Africa

Akinwumi Adesina, president of African Development Bank, had been accused of nepotism and cronyism.

Credit: United Nations

By Isabel Ortiz
NEW YORK, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

 

Failing to help those in most need

COVID19 is devastating on older persons. The numbers are staggering, more than 80 percent of the fatalities due to coronavirus in the US and East Asia occurred among adults aged 65 and over. In Europe and Australia, the figures are even higher, 94 and 97 per cent of the deaths were persons aged 60 and over.

However, when contagions spread, older persons were denied access to beds and ventilators, despite being the most vulnerable group. Human rights experts were alarmed by the decisions made around the use of scarce medical resources in hospitals and intensive care units, discriminating solely based on age. Despite being helpless and most at risk, older persons were not prioritized; they were de facto sacrificed, denied treatment and emergency support.

“Older people have the same rights to life and heath as everyone else. Difficult decisions around life-saving medical care must respect the human rights and dignity of all,” stated the UN Secretary-General, deeply concerned about events during the pandemic.

The silent massacre in care homes

About half of the coronavirus casualties in high income countries were in care homes, though this is an underestimation because originally official death tolls did not include those who had died outside hospitals without a COVID19 test done.

Most countries reported insufficient protective equipment and testing in care homes for both residents and care workers. Thousands were infected of coronavirus in nursing homes, and while some staff heroically worked in dangerous conditions, others did not. Staff absenteeism added to real horror stories.

Isabel Ortiz

For example, in a nursing home in France, 24 persons passed away in only 5 days; they died alone in their rooms of hypovolemic shock, without food or water, because 40 percent of the staff was absent. In Canada, a criminal investigation was launched after 31 residents were found dead, unfed and unchanged at a Seniors’ Residence; after other disturbing cases, the Canadian military had to be deployed to assist and the government is considering to take over all private long-term care institutions.

In Sweden, protocols discouraged care workers from sending older persons to hospitals, letting them die in the care homes. In Spain, when the military were deployed to disinfect nursing homes, they were shocked to find people “completely abandoned or even dead in their beds.” Spain has launched criminal investigations into dozens of care homes after grieving relatives of thousands of elderly coronavirus victims claimed ‘our parents were left to die’.

Families demand justice, suing care services

In Italy’s Lombardy region, a resolution offering 150 euros (US$175) to care homes for accepting COVID19 patients to ease the burden on hospital beds, accelerated the spread of the virus among health workers and residents. Coffins piled up in nursing homes. Families are filing lawsuits for mishandling the epidemic.

In the US, more than 38,000 older persons have died in residences because of COVID19 and many families have filed lawsuits against nursing homes for wrongful death and gross negligence.

In the UK, families of care home residents who died from COVID19 are suing the Health and Social Care Secretary; the claims accuse the government of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, National Health Service Act 2006 and the Equalities Act.

The multi-billion care industry lobbying to secure immunity against lawsuits

Long-term care is a lucrative and powerful industry. Europe’s care sector is concentrated in the hands of a few large private groups, often run by pension and investment funds. Also in the US, 70 percent of the 15,000 nursing homes are run by for-profit companies; many have been bought and sold in recent years by private-equity firms.

In the US, nursing homes and long-term care operators have been lobbying state and federal legislators across the US to pass laws giving them broad immunity, denying responsibility for conditions inside care homes during COVID19. Nineteen states have recently enacted laws or gubernatorial executive orders granting nursing homes protection from civil liability in connection with COVID19. Nobody is responsible for the suffering of thousands of older persons that died alone in care homes.

A better future: Redressing the deplorable situation of residences and long-term care

Due to the rapidly ageing population, all countries should invest more on health and long-term care services for older persons.

Health system capacity is strained because austerity cuts in earlier years. It was the shortage of beds, staff and equipment that made doctors discriminate against older persons and prioritize those younger, with more chances of survival to COVID19. Governments and international financial institutions must stop mean budget cuts that have condemned many to die, and instead invest in universal public health and social protection systems.

Countries must also invest in quality long-term care services for older persons. Half the world’s elderly lacks access to long-term care. At the moment, governments spend very little on long term care; instead, they have allowed private care services to develop, with minimal regulation. As a result, most older persons have to pay up to 100 percent of long term care out of their own pocket and most cannot afford quality services – a highly unequal system.

Societies have failed older persons during the COVID19 pandemic. Countries must redress this neglect and support survivors by properly regulating, inspecting and investing in quality care services for all older persons.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University in New York, former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and former official of the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations.

 

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');

The post Neglected, Sacrificed: Older Persons During the COVID19 Pandemic appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Credit: Nidwan.

By Pratima Gurung
KATHMANDU, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

In Nepal the COVID-19 crisis has been especially hard on indigenous peoples. We had to learn a new vocabulary and use words like quarantine, self-isolation, hand sanitizers and social distancing.

We also had to respect rules that did not previously apply to our lives. Indigenous peoples are not used to washing their hands all the time because our culture is so much closer to Mother Earth and because much of the time we don’t have running water.

The situation has been even more difficult for indigenous persons with a disability, like me. I cannot keep my social distance if I need help at the same time. I can manage on my own but as I only have one hand I have not been able to follow the health recommendations to the letter, which causes me a lot of anxiety. The pandemic has made me feel more “disabled” than ever.

Pratima Gurung, General Secretary, IPWDGN President, NIDWAN.

This is the situation that indigenous people with disabilities face everyday. Most of them don’t have access to vital medical supplies – for instance, people with spinal cord injuries who need catheters or those with hemophilia in need of plasma.

Indigenous women with disabilities have faced discrimination, violence and abuse. There have also been rising levels of suicide during this pandemic.

Indigenous people make up around one third of the country’s total population, approximately 11 million out of the 30 million Nepalese. Their special needs need to be addressed in a way that takes into account their cultures.

