Africa

Mary Robinson with Elizabeth Wathuti at COP26 in Glasgow. Credit: The Elders

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Women are already leaders on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Sisters Nina and Helena Gualinga of the Kichwa Sarayaku community in Ecuador work tirelessly to protect Indigenous land. Archana Soreng from the indigenous Khadia tribe in Odisha, India is a talented climate researcher and advisor to the United Nations Secretary General. Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate is encouraging a whole generation of young people to fight for their right to a safe future. There are thousands of other women and girls working tirelessly to protect our planet whose names I do not know but who deserve to be acknowledged this International Women’s Day too.

Many women and girls working in the fight against climate change have stepped into leadership not out of choice but out of necessity – the brunt of the climate emergency, which amplifies existent inequalities, is often felt hardest by women and girls.

Women’s vulnerability to climate change is social, economic, and cultural. Women in climate vulnerable nations tend to be highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihoods, particularly in rural areas where they shoulder the responsibility for household supplies. However, women must not be seen as passive victims of climate change but as active and effective agents of change.

Women have long been the custodians of the environment in many traditional societies. It is women who are often the providers of food, the stewards of seed banks, and the decision-makers at household level. It is often women who are the early adopters of new techniques and who are frequently the first responders in disaster situations. Our world is also full of remarkable women leading the way as climate scientists, litigators, community organisers, business owners, policy-makers, inventors and more.

While it is important for us to celebrate the vital contributions of women and girls around the world in tackling the climate emergency, we must in turn recognise the gender inequality at the heart of this crisis. The gendered dimensions of climate change and its responses are still insufficiently addressed in either emerging climate finance architecture or in most countries’ strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation.

As exposed in last month’s IPCC report, the threat of climate change reaches across sectors, regions and populations. Tackling it will require all of humanity’s ideas, efforts, and innovations. Ensuring that diverse populations are represented in key decision-making processes is essential if we are to succeed in this colossal task.

We must start to see scaled-up funding for women’s capacity building as well as strengthened efforts to support women and girls to lead on addressing climate change at community, national, and international level.

According to Oxfam, the latest figures show that only 1.5 percent of overseas climate-related development funds named gender equality as their primary objective. Of this, only 0.2 percent was reaching organisations led by women or for women. Things are slowly improving, but there is still a long way to go.

The Elders – the group of independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights that I chair – are calling for more investment for climate vulnerable nations so that millions more women and girls can build resilience to climate and disaster risks. A crucial element of that must be increased financial support for adaptation as well as mitigation.

At COP26 international leaders signed a statement calling for the role of women to be advanced in addressing climate change. This statement remains open for signatures from nation states until the 66th meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, to be held later this month: an event that will have a focus on women’s empowerment in the context of climate change, the environment and disaster risk reduction.

Pledges made on gender-just climate action, like the ones made at COP26 and earlier in 2021 at the Generation Equality Forum, are important; but we now need to see those promises transformed into action. Equitable and inclusive decision-making means not only ensuring that women and girls are always at decision-making tables but also that women and girls from particularly marginalised groups such as indigenous and rural communities are there too.

At COP26, there was a lack of female representation across the board when it came to climate discussions – it was too male, pale and stale. COP27 must not look like that.

This International Women’s Day should be the last one where we are left discussing a lack of representation in climate decision making. When women and girls are excluded from informing climate negotiations and implementation processes, it undermines efforts to protect our collective future.

A young climate activist I greatly admire, Elizabeth Wathuti from Kenya, recently said: “I believe in our human capacity to care deeply and act collectively.” Like Elizabeth, I believe in humanity enough to still have hope that we can do what is needed to address the climate crisis – but it will take all of us.

 

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:

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

Security forces fire live bullets to disperse angry students who wanted to watch the Manchester derby.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Georg Hegel once stated: ”What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” Nevertheless, self-taught historian Vladimir Putin has learned to interpret history in his own manner. During COVID he went down in Kremlin’s archives and after studying old maps and treaties he wrote a lengthy essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, while declaring that ”the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state is an aggression directed against Russia.”

