Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

A solar power plant in El Salvador, with 320,000 panels, is one of the largest such installations in Central America, whose countries are striving to convert the energy mix to renewable sources, but whose plans were slowed by the covid pandemic. CREDIT: Edgardo Ayala/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, Oct 25 2021 (IPS)

Latin America and the Caribbean are heading to a new climate summit with a menu of insufficient measures to address the effects of the crisis, in the midst of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic.

The world’s most unequal region, which is the hardest hit by the effects of climate change and highly vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis, has yet to engage in the fight against this emergency head-on, according to analysts and studies.

Tania Miranda, director of Policy and Stakeholder Engagement in the Environment and Climate Change Programme of the U.S.-based non-governmental Institute of the Americas, said Latin America’s high climate ambitions have not been supported by the measures necessary to reduce emissions.

“Goals are aspirational. If they are not backed up with policies and financing, they remain empty promises. There is a need for financing and the implementation of strategies and public policies that will lead them to fulfill their commitments. Billions of dollars are needed,” the researcher told IPS from San Diego, California, where the Institute is based.

Miranda is the author of the report “Nationally Determined Contributions Across the Americas. A Comparative Hemispheric Analysis,” which evaluates the climate targets of 16 countries, including the United States and Canada.

In her study, she analyses pollutant emission reduction targets, plans for adaptation to the climate crisis, dependence on external financing, long-term carbon neutrality commitments and the state of pollution abatement.

Climate policies will be the focus of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which will take place Oct. 31 to Nov. 12 in Glasgow, Scotland in the north of the United Kingdom, after being postponed in that same month in 2020 due to the pandemic.

COP26 will address rules for carbon markets, at least 100 billion dollars annually in climate finance, the gaps between nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and the necessary reductions, strategies for carbon neutrality by 2050, adaptation plans, and the local communities and indigenous peoples platform.

A parallel alternative summit will also be held, bringing together social movements from around the world, advocating an early phase-out of fossil fuels, rejecting so-called “false solutions” such as carbon markets, and calling for a just energy transition and reparations for damage and redistribution of funds to indigenous communities and countries of the global South.

The Glasgow conference is considered the most important climate summit, due to the need to accelerate action in the face of alarming data on global warming since the adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP21, held in December 2015 in the French capital.

A zero-emission electric bus is parked on a downtown street in Montevideo. Public transport is beginning to electrify in Latin America’s cities as a way to contain CO2 emissions, but plans have been delayed and cut back due to the covid pandemic. CREDIT: Inés Acosta/IPS

Since then, 192 signatories to the binding treaty have submitted their first NDCs.

But just 13 countries worldwide sent their new climate contributions in 2020 to the UNFCCC Secretariat based in Bonn, despite calls from its secretary, Patricia Espinosa of Mexico, for all parties to the treaty to do so that year.

Of these, only four from this region – Argentina, Grenada, Mexico and Suriname – submitted the second updated version of their contributions.

Although they are voluntary commitments, the NDCs are a core part of the Paris Agreement, based on the goal of curbing the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, considered the minimum and indispensable target to avoid irreversible climate disasters and, consequently, human catastrophes.

In the NDCs, nations must set their goals for 2030 and 2050 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions responsible for global warming, taking a specific year as a baseline, outline the way they will achieve these goals, establish the peak year of their emissions and when they would achieve net zero emissions, i.e. absorb as many gases as they release into the atmosphere.

In addition, to contain the spread of the coronavirus and its impacts, the region has taken emergency economic decisions, such as providing support for companies of all sizes, as well as for vulnerable workers.

But these post-pandemic recovery packages lack green components, such as commitments to sustainable and cleaner production.

A street in Mexico City shows reduced traffic due to covid restrictions. Automotive transport is one of the largest generators of polluting emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean. But the transition to a cleaner vehicle fleet, with the increase in the number of electric vehicles and other alternatives, is moving very slowly. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

Shared irresponsibilities

While some countries, such as Argentina and Chile, improved their pledges, others like Brazil and Mexico scaled down or kept their pledges unchanged.

The measures of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia are in code red, as they are highly insufficient to contain global warming, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

In the case of the first three, the largest Latin American economies, the governments are prioritising the financing of increased fossil fuel exploitation, which would result in a rise in emissions in 2030, the Tracker highlights.

Chile’s and Peru’s measures are classified as insufficient and Costa Rica’s as almost sufficient.

That Central American nation, Colombia and Peru are on track to meet their commitments by 2030 and 2050, the Tracker notes.

In the case of Argentina, Chile and Ecuador, they would need additional measures to achieve their goals. At the other extreme are Brazil and Mexico, the biggest regional polluters, which have strayed from the medium- and long-term path.

Enrique Maurtúa, senior climate policy advisor for the non-governmental Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), said that Argentina is an example of the countries in the region that are caught between these contradictions.

“Argentina follows the line of what is happening in several countries in the region. In terms of commitments, it does its homework, what it is supposed to do, it is preparing a long-term strategy. But those commitments are not in line with what Argentina is doing behind closed doors,” the expert told IPS from Buenos Aires, where the Foundation is based.

As part of this approach, the Argentine Congress is debating a draft Hydrocarbon Investment Promotion Regime to provide fiscal stability to the sector for the next 20 years.

In addition, the government weakened the carbon tax, which averages a 10 dollar charge, through exemptions and the exclusion of gas, and is preparing a sustainable mobility strategy that dispenses with hydrogen.

Mexico is following a similar path, as the government favours support for the state-owned oil company Pemex and the government’s electric utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad, is building a refinery in the state of Tabasco, on the southeastern coast of the country, and has stalled actions aimed at an energy transition.

On Dec. 29, 2020, Mexico released its updated NDC, without increasing the emissions reduction target, to the disappointment of environmental organisations, and in contravention of the Paris Agreement and its own climate change law.

But on Oct. 1 it was reported that a federal court annulled the update, considering that there was an illegal reduction in the mitigation goals, so the 2016 measures remain in force until the government improves on them.

Isabel Bustamante, a member of the Fridays for Future Mexico movement who will attend COP26, questioned Mexico’s climate stance.

“It does not take a solid stance. We need declarations of climate emergency throughout the country and to make resources more readily available. We are concerned about the focus on more fossil fuel production,” she told IPS from the southeastern city of Mérida.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is facing pressure from the environmental sector, but does not seem adept at changing course. He is even sending mixed signals, such as his announcement on Oct. 18 that the country will raise climate targets in 2022.

At most service stations in Brazil, consumers can choose between gasoline and ethanol, the price of which is attractive when it does not exceed 70 percent of that of gasoline. But users only opt for biofuel when it is economically attractive, so it does not contribute to alleviating the emission of polluting gases. CREDIT: Mario Osava/IPS

The COP and the question marks it raises for the region

The UNFCCC stated in September that the NDCs presented are insufficient to curb warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Miranda believes COP26 could be beneficial for the region.

“Expectations are very high. We need the big polluters to be present. There will be pressure for tangible results. The region knows where its needs are, it has many opportunities to use ecosystems to reduce emissions,” she said.

Maurtúa, for his part, stresses that the main results will depend on the concrete financing and means of implementation of the Paris Agreement.

“Developed countries have to make financial contributions to the transition in developing countries. Industrialised nations are asking for more ambition, but they have to provide financing,” he argued.

In the expert’s opinion, “it is what the region needs. There are signs of willingness in Costa Rica, Colombia and Chile. But that is not happening in the case of Argentina or Mexico.”

For young people like Bustamante, the summit needs to offer more real action and fewer empty offers. “We expect an urgent climate action agenda to emerge. We need to stop investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, which compromises our near future. We will not stop until we do,” she said.

Under pressure due to the urgency of pending matters and within the constraints imposed by the pandemic, Glasgow could be a defining benchmark of a real global commitment to address the climate emergency, which is causing more and more destruction.

Related Articles

• Capture of CO2 and Hydrogen as Part of Latin America’s Energy Future

Excerpt:

This article is part of IPS coverage ahead of the COP26 climate change conference, to be held Oct. 31-Nov. 12 in Glasgow.

World military spending rose to almost two trillion dollars in 2020, an increase of 2.6 percent in real terms from 2019. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 25 2021 (IPS)

Hadn’t it been so worrisome, it would be ironic to hear that humanity is to mark the World Disarmament Week (Oct 24 to 30, 2021) barely six months after learning that the world’s biggest military powers had spent last year some 2,000,000,000,000 US dollars on killing machines.

And that the world’s nuclear arms arsenal is stuffed with some 150 atomic weapons, hundreds of which can be launched in just minutes.

Also that while the Nobel Peace Laureate, World Food Programme, has recently celebrated that the European Union –which comprises many of those military powers– provided just 2.5 million euro in humanitarian aid to support vulnerable refugees in Tanzania.

Or that while Afghanistan teeters on the brink of universal poverty and as much as 97% of Afghans could plunge into poverty by mid 2022, the International Organisation for Migration appealed last August for 24 million US dollars, which outlines immediate funding requirements in order to respond to pressing humanitarian needs in this Asian, war-torn country which suffered 20 years of military operations by the largest military spender powers.

 

What are all these weapons for?

In addition to national security arguments, part of such huge stockpiles of weapons has been used by the world’s largest military spenders, in ongoing wars on Afghanistan, Irak, Syria, Yemen, and Libya.

Another portion is being sold or trafficked to so-called ‘insurgent’ or ‘rebel’ groups, fuelling regional and local armed conflicts in at least a dozen of countries, including DR Congo, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Nigeria, among others.

 

Who spends the most?

But let’s go to some of the key findings included in last April’s report by the prestigious, independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament: the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):

. World military spending rose to almost two trillion dollars in 2020. This amount implied an increase of 2.6 percent in real terms from 2019. The increase came in a year when global gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 4.4 per cent, largely due to the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic,

. The five biggest spenders in 2020, which together accounted for 62 percent of global military expenditure, were the United States, China, India, Russia and the United Kingdom,

. Strong increase in US military spending continued in 2020, as the world’s biggest power’s military expenditure reached an estimated 778 billion dollars, representing an increase of 4.4 per cent over 2019, as it accounted for 39 percent of total military expenditure in 2020.

. China’s military expenditure, the second highest in the world, is estimated to have totalled 252 billion US dollars in 2020. This represents an increase of 76 percent over the decade 2011–20.

. Nearly all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) saw their military burden rise in 2020.

. Military spending across Europe rose by 4.0 percent in 2020.

 

Nuclear arsenals grow as states continue to modernise

Around a couple of months later, on 14 June 2021, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute launched the findings of its Yearbook 2021, which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security.

 

World nuclear forces, January 2021

Country Deployed warheads Other warheads Total 2021 Total 2020 USA 1 800 3 750 5 550 5 800 Russia 1 625 4 630 6 255 6 375 UK 120 105 225 215 France 280 10 290 290 China 350 350 320 India 156 156 150 Pakistan 165 165 160 Israel 90 90 90 North Korea [40–50] [40–50] [30–40] Total 3 825 9 255 13 080 13 400

Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2021.

 

One of its key findings is that despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2020, more have been deployed with operational forces.

The nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)—together possessed an estimated 13, 080 nuclear weapons at the start of 2021. This marked a decrease from the 13, 400 that SIPRI estimated these states possessed at the beginning of 2020.

2,000 nukes in “state of high operational alert’

Sipri’s yearbook 2021 explains that despite this overall decrease, the estimated number of nuclear weapons currently deployed with operational forces increased to 3,825, from 3,720 last year. Around 2,000 of these—nearly all of which belonged to Russia or the USA—were kept in a state of high operational alert.

Two countries, 90% of all nuclear weapons

Russia and the US together possess over 90 percent of global nuclear weapons. Both have extensive and expensive programmes under way to replace and modernise their nuclear warheads, missile and aircraft delivery systems, and production facilities, SIPRI concludes.

Last but not least: Everybody who goes to vote in elections should be aware that the slightest human or technical error or a hasty political judgement can kill every living thing on Planet Earth.