When the authorities announced the lockdown, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples could not get information about this virus in native, local and sign languages, because health and public campaigns around COVID-19 are still not indigenous and culture friendly.

The situation has been even more difficult for indigenous persons with a disability, like me. I cannot keep my social distance if I need help at the same time. I can manage on my own but as I only have one hand I have not been able to follow the health recommendations to the letter, which causes me a lot of anxiety. The pandemic has made me feel more “disabled” than ever

While the government is distributing relief packages to some residents, most indigenous people do not have the required paperwork to receive these supplies. To get help either you need to have a citizenship or disability card or your name should be registered. Most often vulnerable, marginalized groups like indigenous people and persons with disabilities do not have these documents so they are excluded from services. People are dying of starvation.

We don’t have a full picture of what it is really happening in the country. Nepal has been under nationwide lockdown since March and it has been extended about half-a-dozen times since. As COVID-19 cases continue to surge these measures will be extended until 22 July.

To improve things we first need to properly evaluate the situation on the ground. Indigenous people, especially those with disabilities, have special needs. Without disaggregated data by sex, age, ethnicity, disability, health status, income and geography we cannot properly address them. A blanket approach does not work.

In spite of all the difficulties, indigenous peoples are rising to the challenge. Some organizations, including the National Indigenous Disabled Women Association Nepal are disseminating information about COVID-19 and providing food and sanitation supplies to some communities. The indigenous TV channel has been giving information in both indigenous and sign language, with the support of the National Indigenous Disabled Women Association Nepal.

I hope the measures they have put in place (which aim to strengthen health systems, ensure job recovery and enhance access to social protection) will not leave us behind. We need to be part of any discussion that addresses these issues because only we know how the pandemic is affecting us. Implementation of ILO Convention No. 169 has therefore become more important than ever.

As an activist, this situation has been a real challenge for me and for my organization. I am confined in Katmandu and cannot travel. I feel that I am not helping my people as much as I would like. I fear that when we know what is really happening on the ground we will face a worse situation than the one we suffered after the 2015 earthquake that devastated our country.

 

This opinion editorial was originally published here

The post Include Indigenous People in COVID-19 Response appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Pratima Gurung is General Secretary, the Global Network of Indigenous Peoples with Disabilities (IPWDGN) President, the National Indigenous Disabled Women Association in Nepal (NIDWAN).

The post Include Indigenous People in COVID-19 Response appeared first on Inter Press Service.

How Wayde van Niekerk broke the men's 400m world record at the 2016 Olympic Games - one held by a true athletics legend.

Former Guinea-Bissau football federation president Manuel Nascimento will await the full grounds for his 10-year Fifa ban before deciding whether to appeal the decision.

Omar started to cook after doctors told him to use his muscles to help with his neuromuscular myopathy.

Teenage Kenyan tennis star Angella Okutoyi says delaying the 2022 Youth Olympics for four years is set to hit her career development.

Rights experts say that the Myanmar government “has long shown a lack of commitment to breaking the cycle of impunity for widespread sexual and gender-based violence”. This is a dated photo of women travelling on a crowded train in Myanmar. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

By Samira Sadeque
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

A legislation that aims to protect women against violence in Myanmar, while long overdue, is raising concern among human rights advocates about its inadequate definition of rape, vague definition for “consent”, and anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rhetoric.

Myanmar is soon to see the latest version of its Prevention of and Protection from Violence Against Women (PoVAW) introduced in parliament. But the Global Justice Centre (GJC), an international human rights and humanitarian law organisation focusing on advancing gender equality, has pointed out that the legislation falls short of addressing violence against women.

According to GJC, the language used in the law borrows from Myanmar’s 1861 Penal Code and thus perpetuates antiquated understandings of rape, such as; considering rape as violence committed only by men, the definition of “rape” constituting only of vaginal penetration, and no acknowledgement of marital rape.

“The Myanmar government has long shown a lack of commitment to breaking the cycle of impunity for widespread sexual and gender-based violence, a problem that is exacerbated by broader structural barriers with respect to Myanmar’s military justice system, and a lack of robust domestic options for accountability,” the GJC analysis has claimed.

Last week, Khin Ohmar, an exiled human rights advocate from Myanmar and founder and chairperson of the advisory board of Progressive Voice — a participatory rights-based policy research and advocacy organisation rooted in civil society, with strong links to grassroots and community-based organisations throughout Myanmar  —  shared how sexual violence in the country is used in a “systematic pattern to target ethnic women and girls”.

Ohmar was speaking at the United Nations Security Council Open Debate on Sexual Violence in Conflict, where she further reiterated how the military in Myanmar has carried out “unspeakable crimes” against ethnic minorities in the country.

Meanwhile, GJC has also published a list of recommendations that leaders can follow to ensure the law is comprehensive as well as applicable in today’s time.

IPS had a conversation with Akila Radhakrishnan, president of GJC, on the issue. Some parts have been edited for clarity purposes.

Inter Press Service (IPS): The year is 2020. How is Myanmar only now introducing the Prevention of Violence against Women Law (PoVAW)?

Akila Radhakrishnan (AK): There’s been a couple of things – I think the lack of will is a starting point. This is something consistently being pushed for by women in civil society since about 2013.

It has been raised as an issue and a part of the reason it’s such a priority is because the original laws we’re talking about date back to 1861.

We’re really talking about laws that haven’t been updated so with the political transition there was a moment when women in civil society saw the opportunity to think it’s time we had a comprehensive law on violence against women, updating progressive positions in the penal code and bring in things like protective orders or a more robust categorisations of kinds of sexual and other types of violence.

And in some ways, the military continues to perpetrate mass sexual violence. Some of the key things that civil society has been pushing for is bringing the military under a mandate of the law, which is antithetical to the military’s interest as well.

IPS: Despite Aung San Suu Kyi being the leader of the country, why are there still discrepancies in the legislation?