In his essay, Putin stressed Ukraine’s cultural and economic dependency on Russia, among other opinions stating that “in 1991-2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe.” However, he fails to mention that after 2013 Ukraine lost approximately 100 billion USD due to the Kremlin backed war in Donbas and the Russian annexation of Crimea. Putin avoids the fact that gas prices were politically motivated, rising and falling depending on Ukrainian politicians’ support of Russian interests. His other history lessons are quite detailed, though nevertheless equally biased, based as they are on an Utopian idea of Russky Mir, a Russian world uniting all Russian-speakers now scattered among different countries, which once belonged to the Russian tsardom.

For example, he claims that Crimea is a natural part of Russia, though he ignores to explain how this came about:

In 1441, Mongols established the Crimean Khanate and their descendants, the Tatars, governed Crimea until 1783, when the area was annexed by the Russian Empire. A move that was part of an effort to colonize the fertile lands north of the Black Sea, which the tsars named Novorossiya, New Russia – a term frequently used by Putin while referring to the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine.

The “russification” of Crimea triggered an exodus to the Ottoman Empire. Between 1784 and 1793, 300,000 Tatars emigrated, out of an original population of about one million, while Russian settlers moved in. The Crimean War (1853-1856) caused another mass-migration when approximately 300,000 Tatars left Crimea. During World War II, Stalin decided to “empty Crimea of Tatars”. Soviet military forces did from the 18th to the 20th of May 1944 force “191,044 Tatars” to border cattle trains to become “resettled” far away in the East.

Vladimir Putin is now justifying his fierce attack on Ukraine by referring to genocide: “The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.” The term genocide (from Greek génos, family/clan/race and Latin cīdium, killing/murder) was in 1943 coined by Raphaël Lemkin, who in 1900 was born in Bezwodne, a village that in those days was part of the Russian Empire, nowadays it is found in western Belarus.

During World War I, Bezwodne became part of the battleground between German and Russian armies. The Lemkin house was burned down and after the Germans had seized their crops, horses and livestock the Lemkins sought shelter in the woods, where the youngest of Raphaël’s two brothers died from pneumonia and malnutrition.

In 1920, Raphaël enrolled at the Jan Kazimierz University in what at the time was Lwów. This ancient town had been ruled by Germans, Ruthenians, Russians, Tatars, Turks, Cossacks and even Swedes. Most of its existence, Lwów had been part of Polish territory, until it in the eighteenth century was annexed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After World War I, the town became Polish again, until the Soviet Union conquered it in 1939. Germans, calling it Lemberg, occupied the town between 1941 and 1944, after that the Soviets came back. In 1991 it became independent Ukraine’s second biggest town and is now called Lviv.

Each change of government was accompanied by protests and upheavals, generally followed by violence as emperors, kings, khans, hetmans and sultans imposed changes in language, religion, culture, and law, while inviting people from other areas to settle in the town.

Raphaël Lemkin, who for ten years studied and taught at the Kazimierz University, became increasingly engaged by the question why huge groups of people were harassed and ”put to death for no other reason than a language different from rulers who dictated laws and customs.” In his autobiography, Lemkin described his distress about the plight of Armenians, particularly after Taalat Pasha in 1915 had ordered an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenian women, children, and elderly to be sent on death marches into the Syrian Desert. In 1918, Taalat Pasha was in Brest-Litovsk as Turkish representative during peace negotiations between Germany and Russia. When Allied fleets in November 1918 entered the Bosphorus, Taalat Pasha chose to remain in Berlin, where he on 15 March 1921 was assassinated by a young Armenian, Soghomon Tehlirian.