 

More facts

• In addition to China, both India (72.9 billion dollars), Japan (49.1 billion), South Korea (45.7 billion) and Australia (27.5 billion) were the largest military spenders in the Asia and Oceania region. All four countries increased their military spending between 2019 and 2020 and over the decade 2011–20.
• One of the poorest regions on Earth, sub-Saharan Africa increased its military expenditure by 3.4 percent in 2020 to reach 18.5 billion dollars. The biggest increases in spending were made by Chad (+31 percent), Mali (+22 percent), Mauritania (+23 percent) and Nigeria (+29 percent), all in the Sahel region, as well as Uganda (+46 percent).
• Military expenditure in South America fell by 2.1 percent to 43.5 billion dollars in 2020. The decrease was largely due to a 3.1 per cent drop in spending by Brazil, the sub-region’s largest military spender.
• Meanwhile, the combined military spending of the 11 Middle Eastern countries for which SIPRI has spending figures decreased by 6.5 per cent in 2020, to 143 billion dollars.

SOURCE: SIPRI

 

A child health consultation at Obunga Dispensary in Homa Bay, one of the eight counties participating in the malaria vaccine pilot program. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
Nairobi, Kenya, Oct 25 2021 (IPS)

One morning in 2016, Lillian Nekesa’s 3-year-old woke up with flu-like classic symptoms of malaria. This was not Kevin’s first encounter with the killer disease.

Kevin was nonetheless not immediately rushed to Busia County Referral Hospital for advanced treatment in keeping with his severe symptoms.

Nekesa rushed him to a village dispensary because the referral hospital is an hour’s walk away from their home in Mayenje, Busia County.

“Two days went by, and Kevin did not improve, and by the time we got him to the referral hospital, it was too late,” she recounts.

This is not an isolated incidence, says Desmond Wanjala, one of 10 Community Health Volunteers serving a Community Health Unit of 1,000 households in the area.

He says malaria is commonplace in Busia, situated near the Lake Victoria region. Malaria incidence in Busia is six times higher than the national average of 5.6 %.

Government estimates further show that counties around the lake region bear the highest malaria disease burden, with a prevalence rate of 19 %.

“Over 70 % of the population in Busia is at risk of malaria, and help is not always within reach, especially in emergencies. We are deep in the village, and the main mode of transport to the referral hospital is a motorbike that charges $2 to $5, which people struggle to afford,” he says.

Malaria is a primary health concern, as per World Health Organization (WHO) statistics. In 2019, malaria caused an estimated 229 million clinical episodes and 409,000 deaths.

Approximately 94 % of these deaths were recorded in the WHO African Region. In Kenya alone, about 3.5 million new clinical cases and 10,700 deaths are recorded annually, according to government data.

Against this backdrop, Dr Bernhards Ogutu, Malaria Lead Researcher at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), tells IPS that RTS,S with a brand name Mosquirix, has the potential to reverse this trend.

It is the only approved malaria vaccine.

Thirty years in the making, he says that Mosquirix is a lifeline for children, especially in rural malaria-endemic areas. He says that children continue to die despite free malaria treatment, largely due to late presentation to health facilities.

Currently piloted in Kenya, Ghana and Malawi, Dr Christopher Odero tells IPS that the vaccine targets infants and young children in Africa because it was developed to build immunity specifically against the plasmodium falciparum.

Odero, a technical advisor and specialist on malaria and vaccines at PATH, says that Plasmodium Falciparum is the world’s deadliest malaria parasite. The parasite is predominantly found in Africa, accounting for about 90 % of the total Plasmodium parasites on the continent. The female Anopheles mosquito transmits it.

He explained that the vaccine would work best in malaria-stricken regions of sub-Saharan Africa region and other areas of Africa with moderate-to-high malaria plasmodium falciparum transmission.

Odero emphasises that even though the reported vaccine efficacy is 40% against clinical malaria, the public health benefits of using this vaccine are enormous. The benefits of using the vaccine, alongside other malaria prevention measures endorsed by WHO, far outweigh the risks.

He particularly stresses that the vaccine is a complementary malaria control tool that should go hand-in-hand with the routine use of insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor spraying with insecticides and timely access to testing and treatment of malaria.

The potential impact of the vaccine cannot be ignored. Four out of 10 vaccinated children will not get malaria and, three out of 10 vaccinated children will not get severe malaria, says Odero.

He says the vaccine takes the pressure off resource-strapped health systems as six of 10 vaccinated children with severe malaria would not require a blood transfusion.

In Western Kenya, home to the ongoing pilot program across eight counties, Odero says that the vaccine can reduce the average episodes of malaria attacks per child from five to two per year. A crucial outcome as repeated malaria attacks can have lifelong effects such as chronic anaemia and stunted growth.

This proven capacity to reduce child deaths, severe malaria, and safety in the context of routine use has informed WHO’s policy recommendation on the broader use of the vaccine, he says.

Ogutu agrees, emphasising that the vaccine quality and risk-benefit profile are favourable. The feasibility of implementation, potential public health impact and likely cost-effectiveness of rolling out the vaccine are not in doubt.

Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, he says that the vaccine has achieved equitable coverage. Ogutu says that at least 250,000 children in Kenya have already received all four recommended doses, and they will remain in the pilot program until 2022.

Ogutu says that there is a need for continued assessment to gather additional information on the vaccine’s effectiveness over a more extended period and assess long-term effects on the community and any other issues that could emerge with routine use of the vaccine.

The ongoing pilot malaria vaccination program is financed through the collaboration of three global health funding bodies: Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Unitaid.

Additionally, WHO, PATH and GSK are providing in-kind contributions. GSK, for instance, the vaccine manufacturer, will donate up to 10 million doses of Mosquirix. To date, over 2.3 million doses have been administered across Kenya, Ghana, and Malawi.

Ogutu says that the vaccine could be available for broader use in Kenya in the next year to 18 months – a step in the right direction for all children at risk and the coastal areas near the Indian Ocean and Lake Victoria region.
He cautions against vaccine-related myths and misconceptions associated with any new vaccine that could compromise the use of the ground-breaking scientific innovation.

To increase and sustain a high vaccine coverage, Wanjala urges the government to continue supporting the training on vaccines for community health volunteers (CHVs). The CHVs remain the primary link between communities in rural areas and health facilities.

As of 2019, Kenya had about 6,000 Community Health Units out of a targeted 10,000 units supported by at least 86,000 community health volunteers like Wanjala.

“Each community health unit is supported by ten community health volunteers. We need support to use this community system to promote vaccine uptake,” Wanjala concludes.

 

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

• Innovative Use of World’s First Malaria Vaccine Generates Remarkable Results and a Life-Saving Opportunity
• http://www.ipsnews.net/2021/09/leprosy-cure-prejudice-says-miss-universe-brazil/
• On World Malaria Day, We Must Step Up Efforts to Combat Malaria

Food insecurity increases by 5–20 percentage points with each flood or drought in sub-Saharan Africa.

Changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures and more extreme weather contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa in 2020, compounding the socio-economic and health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new multi-agency report coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Credit: WMO

By Claudia Sadoff and Joachim von Braun
WASHINGTON DC, Oct 25 2021 (IPS)

The global food system is facing more demands from society than ever before in modern times – and rightly so.

From responding to the climate crisis to dealing with rising malnutrition and ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources and protection of biodiversity, the responsibility of our food systems is no longer just to “feed the world.”

The recent action agenda released by the UN Secretary General at the Food Systems Summit not only highlighted this urgency but reminded us that our food systems are also one of our greatest hopes for making progress on these fronts.

While the US$10 billion pledged by the United States to end hunger and malnutrition is a welcome start, our food systems have been forced to cope with an increasingly complex, interconnected set of challenges for too long – often without a corresponding shift in focus from governments and other key players.

The changes required also need sufficient funding for food systems transformation, estimated to be in the range of $400 billion per year. This goal is within reach and is roughly comparable to three times New York City’s annual budget or less than 0.5 percent of world GDP in 2020.

Food systems transformation also requires impactful innovations, so particular importance in this funding should therefore be placed on investment in research and innovation.

Increased and sustained funding for research and innovation is crucial, as the world requires technological, policy and institutional innovation to address the increasingly complex set of challenges that are facing, and threatening, food, land and water systems in a climate crisis.

Investments in agricultural research and innovation generate significant returns. Benefit-cost ratios of CGIAR research, for example, have shown consistent returns on investments to the order of 10:1.

Despite this, international agricultural research remains underfunded, threatening food, economic, and environmental security around the world, whilst hunger and poverty continue to rise.

In addition to securing funding for research and innovation, research itself must evolve to address the growing challenges around the world. In particular, research efforts should favour more circular business models that are driven by value, rather than volume, and those that promote resilience to shocks and balance with nature over more environmentally damaging models.

We must also ensure that more research translates into concrete innovations that truly advance food systems transformation. While we desperately need technological innovations to increase productivity, reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition, as well as climate proofing our food systems and making them more equitable, such innovations can only be taken forward if they are bundled with appropriate national policies, institutional changes and global actions, and strategies to deal with shocks and conflict.

Sometimes the implementation of innovations inevitably involves trade-offs, not only synergies. Research and innovation efforts will be crucial to understanding and managing such trade-offs, as well as to help ensure that interconnected challenges are tackled in the most efficient and holistic way.

To both achieve and maximize the potential of research and innovation, governments of the world should consider allocating just one per cent of the portion of their national GDP that relates to food systems, towards research and innovation.

At present, many countries, including many of the world’s richest, only spend half of this. For the least developed countries, aid will be needed to reach such a level, potentially through a special trust fund backed by the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

Such a fund, when properly backed by developed countries, would help to support greater scientific capacity on the ground in low- and middle-income countries, which will be needed if we are to address the challenges facing the whole world, not just the developed world.

Today’s agri-food systems no longer simply feed people. They must also provide nutrition, promote livelihoods, protect the environment, and tackle climate change – often all at once. Financing and unlocking innovations are needed to address these challenges together.

If our food, land and water systems are ever able to achieve society’s mounting demands, we must ensure our priorities are in order and begin to properly finance them.

Ultimately, all of the ambition generated around the UN Food Systems Summit will fall short if we fail to finance the new research and innovation we know we need.

Claudia Sadoff is Executive Management Team Convener, and Managing Director, Research Delivery and Impact, CGIAR; Joachim von Braun is Chair of the Scientific Group, UN Food Systems Summit

 

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');  

Girls' sexual and reproductive rights activist Mía Calderón stands on San Martín Avenue in San Juan de Lurigancho, the most populous municipality of Peru's capital. She complained that the pandemic once again highlighted the fact that sexual violence against girls comes mainly from someone close to home and that the girls are often not believed. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

By Mariela Jara
LIMA, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

“During the pandemic, sexual violence against girls has grown because they have been confined with their abusers. If the home is not a safe place for them, what is then, the streets?” Mía Calderón, a young activist for sexual and reproductive rights in the capital of Peru, remarks with indignation.

The 19-year-old university student, whose audiovisual communications studies have been interrupted due to the restrictions set in place to curb the covid-19 pandemic, is an activist who belongs to the youth collective Vayamos in San Juan de Lurigancho, the district of Lima where she lives.

Located to the northeast of the capital, it is a district of valleys and highlands areas higher than 2200 metres above sea level, where water is a scarce commodity and is supplied by tanker trucks. San Juan de Lurigancho was created 54 years ago and its population of 1,117,629 inhabitants, according to official figures, is mostly made up of families who have come to the capital from the country’s hinterland.

Lima’s 43 districts are home to a total of 9.7 million people, and San Juan de Lurigancho has by far the largest population.

In an interview with IPS during a walk through the streets of her district, Calderón said she helped one of her friends during the mandatory social isolation decreed in this Andean nation between March and July 2020, which has been followed by further restrictions on mobility at times of new covid-19 outbreaks.

Since then, classrooms have been closed and education has continued virtually from home, where girls spend most of their time.

“She was in lockdown with her two sisters, her mother and stepfather. But she left before her stepfather could rape her; the harassment had become unbearable. Now she is very afraid of what might happen to her little sisters because he’s still living at home,” she said.

But not all girls and adolescents at risk of sexual abuse have support networks to rely on.

An intersection with hardly any passers-by in San Juan de Lurigancho, one of the 43 districts of the Peruvian capital. There are now fewer children on the streets because schools have been closed since the beginning of the covid pandemic and they receive their education virtually. This keeps them safe from violence in public spaces, but increases the abuse they suffer at home. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

Data that exposes the violence

Official statistics reveal a devastating reality: Between early 2020 and August of this year there have been 1763 births to girls under 14 years of age, according to the Health Ministry’s birth registration system (CNV).

All of these pregnancies and births are considered to be the result of rape, as the concept of sexual consent does not apply to girls under 14, who are protected by Peruvian law.

Looking at CNV figures from 2018 to August 2021, the total number increases to 4483, which would mean that on average five girls under the age of 14 give birth in Peru every day.