AK: Aung San Suu Kyi is no feminist. She has certainly in the past made stronger statements on sexual violence than she currently takes on but she’s very much seen certain types of political reform as her priority. If you look at the trajectory of the laws that were initially passed through the transition, most of the laws were really wound around issues that enabled foreign investment, for example.

There were certain laws that were due to be changed around issues such as certain types of press freedoms, many of which have been regressing in recent times in any case. There was never kind of a feminist priority set from the leadership.

There were certainly some amazing feminists who got elected, including from local women’s civil society who were elected to parliament. They even felt they’ll have the power to set what are the priorities to be passed, to be considered to be looked at in the context of a country that has a range of reforms that need to be undertaken.

Another issue is that it’s been really slow going in the part of some of the agencies that are involved in this as well such as others, such as the attorney general’s office, department of social welfare. There’s a complicated range of actors involved in the development of the law and in the pushback against the law as well

IPS: Where would you say the PoVAW law lacks most glaringly and needs to be most urgently addressed?

AK: Probably the most urgent one is the places where they continue to cling to the penal code and not really think through how to amend it. They kind of cling to the penal code definition of rape itself – it refuses to let go of rape as it was defined in the 1861 penal code.

We detail a range of issues with that specific definition. And a major part of the impetus was to say our more modern definitions of rape, that are more inclusive, that are gender neutral and have better definitions of consent and at the end of the day you’re creating this whole process and you’re clinging to something that’s there.

And related to that is issues such as marital rape as a crime that is somewhat separate from rape, it’s a lesser crime, a lesser penalty and you know that also stems out of an antiquated mindset.

IPS: Is this legislation only for cisgendered women?

AK: There’s a little bit of a tension there. The law itself is a violence against women law and that’s in the framework it’s been developed over quite a bit of time, so there’s been tension wanting to certainly to try to make the law as inclusive as possible [and] really thinking through how difficult it is to even bring this to fruition.

In this moment, it’s important to try to think of how you take an intersectional inclusive approach to this. But unfortunately we’re going to end up only with a VAW framework so we want to at least within that context — and this is really belying on the expertise of groups that do this work better than we do — to really think through how to make something like this as inclusive as possible.

IPS: There are many ethnic minorities in Myanmar, many who often flee the country. How are ethnic minorities targeted for violence and sexual violence?

AK: The military uses sexual violence as a tactic weapon in its conflict, as its violent actions against all ethnic minorities. It is a systematic pattern —  one that is met with impunity which is why legal reforms and accountability are so important. 

IPS: What are your hopes for the steps ahead for the PoVAW law?

AK: The law is an important step forward but in order for it to be a meaningful step forward it actually needs to take into account — and through the process be amended — so it meets international standards, and addresses some of the key issues with the law itself. Otherwise you get kind of a patchwork law where a lot of time and energy has been put into it, but it’s not going to achieve what it could’ve achieved to actually come in line with international standards.

Related Articles

• Sprouting Mangroves Restore Hopes in Coastal Myanmar
• Rohingya Women Take a Seat at the Table & Share Stories in a Growing Rights Movement

The post Myanmar’s Protection Bill falls Short of Addressing Violence against Women appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Child in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Credit: UNICEF/UN0316934/Pasqualli

By Tapan Mishra
ULAANBAATAR, Mongolia, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

Mongolia has recorded very few cases of COVID-19, less than 300 as on date, despite its more than 4,000 kilometre porous border with China. However, the country faces a major economic impact from the pandemic.

The general picture of the COVID-19 situation in Mongolia is very positive. The Government of Mongolia closed all educational institutions including kindergartens, schools and universities at the beginning of the year.

It also introduced strict measures on social distancing, such as a ban on public gatherings, limiting public transportation, closing public spaces such as gyms, and making the wearing of masks in public compulsory. Travel has been very limited, including a complete ban on any international travel by road, rail, or air.

Mongolia has been very vulnerable to the pandemic, not only because of its physical proximity to China and Russia including close links and dependence for economic interests, but also due to its own inadequate health care system.

Despite these challenges, there has been no local transmission reported (cases have been limited to patients importing the virus), and I would say that the leadership of the country has dealt well with the pandemic.

Another factor that has helped in making Mongolia’s response a success story, is that the citizens of the country have diligently complied with the government’s directives and regulations.

The requirements to wear masks, ensure good hygiene, such as frequent hand-washing, and physical distancing, have been seriously adhered to. Even during the Tsagaan Sar, the Mongolian Lunar New Year in February, they complied with government orders, and did not even visit their extended families and elders, which is a tradition for Mongolian families.

Mongolian students adjust to remote learning. Credit: Global Press Journal/Dolgormaa Sandagdorj/ UNDP

Minimizing the impact

Several UN agencies are physically present in Mongolia, with more providing support from outside. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, the UN bodies came together under the leadership of the office of the Resident Coordinator, and we have been following the World Health Organization’s response plan, and the UN’s humanitarian and socio-economic response plans.

This has involved setting up a socio-economic task force, and identifying the needs and priorities of the most vulnerable people in Mongolian society.

The UN Country Team has utilized well the $1 Million UN Secretary-General’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery MPTF (multi-partner trust fund) allocation, for supporting the Government of Mongolia in improving the national testing capacity, and have more supplies of personal protective equipment.

We have been also supporting development of the digital learning curriculum to enhance the quality of online learning, as children have not been able to go to school for around six months.

We stand ready to support the Government in every possible way, from their health, humanitarian, and socio-economic response plans, to their longer-term economic recovery.

The economic fallout

We do not know the full impact the pandemic is having yet, but we know it is significant. For instance, in the first quarter of 2020, the economy contracted by 10.7 per cent, and government revenue fell by 8.6 per cent year on year, whilst expenditure went up 19.3 per cent.

