There is a need for policies that facilitate indigenous participation and special safeguards for access to the land. Capacity building is also needed.”

Renewable energies can be added to ecological measures that indigenous peoples already use, such as forest protection and biodiversity and water conservation. But their local implementation requires more than just willingness.

IPS produced this article with the support of Iniciativa Climática of Mexico and the European Climate Foundation.

Cameroonian basketball star Joel Embiid is struggling after testing positive for Covid-19 according to Philadelphia 76ers head coach Doc Rivers.

New research estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizer plants such as this one add considerably to the climate impacts of the heavily promoted agricultural input. Credit: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

By Timothy A. Wise
CAMBRIDGE, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

As world leaders wrap up the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, new scientific research shows that there is still a great deal of magical thinking about the contribution of fertilizer to global warming.

Philanthropist Bill Gates fed the retreat from science in his book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster earlier this year. “To me fertilizer is magical,” he confesses, nitrogen fertilizer in particular. Under a photo of a beaming Gates in a Yara fertilizer distribution warehouse in Tanzania, he explains that “to grow crops, you want tons of nitrogen – way more than you would ever find in a natural setting [sic]…. But nitrogen makes climate change much worse.”

That last part, at least, is true, and new research suggests that the climate impacts of excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers is much worse than previously estimated. Researchers estimate that the N-fertilizer supply chain is contributing more than six times the greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by the entire commercial aviation sector.

Nitrogen: a growing climate problem

By all accounts, food and agriculture are barely on the agenda of the UN climate summit, even though food systems contribute about one-third of GHGs. Direct emissions from food production account for about one-third of that, with the principal source being livestock, mostly methane and manure emissions.

But about 10% of direct emissions from come from synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops. Only a portion of the applied fertilizer is absorbed by plants. Some is turned into nitrous oxide by soil micro-organisms. Some leaches off the soil or volatilizes into gas when it is applied. The cumulative effect is the release of nitrous oxide, a GHG 265 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Three scientists working with Greenpeace, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and GRAIN have carried out the first comprehensive lifecycle analysis of N fertilizer emissions. They used improved data on direct field emissions and incorporated emissions from the manufacture and transportation of N fertilizers. Manufacturing, which relies heavily on natural gas, accounts for 35% of total N fertilizer GHGs.

The new estimates, which are preliminary as they undergo peer review, are 20% higher than those previously used by the United Nations. Not surprisingly, the largest emitters are the largest agricultural producers: China, India, North America, and Europe. On a per capita basis, though, the largest emitters are the big agricultural exporters: United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe.

Taking Africa in the wrong direction

Africa is still not a large fertilizer user, with application rates low – about 15 kg/ha – but rising rapidly with the recent Green Revolution campaigns. While Gates essentially dismisses the climate impacts from fertilizer as a necessary evil to achieve the greater good of food security, evidence is growing that the Green Revolution approach is failing on its own terms. My research showed that in AGRA’s 13 focus countries, yields were not growing significantly and the number of undernourished people has increased 31%.

The greater good promised by AGRA has not been very good.

According to the new fertilizer research, AGRA is taking Africa in the wrong direction. Globally, the use of nitrogen fertilizer is projected to grow between 50% and 138% by 2050. Africa is projected to see at least a 300% increase in the next 30 years. It will be far greater if Gates has his way.

The climate implications of that development path are worrisome. A 300% increase means 2.7 million tonnes (Mt) more of N fertilizer in Africa. With field emissions estimated at 2.65 tonnes of GHGs per tonne of nitrogen and another 4.35 tonnes from production and transportation, total emissions are more like 7 tonnes of GHGs per tonne of N fertilizer.

By 2050, a 300% increase in Africa’s fertilizer use would mean adding about 19 Mt of GHGs per year more than it emits now. Because GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere and nitrous oxide persists for more than 100 years, Africa will have contributed an additional 284 Mt of GHGs by 2050 if fertilizer use increases 300%. If Gates and AGRA get their way and Africa approaches current global averages of 137 kg/ha of N fertilizer, Africa would contribute 800% more, an additional 50 Mt in 2050, equivalent to the emissions from deforesting half a million hectares of Amazon rainforest (about 1.2 million acres). Cumulative GHGs would be 750 Mt by 2050.

That is an amount nearly equal to the annual emissions of the entire commercial aviation sector.