This is also the conclusion reached by the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defence of Women’s Rights (Cladem), which in September completed a nationwide study on forced child pregnancy in Peru, published on Tuesday, Oct. 19.

For Cladem, forced child pregnancy is any pregnancy of a minor under 14 years of age resulting from rape, who was not guaranteed access to therapeutic abortion, which in the case of Peru is the only form of legal termination of pregnancy.

“These figures are unacceptable, but we know they may be even worse because of underreporting,” Lizbeth Guillén, who until August was the Peruvian coordinator of this Latin American network whose regional headquarters are in Lima, told IPS by telephone.

The activist headed up the project “Monitoring and advocacy for the prevention, care and punishment of forced child pregnancy” which was funded by the United Nations Trust Fund to End Violence against Women between 2018 and August 2021.

An aggravating factor for at risk girls and adolescents was that during the months of lockdown, public services for addressing violence against women were suspended and the only thing available was toll-free telephone numbers, which made it more difficult for victims to file complaints.

“What we have experienced shows us once again that homes are the riskiest places for girls,” said Guillén.

The Cladem study also reveals that the number of births to girls under 10 years of age practically tripled, climbing from nine cases in 2019 to 24 in 2020. And the situation remains worrisome, as seven cases had already been documented this year as of August.

Julia Vargas, 61, works in the municipality of Villa El Salvador, south of Lima, where she has lived since the age of 11 and where she maintains her vocation of service as a health promoter. Through this work she knows first-hand about sexual violence against girls and adolescents, which she says has worsened during the pandemic since they have been confined to their homes with their potential abusers. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

One district’s experience

“Sexual violence against girls has been indescribable during this period, worse than covid-19 itself. Men have been taking advantage of their daughters, they think they have authority over them,” said Julia Vargas, a local resident of Villa El Salvador.

This municipality, which emerged as a self-managed experience five decades ago to the south of the capital, offers health promotion as part of its public services to the community.

Vargas, a 61-year-old mother of four grown children, is proud to be a health promoter, for which she has received training from the Health Ministry and from non-governmental organisations such as the Flora Tristán Peruvian Women’s Centre.

“It’s hard to conceive of so much violence against girls,” she told IPS indignantly at a meeting in her district, “and the worst thing is that many times the mothers turn a blind eye; they say if he (their partner) leaves, who is going to support me.”

Studies indicate that women’s economic dependence is a factor that prevents them from exercising autonomy and reinforces unequal power relations that sustain gender-based violence.

Vargas continued: “There was a case of a father who got his three daughters pregnant and made them have clandestine abortions, and do you think the justice system did anything? Nothing! It said there was consent, how can a young girl give consent?!”

“Girls can’t be mistreated this way, they have rights,” she said.

Mía Calderón, a 19-year-old youth activist with the Vayamos collective, demands more and better measures in Peru to defend girls from sexual violence, fueled by the closure of schools since the beginning of the pandemic, which keeps them isolated and in homes where they sometimes live with their abusers. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

The culprit nearby

Calderón is also familiar with this situation. “The pandemic has highlighted the fact that sexual violence comes mainly from someone close to home and that many times the girls are not believed: ‘you provoked your uncle, your stepfather’, they are told by their families, instead of focusing on the abuser,” she said.

Her collective Vayamos works to help girls have the right to enjoy every stage of their lives. Due to the pandemic, the group had to restrict its face-to-face activities, but as a counterbalance, it increased the publication of content on social networks.

“No girl or adolescent should live in fear of sexual violence or should face any such risk,” she said.

However, Cladem’s research indicates that between 2018 and 2020, there were 12,677 complaints of sexual violence against girls under 14 in the country, the cause of many forced pregnancies.

But official statistics do not differentiate between child and adolescent pregnancy.

The 2019 National Health Survey reported that of the female population between 15 and 19 years of age, 12.6 percent had been pregnant or were already mothers. The percentage in rural areas was higher than the national rate: 22.7 percent.

Youth activist Mia Calderón, health promoter Julia Vargas and Cladem member Lizbeth Guillén all agree on the proposal to decriminalise abortion in cases of rape and on the need for timely delivery of emergency kits by public health services to prevent forced pregnancies and maternity.

These kits contain emergency contraceptive pills, HIV and hepatitis tests, among other components for comprehensive health protection for victims.

“There are regulatory advances such as this joint action protocol between the Ministry of Women and the Health Ministry for a girl victim of violence to access the emergency kit, but in practice it is not complied with due to the personal conceptions of some operators and they deprive the victims of this right,” explained Guillén.

She stressed that in order to overcome the weak response of the State to such a serious problem, it is also necessary to adequately implement existing regulations, guarantee access to therapeutic abortion for girls and adapt prevention strategies, since the danger often lies directly in the home.

Sibonisiwe Hlanze is one of 600 women who are allowed to harvest reeds from the Lawuba Wetland in Lawuba, Eswatini. Hlanze’s income and security is dependent on reliable weather patterns. The Commonwealth has deployed top climate finance advisors to Eswatini, Belize, Seychelles and Zambia assist with the NDCs. Credit: Mantoe Phakathi/IPS

By Samuel Ogallah
Eswatini, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

There is no country today that has not experienced the effects of climate change, from changing weather patterns to extreme, devastating weather events.

The Kingdom of Eswatini is no exception.

Climate change is already affecting the country and key sectors of its economy. It is already having to adapt to pronounced climate change impacts, including significant variations in precipitation patterns, higher temperatures, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events such as droughts, floods, and cyclones.

In 2015, at the United Nation’s annual global climate summit COP 21, the Paris Agreement was hammered. In 2016 Eswatini joined many other countries in signing up to the Paris Agreement, a landmark agreement committing nations to a global effort to tackle climate change.

Article 4 of that agreement commits national governments to provide a National Determined Contribution (NDC) every five years.

The Government of Eswatini submitted its first NDC to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015. But since then, technology, policies, partnerships, data, and stakeholder engagement for climate action have all advanced.

In preparing its second NDC, the government looked to take these advances into account. It went back and reviewed what it had done in 2015 and sought to this time provide an NDC with even greater ambition.

Over a period of 18 months, an inclusive process of assessment, analysis, and modelling of climate change, informed by data and science, was implemented to revise the NDC.

Climate change will affect everyone, and as such, the government put stakeholder participation at the heart of the revision process.

Adopting ‘a whole of government and society approach’ it held over twenty stakeholders’ consultations including virtual and physical workshops. A review of national gender policy to integrate climate change was also carried out.

The process was not always smooth though. There were significant hurdles, not least the Covid-19 pandemic which not only delayed the expected submission of NDCs at the end of 2020 but impacted Eswatini’s technical capacity to undertake such a nationwide participatory stakeholder’s consultative process.

However, these challenges were overcome, and the revised NDC, submitted to the UNFCCC just days ago ahead of COP26, represents an ambitious step-up from its 2015 predecessor.

It adopts an economy-wide GHG emissions reduction target of 5% by 2030 compared to the baseline scenario[1] to help achieve low carbon and climate-resilient economic development. It also includes a provision to raise this target to 14% with external financing, technology, and technical support. This translates to 1.04 million tonnes fewer GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a baseline scenario.

Meanwhile, the revised NDC sets out clear mitigation and adaptation targets along with a comprehensive roadmap, and incorporates new sectors for mitigation and adaptation action.

Alone, however, the ambition of this NDC will not be enough.

The opportunity created by the Paris Agreement comes with an important challenge – to transform the NDC into tangible actions that lead to long term zero-carbon and climate-resilient development.

The effective implementation of the revised NDC is contingent on several factors, key among these being the availability of external support in terms of the provision of means of implementation (finance, technology development, and transfer and capacity building) and domestic resources.

Climate finance must be mobilised at scale to address the adaptation and mitigation component of the NDC.

The revision process delivered a number of key lessons, one of which was that wide-ranging support and partnership – a long list of external groups including the Commonwealth Secretariat, United Nations’ bodies (UNEP, UNDP, FAO), and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) among others, provided help during the process – is crucial to achieving goals.

And it will only be with similarly broad co-operation with, and support from, international and domestic sources that Eswatini will be able to fully achieve the ambitious potential of its NDC.

The total estimated cost of NDC action for Eswatini is between $950 million and $1.5 billion by 2030.

The support of developed country governments, development partners, international organisations, the private sector, and civil society organisations will be critical to help deliver on Eswatini’s revised NDC targets.

Eswatini’s NDC process has shown that with partnership and help, ambitious plans can be laid.

The country calls on partners, fellow governments, and all those with a similar commitment to a zero-carbon, climate-resilient future, to help Eswatini turn its NDC plans into tangible achievements – for the good of the whole planet.

Support from the Commonwealth Secretariat: The Commonwealth Secretariat partnered with the NDC Partnership under its Climate Action Enhancement Package (CAEP) Programme to support four Commonwealth member countries – Belize, Eswatini, Jamaica and Zambia – through in-country technical expertise, capacity building and targeted support on climate finance for expediting the implementation of each country’s NDCs.

Technical and institutional support was provided through the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH).

The CCFAH and the Commonwealth National Climate Finance Advisers supported these countries through different and complementary interventions, by developing and deploying different climate finance tools and strategies tailored to the strategic priorities of the member countries.

These have included climate finance landscapes and mapping, the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR), developing strategies such as Climate Finance Strategy and Private Sector engagement strategy, mapping of climate finance for NDC implementation, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of climate finance, developing climate-sensitive gender policy, as well as climate change project concepts and proposals.

These interventions provided a vital experience for future NDC processes.

• The baseline scenario was developed based on historic GHG emissions between 2010 and 2017 and an updated scenario showing the change in GHG emissions between 2018 and 2030
• The author is the Commonwealth National Climate Finance Adviser to Eswatini.

 

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

• How Land Management Can Restore Hope to Women in Rural Kenya
• Mangrove Blue Carbon for Climate Change Mitigation
• In a Watershed Year for Climate Change, the Commonwealth Secretary-General calls for Urgent, Decisive and Sustained Climate Action

Credit: UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

The British novelist George Orwell’s “1984” characterized a dystopian society where people were restricted from independent thought and were victims of constant surveillance.

Published in 1949, it was a prophecy of the future with the underlying theme: “Big Brother is Watching You”

Fast forward to 2021

We are back in “1984” where all our movements are monitored—this time by surveillance cameras planted in New York city streets, expressways, public parks, subways, shopping malls, and parking lots– in violation of personal privacy and civil rights.

According to an article in the New York Times last month, the New York Police Department (NYPD) has continued its mass surveillance– which began following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 (9/11) on the World Trade Centre in New York city– uninterruptedly.

The Times said New Yorkers simply going about their daily lives routinely encounter post-9/11 digital surveillance tools like facial recognition software, license plate readers or mobile X-ray vans that can see through car doors.

“Surveillance drones hover above mass demonstrations and protesters say they have been questioned by antiterrorism officers after marches”.

But the United States is not alone.

Perhaps it is now fast becoming a world-wide phenomenon – as electronic surveillance spreads across Western Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

Electronic surveillance devices. Credit: UN Women

According to a new study by the African Digital Rights Network, released October 21, mass surveillance is being carried out by governments in six countries in Africa– Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Sudan– with existing laws failing to protect the legal rights of citizens.

The study, described as the first systematic comparison of surveillance laws in Africa, comes at a time of rising concerns of digital “surveillance creep” as technologies become more sophisticated and more intrusive in our day-to-day lives.

“Many governments have expanded their powers for surveillance and access to personal data during Covid-19,” the study notes.

The African Digital Rights Network is a network of 30 activists, analysts and academics from 12 African countries who are focused on the study of digital citizenship, surveillance and disinformation. It is convened by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), a global leading research and policy think tank.

Dr Tony Roberts, Research Fellow at the UK-based IDS, and co-author of the report, says “States do need surveillance powers, to prevent terrorist atrocities, but to be consistent with human rights such powers must only be narrowly-targeted on the most serious crime, used when strictly necessary, and proportionate to need”.

He points out that citizens need to be more aware of their privacy rights and of the surveillance activities undertaken by their governments. Legislation can usefully define checks and balances to protect citizens’ rights and provide transparency.

“But civil society needs the capacity to monitor surveillance practice and hold government accountable to the law,” he noted.

Asked if state surveillance was also widespread in Western Europe, Dr Roberts told IPS: “Yes, state surveillance of citizens is on the rise in western Europe.”