Lemkin asked his professor in international law why Tehlirian was tried for murder, while no one had arrested a mass-murderer like Taalat Pasha. The professor answered: ”Consider the case of a farmer who owns a flock of chickens, he kills them, that’s his job; if you intervene, you are harassing him.” Lemkin responded: “But … Armenians are human beings, not chickens.” The professor declared: ”When you interfere in the internal affairs of a country [in this case – Turkey], you are violating that country’s sovereignty.” After this encounter, Lemkin continued to wonder why Tehlirian’s assassination of Taalat Pasha by most jurists was considered to be a lesser crime than a Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire ordering the death of more than a million individuals. Lemkin wrote: “How could the flag of sovereignty protect people trying to destroy an entire minority? Wasn’t it possible to create a norm in international law that worked for the prosecution of mass murder?” Tehlirian was by the Berlin court ”acquitted on grounds of insanity.”

From 1929, Lemkin worked for the District Court of Warsaw. When Poland in September 1939 was caught between invading German and Soviet armies he barely evaded German capture and execution, reaching Sweden through Lithuania. After a year as lecturer at the University of Uppsala, Lemkin escaped to the US. In 1944, he introduced the term genocide in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, an analysis of Nazi terror rule explaining why there are legal grounds for persecuting individuals who order and support genocide. During the Nuremberg trials Lemkin served as legal advisor to Chief Counselor Robert H. Jackson. In the 1950s, Lemkin cooperated with the Government of Egypt to establish means to outlaw genocide under domestic penal law. He also worked with Arab delegations at the UN to build a case to prosecute French officials for genocide in Algeria.

In 1953, Lemkin identified the Holodomor as a genocide. The word means “a plague of famine” and is used to designate the 1932-1933 Ukraine famine with an estimated 3,5 to 7 million victims. Ukraine’s ”black earth” is among the most fertile in the world and due to a constant lack of wheat in the rest of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin’s totalitarian regime collectivized agricultural activities in Ukraine, at the same time as it tried to annihilate all opposition. However, while Soviet authorities were squeezing out ever increasing amounts of food, directing them to Russian cities and industrial centres, most Ukrainian collectives proved to be inefficient. In the 1930s, lack of grain became acute and agricultural products were violently confiscated from farmers, creating a state of terror and starvation. Mendacious propaganda was used to cover up expropriations, deportations and killings.

In 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law declaring Holodomor to be a ”Soviet genocide against the Ukrainian people.”

Several researchers have denied that the Holodomor was primarily waged against Ukrainians. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose father was Russian and mother Ukrainian, stated that the Holodomor, like other catastrophes occurring under Soviet rule, was a result of a generally inhuman Soviet ideology and not much different from the 1921 famine during which six million Soviet citizens died.

However, it cannot be denied that Ukraine, due to its fertile land and its crucial position between power hungry empires, constantly suffered incursions from regimes which terrorized and subdued its inhabitants. The word Ukraine appears to emanate from an old Slavic term for ”borderland”. In his 2010 book Blood Lands, Timothy Snyder described how 13 million people within a relatively short time span were killed within border regions stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They became victims of Soviet terror, of the Holodomor, of the Nazi staged Holocaust/Porajmos that exterminated at least 5.4 million Jews and Roma/Sinti. During the same time, 3.1 million Soviet prisoners died in Nazi camps and half a million Germans in the Soviet Gulag, where millions of Russians, Poles, Balts and Ukrainians also perished.

Of the estimated 8.6 million Soviet troop losses during World War II, 1.4 million were ethnic Ukrainians, while Ukrainian civilian casualties are estimated at 6 million, including1.5 million Jews killed by Nazi Einsatzgruppen. More than 700 Ukrainian cities and towns and 28,000 villages were destroyed. Five days ago, Moscow people brought flowers to the Kyiv memorial by The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. However, after an hour police had thrown them away and sealed off the area.

It is against this background Vladimir Putin presents his biased slice of history, ignoring millions of war casualties, genocide, state induced famine and enormous deportations. His dream of a “New Russia” appears to be nothing else than a version of an “Old Russia”, characterized by state violence, famine, war and mass deportations.