National Center for Communicable Diseases (NCCD) team. Credit: NCCD of Mongolia

Mongolia has a large amount of debt, which means that there is an increased risk of defaulting on debt. According to the IMF, GDP is also expected to fall sharply to minus one per cent this year, down from 5.3 per cent in 2019.

To bolster the economy, the Government approved economic stimulus packages, worth over 10 percent of GDP, which included several measures to support vulnerable groups, including cash benefits; mortgages, consumer and business loan repayments were deferred; and the mortgage rate was reduced.

Development setbacks

Unfortunately, it is highly likely that the pandemic will set back the progress we have been making in Mongolia. The Government took early, effective action against the spread of COVID-19, but the increased borrowing, amid an economy hit by reduced exports, means that it will be difficulty to recover from the socio-economic impacts of the crisis.

In collaboration with the IMF, World Bank and other partners, we are conducting detailed studies to look at the real impacts, but we are also working with the Government of Mongolia to ensure that the recovery plans do not leave anyone behind.

I only hope that donors provide the funding that is needed to support the most vulnerable people in Mongolia, and help to ensure that the post-pandemic recovery benefits all members of society.

The post COVID-19 Means Development Setbacks for Mongolia appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Tapan Mishra is the UN Resident Coordinator in Mongolia.

The post COVID-19 Means Development Setbacks for Mongolia appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

With uneven progress in containing contagion, worsened by the breakdown in multilateral cooperation due to mounting US-China tensions, recovery from the Covid-19 recessions of the first half of 2020 is now expected to be more gradual than previously forecast.

Pandemic response measures
In the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, many governments, especially of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) economies, have introduced massive fiscal and monetary packages for contagion containment, relief and recovery.

Anis Chowdhury

Such efforts represent a U-turn after long eschewing countercyclical fiscal policy, mostly for ideological reasons, such as dogmatic commitment to ‘budgetary balance’ and ‘fiscal consolidation’, besides giving central banks more economic policy discretion since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC).

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated new government measures through mid-June 2020 at almost US$11 trillion. The Fund projected new borrowing by all governments to rise from 3.7% of global output in 2019 to 9.9% in 2020.

Projecting gradual recovery from the second half of 2020, the Fund expects average fiscal deficits to rise by 14% as global public debt reaches an all-time high, exceeding 101% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020-2021.

After much wrangling, EU leaders compromised on a new US$2.1 trillion (€1.8 trillion) package on 21 July. The European Commission has also activated the general escape clause in EU fiscal rules, allowing deficits to exceed 3% of GDP.

Complementary monetary initiatives include relaxing recommended Basel 3 capital buffers, lowering mandatory reserve ratios and easing terms for additional temporary credit facilities for banks and businesses.

Thus, central banks have committed an estimated US$17 trillion to extend ‘unconventional’ measures to buy corporate bonds, besides government bonds and government-sponsored mortgage-backed securities introduced during the GFC.

Windmills of financial minds
Macroeconomic economic policy makers must resist quixotic impulses to fight against financial ‘windmills of the mind’, instead fulfilling their responsibility to pursue consistently counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Financial market analysts exaggerate real concerns, even using discredited research. Citing old research, even doubted by The Economist, a Forbes columnist insisted that “the surge in government debt” would cause “economic growth to decline”, claiming that government debt beyond 85% of GDP would slow growth.

Global public debt came to 83% of world output in 2019, up from 60% in 2008, before the GFC. This sharp rise happened despite austerity measures since 2010 when many G20 and OECD countries adopted fiscal consolidation.

That turn to austerity followed advice from the IMF, OECD and European Central Bank, who invoked influential, but misleading academic research. But fiscal consolidation “after the Great Recession was a catastrophic mistake”, concluded a Forbes columnist. It failed to deliver robust recovery, let alone sustained growth.

Subsequent IMF research found fiscal consolidation raised short-term unemployment, with even harder impacts in the long-term, hurting wage-earners much more than profit- and rent-earners. IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard and his colleagues found Fund advice for early fiscal retrenchment inappropriate.

Windmills can block recovery
Reversing emergency expansionary measures too soon risks aborting recovery and may even trigger new recessions. Even an assets fund manager has acknowledged, “Like a course of antibiotics, an economic relief package is most efficacious when administered to completion”.

When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to balance the budget in 1937 after securing re-election, the ensuing downturn ended the recovery, only revived after deficit spending resumed in 1939. Also, countries that abandoned fiscal expansion for consolidation from 2009 had worse recovery records than others.

Deficits and debt have, in fact, not been reliable indicators of long-term growth prospects. Obsessed with debt and deficits, while ignoring spending composition and efficiency, ‘deficit hawks’ tend to downplay the potential growth impacts of expansionary fiscal policy.

Nevertheless, the Fund continued to warn in January 2019 that high and rising public debt constituted “a potential fault line”. Pre-pandemic economic stagnation, tax cuts and poor commodity prices induced larger fiscal deficits, requiring more government debt, now compounded by Covid-19 containment, relief and recovery efforts.

Clearly, government macroeconomic policies should not be guided by financial market whims. Leaving policy making to such influential market signals can push an economy in recession into a lasting depression. The recent IMF leadership transition appears to have led to greater pragmatism just in time.

Investing for the future
The Fund’s April 2020 Fiscal Monitor urged governments to take advantage of historically low borrowing costs to invest for the future—in health systems, infrastructure, low-carbon technologies, education and research—while boosting productivity growth. After all, a year ago, advanced economies were spending only 1.77% of their combined GDP on debt interest—the lowest since 1975.

Unusually, it also advised governments to enhance automatic stabilizers, including a tax and benefit system to stabilize incomes and consumption, involving progressive taxation and social security payments or unemployment assistance.

Undoubtedly, politicians are often tempted, by lower debt costs, to borrow to spend more on “populist” programmes while cutting taxes. Such irresponsible fiscal policies need to be corrected.