He pointed out that digital technologies have made it much easier and cheaper for states to surveil citizens. It used to take a whole team of people to stake out a target, tap physical phone lines, record, transcribe and analyze the data for a single target.

“Now searches of internet and mobile communications are automated using artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms”.

He said the Cambridge Analytics scandal showed how social media surveillance is used by political parties in the UK and US.

“The Snowden revelations showed how governments in western Europe and the US systematically conduct mass surveillance on citizens. The Pegasus spyware case showed how states are using malware to spy on the French President, opposition leaders, judges, and journalists,” he added.

Meanwhile, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division, re-designed in 2002 to confront Al Qaeda operatives, now uses antiterror tactics to fight gang violence and street crime in New York city.

According to the Times, the Police Department has poured resources into expanding its surveillance capabilities. The department’s budget for intelligence and counterterrorism has more than quadrupled, spending more than $3 billion since 2006, and more through funding streams that are difficult to quantify, including federal grants and the secretive Police Foundation, a nonprofit that funnels money and equipment to the department from benefactors and donors.

Current and former police officials say the tools have been effective in thwarting dozens of would-be attacks. And the department has an obligation, they say, to repurpose its counterterrorism tools for everyday crime fighting, the Times said.

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, was quoted as saying her organization was already concerned with creepinpolice surveillance in the 1990s; not long before the attacks, the group had mapped out every camera it could find in the
city. In hindsight, she said, the exercise would prove naïve.

“We made a map, and we had dots — we had pins at that time — where there were cameras. And when we did that, there were a couple of thousands,” Lieberman said. “We repeated the survey at some point after 9/11, and there were too many cameras to count.”

Meanwhile, the new report also identifies Egypt and Sudan as countries where citizens’ rights to privacy were least protected. This is due to a combination of weak legal protections, weak civil society to hold the state to account and increased state or government investment in surveillance technologies.

In contrast, despite the government in South Africa also violating privacy law, the country’s strong civil society, independent court and media successfully force the government to improve its surveillance law and practices.

Overall, the research identified six factors that mean existing surveillance law is failing to protect the privacy rights of citizens in each of the six countries:

(a) the introduction of new laws that expand state surveillance powers
(b) a lack of legal precision and privacy safeguards in surveillance law
(c) the increased supply of new surveillance technologies that enable illegitimate surveillance
(d) state agencies regularly conducting surveillance outside of what is permitted in law
(e) current impunity for those committing illegitimate acts of surveillance
(f) weak civil society unable to hold the state fully accountable in law

Dr Roberts told IPS increased surveillance is a violation of civil rights, specifically the right to privacy.

“I used to live in London when it had the highest CCTV density in the world. Now Seoul, Paris and Boston hold that dubious record. And New York is catching up fast”

He said evidence suggests that Black neighbourhoods are more heavily surveilled than White neighbourhoods. The problem becomes worse when facial recognition technology is combined with the CCTV camera and linked to identity databases to conduct pervasive invasive surveillance.

“Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed in law. All surveillance is a violation of those civil rights.”

“We give police the legal ability to conduct narrow and limited surveillance of the most serious criminals. However, any other form of non-consensual (prior consent) surveillance violates fundamental rights and mass surveillance of citizens not accused of any crime is never justified in domestic law or in international human rights law.

Nor is it inevitable. In Los Angeles the prevalence of CCTV cameras is relatively low and facial recognition technology is banned, said Dr Roberts.

After 9/11, the Police in New York city also spied on Muslims, including social and religious gatherings and mosques.

Just after the 9/11 attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) visited my neighbors to check my “credentials” — possibly to find out whether, as a journalist, I was a “good Muslim or a bad Muslim” by American standards.

I was both a Muslim and a journalist – a double jeopardy.

At the John F. Kennedy airport after the 9/11 attacks, and at a time of widespread racial profiling, one of the security officers confiscated my razor, probably assuming it could be used as a dangerous weapon, which was in my hand-carrying luggage when I embarked on a flight to Europe.

I looked at him and said with a mischievous smile: “You take my razor away from me. And if I grow a beard, you call me an Islamic fundamentalist. Either way, I lose.”

 

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

By SWAN
PARIS, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

How does injustice make you feel? Do you see yourself as a perpetrator, or as a victim? Is there any such thing as neutrality? These are some of the questions that Dorian Sari asks through artwork, which includes blurry photographs with violently shattered glass frames.

The award-winning Turco-Swiss artist – who uses the pronoun they – has a solo booth at the current International Contemporary Art Fair in Paris (FIAC), and their work invites viewers to  question reactions and stances when it comes to societal norms. Who, for instance, has thrown the stone that is glued to the cracked glass?

“When people look at this, they rarely see themselves as the perpetrator, but we all do things that exclude others,” says Sari, who is represented by Turkish gallery Öktem Aykut, one of 170 galleries taking part in FIAC this year.

Dorian Sari with artwork at FIAC. Credit: AM/SWAN.

On from Oct. 21 to 24, the annual fair did not happen in 2020 because of Covid-19, and its return sees a range of artwork addressing global political and pandemic issues. Sari, who studied political science and literature before art, wonders however if the world has learned anything from the events of the past two years.

The works on display – a tiny chewed-up whistle, a retractable “wall” with spaces for communication if one wishes, two large photographs and a book titled Texts on Post-Truth, Violence, Anger are meant to spark even deeper reflections about identity and affiliation. (The book was published by the Kunstmuseum Basel when Sari had an exhibition earlier this year, after winning the Manor Art Prize – an award that promotes young visual artists working in Switzerland.)

The intended discomfort is even evident in Sari’s choice of title: “Ding-dong, the itch is back!”, and countries aren’t exempt. Can a nation claim neutrality when they sell arms, the artist also asks, through an illustration showing a gun emitting a red flag that has a white “x” in the middle.

Sari took time out from their busy schedule at FIAC to discuss these concerns. Following is the edited interview.

SWAN: What inspires your work?

SARI: My latest research was on the topic of post-truth, a political adjective for what’s happening in the 21st century. It means that we’re bombarded with information every day, but at the same time nobody knows if this information is true or not. We also live in a technological period where algorithms … just want people to consume more. To keep you on the platform, they show you something that you like, then a more radical version, and then something even more radical. There is so much polarisation and separation in the world, and this is one of my biggest interests. At the FIAC, I’m showing some of the works I showed at the Kunstmuseum in Basel and also at Öktem Aykut in Istanbul. With this series of photographs, I was interested in seeing the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator because we always think that what we do is the right thing, and it is always others’ fault. I wanted to change this position. Whoever is looking at the photograph is the stone-thrower but even though I give this position, people still prefer to identify as the victim. But even if you’re neither, and you’re just watching and being silent, that third option is also problematic.

The exterior of the art fair venue in Paris. Credit: AM/SWAN.

SWAN: What is behind the “itch” in the title of the photograph series?

SARI: It’s a series of 10 photos, and the “itch is back” means there’s an uncomfortable feeling inside, so you scratch your body. Maybe this discomfort comes because there’s something that the stone-thrower doesn’t want to know, doesn’t want to see. It can be anything.

SWAN: So, the aim is to make us question our own itch?

SARI: Exactly. And to question what we reject, what we throw stones at in daily life, because we do it so much. We exclude so many things. I always believe we’re separated through the adjectives: the moment we’re born, they tell us our gender, they tell us our nationality, they tell us our religion, they tell us our social class, language, everything. Everything is automatically put on us, and it’s already part of our separation because one group doesn’t want the other group, and di-di-di-di-di-di. But after all, I believe in love, and I believe love doesn’t have a gender, race, social class. Love is love.

SWAN: And the whistle?

SARI: There are so many people who wear a whistle as a necklace, or carry it on a keychain or in their bag, so that in case of something violent in the streets, they can raise an alarm, make their voices heard. Or, in case there’s an earthquake… I was thinking that someone could have so much fear and anxiety, waiting for something to happen. And the whistle could be like a pencil – when you don’t use it, you chew on the end. And I thought that someone waiting for something bad to happen would chew on the whistle. So, it’s like auto-destruction: you eat your own voice in order to be heard because of fear.

 

One of the lingering effects of the food price crisis of 2007-08 on the world food system is the proliferating acquisition of farmland in developing countries by other countries seeking to ensure their food supplies. Credit: Bigstock

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

“Imagine that the land your family has worked for generations is suddenly stripped away from you, purchased by wealthy companies or governments to produce food or bio-fuels or simply as a profitable investment for other people, often far away. You watch on helplessly as vast tracts of land are cleared for mono-culture crops and rivers are polluted with run-off and chemicals.”

Unfortunately, this is happening all around the world – in particular in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Oceania and Eastern Europe.

Perhaps this is one of the most appropriate introductions to the worldwide extended practice of ‘land grabbing’, as mentioned by a global grassroots organisation, founded in 1989 to prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, and “counteract the rise of fast life and combat people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from and how our food choices affect the world around us.”

 

What is land grabbing?

Land grabbing is a practice consisting of the purchase or lease of large tracts of fertile land by public or private entities, a phenomenon that rose significantly following the 2007-2008 world food economic crisis, describes the Slow Food organisation.

"Imagine waking up one day to be told you’re about to be evicted from your home—being told that you no longer have the right to remain on land that you’ve lived on for years. And then, if you refuse to leave, you will be forcibly removed. For many communities in developing countries, this is a familiar story"

Today land grabbing involves millions of hectares, equivalent to an area as big as Spain, and it continues to spread relentlessly, it adds.

“Transferring large parcels of agricultural land away from local communities threatens food sovereignty and their very existence. It also jeopardises the environment and biodiversity by favouring intensive monoculture farming reliant on fertilisers and pesticides.”

Maybe you would like to know that, since its beginnings, Slow Food has grown into a global movement involving millions of people in over 160 countries, working to ensure that everyone has access to good, clean and fair food.

“One of the lingering effects of the food price crisis of 2007-08 on the world food system is the proliferating acquisition of farmland in developing countries by other countries seeking to ensure their food supplies.”

In other words, land grabbing is the practice of large-scale land acquisitions: the buying or leasing of large pieces of fertile land by private corporations or state-owned companies, governments, and individuals.

 

Who are land-grabbers?

Such private corporations, including the so-called “vulture funds”, are financial, business holdings dedicated to making large profits from buying agricultural lands, forests, real estate properties, mines for the extraction of all sorts of materials that are indispensable for large industries, mostly based in rich countries, in particular for giant technological corporations.

Let alone vast extensions of lands acquired or leased in developing countries, for the purpose of cultivating and exporting highly profitable commercial crops. Also of forests, to be exploited by timber industries.

The practice of land grabbing as used in the 21st century refers to large-scale land acquisitions or leasing for periods ranging between 25 years to 99 years, following the 2007–08 world food price crisis.

Through it, the purchasers pay an amount of money per hectare, and sometimes a portion of the food produced from such fertile soils.

In most cases the grabbing operations are done under a legal umbrella.

 

The impacts

The consequences of these practices are harsh.

In the case of grabbing farming lands, they imply the depletion of soil fertility, the use of huge amounts of often scarce water resources —water grabbing—, the pollution of both soils and water courses with chemicals, the shrinking of local farming, the expropriation of a high number of hectares, all this, among others, leading an increasing food insecurity in developing countries and, thus, their growing dependence of food imports.

 

What extension?

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimated in 2009 that between 15 and 20 million hectares of farmland in developing countries had changed hands since 2006.

The estimated value has been calculated for IFPRI’s 2009 data to be 15 to 20 million hectares of farmland in developing countries, worth about 20 billion-30 billion US dollars.

For its part, the Land Portal reports that ‘investments’ made by investors within their home country and after stripping these out found only 26 million hectares of transnational land acquisitions which strips out a lot of the Asian investments.

Other reports inform that Brazil, with 11 percent, is among the largest developing countries targeted, followed by Sudan with 10 percent.

 

Who are the big grabbers?

GRAIN or the international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems, says that the United States, the United Arab Emirates and China all constitute around 12 percent of these deals, followed by India with 8 percent; the UK with 6 percent; South Korea with 5 percent; South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Malaysia all with 4 percent.

Meanwhile, estimates cited by Wikipedia concerning the scope of land acquisition, published in September 2010 by the World Bank, showed that over 460,000 square kilometres or 46,000,000 hectares in large-scale farmland acquisitions or negotiations were announced between October 2008 and August 2009 alone, with two-thirds of demanded land concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

It also provides citations indicating that investors can be generally broken down into three types: agribusinesses, governments, and speculative investors. Governments and companies in Gulf States have been very prominent along with East Asian companies.