Once again Russian politics are dominated by a man imbued with a sense of Russian superiority, someone who apparently cannot perceive the difference between human victims and slaughtered chickens. The spectre of genocide might once again rise from its grave inflicting new ordeals on a long suffering Ukrainian population, not to mention the terrible possibility of a nuclear war.

Main sources: Applebaum, Anne (2018) Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. London: Penguin Books. Lemkin, Raphael (2013) Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Snyder, Timothy (2012) Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. Putin, Vladimir (2021) On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians

 

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');  

Credit: UN Women

By Claudia Sadoff
WASHINGTON DC, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

The increased empowerment of rural women in Bangladesh over the past 10 years has been no accident.

A decade ago, not even one in four rural women could be said to be “empowered” across five key metrics, a figure that surprised even those working on the ground with the country’s poorest. By 2015, this had risen to more than two in five, or 41 per cent, with continued gains in recent years.

A key reason for this rise was a systematic effort to measure empowerment among rural women in real terms using measurements that were directly related to their daily lives, including farming and fishing.

The findings were a wake-up call that guided and motivated action towards a more targeted approach to improving women’s participation and decision-making in food systems.

The result is not only greater gender equality but subsequent improvements in nutrition, health, and productivity. And while the gender gap was slowly closing, Bangladesh achieved lower-middle-income status, with reductions in extreme poverty, as well as child and maternal mortality.

Clearly, for women around the world, there remains a long way to go. But as Bangladesh has demonstrated, unlocking the multiple benefits that gender equality can bring begins with first quantifying the level of empowerment and gender parity among rural women and their communities. In this case, researchers deployed a pioneering tool, the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI).

Bangladesh became the first country to carry out a national household survey that included the WEAI in 2012. One component of the index provided the first measure of women’s empowerment across five key domains: decisions about agricultural production; access to and decision-making power about agricultural resources; control of use of income; leadership in the community, and time allocation.

In addition, another component measured gender parity, or the percentage of women who are empowered or whose achievements are at least as high as the men in their households. This allowed women’s empowerment to become a litmus test for agricultural productivity, nutritional status, and public health.

The publicly available data was instrumental in demonstrating the scale of gender inequality in Bangladesh as well as exposing the variation in empowerment within the country. And this information also enabled the second step, which was to inspire government-backed programs that addressed the mutual links between women, agriculture, and food security.

The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) program, designed in partnership with Bangladesh’s Ministry of Agriculture, featured agricultural training, nutrition behaviour change communication and gender sensitization trainings in Bangladesh between 2015 and 2018.

Not only did these trainings positively impact women’s empowerment by up to 13 percentage points, but the program also increased the production of crops other than rice and improved the quality of household diets. The ANGeL program has since been rolled out nationwide.

To date, the WEAI has spawned several different versions, some including more extensive metrics and others fewer, to meet the needs of more than 200 organizations in 58 countries.

But applied at a global level, supported by CGIAR, tools like WEAI can provide a common metric that helps design policies to meet multiple goals, from improving diets and childhood development to increasing women’s livelihoods.

If more countries, governments and agencies made use of the WEAI or similar, to guide policy and investment decisions, women’s empowerment could be leveraged as a gateway towards a healthier, more inclusive and fairer world.

When performance is measured, performance improves but when performance can also be directly compared across countries, regions, and different production systems, the result can accelerate progress by inspiring a race to the top. This is why efforts are under way at CGIAR to harmonise different instruments to allow progress worldwide to be monitored and stimulated more widely.

Governments also have a critical role to play in investing in collecting and reporting on empowerment indicators and working alongside development partners to act upon their insights.

The more policymakers and researchers know about the extent of gender inequality and its wider role in the health and prosperity of its population, the more governments, researchers and NGOs can take targeted and effective action that addresses global challenges at their roots.