“Climate-stupid agriculture”

Bill Gates is just plain wrong when he says the only way to grow food is with synthetic fertilizers. Crops need nitrogen and in many areas they can get most or all of what they need from improved agroecological farming. Globally, with improved nutrient management practices there could be a 48% reduction in synthetic fertilizer use with no reduction in cereal yields, according to one article in Nature.

The scientists who authored the new report make three recommendations to reduce GHGs associated with N fertilizer use. All call into question Gates’ Green Revolution model for Africa:

• Select a model of agriculture that does not depend on synthetic fertilizers; intercropping with nitrogen-fixing crops has been shown to increase yields and improve soils.
• Reintegrate livestock into crop farming so more of the nutrients in manure are returned to the land; less than half are now.
• Limit the growth of industrial livestock production and consumption. Three-quarters of N fertilizer worldwide is used to produce livestock feed.

The science is clear: African farmers are right when they call the Green Revolution “climate-stupid agriculture.”

Timothy A. Wise is Senior Advisor at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and a Senior Research Fellow at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute.

 

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 woman in Madagascar walks for up to 14km a day to find clean water. Credit: UNICEF/Safidy Andrianantenain

By Kumi Naidoo and Richard von Weizsäcker
GLASGOW, Scotland, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

As the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) is swiftly moving to its conclusion on Friday, climate justice could not be more urgent or timely.

The health of our planet and our very survival are at stake. How can we ensure that this meeting achieves real action that improves people’s lives in rich and poor countries alike?

More than empty political rhetoric, what we need is a new social contract between decision-makers and people, one that achieves genuine mass support for climate action and connects people with their planet.

Leaders need to ensure that their climate action plans will tackle inequality, poverty, injustice, and promote the implementation of human rights above all.

After all, climate change threatens the enjoyment of a range of human rights, including food, health, housing, culture and development. And there is one human right in particular that is at risk from climate change and could have a domino effect on all the others: the human right to clean drinking water.

This is the most basic of all human rights (together with sanitation), and a key one in the fight against climate change.

90 % of climate change is happening through weather related events which have a profound impact on the hydrological cycle – often resulting in too much water or too little water.

All this in a world where two billion people, or 1 in 4, lack access to safe drinking water, nearly half the world’s population (3.6 billion people) don’t have adequate sanitation, and 2.3 billion people can’t wash their hands at home for lack of water or soap.

The most outrageous injustice is that the same people who lack access to water and sanitation are usually the ones most vulnerable to the effects of climate change – and the least responsible for causing it in the first place.

One report estimates that by 2040, almost 600 million children are projected to be living in areas of extremely high water stress. And the odds are against the most vulnerable, as under 1% of the billions pledged to address climate change goes to protect water services for poor communities.

In the end, those left furthest behind end up bearing the brunt of increasing water scarcity and poverty. These marginalized populations – women, children, and those living in extreme poverty – face a vicious and unjust cycle, in which a lack of access to water and sanitation is aggravated by extreme weather events, leading to more expensive, and unaffordable, services.

Connecting the Dots

But where the problem starts may also be where the solution begins. We need a radical approach that guarantees the human right to water by tackling inequalities and putting people’s needs front and center – especially the needs of those whose voices continue to be marginalized and disregarded.

This is both a necessary response, and a step toward ending the climate change crisis, as it offers benefits both for mitigation (stopping climate change) and adaptation (adjusting to the new normal).

The good news is that the solutions are well known and readily available. Well-managed water systems can protect access to reliable water supplies during times of drought. Strong sanitation systems can resist floods.

And protecting water and sanitation services from extreme weather is highly cost-effective – for every $1 spent upgrading flood-resistant infrastructure, $62 is saved in flood restoration costs.

If world leaders were to prioritize universal access to climate resilient water and sanitation infrastructure, it would be a long-term investment, yielding net benefits of US $37–86 billion per year and avoiding up to 6 billion cases of diarrhoea and 12 billion cases of parasitic worms, with significant implications for child health and nutrition over the next twenty makers understand the adaptation needs and mitigation opportunities of water and sanitation systems, as well as the risks that climate change poses to sustainable services.

And, they must align climate and water policies so that access to water is equitable, climate risks are reduced, and there is more money available for adaptation.

After all, ensuring effective climate action and sustainable access to water and sanitation are matters of human rights. This means that we must years.

Just Add Water

As we look to COP26, we need to ensure that climate decision- tackle the root causes of the water crisis globally and ensure prioritization of water for the realization of human rights, over other uses, such as large-scale agriculture and industries, including extractive industries.