And that many European- and American-owned investment vehicles and agricultural producers have initiated investments as well. These actors have been motivated by a number of factors, including cheap land, potential for improving agricultural production, and rising food and bio-fuel prices.

Also that food-driven investments, which comprise roughly 37 percent of land investments worldwide, are undertaken primarily by two sets of actors: agribusinesses trying to expand their holdings and react to market incentives, and government-backed investments, especially from the Gulf states, as a result of fears surrounding national food security.

 

The truth about land grabs

Should all this not be sufficient, here is another explanatory introduction to the human impact of land grabbing as cited by Oxfam America:

“Imagine waking up one day to be told you’re about to be evicted from your home—being told that you no longer have the right to remain on land that you’ve lived on for years. And then, if you refuse to leave, you will be forcibly removed. For many communities in developing countries, this is a familiar story.”

In the past decade, adds Oxfam, more than 81 million acres of land worldwide—an area the size of Portugal—has been sold off to foreign investors. Some of these deals are what’s known as land grabs: land deals that happen without the free, prior, and informed consent of communities that often result in farmers being forced from their homes and families left hungry.

 

The global rush for land is leaving people hungry

Oxfam also explains that the 2008 spike in food prices triggered a rush in land deals.

“While these large-scale land deals are supposedly being struck to grow food, the crops grown on the land rarely feed local people. Instead, the land is used to grow profitable crops—like sugarcane, palm oil, and soy—often for export.”

In fact, it goes on, more than 60 percent of crops grown on land bought by foreign investors in developing countries are intended for export, instead of for feeding local communities. “Worse still, two-thirds of these agricultural land deals are in countries with serious hunger problems.”

Further to all the above, some questions arise. For instance, when developing countries’ rulers intend to formulate laws preventing land grabbing? What international laws have to say? And why are mainstream media all over the world not reporting about such a dramatic issue?… Why this heavy curtain of silence?

A farmer with her child in the outskirts of Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019. Credit : Forus

By Sarah Strack
PARIS, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

Public development banks have committed to ramp up action to tackle climate change, to protect biodiversity, to promote human rights, to align their investments with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, and to create spaces of dialogue with civil society, farmers, indigenous peoples, and communities affected by the projects that they, as banks, finance.

These words have been said in the beautiful setting of Rome’s Villa Aurelia and laid down in colorful ink on the website of the Finance in Common initiative. But will the banks really walk the talk?

Over 500 public development banks gathered on the occasion of the Finance in Common summit on October 19-20, just days ahead of the G20 summit and COP26.

Ahead of the summit, many civil society groups mobilized to push public development banks to put people’s interests first and to not fall back into the old economic paradigm of perpetual growth.

On paper, we seem to all agree that transformative change towards sustainability and resilience is paramount, but does the development finance community really have what it takes to change the status quo? We know that our current global challenges cannot be fixed by the time the banks gather again next year.

But we demand from public development banks to not pat each other on the back. The time has come to show results. As expressed by one panelist: “the diagnosis is there, the studies are there, now what we really need to do is put all this into action”.

Therefore, next year, we hope to see not only announcements by headquarter-based high-level representatives in grey suits, we would love to hear from those on the ground, how the projects have delivered for them, and for their communities; and what we can learn from that to make the bank’s investments better in the future.

Public development banks need to create inclusive spaces of dialogue with civil society and groups usually excluded from the decision-making table. Actions need to be visible and interactions transparent.

Meeting the current challenges requires bold action, new partnerships and a renewal in trust. As civil society leader and Forus’ Chair, Iara Pietricovsky, from Brazil, said in the opening session “the respect of people and the environment is not negotiable, if we want to leave no one behind,” and “no one can tackle these challenges alone or from an ivory tower”.

Next year, the Finance in Common summit will he hosted by the African Development Bank, and civil society organizations from the region already have a message to share. “In the African context, we need public development banks to listen to communities and to include civil society in all the steps of the decision-making process,” says Julien Comlan Agbessi, representative of REPAOC, the West African NGO Platforms Network.

“We represent thousands of civil society organizations that work on development. They know the challenges and needs of the communities, our door is open to discuss ways in which we can collaborate.”

In their final communiqué, the Finance in Common coalition said that in 2022, they will be “setting up of an ad-hoc working group with interested CSOs (…) to institutionalize dialogue at the local, national and international levels.”

“We are ready to engage from tomorrow to see this strengthened dialogue become a reality. Because each day that passes without thinking together with civil society on how to tackle the immense current challenges is a missed opportunity to fulfill the banks’ promise of delivering first and foremost for the people and for our planet.

Sarah Strack is Director of Forus – a global network of civil society organizations representing over 22,000 NGOs

 

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');  

COVID-19 cancelled out the last 12 years of advancements in finding and treating people with TB. Credit: Jeffrey Moyo/IPS.

By Morounfolu Olugbosi
JOHANNESBURG, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

Before COVID-19 came along, tuberculosis (TB) was a primary focus of health authorities in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2019, approximately 1.4 million people were diagnosed with TB in the region, but epidemiologists estimated that 1 million more had TB but were neither diagnosed nor treated.

The scope and intensity of the global TB epidemic is fueled by antiquated and inadequate TB drugs, most of which were developed more than 50 years ago. But, given how contagious TB is, we need to find and treat many more people. It is a disease that strikes impoverished communities the hardest, and those same communities can be hard to reach with healthcare services.

And then came COVID-19, the only infectious disease that killed more people than TB in 2020. The regional numbers have held steady this past year, according to the World Health Organization, but a deeper dive shows that more attention is needed.

Dr.Morounfolu (Folu) Olugbosi

In Nigeria, my home country and Africa’s largest country by population, nearly three out of every four cases of TB were missed. Ethiopia, Africa’s second largest country, fared better, missing less than one out of every three cases. Kenya, a hub for international development in East Africa, missed almost half its TB cases. South Africa—where I work and which has one of the heaviest burdens in the world of drug-resistant TB infections, TB/HIV co-infections, and all TB infections in total—missed 40% of its cases in 2020.

Earlier this year, researchers analyzed how public health resources previously dedicated to addressing TB were allocated instead to handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The drop in cases of TB that were reported and treated at that time indicated that many more infections were slipping through the cracks of the world’s badly overstressed healthcare system. The researchers concluded that COVID-19 cancelled out the last 12 years of advancements in finding and treating people with TB.

Last month, a new report found that the number of people treated for TB in 2020 declined by 18%. Even more troubling, the number of people treated for the worst cases of drug-resistant TB strains declined by 37%–even with 41 countries in varying stages of evaluating and implementing a new regimen for these cases that my organization developed.

These diseases do not come at you in single file, patiently waiting their turn for a chance to wreak havoc. COVID-19 decimated the TB response because that response was weak and vulnerable. Now, we still have to handle another year of COVID-19 along with a resurgent TB

Like all strains of TB, drug-resistant TB can be easily spread by a cough or a sneeze—and it’s far more difficult to cure. In some regions, as many as 40% of new TB cases are drug resistant.

In 2018, the United Nations General Assembly held a high-level meeting on TB attended by more than 1,000 people—including the president of Nigeria and 14 other heads of state. At the meeting, pledges amounting to US$13.5 billion annually were made to help governments find and treat TB patients, with an additional US$2 billion pledged to boost the research and development efforts needed to develop new cures, and new ways of diagnosing infections. We are less than halfway to meeting these pledges, and as a result, TB has increased in strength in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions of the Global South.

As bleak as all this sounds, 2021 is on track to be much worse. Initial estimates from epidemiologists point to a lack of direct response to TB in projecting an escalation of missing TB cases. Even though both COVID-19 and TB are respiratory infections, TB lost whatever sunlight it may have once had.

There are some countries that have managed to keep moving forward though. Zambia, which missed one third of its estimated TB cases in 2020, may actually diagnose and treat a larger share of its TB caseload in 2021. But these success stories are few and far between. All too often, when the going gets tough, programs that tackle diseases of poverty fall by the wayside.

These diseases do not come at you in single file, patiently waiting their turn for a chance to wreak havoc. COVID-19 decimated the TB response because that response was weak and vulnerable. Now, we still have to handle another year of COVID-19 along with a resurgent TB.

It’s time to strengthen our resolve and tackle all of the diseases that afflict our most vulnerable communities—at the same time. TB has shown us that no one is safe if a contagious infection is thriving—regardless of whether we look for it or not.

 

Dr.Morounfolu (Folu) Olugbosi is the Senior Director, Clinical Development, TB Alliance. He works with the clinical development of products in the TB Alliance portfolio and helps to oversee clinical trials in TB endemic countries and heads the South Africa office.

The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. Credit: Bigstock

By Bruno Kappa
NAIROBI, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

In a time when the world’s scientific community sounds louder, and stronger than ever, the alarm about the fast growing climate crisis and its destructive impacts, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030.

The information comes from the 2021 Production Gap Report, which has been elaborated by leading research institutes and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and was released on 20 October.

Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap

It finds that despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

The gap report, first issued in 2019, measures the gap between governments’ planned production of coal, oil, and gas and the global production levels consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement temperature limits.

Two years later, the 2021 report finds the production gap largely unchanged despite the quickly growing climate emergency.

“Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap.”

Commenting on the report, the Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen, said: “The devastating impacts of climate change are here for all to see. There is still time to limit long-term warming to 1.5°C, but this window of opportunity is rapidly closing.”

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

 

The 15 major producers

The 2021 Production Gap Report provides country profiles for 15 major producer countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The country profiles show that most of these governments continue to provide significant policy support for fossil fuel production.

“The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5°C,” warned Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report and a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) scientist.

“However, governments continue to plan for and support levels of fossil fuel production that are vastly in excess of what we can safely burn.”

 

The report’s main findings include:

. The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. The size of the production gap has remained largely unchanged compared to our prior assessments.

. Governments’ production plans and projections would lead to about 240% more coal, 57 percent more oil, and 71 percent more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

. Global gas production is projected to increase the most between 2020 and 2040 based on governments’ plans. This continued, long-term global expansion in gas production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature limits.

. Countries have directed over 300 US billion dollars in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — more than they have towards clean energy.

“Early efforts from development finance institutions to cut international support for fossil fuel production are encouraging, but these changes need to be followed by concrete and ambitious fossil fuel exclusion policies to limit global warming to 1.5°C”, says Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

“Fossil-fuel-producing nations must recognise their role and responsibility in closing the production gap and steering us towards a safe climate future,” said Måns Nilsson, executive director at SEI.

The report is produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UNEP, and E3G, the independent European climate change think tank aimed at translating climate politics, economics and policies into action.

More than 40 researchers contributed to the analysis and review, spanning numerous universities, think tanks and other research organisations.

Kawthar, 13, takes notes while attending Grade 3 at a UNICEF-supported self-learning centre in Al-Hasakeh, northeast Syria. She says she always wanted to be like other children and grab her bag and go to school like other children. With Education Cannot Wait assisted schooling, this dream has become a reality. © UNICEF/ Syria 2020/ Delil Souleiman

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

In war-torn Syria, the support of Education Cannot Wait (ECW) – the United Nations global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises – is bringing positive, life-changing educational opportunities tailored to children like 11-year-old Ali.

Ali, who lives in Raqqa with his two siblings and parents, has to work to help support his family. He and his brother did not attend school. Ali heard about registration for ECW-supported educational activities near the industrial area in which he works. They are part of courses being offered in three centres in the city – alongside psychosocial support for children who have experienced war for most of their lives.

Ali initially registered his siblings in the ECW-supported programme but held out himself for fear of losing his job. The centre proposed a flexible learning schedule – one that would allow the brothers to work and attend classes. Programme officials had to convince his family and employers at the industrial centre that school is essential for children’s development. Now he is part of a class of 16 children from the area who attend classes from 7:30 am to 10:00 am. After class, they go to work.

Ali’s story is one of the many stories of vulnerable children and adolescents embroiled in Syria’s protracted conflict that ECW’s investments are helping bring back to school in partnership with education partners on the ground. ECW’s multi-year response in Syria was initiated in 2017 through an initial investment which was further expanded into a Multi-Year Resilience Programme which will continue until 2023 with a cumulative budget of US$45 million.