Women’s empowerment in agriculture leads to greater diversity in food production and household diets, and, in many countries, helps children’s long-term nutritional status. With a consistent approach that first reveals and then reduces the gaps in women’s empowerment, everyone stands to benefit.

 

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. Claudia Sadoff is Managing Director for Research Delivery and Impact at CGIAR, the world's largest publicly funded agricultural research network.
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

A case worker at a camp for internally displaced people in Somalia helps abused women get medical care. Credit: UNDP

By Caroline Ngonze
JOHANNESBURG, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

It was on a visit to Lesotho that I first heard the derogatory term Mmutla – nocturnal hare. It is a word used in some southern districts to insult adolescent girls who have been forced into sexual exploitation and transactional sexual relations for survival.

That one cruel word summed up the multiple marginalisations faced by so many adolescent girls across sub-Saharan Africa: excluded for being poor, for being female, for being young; excluded further through exploitation, and then excluded further as they get blamed for that exploitation.

On our continent, one in four adolescent girls in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from their partner, and over a third of girls are married while still children.

The consequences are seen in the unrelenting young female HIV pandemic. In West and Central Africa, 82% of new HIV infections within the age group 15-19 years are of girls. In the East and Southern Africa region, that figure rises to 85%.

On visits to Lesotho, South Africa, Senegal and Malawi, I’ve heard from the public and private sector, from civil society organizations, from traditional and religious leaders, and teenagers in and out of school, including teenage mothers, the same message: if Africa is to fulfil its potential, it has to enable all of its girls to fulfil theirs. And that depends on all girls completing school and being empowered at school.

Evidence shows that completion of secondary education by adolescent girls can reduce HIV infection by up to 50%. A layered approach to interventions that combines completion of secondary education with universal access to comprehensive sexuality education, fulfilment of sexual and reproductive health and rights, ensuring that school environments are free from gender-based and sexual violence, and successful school-to- work transitions for economic security and empowerment, will lower the risk of HIV infection even further.

Communities concur on the main reasons why so many girls do not complete secondary school. The cost of education is cited as a key barrier everywhere I visit. Even when fees are removed, charges for “school development”, or for exams or text books or uniforms keep many girls out. In addition, discriminatory policies, laws and practices (both at school and in the community) deny girls their right to education and entrench inequalities, poverty, quality and relevance of education. Adolescent girls with disabilities, those from rural settings, low-income and child-headed households as well as those from marginalized groups are at a significantly elevated risk of sexual exploitation and abuse, violence and teenage pregnancies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned a chronic challenge into an acute one. For instance, the restrictions imposed to curb the spread of COVID19 led to school closures, disruptions to health and social services, and job losses in households. With the protective cover of school pulled back, huge spikes have been recorded in teenage pregnancies, child marriage, gender-based and sexual violence, and sexual exploitation. Millions of girls may not ever return to school.

Fixing such a crisis depends on a whole-of-society commitment. It is that recognition which has brought together allies from across the African continent and beyond in the Education Plus Initiative – a high-level political advocacy drive and broad-based campaign, co-led by the Executive Directors of UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF and UN Women. It leverages and combines the mandates, expertise, knowledge, skills and impact of five UN agencies, and brings in too the insights and determination of civil society organizations, adolescent girls and young women, youth and feminist networks.

Unequal gender power dynamics and harmful gender norms – compounded by intersecting forms of discrimination based on income, education, and disability – drive the risks girls face. These risks help drive the HIV pandemic, which, in turn, further exacerbates these inequalities. There is no way to succeed in ensuring that girls are safe and healthy unless they are empowered. As this year’s International Women’s Day theme notes, we need gender equality today for a sustainable future tomorrow.

Gender inequalities are systemic, and can only be countered with social mobilization, bold policy reform and scaled-up financing.