To realize these rights, municipalities and villages also must be supported to improve their capacity to manage their water sources sustainably and efficiently.

Without urgent measures to slow climate change and adapt to the damage already done to our planet, there is a real risk that people’s access to water and sanitation will worsen rather than improve. And, without sanitation, we cannot guarantee the right to education; without hygiene, our health is diminished, and without reliable access to water, gender equality can never be achieved.

COP 26 is an opportunity for a reset, not only for the planet, but also for the social contract between governments and people. Eliminating inequalities, including in access to water and sanitation, is a foundational requirement for effective climate action. We hope that decision makers in Glasgow are champions for this vision of a better world.

Kumi Naidoo is a Global Leader for Sanitation and Water for All. He is also former Secretary-General of Amnesty International and former Executive Director of Greenpeace. Richard von Weizsäcker is Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy.

 

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');  

Survivors are left wondering how to rebuild their lives after Sierra Leone's tanker explosion.

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

Addressing global warming requires cutting carbon emissions by almost half by 2030! For the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, emissions must fall by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C, instead of the 2.7°C now expected.

Instead, countries are mainly under pressure to commit to ‘net-zero’ carbon (dioxide, CO2) emissions by 2050 under that deal. Meanwhile, global carbon emissions – now already close to pre-pandemic levels – are rising rapidly despite higher fossil fuel prices.

Anis Chowdhury

Emissions from burning coal and gas are already greater now than in 2019. Global oil use is expected to rise as transport recovers from pandemic restrictions. In short, carbon emissions are far from trending towards net-zero by 2050.

False promise
At the annual climate meetings in Glasgow, carbon pricing is being touted as the main means to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The European Union President urged, “Put a price on carbon”, while Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau advocates a global minimum carbon tax.

Businesses are also rallying behind one-size-fits-all CO2 pricing, claiming it is “effective and fair”. But there is little discussion of how revenues thus raised should be distributed among countries, let alone to support poorer countries’ adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Carbon pricing supposedly penalizes CO2 emitters for economic losses due to global warming. The public bears the costs of global warming, e.g., damage due to rising sea levels, extreme weather events, changing rainfall, droughts or higher health care and other expenses.

But there is little effort at or evidence of compensation to those adversely affected. Therefore, poorer countries are understandably sceptical, especially as rich countries have failed to fulfil their promise of US$100bn yearly climate finance support.

The CO2 price market solution is said to be “the most powerful tool” in the climate policy arsenal. It claims to deter and thus reduce GHG emissions, while incentivizing investment shifts from fossil-fuel burning to cleaner energy generating technologies.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

No silver bullet
Carbon pricing’s actual impact has, in fact, been marginal – only reducing emissions by under 2% yearly. Such impacts remain small as ‘emitters hardly pay’. Most remain undeterred, still relying on energy from fossil fuel combustion. Also, many easily pass on the carbon tax burden to others whose spending is not price sensitive enough.

Only 22% of GHGs produced globally are subject to carbon pricing, averaging only US$3/ton! Hence, such price incentives alone cannot significantly discourage high GHG emissions, or greatly accelerate widespread use of low-carbon technologies.

Powerful fossil-fuel corporate interests have made sure that carbon prices are not high enough to force users to switch energy sources. Thus, existing CO2 pricing policies are “modest and less ambitious” than they could and should be. Meanwhile, several factors have undermined carbon taxation’s ability to speed up ‘decarbonization’.

First, carbon taxes have never actually provided much climate finance. Second, CO2 taxes misrepresent climate change as due to ‘market failure’, not as a fundamental systemic problem. Third, it seeks efficiency, not efficacy! Thus, it does not treat global warming as an urgent threat.

Fourth, market signals from carbon taxation seek to ‘optimize’ the status quo, rather than to transform systems responsible for global warming. Fifth, it offers a deceptively simplistic ‘universal’ solution, rather than a policy approach sensitive to circumstances. Sixth, it ignores political realities, especially differences in key stakeholders’ power and influence.

Unfair to poor
Even if introduced gradually, the flat carbon tax will burden poorer countries more. Worse, carbon pricing is regressive, hurting the poor more. Thus, the burden of CO2 taxes is heavier on average consumers in poor countries than on poor consumers in ‘average’ countries.