Yasmine Sherif, the Director of Education Cannot Wait, says too many children and adolescents in Syria have only seen the brutal reality of war, forced displacement, and the hardship of living in areas affected by armed conflict in their short lives.  Credit: Education Cannot Wait (ECW)

“Too many children and adolescents in Syria have only seen the brutal reality of war, forced displacement, and the hardship of living in areas affected by armed conflict in their short lives. For them, education is a beacon of hope. It is an opportunity to thrive and become positive changemakers to rebuild their communities and ensure a more peaceful and prosperous future for all,” said Yasmine Sherif, the Director of Education Cannot Wait. “Working together with our partners on the ground, ECW is dedicated to fulfilling the right to a quality education for the most vulnerable girls and boys in Syria.”

“Save the Children has key actor status in the education sector in Syria and has been involved since the inception of ECW’s multi-year response, providing sector-specific technical expertise and guiding in the development of a programme framework that is responsive to the extensive education needs of children in Syria,” Sara Dabash, Awards Officer for the ECW programme in Syria, told IPS.

Children and adolescents already suffering from the impacts of a decade-long war are also bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly due to school closures and movement restrictions.

“The disruption of access to quality education for children has dramatically impacted learning and child well-being. In addition, lack of access to safe learning environments and continued isolation exposes children to higher risks of child labour, early marriage, and other negative coping mechanisms. The limited social interactions also compromise access to psychosocial support and other protection services,” Dabash said.

Emad, 9, who lives with a disability, shows his writing to his teacher to check if he is doing right in the class of Arabic subject in the ECW supported temporary learning space in Idleb, northwest Syria. © UNICEF/ Syria 2020

According to Dabash, blended learning options have been introduced, using devices such as mobile phones for remote learning. This option has its downsides as many children have limited to no access to phones or internet connections.

Figures provided by Save the Children put almost 7 million people in need of humanitarian education assistance. Children make up 97 percent of that number. Dabash says, however, that in the “determined locations of implementation within the ECW Programme in northeast Syria, Save the Children, with the support of its partners, has identified around 15,000 children as the most vulnerable and in need of education assistance.”

Since 2017, ECW is also partnering with UNICEF to provide quality education services for the most vulnerable children in the country.

“With funding from ECW, UNICEF provides children across Syria with opportunities to continue their learning through a holistic package of activities tailored to the needs of the children. To support learning, the package of activities generally includes providing learning supplies and psychosocial support through recreational activities. Where classrooms do not exist or continue to be unsafe or overcrowded, we establish new classrooms and rehabilitate existing ones,” Karen Bryner, Education Specialist and ECW Programme Manager in Syria, told IPS.

Bryner says the partnership provides training, teaching supplies and stipend payments to teachers.

The goal is to get as many girls and boys as possible enrolled and attending school regularly. According to UNICEF, ‘children have experienced psychological distress due to violence and instability. Many have missed years of education, with over 2.4 million currently out of school.’

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged that goal with intermittent school closures. However, Bryner says when face-to-face instruction was not an option, the ECW-supported students transitioned to electronic and paper-based distance education.

“Various modalities were used over the last year, including WhatsApp groups by teachers to deliver daily instruction where connectivity allowed; blended learning with face-to-face instruction two days a week and home-based learning (worksheets and assignments) for the other days, conducting lessons in smaller groups closer to children’s homes, and home delivery of biweekly learning packs and retrieval of students’ work by teachers,” she told IPS.

Kawthar, 13, hangs out with her cousin Juhaina outside her house in Ghwairan neighbourhood, Al-Hasakeh. Since 2019, she has benefitted from the self-learning programme, helping her catch up on the education she had missed due to displacement, her disability, and the financial challenges her family had. Credit: UNICEF/ Syria 2020/ Delil Souleiman

The story of 13-year-old Kawthar is a testament to the positive impact of ECW’s support for the most marginalised children Displaced five times and suffering from growth-related issues due to stunting, she could not walk to school, and her family could not afford transportation. Two years ago, Kawthar, originally from Al-Hasakeh City, enrolled in the ECW-supported self-learning programme implemented by UNICEF– a course that gives out-of-school children the tools to catch up to their peers. She also receives transportation to classes.

“I always wanted to be like all other children; to grab my bag and head to school; to read, write and learn,” says Kawthar. “I wish for all children to be able to go to school. And I certainly hope that nobody gets displaced anymore and that we all remain safe.”

According to UNICEF, with ECW funding, since November 2020, the self-learning programme has been able to reach 2,600 out-of-school children in Al-Hasakeh. Despite this progress, challenges remain to fulfil the right to inclusive, quality education for every child in Syria.

UNICEF states that there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of children in need of humanitarian assistance, and agencies will need scaled-up support as they continue to bring hope to Syria’s children.

 

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

• Education Cannot Wait Annual Results Reveals the Devastating Impact of COVID-19 on Learning for Children in Emergencies and Protracted Crises
• Education Cannot Wait for Refugee Children in Crisis, says Yasmine Sherif
• Education Cannot Wait Investments Transform Children’s Lives in Somalia

Monika, a BRAC program participant in Bangladesh, operating a climate-adaptive livelihood based on floating agriculture. Credit: BRAC

By Julie Kedroske
NEW YORK, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

As the United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, approaches (31 October -12 November in Glasgow, Scotland), climate action is more urgent than ever. Yes, we need climate change mitigation.

But for the people who are most marginalized, the impacts of climate change are already severe and worsening, necessitating an expansion of climate resilience interventions too.

Women, particularly in climate vulnerable countries in the Global South, are set to bear many of the worst impacts of the climate crisis. More than half of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, and climate shocks reduce women’s life expectancies more than men’s on average.

Poverty is increasing women’s climate vulnerability even further. Women are more likely to experience extreme poverty than men, and women in extreme poverty often lack the resources and tools to bounce back from the economic impacts of climate change, facing exclusion from social policies and programs.

Climate change will continue to exacerbate these inequalities, driving up to 132 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 due to rising food prices, health shocks, and natural disasters.

But these disasters are not “natural”. Climate change is human-made, and we as an international community can take the steps needed to support preparedness, mitigation, adaptation, and recovery efforts.

Countries can prevent the worst impacts of climate change on their most vulnerable populations through increased funding and focus on building climate resilience for those furthest behind in our current system, including women in extreme poverty.

But how can we make climate resilience policies and programs more inclusive and effective?

In our experience advising on interventions at the intersection of extreme poverty, gender inequality, and climate change at BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative (UPGI), we have identified three key learnings.

First, policies and programs must actively seek to identify the most marginalized households to ensure their inclusion. To enable women in extreme poverty to build climate resilience, development actors must first reach them.

This population is often excluded from existing social protection programs, with 79 percent of the bottom quintile of earners in low-income countries receiving no social assistance whatsoever.

By specifically targeting people (predominantly women) in extreme poverty with a multi-step process tailored to local data, needs, and capacity, climate resilience programs can bring previously unreachable populations into government safety nets.

To empower marginalized households to build resilience specifically for climate shocks, interventions should factor in an analysis of which households are most climate vulnerable, combining this with other methods including an analysis of the enabling environment (including existing infrastructure, programs, policies, and social norms).

This is just one example of the ways development actors will need to consciously target excluded populations on the basis of both climate and socioeconomic vulnerabilities as climate shocks worsen.

Second, interventions must be adapted to local needs. For climate resilience interventions to have an impact on women in extreme poverty, they need to take into account local contexts, markets, and challenges.

For example, in drought-prone regions of Kenya, people in extreme poverty are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change as many rely on raising livestock. Their livelihoods are threatened by worsening droughts, especially women and youth.

Between 2016 and 2019, the Government of Kenya and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) partnered with BRAC, CARE Kenya, and The BOMA Project on a climate-adaptive Graduation program in Kitui and Samburu provinces to strengthen the resilience of women, youth, and their households to climate shocks.

The program encouraged participants to maintain multiple sources of income and to save for economic and climate shocks to minimise their risk of losing livelihoods. As a result, over 80 percent of households had at least two income sources at the end of the intervention.

Worsening droughts threaten the livelihoods of women in the rural, ASAL regions of Kenya. Credit: BRAC/BOMA 2018

In Kairouan, Tunisia, women in extreme poverty are especially vulnerable to climate risks such as increased frequency and severity of extreme weather, changes in temperature and precipitation, and increased soil erosion.

To address these risks, the Tunisian government has partnered with IFAD and BRAC on a Graduation program identifying climate-adaptive, gender-sensitive livelihoods for participants that are designed for the local context and providing training on saving, diversifying incomes, and withstanding climate shocks.

By taking into account local climate vulnerabilities and challenges for women in extreme poverty, climate resilience programs can empower them to not only withstand climate shocks, but also build long-term livelihoods and savings which enable them to create a path out of the poverty trap and prevent them from falling back into it.

Third, constant learning through evaluation and iteration is crucial to impact. To develop and scale effective approaches which combat climate-induced poverty, the international community needs to increase their support and commit significantly more resources to evidence-based interventions.

Development actors and their research partners should also take an iterative approach, evolving programs over time based on findings from internal and external evaluations in parallel. By regularly reevaluating program design and delivery, implementers can not only improve impact at scale, but also become more responsive to changes in the local context.

This is particularly crucial for interventions aimed at building climate resilience for marginalized populations, as it enables programs to constantly adapt to climate impacts on programming.

At BRAC UPGI, we see every day how worsening climate shocks have the greatest impact on the people who contribute the least to climate change and have the fewest resources to recover from them.

This COP26, international actors, including multilateral institutions, governments, and civil society, need to not only increase climate spending, but ensure climate adaptation funds are spent more equitably, going to countries and populations which are most impacted and least equipped to withstand shocks.

To advance toward the Sustainable Development Goals and uphold obligations to their people, they need to back policies and programs which protect the people who are most marginalized from the worst impacts of the climate crisis and enable them to build resilience to endure future shocks by designing programs that meet their multidimensional needs.

Julie Kedroske is Acting Director of Technical Assistance, BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative. Originally founded in 1972 as the Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee and later known as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, BRAC’s operations have grown globally and with that growth, the organization is now simply known as BRAC.

 

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');  

Increased weather and climate variability is disrupting lives and economies in the continent;. Credit: Campbell Easton/IPS

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

While Africa reportedly causes just 4 percent of global emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) —an acidic colourless gas with a density about 53% higher than that of dry air, causing climate change—, this vast continent, home to over 1.300 billion inhabitants in 52 countries, bears the heaviest brunt of 80 percent of the climate crisis destructive impacts.

See some of the most outstanding climate crisis negative consequences for Africa, as cited by a major multi-organisation report: The State of the Climate in Africa 2020, elaborated by World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the African Union Commission, the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) through the Africa Climate Policy Centre (ACPC), UN agencies, and international and regional scientific organisations and released on 19 October 2021:

An estimated 12 percent of all new population displacements worldwide occurred in the East and Horn of Africa region, with over 1.2 million new disaster-related displacements and almost 500,000 new conflict-related displacements

. Climate change contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa last year;

. Climate indicators in Africa during 2020 were characterised by continued warming temperatures, accelerating sea-level rise, extreme weather, and climate events – such as floods, landslides and droughts;

. Increased weather and climate variability is disrupting lives and economies in the continent;

. By 2030, an estimated 118 million extremely poor people on the continent will be exposed to drought, floods and extreme heat, which will hinder progress towards poverty alleviation and growth;

. In sub-Saharan Africa, climate change could further lower gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 3 percent, by 2050. This presents a serious challenge for climate adaptation and resilience actions because not only are physical conditions getting worse, but also the number of people being affected is increasing;

. Changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures and more extreme weather contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa in 2020, compounding the socio-economic and health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic;

. Another under-reported consequence is the rapid shrinking of the last remaining glaciers in Eastern Africa, which are expected to melt entirely in the near future, signals the threat of imminent and irreversible change to the Earth system.

In fact, only three mountains in Africa are covered by glaciers: the Mount Kenya massif, the Rwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. “Currently, their retreat rates are higher than the global average, and “total deglaciation” could be possible by the 2040s, WMO warns.

Mount Kenya is expected to be deglaciated a decade sooner, it adds, which will make it one of the first entire mountain ranges to lose glacier cover due to human-induced climate change.

The report underlines a double-edge estimate: the investment in climate adaptation for sub-Saharan Africa would cost between 30 to 50 billion dollars… each year… over the next decade, or roughly two to three per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

By the way, and talking this figure: did you know that the world largest military powers have spent in 2020 around 2,000 billion dollars on killing machines and weapons of mass destruction?

 

More Facts and Figures:

. Temperatures: The 30-year warming trend for 1991–2020 was higher than for the 1961–1990 period in all African sub-regions and significantly higher than the trend for 1931–1960.