Every group of girls I meet on this continent teaches me something new, but they all remind me of one key lesson that we need all decision-makers to align their policies and their investments to: Everything we do to give girls a fair chance, they will give us back so much more in return.

Africa’s girls are the ones who will ensure that our development goals are realized. All they ask is that we ensure that they are schooled, safe and strong.

Caroline Ngonze manages Education Plus, a movement for the education and empowerment of every adolescent girl and young woman. You can read more about Education Plus here https://www.unaids.org/en/topics/education-plus

 

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.

Credit: United Nations

By Gabrielle Lipton
BONN, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

When I was a young girl, a friend and I spent our summers building a treehouse. We built it because our older brothers were building one and wouldn’t allow us to help them. So, we asked our parents to support us through the procurement of basic tools, collected scrap wood from the local hardware store, chose a tree, and then spent day after day puzzling beams and boards together into structure in which only people of our small size could fit.

Our brothers would often scope out our progress, refusing to believe we had managed some of the architectural feats on our own, but we didn’t mind their judgements. It was sturdy, it was ours, and it was perfect.

Although we’ve outgrown the treehouse now too, I pay it a visit from time to time, remembering the seasons spent among the branches building our humble stronghold – and building ourselves. Those summers taught me that even with the most minimal amount of support, there was little I couldn’t do with hard work, resourcefulness, teamwork and friendship.

I share this story today, ahead of International Women’s Day 8 March 2022, because I believe that every woman has such a story – likely one that involves far more odds that had to be overcome than the simple and privileged ones from my youth. Indeed, the statistics about gender equality in the context of sustainable development continue to be staggering.

While the exact percentage is debated, it’s widely agreed that women comprise the majority of the world’s poor. Eighty percent of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, and sixty percent of the world’s food insecure people are women and girls. And pretty much all pre-existing gender inequities have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

But what is more staggering still are women’s stories of triumph despite the obstacles – when they’ve turned others’ doubts into opportunities, when the fruits of their tireless labors yielded literally unbelievable results, when they were given a dime and built a castle.

This deserves reflection and recognition, which is why we at the Global Landscapes Forum are honoring such leaders and agents of change in our annual 16 Women Restoring the Earth campaign. This list raises up women from across five continents, three generations and all sectors who are using their efforts, resources, relationships, and willfully-built selves to help piece together a better reality – and future reality – for everyone else too.

This is our third year publishing 16 Women Restoring the Earth (see here 2020 and 2021), and in each iteration, it has been an immense privilege to learn about the lives of such extraordinary women and to work with them on creating and sharing this feature.

In this year’s list, we have a Grammy-nominated artist and musician who documents the hardships and joys of womanhood in Africa through song; a Pulitzer Prize–winning politician who helped negotiate relationships between major global powers while raising children; a young Indian activist who filed a lawsuit against her government at the age of 9 for not doing enough to protect her future from climate change; a scientist who has tracked the Amazon’s greenhouse gas emissions for decades so that we can know the state of the world’s most important forest; and a philanthropist who is courageously finding new ways to channel funds to local communities, to name just a few.

The phrase “restoring the Earth,” as one might notice, is used in the broadest sense, to encompass the multitudinous ways women are using their minds, bodies, time and gifts to reinstate harmony on this planet. The common thread between the women we’ve featured is their level of integrity, determination, resilience and humor.

The mission of the Global Landscapes Forum, in essence, is to help usher in a new relationship between communities and ecosystems in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The women we choose for our 16 Women Restoring the Earth campaigns have all been involved in our organization in some form or fashion during of our nine years of existence, whether they’ve spoken at one of our events, supported us through partnerships, or simply believed in our mission and played an active part of our global community.

It’s a difficult selection process each year, but one filled with gratitude for the contributions so many women have made to helping build our treehouse, so to speak.

This campaign, then, is a means by which to gently remind ourselves of the many forms of inequality that exist on this planet, some of which can be numerically quantified but many only told through words, stories and life experiences. It is to put forward a group of diverse role models that anyone can look to and think, “If she can do it, so can I.” It is a collection of light in challenging times to celebrate the many reasons for optimism and hope that still exist.