A UN survey showed a seemingly fair, uniform global carbon tax would burden – as a share of GDP – developing countries much more than developed countries. Thus, although per capita emissions in poorer countries are far less than in rich ones, a flat CO2 tax burdens developing countries much more.

Also, a standard carbon tax burdens low-income groups more, by raising not only energy costs directly, but also those of all goods and services requiring energy use. With this seemingly fair, one-size-fits-all tax, low income households and countries pay much more relatively.

Analytically, such distributional effects can be avoided by differentiated pricing, e.g., by increasing prices to reflect the amount of energy used. Also, compensatory mechanisms – such as subsidies or cash transfers to low-income groups – can help.

But these are administratively difficult, particularly for poor countries, with limited taxation and social assistance systems. Furthermore, effectively targeting vulnerable populations is hugely problematic in practice.

Mission impossible?
Selective investment and technology promotion policies are much more effective in encouraging clean energy and reducing GHG emissions. Huge investments in solar, hydro and wind energy as well as public transport are required, typically involving high initial costs and low returns. Hence, public investment often has to lead.

But most developing countries lack the fiscal capacity for such large public investment programmes. Large increases in compensatory financing, official development assistance and concessional lending are urgently needed, but have not been forthcoming despite much talk.

Climate finance initiatives generally need to improve incentives for mitigation, while funding much more climate adaptation in developing countries. Potentially, a CO2 tax could yield significantly more resources to cover such international funding requirements, but this requires appropriate redistributive measures which have never been seriously negotiated.

Carbon taxes can help
Even without an ostensibly market-determined CO2 price, taxing GHG emissions would make renewable energy more price competitive. The UN advocated a ‘global green new deal’ in response to the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. It noted a US$50/ton tax would make more renewables commercially competitive, besides mobilizing US$500bn annually for climate finance.

A mid-2021 International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff note has proposed an international carbon price floor. This would “jump-start” emissions reductions by requiring G20 governments to enforce minimum carbon prices. Involving the largest emitting countries would be very consequential while bypassing collective action difficulties among the 195 UN Member States.

The scheme could be pragmatically designed to be more equitable, and for all types of GHGs, not just CO2 emissions. But even a global carbon price of US$75/ton would only cut enough emissions to keep global warming below 2°C – not the needed 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement goal!

 

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

• Will Glasgow Fix Broken Climate Finance Promises?
• Much more climate finance now!
• Big Business Capturing UN SDG Agenda?
• Climate Deal Needs Enough Public Financing
• Addressing Climate Change Through Sustainable Development

Rwanda's Ampersand wants motorbike taxi drivers to switch from petrol to electric.

Many other schoolchildren aged five to six are injured during lessons in their straw-hut classrooms.

African Development Bank's President Akinwumi Adesina on why he is still optimistic that Africa will receive the funds needed to adapt to the impact of global climate change.

The high-level segment of the UN General Assembly in late September 2021 was attended by more than 100 world leaders and over a thousand delegates from 193 countries —despite the UN’s pandemic lockdown. But NGOs were banned from the Secretariat building—a 20-month- old ban which still continues. Credit: UN Photo / Mark Garten

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2021 (IPS)

The United Nations has come under heavy fire for continuing a 20-month-long ban on non-governmental organizations (NGOs)– even though the Secretariat is expected to return to near-normal by November 15 after a pandemic lockdown going back to March 2020.

Louis Charbonneau, UN Director of Human Rights Watch, told IPS: “The Secretary-General has repeatedly spoken of the vital importance of civil society to the proper functioning of the UN. Now he needs to prove he means it by re-admitting accredited NGOs – the only category of UN passholders still barred from entering UN headquarters.”

“We know certain countries are overjoyed that critical civil society voices on human rights and humanitarian issues are currently locked out of UN HQ. They probably want the ban to go on forever,” he said.

If the Secretary-General truly considers civil society essential in ensuring the UN is accountable to the people of the world, he should end the ban on NGOs immediately as more than 60 UN member states have called for (at a meeting last week), said Charbonneau.

The staffers who were mostly tele-working from their homes are expected to back in the building next week. While diplomats were never barred from the UN during the lockdown– and while some “essential” staffers were permitted access to the building– all NGOs were banned from the premises. The UN has also refused to renew their passes to enter the headquarters building.

The mounting protests against the continued ban have come from several NGOs, most of whom have been partnering with the UN providing humanitarian assistance in conflict-ridden countries, including Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Ethiopia.