. Africa has warmed faster than the global average temperature over land and ocean combined. 2020 ranked between the third and eighth warmest year on record for Africa, depending on the dataset used.

. Sea level rise: The rates of sea-level rise along the tropical and South Atlantic coasts and Indian Ocean coast are higher than the global mean rate, at approximately 3.6 mm/yr and 4.1 mm/yr, respectively. Sea levels along the Mediterranean coasts are rising at a rate that is approximately 2.9 mm/yr lower than the global mean.

. Glaciers: Their current retreat rates are higher than the global average. If this continues, it will lead to total deglaciation by the 2040s. Mount Kenya is expected to be deglaciated a decade sooner, which will make it one of the first entire mountain ranges to lose glaciers due to human-induced climate change.

. Precipitation: Higher-than-normal precipitation – accompanied by flooding – predominated in the Sahel, the Rift Valley, the central Nile catchment and north-eastern Africa, the Kalahari basin and the lower course of the Congo River.

. High impact weather events: There was extensive flooding across many parts of East Africa. Countries reporting loss of life or significant displacement of populations included the Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Chad, Nigeria (which also experienced drought in the southern part), Niger, Benin, Togo, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. Many lakes and rivers reached record high levels, including Lake Victoria (in May) and the Niger River at Niamey and the Blue Nile at Khartoum (in September).

. Food insecurity: The compounded effects of protracted conflicts, political instability, climate variability, pest outbreaks and economic crises, exacerbated by the impacts of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, were the key drivers of a significant increase in food insecurity. A  desert locust invasion of historic proportions, which began in 2019, continued to have a major impact in East and the Horn of Africa in 2020.

. Food insecurity increases by 5–20 percentage points with each flood or drought in sub-Saharan Africa. Associated deterioration in health and in children’s school attendance can worsen longer-term income and gender inequalities. In 2020, there was an almost 40 percent increase in population affected by food insecurity compared with the previous year.

. Displacement: An estimated 12 percent of all new population displacements worldwide occurred in the East and Horn of Africa region, with over 1.2 million new disaster-related displacements and almost 500,000 new conflict-related displacements. Floods and storms contributed the most to internal disaster-related displacement, followed by droughts.

Questions are asked whether the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreement to force the world’s biggest companies to pay a fair share of tax will benefit the global South. Credit: Hugo Ramos/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

An agreement between 136 countries aimed at forcing the world’s biggest companies to pay a fair share of tax has been condemned by critics who say it will benefit richer states at the expense of the global South.

A deal agreed on October 8, and which covers around 90% of the global economy, includes plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which led negotiations on the agreement, has said it will help end decades of countries undercutting each other on tax.

But independent organisations campaigning for fairer global taxes and financial transparency argue it will rob developing countries of revenues needed to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately pushing millions more people into poverty.

Matti Kohonen of the Financial Transparency Coalition (FTC) civil society group told IPS: “In principle, a global minimum corporate tax is a good idea, but only if the rate is right and implemented properly. Under this deal, the main beneficiaries are the OECD – which led the negotiations – and its largest members.”

Calls for a global minimum corporate tax rate have grown in recent decades amid increasing scrutiny on the tax practices of multinationals.

The OECD deal, which has an aspirational implementation date of 2023, is designed to set a floor on corporate taxation and stop companies shifting profits to countries with the lowest tax rates they can find.

The OECD says the minimum global rate would see countries collect around USD150 billion in new revenues annually, and that taxing rights on more than USD125 billion of profit will be moved to countries where big multinationals earn their income.

But independent groups say the agreement falls far short of what is needed for a fair global corporate taxation system and has ignored the needs and wishes of developing nations, which rely more heavily on corporate tax than richer states.

According to OECD research Corporate Tax Statistics: Third Edition (oecd.org), in 2018, African countries raised 19% of overall revenue from corporate taxation as opposed to 10% among OECD states.

Critics point out that the 15% floor agreed to is well below the average corporate tax rate in industrialised countries of around 23%, potentially creating a ‘race to the bottom’ as countries cut their existing corporate rates.

It is thought a number of developing states had wanted a higher minimum global rate.

Civil society groups critical of the agreement also have concerns over many exemptions in the deal – there is a ten-year grace period for companies on some aspects of the agreement, and some industries such as extractives and financial services, are exempt.

Meanwhile, they highlight, only 100 of the world’s largest companies would be affected by part of the agreement aimed at getting highly profitable multinationals to pay more taxes in countries where they earn profits. Moreover, the minimum global tax will only apply to companies with a turnover of more than 750 million USD, which would exclude 85-90% of the world’s multinationals.

The fact that countries will have to waive digital services taxation rights, which are important sources of revenue for some developing states, is also problematic. And there are concerns that in many cases extra tax paid by corporations ‘topping up’ their tax bill to 15% will go to countries where they are headquartered. In many cases, this will be in already rich nations such as the US, UK, and Europe.

Chenai Mukumba of the Tax Justice Network Africa advocacy group told IPS: “We have an opportunity to reform the global tax system to make it right for global south countries, but we are settling for so much less. This is a lost opportunity to balance the scales, to put fairness at the centre of the system.”

The deal could have a negative effect on African countries, in particular, she pointed out.

Nigeria and Kenya have not signed up for the fair tax deal. Credit: Muhammadtaha Ibrahim Ma’aji/Unsplash

Kenya and Nigeria are among four countries that have not signed up for the deal.

“A lot of African countries currently have corporate tax rates of 25-30%. If the minimum rate is 15%, there is a great incentive for companies to shift profits elsewhere,” Mukumba said.

“Kenya hasn’t signed up to the deal because it is trying to raise revenue from its digital services taxation rights. It may end up buckling to the pressure [to join the deal],” she added.

OECD impact assessment studies for the deal published in 2020 https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/economic-impact-assessment-webinar-presentation-october-2020.pdf showed that developing nations would gain as much as 4% extra corporate tax revenue.

The organisation told IPS this month (OCT) that it is now expecting those extra revenues to be even higher because of changes to the agreement since last year.

However, studies Pillar 1 impact assessment – 04.10.21 FINAL (oxfamireland.org) by the global aid group Oxfam estimate that 52 developing countries would receive around only 0.025 percent of their collective GDP in additional annual tax revenue under the redistribution of taxing rights.

The group also says a 25% global minimum corporate tax rate would raise nearly USD 17 billion more for the world’s 38 poorest countries – which are home to almost 39% of the global population – as compared to a 15 percent rate.

Speaking just after the agreement between the 136 countries was reached, Oxfam said in a press release that the deal was “a mockery of fairness that robs pandemic-ravaged developing countries of badly needed revenue for hospitals and teachers and better jobs”.

It added: “The world is experiencing the largest increase in poverty in decades and a massive explosion in inequality, but this deal will do little or nothing to halt either.”

Despite the criticism, OECD officials are adamant that the agreement will benefit developing nations.

They point out that it does not affect any state’s national corporate tax rates, and that the 10-year grace period only applies to a very small amount of income – 5% of the carrying value of a firm’s tangible assets and payrolls in a jurisdiction.

Grace Perez Navarro, Deputy Director of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, told IPS: “The global minimum tax is aimed at stopping tax competition that is causing a race to the bottom in corporate tax rates.

“It does not require countries that have higher rates than 15% to lower their corporate tax rate, it just ensures that those countries will be able to collect at least 15%, no matter what type of creative tax planning a multinational comes up with.

“It will also reduce the incentive of multinationals to artificially shift their profits to low tax jurisdictions because they will still have to pay a minimum of 15%.”

She added: “It will also relieve the pressure on developing countries to offer excessive, often wasteful tax incentives while providing a carve-out for low-taxed activities that have real substance. This means that developing countries can still offer effective incentives that attract genuine, substantive foreign direct investment.”

But Mukumba said the problem is not that the deal will not bring any extra revenue to developing nations, but that richer nations will get much more out of it.

“Developing nations want a global corporate tax minimum, they have pushed for it in the past. They will get revenue under this deal, yes, but nowhere near as much as richer nations will get out of it,” she said.

This is problematic at a time when many developing nations are struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and need revenue.

“This [deal] will mainly support recovery efforts in the G7 countries instead of developing countries which have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are more in debt, preventing them from generating enough revenues to recover from the crisis and ultimately throwing millions more people into extreme poverty,” said Kohonen.

 

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

• The ARC Model: Proactive Disaster Risk Financing for a More Resilient Africa
• OECD Tax Reform Proposal Could Be Better

By Rosi Orozco
MEXICO CITY, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

They call it the Tlaxcala-New York Route. Between one end and the other, there are 2547 miles. An infamous road that today is one of the most important channel for human trafficking gangs. And a route seemingly impossible to destroy because of its million-dollar profits.

Rosi Orozco

The victims traveling along this route from Mexico to the United States experience in their bones what experts call “the globalization of organized crime”, one of the biggest obstacles to ending this crime.

The route is longer than itself. Sometimes it starts in South America, where victims are lured with dream jobs or a love story in Mexico. And it has a stopover in Mexico’s smallest state, Tlaxcala, where human traffickers kidnap their victims to prepare them for their journey north to the United States.

The worst part is in the next 2547 miles, which includes several horror stops throughout Mexico. The victims will be raped on table dances, brothels, bars, even trailer boxes and roadside tents.

If they survive and show endurance, at least 500 of them will be forced to cross illegally into the United States every year.

In New York, the exploitative clients will be of all nationalities: Mexicans, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans… sex tourists who will take back home a piece of humanity as a souvenir.

They are even likely to record those rapes and the videos will end up on porn sites with untraceable IP addresses that profit from a $97 billion a year industry. And when the authorities want to rescue one of those victims, two questions will overwhelm them. Where do we start? What is the origin of all this?

Since the beginning of the 21st century, organized crime has demonstrated that they know how to go global and evade the isolated efforts of individual countries. Their modus operandi imposes a new vision: if traffickers think internationally, justice must think globally. The “10 Days of Anti-Trafficking Activism” event was dedicated to that task.

Between July 26 and August 6, survivors, activists, and decision-makers debated online and face-to-face in Washigton, Miami and Mexico City for more than 240 hours on how to face the new challenges that impose this old crime and how to stay one step ahead.

Jeremy Vallerand, Rescue Freedom CEO, reminded us that human trafficking is a social problem that is not natural but created by human beings, so it is up to us to end it.

The Executive Director of Global Sustainability Network (GSN), Asmita Satyarthi, called for a global count of victims — there are about 25 million people in human trafficking networks and 30% of them are children.

Héma Sibi, CAP International’s Advocacy Coordinator, asked that we all demand a change of laws at an international level. New laws that punishes exploitative clients, not people who are forced into prostitution.

Chancellor Minister Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, youth leaders such as Alina Luz —Miss Universo Argentina 2020, influencers such as Valentina de la Cuesta, magistrates, mayors, legislators, and more joined events and conferences that can be consulted at www.hojaenblanco.org and the conclusions indicate the way to effectively fight human trafficking.

It is urgent to create international laws that punish trafficking as a crime against humanity. To train police officers with the capacity to investigate this crime beyond national borders. To establish international agreements for financial intelligence units to return to the victims’ money obtained by traffickers, whatever country they are in.

Pivotal actions must go beyond prosecution. More and better prevention campaigns must be created to build bridges between rich and developing countries because that is where the exploiting clients and the exploited person are. National campaigns are no longer enough. The challenge is to build messages thinking about the origin and destination of the victims.

We need more determined participation of society to train new activists with a global perspective and place this topic on the world agenda with the same urgency as other problems faced by humanity, such as climate change or the equitable distribution of food.

Above all, there is an urgency to pass the megaphone to those who have a story that must be heard, because each victim in silence means the loss of a missing ally in the fight against this crime.

The “10 Days of Anti-Trafficking Activism” is one of those crucial events that help us begin to solve those questions that overwhelm us: Where do we start? What is the origin of all this? And by questioning ourselves, we will be able to find how to end those 2547 miles of suffering between Tlaxcala and New York.

So that one day, the seemingly impossible path to defeat will be a memory and the evidence that millions of dollars are not more powerful than millions of people fighting for a world without slavery.

The author is a human rights activist who opened the first shelter for girls and teenagers rescued from sexual commercial exploitation in Mexico. She has published five books on preventing human trafficking; she is the elected Representative of GSN Global Sustainability Network in Latin America.