Most of all, we hope it serves as a pause, a moment for you to think of what it is you’re building and how you are contributing to the restoration of our Earth, whatever that means to you.

 

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

Women predominate in the world's food production (50-80 per cent), but they own less than 10 per cent of the land. Credit: Jency Samuel/IPS

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

The picture is gloomy: not only do women represent 70% of the 1.3 billion people living in conditions of poverty, but also up to 40% of the poorest households in urban areas are headed by women.

Should this not be enough, please know that:

• Women predominate in the world’s food production (50-80%), but they own less than 10% of the land.
• 80% of the displaced by climate-related disasters and changes around the world are women and girls.
• Climate change may lead to more gender-based violence, an increase in child marriages, and worsening sexual and reproductive health.

The above staggering data come from the UN on the occasion of the 8 March International Women Day.

Despite all that, the UN goes on, 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, and their participation and leadership result in more effective climate action.”

 

Equality, essential

Continuing to examine the opportunities, as well as the constraints, to empower women and girls to have a voice and be equal players in decision-making related to climate change and sustainability is essential for sustainable development and greater gender equality.

“Without gender equality today, a sustainable future, and an equal future, remains beyond our reach.”

In fact, the 2022 International Women’s Day claims “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.

 

Women and climate change

For its part, the UN Women underlines that advancing gender equality in the context of the climate crisis and disaster risk reduction is one of the greatest global challenges of the 21st century.

“The issues of climate change and sustainability have had and will continue to have, severe and lasting impacts on our environment, economic and social development. Those who are amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised experience the deepest impacts.”

Women are increasingly being recognised as more vulnerable to climate change impacts than men, as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor and are more dependent on the natural resources which climate change threatens the most, adds UN Women.

According to this United Nations entity in charge of promoting the rights of women worldwide, “Without gender equality today, a sustainable future, and an equal future, remains beyond our reach.”

 

Women empowerment

The theme for International Women’s Day is aligned with the priority theme for the upcoming 66th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW66): “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes”.

UN Women puts the focus on four key action areas:

• Economic empowerment
• Ending violence against women
• Peace and security
• Humanitarian action

 

Leadership, political participation

Women’s equal participation and leadership in political and public life are essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. However, data shows that women are underrepresented at all levels of decision-making worldwide, and achieving gender parity in political life is far off.

 

Women in executive government positions

• As of 1 September 2021, there are 26 women serving as Heads of State and/or Government in 24 countries. At the current rate, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years.
• Just 10 countries have a woman Head of State, and 13 countries have a woman Head of Government.
• Only 21 percent of government ministers were women, with only 14 countries having achieved 50 percent or more women in cabinets. With an annual increase of just 0.52 percentage points, gender parity in ministerial positions will not be achieved before 2077.
• The five most commonly held portfolios by women ministers are: Family/children/youth/elderly/disabled; followed by Social affairs; Environment/natural resources/energy; Employment/labour/vocational training, and Women affairs/gender equality.

 

Equality out of reach

In another report, UN Women says that with the latest data, we now understand the vital link between gender, social equity and climate change, and recognise that without gender equality today, a sustainable future, an equal future, remains out of reach.

“Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of the climate crisis as it amplifies existing gender inequalities and puts women’s lives and livelihoods at risk. Across the world, women depend more on, yet have less access to, natural resources, and often bear a disproportionate responsibility for securing food, water, and fuel.”

As women and girls bear the burden of climate impacts, they are also essential to leading and driving change in climate adaptation, mitigation and solutions.

“Without the inclusion of half of the world’s population, it is unlikely that solutions for a sustainable planet and a gender equal world tomorrow will be realised.”

Dr Awofaa Gogo Abite fled Ukraine because of the war - but he is now providing medical help to others at the border.