Sherine Tadros, Deputy Director of Advocacy, Amnesty International, told IPS: “It’s wonderful that Secretary-General Guterres often speaks of how much he values civil society, it’s great that he re-iterated recently that we are an integral part of the UN ecosystem”.

“But that only makes it more difficult to understand why he continues to allow a situation where we are banned from entering the UN building in New York. We urge him to address this as a matter of urgency, so that we can do our work protecting human rights,” said Tadros.

During an event marking the 75th anniversary of the UN Charter last year, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said civil society groups were a vital voice at the San Francisco Conference (where the UN was inaugurated). “You have been with us across the decades, in refugee camps, in conference rooms, and in mobilizing communities in streets and town squares across the world.”

“You are with us today as we face the COVID-19 pandemic. You are our allies in upholding human rights and battling racism. You are indispensable partners in forging peace, pushing for climate action, advancing gender equality, delivering life-saving humanitarian aid and controlling the spread of deadly weapons. And the world’s framework for shared progress, the Sustainable Development Goals, is unthinkable without you’, he declared.

In an interview with IPS, James Paul, former Executive Director at the New York-based Global Policy Forum (GPF) said for many years, the UN has placed increasingly onerous restrictions on NGOs, especially with respect to NGO access to the UN headquarters in New York.

Hinting at the UN’s political hypocrisy, he said that in spite of regular statements by the Secretary General that NGOs are “indispensable partners” of the organization, the UN has tightened the rules and steadily restricted the possibility for effective NGO action.

So, it comes as no surprise that the recent relaxation of Covid restrictions on delegations, staff journalists and other favored interlocutors has not been extended to NGOs, said Paul, author of “Of Foxes and Chickens”, a critical analysis of Oligarchy and Global Power in the UN Security Council.

He said the opening of the General Assembly in late September 2021 saw many journalists, large national delegations and a growing staff presence, but the UN kept the door firmly shut to NGOs.

Now, more than a month later, the portcullis is still down and there have been no encouraging statements from UN leaders that might suggest a lifting of the ban any time soon – or any plausible reasons given for this situation, he noted.

“Protests from the leaders of major human rights organizations have been to no avail. Is this, then, the beginning of the end of NGO active presence at the UN?” he asked.

Currently, there are thousands of NGOs worldwide who are either affiliated with the UN’s Department of Global Communications or provided consultative status by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

The UN says NGOs have been partners of the Department of Global Communications (DGC) since its establishment in 1947. Official relationships between DGC and NGOs date back to 1968.

The Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1297 called on DGC to associate NGOs with effective information programs in place and thus disseminate information about issues on the UN’s agenda and the work of the Organization. Through associated NGOs, DGC seeks to reach people around the world and help them better understand the work and aims of the United Nations.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/conference-of-states-parties-to-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2/list-of-non-governmental-organization-accredited-to-the-conference-of-states-parties.html

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders told IPS civil society representatives need to be given access to the UN building and meetings on an equal basis compared to other stakeholders.

“I cannot remember any time when they were barred for so long while others had access. There is a growing suspicion that concerns related to Covid-19 safety are used as a pretext for restricting civic space. For too long, the UN Secretary-General has let this happen. It is overdue for him to intervene,” said Bummel.

Michael Bröning, Executive Director of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) New York, told IPS: “Keeping the UN in New York Covid-free by making it a civil-society-free environment puts a whole new meaning to the notion of diplomatic immunity – and begs the question of protection at what price.”

Paul said some Western media outlets have sought to give the restrictions a false political spin, by claiming that the restrictions are due to the fact that the head of the UN department responsible for NGO accreditation is a Chinese national! This is pure propaganda.

The Western powers – in particular the United States and the United Kingdom – have been quietly pushing for more NGO restrictions and less funding for NGO-supportive UN “focal points” for more than two decades, even while they have been giving lip service to the cause of NGO access, he pointed out.

“This policy has come from dislike of NGO disarmament initiatives, disapproval of NGO social, economic and environmental campaigns, fury at NGO opposition to the Iraq conflict, and much more.”

As early as 1999, he said, the Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary General issued draconian guidelines excluding NGOs from open access to the all-important second floor of the headquarters complex. More restrictions were to follow, often pushed by US police and security services as a response to “terrorist threats.”

UN leaders started to talk about the “dangerous wave of NGOs,” even though there was no measurable increase in NGO numbers, said Paul.