 

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');  

Fires in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. 2020. Credit: Silas Ismael / WWF-Brazil

By Fran Price
NEW JERSEY, USA, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

Governments agree that saving the climate means saving forests – but ambition and action fall short of what’s required.

First the good news: one of the forest goals agreed by governments, businesses and civil society organizations has been met.

In 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) set out 10 goals for protecting and restoring the world’s forest. Its latest progress assessment focuses on Goal 7 – on making sure that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation are part of a global climate agreement.

It’s one of the few goals that we can unequivocally say has been achieved. The Paris Agreement in 2015 enshrined the importance of forests in the international climate agenda. It also incorporated a mechanism to provide forest countries with financial incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, supporting sustainable forest management and enhancing forest carbon stocks (REDD+).

So far, so good. But agreements are one thing – what counts is how they’re put into practice. And on that front, the news isn’t so good.

Fran Price, WWF Global Forest Practice Lead. Credit: WWF

When it comes to forests, emissions trends are heading in the wrong direction, with deforestation and forest degradation continuing on a massive scale. And we’re already seeing the devastating impacts of climate change with ever more extreme forest fires, from the Amazon to Siberia to the Mediterranean – fires which themselves release vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

As the NYDF progress assessment shows, we need to do far more to harness forests’ huge potential to help us mitigate and adapt to climate change. Encouragingly, most countries now recognize the potential of forests in their latest official climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). But many don’t yet include quantified targets – and when they do, they are rarely ambitious enough.

Many tropical forest countries’ targets are conditional on receiving international climate finance – yet this isn’t happening on anything like the scale required. Although tropical forest countries have made strides in developing REDD+ programmes, payments for results have yet to materialize. Domestically and internationally, governments have committed about US$2.4 billion per year towards forest-related climate mitigation, which is around 0.5-5% of what’s needed – and is dwarfed by the subsidies that continue to flow into activities that cause deforestation.

A growing number of NDCs recognize the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as forest custodians, which is a sign of progress. But at least half of IPLCs’ customary lands worldwide aren’t yet legally recognized – and where IPLC rights are legally recognized, they are often not enforced.

Marisela Silva Parra, local community leader and ‘environmental promoter’ conducts an environmental survey of the forest. In the municipality of Calamar, Guaviare Department, WWF-Colombia is working with a group of local community leaders (known as ‘environmental promoters’) with the aim of stopping deforestation, protecting and restoring remaining forest, and helping provide alternative sustainable livelihoods to local people. Credit: Luis Barreto / WWF-UK

In fact, this is true of forest governance more generally. Many countries now have policies that look good on paper, but they aren’t implemented or enforced strongly enough. At least 69% of deforestation driven by agriculture in recent years was illegal – but happened anyway.

So how do we turn things around? The arguments for conserving and restoring forests are well known, with the COVID-19 pandemic only reinforcing the link between the health of humankind and the health of the planet. We know the solutions too.

We need greater cooperation across landscapes, sectors and supply chains. Businesses need to eliminate deforestation and habitat conversion from their supply chains. Governments need to implement supportive legislation and incentives – both in forest countries, and in countries that consume products that drive deforestation. The finance sector has to redirect financial flows from activities that drive deforestation and into forest-friendly enterprises. The rights of IPLCs must be recognized and upheld, while smallholders and communities should receive support to build sustainable livelihoods.

The growing climate crisis adds urgency to all these imperatives. Back in 2015, WWF and others campaigned hard to ensure that the role of forests was recognized in the Paris Agreement. Achieving that goal was a big win. But now we need to go further.

The upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow is the most important since Paris. It will set the agenda for the coming make-or-break decade. Governments at COP26 must commit to more ambitious action on forests. They must increase the level of forest climate finance by an order of magnitude. Most of all, they must turn words into deeds.

Fran Raymond Price has spent her career working to protect forests and improve forestry around the globe. She joined WWF in June 2020 after 18 years at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), where she helped guide the organization’s adoption and promotion of responsible forest management and certification. She holds a master’s degree in forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a B.A. in History and Government from Cornell University. She began her forestry career as a Peace Corps community forestry volunteer in the Dominican Republic.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1961 that works in the field of wilderness preservation and the reduction of human impact on the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund, which remains its official name in Canada and the United States.

 

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');  

Erratic water supplies mean women in urban Zimbabwean cities, like Bulawayo, need to fetch water from water points. Studies have shown that while water, sanitation and hygiene are a women’s domain, they are not involved in water management. Credit: Ignatius Banda/IPS

By Ignatius Banda
Bulawayo, ZIMBABWE , Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

Each morning, Langelihle Tshuma checks her taps to confirm the water supply before preparing for the day ahead.

Despite living in the city, the married housewife and mother of four has become accustomed to what in most cities would be considered an essential service.

“We are used to it now,” she said, referring to water cuts in Zimbabwe’s second city of Bulawayo.

Water availability has become erratic in the city, with no clear schedule or fixed timetable to warn residents about when to expect dry faucets.

Tshuma joins scores of other residents to look for the nearest water point or the next house with a borehole in what is considered a middle-class suburb.

“It used to be kind of humiliating walking around the neighbourhood with buckets looking for water, but when you have young children, you learn humility to soldier on,” Tshuma told IPS.

While her experience is commonplace in this city of about 2 million people according to some estimates, it is but a microcosm of a global trend where women’s unpaid work includes fetching water, with women being left out in crucial decisions regarding water access, experts say.

There are concerns among researchers and experts that water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) issues have for years been regarded as a woman’s domain in developing countries, but that has not been reflected in the management of water resources.

A report launched last month by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) says women remain excluded from global water management despite women being primary water decision-makers at the household level.

According to the research findings in the report titled Advancing towards gender mainstreaming in water resources management, “when women are involved in the management of water resources, their communities achieve much better outcomes, improved water systems and economic and environmental benefits.”  The research canvassed 23 countries.

The GWP notes that while women’s role in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was recognized three decades ago by the UN, there has been little progress as the sector remains male-dominated.

“Half of all countries reported limited or no achievement of gender objectives in their water management policies and plans,” said Darío Soto-Abril, Executive Secretary of Global Water Partnership (GWP).

“While some reasons for this low number might be a lack of robust data collection and monitoring tools, the number is still low enough for us to say: it’s past time for things to change,” Soto-Abril said.

As women such as Tshuma struggle to access and remain excluded from the decisions that bring water to their homes, experts note that gender mainstreaming is crucial to ensure commitment at the highest political levels for policy commitments is backed up by action.

“If there is good news, it is that there’s been a slight improvement compared to the baseline in 2017,” said Joakim Harlin, UNEP’s chief of Freshwater Ecosystems.

“The ability to integrate gender considerations in water policies is not related exclusively to levels of development – it’s also a question of having the political will to change cultural norms,” Harlin said.

Cultural norms have embedded the images of women and not men fetching water in urban municipalities of many developing countries.

“Women have been cast in roles as water carriers instead of water managers,” the GWP research notes.

“In many developing countries, women are the de facto water decision-makers in households. Research suggests that when women are involved in the management of water resources, their communities achieve better economic and environmental benefits. As the world’s population grows and climate change intensifies water scarcity, women are key to providing more sustainable access to this finite resource,” the report adds.

However, more still needs to be done along with increasing women’s participation in decision-making positions in line with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), says Liza Debevec, Senior Gender and Social Inclusion Specialist at the Global Water Partnership.

“It is not just about increasing women’s representation in councils and committees or coming up with a new general legal framework on gender protection, however important those actions are,” Debevec said.

“It is also about integrating gender issues in all policies in a cross-cutting manner, linking water to other relevant policy areas,” she said.

However, political will is seen as central to ensuring women are involved in policy-making decisions regarding water resources in line with the Integrated Water Resources Management Support Programme under Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6), which seeks clean water for all.

“Political will is urgent. At the top political level, we need a strong commitment to gender mainstreaming, or we’ll be swimming upstream,” Soto-Abril told IPS.

“Political will makes the practical actions successful. Some countries need more data, so they need to do a gender analysis. Others need to financially support the implementation of gender-sensitive practices and introduce accountability mechanisms,” she said.

 

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

• Where on Earth is a Water-Secure World?
• Mounting Scramble for Coronavirus Vaccines in Zimbabwe

By Nora McKeon
ROME, Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

‘COVID 19 has multiplied hunger and malnutrition challenges. We need transformative action!’ The first speaker at the UN Committee on World Food Security’s (CFS) 49th Plenary Session, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, turned the spotlight on the disastrous impacts of the pandemic that have afflicted communities around the world for close to two years.

Nora McKeon

He was echoed by the presenter of the 2021 edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World for whom ‘COVID is only the tip of the iceberg’, while keynote speaker, Jeffry Sachs, emphasized the multifaceted nature of the crisis, with chronic poverty and conflict at the center.

Delegation after delegation took the virtual floor to share their concerns: Kenya speaking for the Africa Group, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Norway, Morocco, Peru, Spain, Indonesia, Mexico, Malaysia, Mali, Cape Verde, South Africa, Uganda, Saint Lucia and more. The impacts of Covid 19 on food security and nutrition are heavy and lasting. The vulnerable are the most effected, within and between countries. Covid has deepened and exacerbated existing structural fragilities and injustices in our food systems. Its causes are multisectoral and cannot be treated in a siloed way.

‘Multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are key to the way forward’, the President of ECOSOC added, and ‘the CFS is a unique multilateral forum because it brings all the actors together in the name of the right to food’. The text adopted at the end of Day 1 summarized all of these contributions, and deepened concern by drawing attention to the possibility of recurrent pandemics.

With this kind of an opening one could have expected a standing ovation when it was proposed, the following day, that the CFS put together a globally coordinated policy response to the impacts of COVID 19 on food security and nutrition and a proposed precautionary approach towards possible future shocks of this kind.

This proposal was a long time in the building. For a year and a half the CFS’s Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) had been documenting the experience and proposals of its constituencies and communities and bringing this evidence from the ground into the global debate. Earlier this year an informal ‘Group of Committed’ governments and other CFS participants had come together to push for the CFS to take determined action. How could it fail to live up to its mandate in the face of the most serious threat to global food security the world has faced since the 2007-2008 food crisis?

Just a week before CFS49 the Group of Committed had held a seminar where evidence and proposals for global policy action were presented by national governments, regional and local authorities, small-scale food producers, the urban food insecure, along with UN agencies, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and the CFS’s own High-Level Panel of Experts.

The seminar demonstrated that action is being taken by different actors and authorities at local, national and regional levels, while UN agencies have developed and adopted relevant policy instruments and programmes in their respective sectors. What has been missing thus far is a way of putting the different perspectives and initiatives together into a multisectoral, multilaterally coordinated approach. Filling this gap was the proposal that was put on the table in CFS49.

‘We need a globally coherent and coordinated response to support governments’ efforts and the CFS is the appropriate place for this to happen,’ the Ambassador of Mali had exhorted in his opening address.

So what about the standing ovation? The proposal was supported by countries from the Global South led by African countries, the most affected by injustice in access to vaccines, dependency on food imports, and indebtedness, but including also Mexico, Peru, Morocco, the CSM and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. ‘This is the place to deal with COVID!’ he said. ‘It is the priority food issue today. It wasn’t addressed by the UN Food Systems Summit. The CFS has the mandate and the tools, and the other UN agencies are highly committed to cooperate.’

But, incredibly and unacceptably, the proposal did not pass. It was blocked on specious, procedural grounds by a steamroller coalition of big commodity exporters who push back on any possible limitation that might be placed on global trade in the name of human rights, equity, environmental concerns: the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Russia. The EU, shamefully, was silent.

The implications for inclusive multilateralism, democracy, the needed radical transformation of our food systems are severe. ‘A key barrier to transformation is interference from corporations,’ stated the delegate of Mexico. ‘Governments need to assume their role as agents of change, regulators of food systems, and protectors of the planet, but we can’t do it alone. Global attention is needed and the CFS is the right place for it.’

But The CFS is being held hostage. The arrogance with which a few are ignoring reality, evidence and urgency is leading to an unacceptable increase in the violation of the human rights of the many. Patience is wearing thin. ‘If I’m in this room it’s to honor the concerns of those most affected in my region,’ a member of the Group of Committed asserted in the aftermath of the session.

And the people of her region, along with others from around the world, are raising their voices ever more loudly, as in the counter mobilization to transform corporate food systems organized last July in parallel to the Pre-Summit of the UNFSS [hyperlink]. Radical food system transformation is being built from the ground up and the CFS, however handicapped, is the most resounding global echo chamber for people’s claims.

 

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');