A Play Leader in a BRAC Play Lab. Credit: Shananuzzaman Angkan

By Erum Mariam
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Women around the world play crucial roles in education as formal educators, school staff members, and parents of students. But women are also transforming education as non-formal educators in ways that can be scaled to improve education broadly. As we celebrate International Women’s Day (March 8), it’s important that this transformative role is recognized.

I’ve seen it first-hand in my work with the BRAC Institute of Educational Development (BRAC IED) in Bangladesh, where we conduct research, develop curricula, and train and mentor women in Asia and Africa to become proficient in non-formal educational roles. That enables us to create educational innovations that can be scaled efficiently and broadly, because they rely on women in local communities, recruited from and trained in those communities, adapting and delivering programmes using locally available resources.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University, and supported by researchers in Bangladesh, underscores the point. A new two-year study reveals that an early childhood development model led by locally trained women has achieved one of the greatest goals of early childhood development – enabling children regardless of their initial readiness or level of privilege to enter kindergarten equally prepared.

The focus of the research is BRAC’s Play Lab model in Bangladesh. Play Labs provide safe spaces where children aged 3-5 engage in playful activities, supported by a flexible play-based curriculum – one that is culturally relevant and contextualized to suit local settings, and that promotes cognitive, language, physical, and social-emotional development. The activities are led by non-formal educators called Play Leaders – young women trained by BRAC IED, who also design the curriculum.

What’s so exciting about the study’s results is not only that it proves the extraordinary impact of Play Labs but that it demonstrates the power of the Play Leaders. These non-formal educators are the backbone of this study, and what’s even more encouraging is that there are young women whose potential is ready to be unlocked in every community in the world. That’s the key to scaling this proven solution, and a new Play Lab PlayBook provides essential resources and tools to equip partners and practitioners to scale this approach.

When COVID-19 arrived, it was the Play Leaders who innovated first. With limited or no access to the physical Play Labs, Play Leaders used basic mobile phones to maintain regular contact with children and teachers. This organic beginning led to the creation of Pashe Achhi (which means Beside You in English), a remote learning mechanism that provides learning opportunities for children and psychosocial support for caregivers. It also serves as a new emergency infrastructure for early childhood development during crises.

Experts at BRAC IED brought together psychologists and play-based curriculum developers to create 20-minute tele-conversational scripts, with a component for psychosocial support and another component for play-based learning. 1,300 Play Leaders were trained on effective delivery of scripts, and Play Leaders facilitated weekly 20-minute one-on-one calls with caregivers and children. In total, 40,000 calls took place weekly until Play Labs reopened.

The experts provided scripts and training, but 1,300 young women working as non-formal educators put the plan into action.

The focus on women as non-formal educators derives from BRAC’s investment in women in communities across Bangladesh to work as catalysts for change in a wide variety of roles. These health workers, legal aid providers, programme organisers, non-formal educators and community mobilisers have been the backbone of Bangladesh’s incredible social development. In education, for example, Bangladesh faced a massive challenge: 40% of its primary-aged children were not in school in the early 1980s. Half of the students who enrolled dropped out, and only 30% went on to complete primary education.

BRAC reimagined education: instead of expecting students to go to distant schools with all the logistical burdens and costs associated with that, BRAC brought schools to the students. It created an extensive system of one-room schools in almost every community and trained women in each community to teach grades 1-5. The training of these non-formal educators made scaling possible, and the results were impressive. Almost 100% of students completed fifth grade, and BRAC students consistently did better than public school students on government tests.

The role of women as non-formal educators should be celebrated for its proof of impact, its scalability, and its vital importance. At least 175 million children do not have access to quality, play-based early childhood education, and the world needs 69 million new teachers by 2030. Women – especially those serving as non-formal educators – are the key to meeting this need.

The author is Executive Director of the BRAC Institute of Educational Development at BRAC University in Bangladesh.

 

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.

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.