“The UN membership more generally has not stood up for NGOs against the pressure of the big powers. These smaller states are today less supportive or even less tolerant of NGOs than they used to be, seeing NGOs as a source of embarrassment or annoying opposition on one topic or another.”

At a time of increasingly right-wing governments, getting rid of opponents is a natural step for the new breed of diplomats. Even among friendlier governments, few are ready to use political capital to defend the creative and essential democratic role of these organizations, Paul added.

Meanwhile, he argued, they have applauded the UN’s open door for business representatives, foundation bigwigs and other smooth-talking proponents of the international status quo, especially those with cash to spread around.

“An argument can be made that the exclusion of NGOs has gone so far and become so blatant that it has become a violation by the UN of its own Charter, which in Article 71 calls for the Economic and Social Council to establish “suitable arrangements for consultation” with NGOs.”

The UN leadership now says its “electronic platforms” are suitable, at least for the foreseeable future. But if this is so, why are others able to come and go while even the most respected NGO representatives are turned away?

“This may be the time to bring the UN to legal accountability. Could a case be brought in an appropriate legal body (perhaps the World Court) to test the matter?” asked Paul.

Meanwhile, Dr Agnes Callamard, Secretary-General of Amnesty International and Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, wrote a strong letter of protest to Guterres last week.

Responding to the letter, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, UN’s Chef de Cabinet, said: “I wish to assure you of the utmost importance we attach to civil society engagement in the work of the United Nations at all levels and its active participation throughout the year, including during high-level events”.

“Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been balancing the safety and security of personnel, representatives of Member States and other stakeholders with the need to ensure that the work of the Organization continues. In March 2020, the premises in New York were closed and the majority of our personnel worked remotely to ensure continuity of critical functions, including inter-governmental meetings, which had to be conducted virtually.”

The letter also says: “As the situation in New York has gradually improved, the United Nations has been able to follow a gradual and phased approach to its reopening in order to protect the health and safety of all individuals concerned. Based on medical guidance, we are currently in Phase 2 of our reopening plan with most personnel working remotely for up to four days a week.

This phased approach continues to require limiting the number of persons that can be physically present on the premises and in meetings to ensure compliance with the physical distancing recommendations of our health experts and the guidance issued by the host country authorities.

Preparations are under way to move towards Phase 3, known as our Next Normal phase, which would allow us to increase our overall footprint in the building and to reopen more fully, she said.

 

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');  

Systems thinking provides an opportunity to understand how groundwater systems function and react to anthropogenic influences, thereby enhancing its contribution to water security, according to the authors. Credit: Bigstock.

By External Source
JOHANNESBURG, Nov 8 2021 (IPS)

“The Systems thinking approach could innovatively contribute to a water-secure Southern African Development Community (SADC) region to mitigate the acerbating impacts of climate change”. This view is shared by Engineer James Sauramba, SADC-GMI Executive Director.

Diplomacy & Science News 2019 also indicates that if sustainable water resources management is the ultimate, a transdisciplinary approach which advocates for the conjunctive use of both groundwater and surface water is required.

It is a well-known fact that water is a finite resource. To meet water demands of the ever-growing SADC population, the water community needs to constantly look for innovative approaches to ensure that the region is water and food secure considering the worsening climate change scenarios that are currently immersing the region and the globe at large.

One of the key objectives of the upcoming conference is to enhance the community of practice amongst the groundwater practitioners and allow them to talk about this water resource, that is underground, invisible, and yet indispensable

As the surface water resources dwindle, millions of people turn to groundwater as their primary source of water for agricultural, industrial and domestic use. This alone adds pressure to an already scarce resource.

Eng Sauramba says research indicates that over 70% of the 280 million people living in the SADC region rely on groundwater as their primary source of water. In most cases, especially in the rural areas,

Groundwater is the only resource that saves the population to sustain their livelihoods and from a total halt of their social and economic development. With so much demand placed upon groundwater resources, the holistically management of the resource becomes key.

Eng Sauramba continues to say that to achieve a water resilient SADC region, there is an urgent need to embrace and apply holistic approaches to water resources management, starting from the planning to implementation of the interventions.

One of the key objectives of the upcoming conference is to enhance the community of practice amongst the groundwater practitioners and allow them to talk about this water resource, that is underground, invisible, and yet indispensable. The conference will also allow participants to share the emerging issues and innovations currently used in the conjunctive use of both groundwater and surface water to combat the growing impacts of climate change.