Clearly, governments need to look at how money, borrowed or otherwise, is spent. If, for example, borrowed money goes into investments enhancing productivity, public assets can contribute not only to growth, but also to revenue.

Covid-19 recessions are quite different from recent ones following financial crises. Yet, all recessions threaten to become depressions if not quickly and appropriately addressed.

We are in for a long hard struggle, on both public health and economic fronts. Policies must not only be appropriate for the problems at hand, but should also create conditions for a better future, rather than simply trying to return to the status quo ante Covid.

As visionary leaders did during and after the Second World War, we need appropriate plans, not only to revive economies and livelihoods, but also to build a more dynamic, sustainable and equitable economy.

 

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

• Use Stimulus Packages for Longer Term Progress
• Expansionary Fiscal Consolidation Myth
• Rethinking Fiscal Policy for Global Recovery
• Unfounded Debt Fears Block Economic Recovery
• Austerity Bad for Recovery

The post Fight Pandemic, Not Windmills of the Mind appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Coronavirus has given Ghanaians a new perspective on the pull of living abroad.

When Mohamed was caught with his boyfriend he had to flee Somaliland, where homosexuality is illegal.

Women farmers in India. Credit: UNDP India.

By Shreya Deb
MUMBAY, India, Jul 27 2020 (IPS)

Secure property rights are fundamental to the economic and social development of any country. However, in India, we are faced with a curious conundrum where more than 70 percent of a household’s assets are held in land and housing, yet there is insufficient data and research on people’s property rights.

On one hand, the government aspires to provide 18-20 million affordable housing units in urban areas, while on the other, more than 10 million housing units are lying vacant, as per the 2011 Census. The judicial pendency of land disputes is also high, with several million cases pending in Indian courts. Approximately 25 percent of all cases decided by the Supreme Court involve land disputes, of which 30 percent concern disputes relating to land acquisition.

All these factors, combined, result in insecure tenure for a large population, especially the poor and vulnerable, which in turn poses a complex set of challenges for effective governance. It also impacts the efficiency of our judicial system and our ability to attract investments.

According to the ‘Ease of Doing Business Rankings’, India ranks 156th on the metric of ‘Ease of registration of property’—in contrast with its overall rank of 63 in the 2020 index. With the current rate of population growth and increasing competition for finite resources such as land, it is important to draw policy attention to these issues.

 

Land governance and property rights have been largely overlooked in India

Despite the severity and complexity of this issue, land governance and property rights have been largely overlooked within policy research and development initiatives in India. The reasons for this are many, ranging from historical to political.

Patriarchal norms often hinder women from owning properties, even though studies have shown that when women own properties, families show better indicators of health, nutrition, and education

Historically, the bulk of the colonial government’s revenues came from taxing agricultural produce. Over time, as this revenue declined, the focus on rural land administration reduced. As our cities grew in an unplanned manner, we did not invest in building strong land administration systems. On a political level, land and housing are very valuable assets, which, when regulated poorly, attract corruption and violence.

In addition, land and housing often have deep emotional relevance for people, and access to these are, in some cases, dictated by old beliefs and traditional customs. For instance, patriarchal norms often hinder women from owning properties, even though studies have shown that when women own properties, families show better indicators of health, nutrition, and education.

Similarly, when marginalised groups own land, they have better food security and gain increased respect from the local communities. However, these require shaking up some deep-rooted social norms, which can be very challenging for both nonprofits and donors.

While India has undertaken reforms in many sectors of the economy, land and labour—the core factors of production—have not seen reforms. For decades, we have witnessed the effect of broken land administration in our daily lives.

With reportedly as much as 66 percent of all civil cases pertaining to property disputes, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that every Indian family has faced a property dispute. The COVID-19 pandemic has borne testament to some of these issues as well, as we see the scale of the impact it has had on people living in informal settlements, where issues of poor sanitation and housing are fuelled by lack of tenure security. It is quite evident that a bulk of our current social and economic challenges are centred around the lack of secure access to land and housing rights.

 

Reforming the land rights regime is critical for India to secure high growth

The fundamental building block to define and secure land rights for anyone, is the underlying property record. This record should accurately reflect all pertinent information, including ownership, the geo-coordinated location and boundaries of the property, any mortgage claims, tenant claims, and disputes.

Improving the accuracy of land records, including maps, should be the topmost priority. It is the basic infrastructure required for secure access to land and housing rights, and would bring in more confidence in land-related transactions, reduce conflict, encourage more investments, and also improve the government’s ability to deliver welfare schemes.

India also needs reforms in other critical land governance areas. We have progressive laws, such as the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which need to be implemented on the ground to ensure that more than 100 million people belonging to Scheduled Tribes are able to secure the patta (or land title) to their land and gain access to all welfare benefits that have not been made available to them till date.

Organisations, such as ARCH Vahini in Gujarat, that work towards helping communities secure land pattas have observed significant improvements in agriculture production and incomes. We need more nonprofits working in Adivasi communities to help families apply for pattas, which will have multifold benefits in reducing poverty in these areas.

Land leasing is the third area where we need policy reforms. Given the small landholdings in India, millions of farmers lease additional land to enhance their farm output. However, these contracts are largely informal, and farmers with informal leases do not get access to any government benefits such as agriculture credit, PM KISAN, crop insurance, fertiliser subsidy, or Minimum Support Price procurement.

A few states, including Uttar Pradesh, have recently amended their land leasing laws to allow tenancy to be formalised, thereby securing the rights of tenant farmers. Implementing these changes on the ground will require concerted efforts from civil society and government officials, as it requires changing decades-old practices.

Attention to reform in hitherto poorly focused areas, such as land and labour, will be critical for India to resume a high-growth journey. As we grapple with an economic slowdown due to COVID-19, the recently launched NCAER Land Record Services Index (N-LRSI) offers a step towards changing this.