The 4th SADC Groundwater Conference brings to prominence groundwater Systems thinking as one of the key approaches in achieving a water resilient SADC, hence the focus of this year’s theme. The conference is further divided into three sub-themes: (i) Groundwater, an Integral part of the hydrological system, (ii) Communities, institutions, capacity, and local-level governance, and (iii) Deriving benefits from the groundwater system, Innovative groundwater infrastructure interventions.

Topics under these three sub-themes will demonstrate how various components in groundwater management work together holistically to achieve the sustainable development of water resources.

Systems thinking provides an opportunity to understand how groundwater systems function and react to anthropogenic influences, thereby enhancing its contribution to water security.

Applying the systems approach to water management can assist us manage the complexity of the resource and provide a structured way of thinking about the whole system rather than its parts, and about connections rather than just content.

Systems thinking to groundwater resources management comes with a large set of mathematical formalities for addressing systems in a rigorous way and it offers us an innovative toolkit of techniques relevant for studying nexus problems, including systems dynamics, integrated assessment, simulation, and modelling, and many more.

The impact of climate change-induced severe weather events such as droughts and floods, and changes in rainfall patterns are starting to have visible and devastating effects on water and food security. A 2011 study, for instance, revealed that 12 of the 16 SADC Member States are directly and periodically affected by drought events, increasing the pressure on Southern Africa’s already dwindling lakes and rivers.

Such occurrences justify the important need to sustainably manage both groundwater and surface water conjunctively. In most cases we turn to groundwater when we are already in crises. As water custodians in the region, we need to be proactive in our planning, and collaboration from all stakeholders is of paramount importance.

The water resources systems approach today offers a scientific interdisciplinary context for dealing with the complex practical issues of water management and prediction of the water resources future.

Agriculture, the most important economic activity in the SADC region, draws an estimated 20 percent of its water from groundwater – a precious resource that often helps farmers to survive dry seasons, particularly in more arid south-western areas.

Today, more than ever, we need appropriate tools that can assist in dealing with the challenges introduced by the increase in the complexity of water resource problems, consideration of environmental impacts, and the introduction of principles of sustainability.

In the complex environment we find ourselves in, the system thinking approach promises to offer a scientific interdisciplinary context for dealing with complex practical issues of water management and prediction for the future. It also assists decision makers to make better decisions for sustainable water management to sustain livelihoods and socio – economic development.

 

This Opinion piece has been put together by Engineer James Sauramba, SADC-GMI Executive Director and Thokozani Dlamini, SADC-GMI Communications and Knowledge Management Specialist

The authorities have also made an urgent appeal for blood donations in the capital Freetown.

Siny Samba set up a baby food business in Senegal, using only unprocessed local produce.

Two grandmothers sit with their granddaughters, whom they take care of while their mothers work, on a street in the historic centre of Old Havana, Cuba. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 8 2021 (IPS)

A possible solution to childcare needs is polygamy. Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time, was not against the laws in many countries in the past. For example, polygamy was made illegal in China in 1950, in France at the end of the 20th century, in the United States near end of the 19th century and became a felony in the United Kingdom at the start of the 17th century.

Today nearly four dozen countries worldwide, representing about one-fifth of the world’s population, permit polygamy, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Tanzania. In addition, some countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, recognize polygamous marriages that were done in a country that permits polygamy.

Religions have differing views about marriage and polygamy. For instance, Islam permits a man to have up to four wives, and Hinduism and the Anglican Communion allows polygamy in certain circumstances and the Lutheran Church accepts some polygamists.

Worldwide it is estimated that more than 40 percent of all children below primary-school age – or nearly 350 million – need childcare services but do not have access. Too often, many of those young children spend much of their time in vulnerable and unstimulating environments. Notable exceptions are among wealthy developed countries

Giving people the right to decide on having additional spouses at the same time, rather than sequentially or serial monogamy as is current practice in most countries, has numerous advantages for individuals, families and countries.

Polygamy will not require additional government spending nor create a new entitlement, such as national pension programs, which largely benefit the elderly and retired persons, but not families with young children. Also, it will make childcare needs, such as daycare services, universal pre-primary school education, child tax credits and after school care, unnecessary.

Fiscal conservatives will be pleased to establish polygamy as it avoids establishing new entitlements and additional government expenditures for childcare benefits. Also, it would not contribute to national deficits nor negatively impact a country’s economy.

Also importantly, permitting men and women to have additional spouses, perhaps with a limit of no more than seven spouses, can be expected to substantially increase overall household income. That additional income from several employed spouses will likely move many households above the poverty threshold.

In addition, polygamy would permit one spouse to stay at home to care for children and carry out household responsibilities, with this role possibly rotating among the spouses. The other spouses would then be able to participate in the labor force and pursue their careers and professions. Many married working couples, especially those with demanding schedules, often say, “What we really need is an additional spouse in the house”.

A further potential benefit of polygamy is reducing the need for divorce. Instead of a married couple resorting to a costly and disruptive divorce, they could choose to remain married and simply add additional spouses to their household.

Also, polygamy can be expected to reduce the incidence of marital infidelity. With several spouses in the household, one has an increased number of available sexual partners.

Despite polygamy’s advantages, it’s unlikely that countries will choose to establish the right to polygamy any time soon. The practice is increasingly uncommon, with 2 percent of the global population live in polygamous households and in most countries that proportion is less than 0.5 percent.

In addition, studies report a more significant prevalence of mental-health issues, especially among women, in polygamous relationships compared to monogamous relationships. Polygamy also creates harmful competition among males that contributes to societal instability and insecurity.

Moreover, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has called for polygamy to be abolished as it violates the dignity of women. Some countries that recognize polygamous marriages conducted in another country are taking steps to stop the recognition altogether. Also, several Muslim countries have prohibited polygamy, such as Turkey in 1926 and Tunisia in 1956, largely because it was concluded that a husband could not treat his spouses with equal fairness.

Consequently, it’s evident that other options are needed to address childcare needs. In particular, those needs are seriously limiting the employment of parents, especially single-parent families and low-income mothers, influencing fertility decisions, and negatively impacting household income and national economies.

Of the world’s 2.4 billion children 14 percent – or about 330 million – are living in single-parent households, most often headed by single mothers. Those children and their single parents face social and economic challenges.

The United States has one of the highest levels of single-parent families with children. Approximately 30 percent of America’s families with children less than 18 years old, some 10 million households, are single-parent households. The percentage of U.S. families with children living with a single parent, typically a mother, has tripled since 1965.

Furthermore, childcare needs are adversely impacting the cognitive, educational and health development of children, particularly those in low-income households. Again in the United States, the proposed expanded child tax credits are expected to cut child poverty by about 40 percent, from about 14 to 8 percent.

Worldwide it is estimated that more than 40 percent of all children below primary-school age – or nearly 350 million – need childcare services but do not have access. Too often, many of those young children spend much of their time in vulnerable and unstimulating environments. Notable exceptions are among wealthy developed countries.

OECD countries spend on average 0.7 percent of GDP annually for childcare and pre-primary education, ranging from highs of 1.8 percent in Iceland and 1.6 percent in Sweden to lows of 0.3 percent in the United States and 0.2 percent in Turkey. Among the 33 member nations of OECD, the U.S. ranks 30th in public spending on families and children, which includes childcare support (Figure 1).

 

Source: OECD.

 

In many countries the lack of affordable, available and reliable childcare is keeping many parents, especially mothers, from actively participating in the labor force and reducing household earnings. Parents too often face employment decisions based on childcare needs rather than financial or career considerations. When childcare consumes much of a parent’s time and income, some, typically mothers, decide to leave the labor force.

The lack of childcare is also affecting fertility levels. In China, for example, the lack of access to affordable and convenient childcare options is an important reason why couples aren’t having more children. Of the nearly 50 million Chinese children under 3 years old, approximately 5 percent of them use day care services.

Among most wealthy developed countries, however, the enrolment of 3- to 5-year-old children in early childhood education and childcare services is relatively high, well above 80 percent. Again, a notable exception is the United States where the enrolment in early childhood education and childcare services is 66 percent, well below the OECD average of 87 percent (Figure 2).

 

Source: OECD.

 

It is becoming increasingly evident that meeting childcare needs and the labor force participation of parents, especially mothers, are closely linked to a nation’s overall economic growth. Some maintain that a country cannot be prosperous with half of its workforce sitting on the sidelines due to the lack of affordable childcare and pre-primary education.

The establishment of programs and policies to meet childcare needs and pre-primary education not only contributes to the development and wellbeing of children, their families and communities, it is also a prudent investment contributing to the economic, social and human development of a nation.

 

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.”