The N-LRSI is the first piece of research that carries out an in-depth analysis of land records in India. The index assesses the current status of digitisation, identifies the existing gaps in each state, and can help under-performing states implement specific remedial actions.

The report finds that in 28 states and union territories, digitisation stands at 86.3 percent. However, it also reveals considerable accessibility issues, such as changes in administrative units and mismatch of names/spellings, language and translation issues, and other user interface problems. We clearly have a long way to go, and the N-LRSI could become a bellwether of improved land governance in India.

 

Technology can be leveraged to secure property rights

Technology, especially geospatial technology, can also significantly drive change on the ground. Drones are perhaps the most exciting new entrants in this spectrum, as they offer great potential for innovation.

Recently, the Odisha state government used drones to map close to two lakh households across the state. The whole exercise was completed in a matter of a few months, which by traditional methods would have taken several years.

Moreover, the drone imagery brought in transparency to the whole process and allowed the communities to engage with the maps to identify their own homes and community boundaries. This greatly helped in reducing information asymmetry and building trust. Nonprofits such as PRADAN have also employed geospatial tools to map land and help Adivasi families claim their patta.

The Government of India also recognises the importance of using technology, as seen from the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of the Swamitva scheme, which aims to map rural inhabited lands using drones and issue property cards to those living in abadi areas (inhabited rural land) without a record of rights.

While there is no doubt that technology can be a force for good, it is also important to acknowledge its limitations in social impact and transformation. Technology is not a silver bullet, and needs to be complemented by non-tech solutions, if we want sustainable impact. Therefore, the focus needs to be on responsible technology, that is used in close engagement with a range of actors, from businesses, to governments, to civil society.

 

Donors should pay more attention to the issue of property rights

Land and property rights are often viewed as a very political issue, which may discourage donors from investing in research in this area. Cognisant of this research gap, we, at Omidyar Network India, have invested in supporting the Property Rights Research Consortium (PRRC) to create evidence-based solutions, without political biases.

We also believe that there is an opportunity for donors working on WASH, agriculture, and gender issues to include secure land tenure as a key component in their programmes. For example, a programme working to improve farmer income enhancement would need to identify and support tenant farmers to make it truly inclusive, and could include a component to identify tenants and help them formalise the tenancy agreement and access government benefits.

Similarly, gender programmes can also try to include women’s names in the property documents, since research shows that it reduces instances of domestic violence and increases women’s confidence and agency. WASH programmes in urban slum communities also require access to land for sanitation infrastructure.

Ahmedabad’s Slum Networking Programme, which started in the late 1990s, demonstrated that providing secure tenure to communities can transform the sanitation and health conditions in informal settlements by leveraging government resources as well as community funds.

Recently, Ashif Shaikh, founder of Jan Sahas, aptly described land as a horizontal, cross-cutting issue across interventions. Evidence shows that that developing programmes that address the land use challenges of target communities are able to significantly boost the overall impact of the programme on the lives of families for a sustained period. Therefore, it is time that we start taking concrete steps towards securing land and property rights in India.

 

Shreya Deb leads Omidyar Network’s investments in property rights in India where her interests are in supporting scalable models that can help provide more secure land and housing rights to economically vulnerable people, including in urban slums

 

This story was originally published by India Development Review (IDR)

The post Securing Property and Land Rights in India appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Soumaila Cissé was kidnapped days before Mali's disputed elections which led to deadly protests.

Judges praised Irenosen Okojie's tale about a Grace Jones impersonator hiding a dark secret.

The five young women are sentenced to two years in prison and fined almost $19,000 (£15,000) each.

Tundu Lissu, attacked in the capital in 2017, wants to run for office after treatment in Belgium.

Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the International Court of Justice, speaks on the first day of a hearing before the Court. 10 December 2019, The Hague, Netherlands. Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek

By Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
NEW YORK, Jul 27 2020 (IPS)

The Charter of the United Nations is not only the constituent instrument of the United Nations as an organization. It is a multilateral legal manifesto encompassing a set of basic principles and norms aimed at ensuring peace, freedom, development, equality and human rights throughout the world. These principles and norms reflect the shared values proclaimed in the preamble on behalf of the “Peoples of the United Nations”. As such, it is the most innovative and trailblazing multilateral treaty ever concluded among States. Today, it is a universal instrument by which all States have solemnly accepted to be bound in their international relations.

In 1945, as nations emerged from a second world war in the span of 30 years, a fundamental choice had to be made by the States participating in the San Francisco Conference convened to adopt the Charter. They chose the rule of law to govern international relations. This was the only way to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. This choice was also a result of the evolution of human civilization. It came out of the realization that the old system that made war permissible to right wrongs was not only barbaric and brutal, but fundamentally unjust.

Consequently, an obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means was consecrated in the Charter, together with a prohibition on the use of force in international relations. The mission of the International Court of Justice, over which I currently have the honour to preside, is to resolve inter-State disputes peacefully in accordance with international law. The Court has so far done this more than 150 times.

The choice of the rule of law involved also a determination, for the first time in the history of multilateral relations, to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small.” We owe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the two covenants, to this determination by the peoples of the United Nations.

Equally important for more than half of humanity, which in 1945 was still suffering from alien subjugation and colonization, was the recognition in the Charter of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples that finally led to their freedom and independence. The universality of the Charter-based system and of international law would not have been realized without the proclamation of the right of all peoples to equality and self-determination. United Nations membership has grown from 50 States at San Francisco to 193 today, mostly as a result of the application of the right of peoples to self-determination.

A view of the Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Hague, Netherlands. Credit: UN Photo/ICJ/Capital Photos/Gerald van Daalen

For the past 75 years, the above-mentioned basic norms, together with the others enshrined in the Charter, have fostered peace, progress, human rights protection, the emancipation of peoples and multilateral cooperation throughout the world. They have also furnished the legal framework upon which rests the rules-based multilateral system that enables both States and individuals to engage in cooperative activities across borders in a wide range of fields, ranging from aviation to shipping, from telecommunications to trade, from financial transactions to investment, and from health and environmental protection to education and culture.

It could, therefore, be said that the adoption of the Charter in San Francisco, and its implementation by the organs of the United Nations, have opened up broad and sweeping vistas for humanity to cooperate for the common good, to avoid armed conflicts and to work for progress based on equality and human dignity. Much has already been achieved, but much more remains to be done, as has been demonstrated by the recent challenges to the United Nations system raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Few would contest the enduring value and strength of the Charter as a normative instrument, even after 75 years of existence. Its purposes and principles have acquired a universal character unprecedented in human history. At the same time, the relevance and inspirational value of those principles for the progressive development and consolidation of the rule of law at the international level keeps growing. However, the question is whether the institutional mechanisms established by the Charter, as a constituent instrument, are still fit for the world of today with its multifaceted challenges. Some of them certainly are; but others may need to be updated.

The world has radically changed since 1945. Nevertheless, it might still be argued that if the United Nations did not exist today, it would have to be invented. Would it, however, be invented exactly in the same institutional set-up and operational mechanisms as in 1945? That is where a rethink becomes relevant. The 75th anniversary of the Organization may be an opportune moment to start the process. It will require serious engagement by all States. The Charter provisions on organs and institutions of the United Nations system are not carved in stone. They have been adjusted before due to changes in membership. They can be modified again, perhaps more profoundly this time, to allow the Organization to accomplish its noble purposes. It will not be done overnight, but it is worthwhile doing for the common good of humanity.

This article was first published by the UN Chronicle on 10 July 2020.

 

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');

The post The Charter of the United Nations After 75 Years: Personal Reflections appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Women in Nigeria collect food vouchers as part of a programme to support families 
struggling under the COVID-19 lockdown. Credit: Damilola Onafuwa/WFP

By Angela Lusigi and Achievement Dhlakama
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 27 2020 (IPS)

As COVID-19 cases continue to rise in Africa, countries are simultaneously dealing with the health and socio-economic impacts of the pandemic, and how and when to ease lockdowns and curfews imposed to stop the disease spreading and get onto the path of recovery.

However, some government actions taken to restrict people’s movements during this crisis, including enforcement measures and emergency laws and policies, could have long-term impacts and the potential to undermine social cohesion ̶ the trust between governments and their citizens and the solidarity between citizens themselves.

With the health and wellness of millions of Africans at stake, governance measures taken to address COVID-19 must be appropriate, effective and sustainable. In some instances, responses to the pandemic so far have led to rising tensions and pushback against human rights.

Lessons from this pandemic should inform how governments, citizens and other partners can collaborate to strengthen governance and social cohesion during the response, and even beyond.

But the question is, what are the optimal measures and enabling environment required for response measures to succeed while protecting freedoms and minimising disruption to livelihoods?

Africa’s governance context is complex. Although there has been significant progress in democracy, the majority of countries are in the lower half of the 2019 Human Freedom Index produced by the US-based Cato Institute.

Yet another study, the Fragile States Index by the Washington-based Fund for Peace, finds that in some of these countries, political fragility and low trust in government institutions still remain a challenge.

As COVID-19 spread in Africa, there were also concerns that planned elections this year in at least 22 countries, in the midst of a pandemic, could heighten tensions and fears of suppression.

It is in this context that governments should guard against measures that fan mistrust between them and their citizens and could lead to undermining democratic processes or intensifying fragility.

Emergency laws limit rights and disrupt services, supply chains and livelihoods. At the start of the pandemic in Africa, at least 17 countries declared states of emergency, 9 declared states of public health emergency and 3 declared states of national disaster.

These measures are important in safeguarding public health and wellness, but their impact varies according to how they are communicated and understood, how oversight mechanisms function and whether there is trust between the government and its citizens.

A state of emergency empowers governments to perform actions or impose policies that it would normally not be permitted to. These include making regulations without an act of parliament or taking actions without complying with statutory duties.

These emergency powers, although temporary in nature, could be used to introduce measures that may affect fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement or assembly, freedom of the media or freedom to work, among others.

On the other hand, a state of public emergency may help the government to take necessary measures to protect the public’s health. These include closing of schools, restricting travel, isolating people exposed to the virus and prosecuting those who do not comply with quarantine orders.

In the case of a national state of disaster, limitations of rights should not extend beyond what is necessary and must be in line with the constitutional values of the society.

The application of these measures to deal with the pandemic has not been without challenges. Firstly, these executive declarations were made in a hurry and with less consultation and oversight. Secondly, citizens were caught unprepared and were not fully informed about the extent of limitations of their rights.

There were media reports of altercations between civilians and police or military enforcing COVID-19 measures in some countries. In others, citizens are increasingly voicing their discontent with the lack of food, services, water and sanitation, and concerns about the abuse of authority by security forces. This may risk the effectiveness of COVID-19 response and recovery measures in the long run.

As countries move towards easing lockdowns and opening up economies, there is still need for a supplementary mechanism to help identify, isolate and trace COVID-19 cases. However, this raises new concerns over the use of surveillance technology to track the spread of the virus, infringement of data protection, and the right to privacy and non-discrimination.

Lessons from those early experiences can help guide governments on appropriate mechanisms to ensure that new measures to respond to COVID-19 do not threaten the fabric of society.

An effective and sustainable response must build on capable institutions that deliver essential services, community ownership and engagement, rights-based oversight control mechanisms and concrete partnership with other stakeholders, including the private sector.

Capable institutions at local and national level ensure the effective delivery of essential services including health, water and sanitation, that are at the heart of the response to COVID-19. For instance, South Africa and Zimbabwe are now delivering water to many undeserved areas and communities.

Community and youth engagement also make a difference in the uptake of public health provisions and in reaching those most impacted by economic and social lockdowns.

Several countries such as Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda have made provisions for cash and food to vulnerable populations. Communities are best positioned to identify those most in need, thereby improving the likelihood of actually reaching them.

They are also able to disseminate accurate information. In South Sudan, a digital community of youth —#DefyHateNow -— has helped to fight misinformation and raise awareness. In Benin, a young medical doctor has launched a mass media literacy programme in Francophone Africa called Arya, on Twitter.

Their hashtag #AgirContreCOVID19 has reached more than 90,000 people. They are now developing an application than can disseminate COVID-19 information in local languages. The provision of information as a ‘right’ to citizens and as a mechanism to build trust, promote adherence to measures and build social cohesion has become more important now than ever before.

Control and oversight mechanisms help to improve transparency and accountability. The examples of the national assembly in the Gambia and the high court in Malawi that challenged proposals to extend the states of public emergency in their countries illustrate the importance of capable oversight mechanisms.

Finally, for many cash-strapped countries, the government’s COVID-19 response will benefit from close collaboration with the private sector, which in Africa is a hub of innovation. From Cameroon to Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco and others – businesses are transforming to produce necessary medical supplies and equipment and improve access to services through digital and mobile platforms.

As governments navigate these policy options it is clear that the most effective and sustainable responses to COVID-19 in Africa place people at the centre to preserve and strengthen social cohesion.

*This article originally appeared in Africa Renewal—a UN publication focusing on African news and analysis. www.un.org/africarenewal.

 

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');

The post COVID-19: Smarter Response & Recovery Measures Can Help Preserve Human Rights in Africa appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

“Social cohesion is built over years and is the result of policies that allow everybody in society to share in its sustainable prosperity,” Ahunna Eziakonwa, Director - UNDP Africa

The post COVID-19: Smarter Response & Recovery Measures Can Help Preserve Human Rights in Africa appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, Kanni Wignaraja and Bambang Susantono
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jul 27 2020 (IPS)

As lockdowns ease in countries across Asia and the Pacific in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, one thing is clear—a return to business as usual is unimaginable in a region that was already off track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The virtual High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development recently convened governments and stakeholders across the globe to focus on the imperative to build back better while keeping an eye on the Global Goals.

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana

Asia was the first to be hit by COVID-19 and feel its devastating social and economic impacts. Efforts to respond to the pandemic have revealed how many people in our societies live precariously close to poverty and hunger, without access to essential services. Between 90 million and 400 million people in Asia and the Pacific may be pushed back into poverty, living on less than $3.20 a day. Many countries are taking bold actions to minimize the loss of life and economic costs, estimated in May by ADB at $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion in the region alone.

Mission orientation and mobilizing fiscal and social support that realize the SDGs

As attention shifts from the immediate health and human effects of the pandemic to addressing its social and economic effects, governments and societies face unprecedented policy, regulatory and fiscal choices. The SDGs— a commitment to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development, globally, by 2030—can serve as a beacon in these turbulent times.

Our new joint report Fast-tracking the SDGs: Driving Asia Pacific Transformations, highlights six entry points for achieving the SDGs in the face of the pandemic. These include strengthening human well-being and capabilities, shifting towards sustainable and just economies, building sustainable food systems, achieving energy decarbonization and universal access to energy, promoting sustainable urban and peri-urban development, and securing the global environmental commons.

Each of these entry points has been disrupted by the pandemic. Yet, these disruptions may create opportunities for new approaches to deliver on SDG targets that reflect the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda.

What will it take to align systems and institutions with the SDGs as they build forward?

Kanni Wignaraja

The pandemic has exposed fragility and systemic gaps in many key systems. However, there are many workable strategies that countries have used, both before and after COVID-19, to accelerate progress related to development goals and strengthen resilience. Countries have taken steps to extend universal health care systems, strengthen social protection systems, including cash transfer and food distribution systems for vulnerable households. Accurate and regular data have been key to such efforts. Innovating to help the most disadvantaged access financing and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) credits have also been vital. Several countries have taken comprehensive approaches to various forms of discrimination, particularly related to gender and gender-based violence. Partnerships, including with the private sector and financing institutions, have played a critical role in fostering creative solutions. These experiences provide grounds for optimism.

Policy revolutions to manage complexity

Responses to the COVID-19 crisis must be centered on the well-being of people, empowering them and advancing equality. Driving change in the people-environment nexus to protect the health of people and natural resources is key to a future that does not repeat the crisis we are in today.

We need a revolution in policy mind-set and practice. Inclusive and accountable governance systems, adaptive institutions with resilience to future shocks, universal social protection and health insurance and stronger digital infrastructure are part of the transformations needed. All are driven by a low carbon and environmentally sustainable infrastructure and energy transition.

Bambang Susantono

Several countries in Asia and the Pacific are developing ambitious new strategies for green recovery and inclusive approaches to development. The Republic of Korea recently announced a New Deal based on two central pillars: digitization and decarbonization. Many countries in the Pacific, already proponents of ambitious clean energy targets and climate action, are focusing on “blue recovery,” seizing the opportunity to promote more sustainable approaches to fisheries management. India recently announced operating the largest solar power plant in the region. China is creating more jobs in the renewable energy sector than in fossil fuel industries. Many countries in our region are expanding social protection systems as part of COVID-19 recovery to go beyond a temporary patch and include the marginalized, such as informal sector workers.

Institutions such as the United Nations and ADB have mobilized to support a shared response to the crisis. Now it is vital that we enable countries to secure the support they need to go beyond, to achieve the SDGs.

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Kanni Wignaraja, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Bambang Susantono, Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

 

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');

The post A Determined Path to the SDGs in 2030 Despite the COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Inter Press Service.