Women from the Mishing community in Dhemaji district are shocked by the siltation caused by the floods. Credit: Priyanka Borpujari/IPS

By Victor Tsang and Shari Nijman
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 13 2019 (IPS)

When Mandelena became a mother, she was only 16. During the prolonged dry season in Gwor County, South Sudan, her community saw crops failing and cattle dying. Children stopped going to school because of hunger and women and girls had to walk up to five hours every day to collect water.

When resources for families further dwindled as the drought prolonged, young girls were married off for a dowry as soon as they reached puberty. Mandelena’s situation was no different. Indirectly, the course of her life had been forever changed by the environmental crisis that crippled her country.

All hands on deck

While environmental changes affect everyone, due to existing gender inequalities, women often bear the bulk of the burden. In patriarchal societies, cultural, legal and political restrictions often undermine women’s adaptability and resilience to climate change.

When cyclones and floods, droughts and extreme heat rip through the social fabric, communities need all hands on deck to deal with the repercussions. Lack of access to land and financial credit make it especially hard for women to bounce back from the onslaught.

When the effects of climate change don’t present themselves as emergencies that grab our attention on the evening news, but rather as slow-onset changes in landscapes and livelihoods, the most severe social consequences are for women and girls first.

• Being in charge of domestic fuel and water provision, women and girls have to walk farther to find these threatened resources. More and more unpaid hours are spent, which could otherwise have been spent on remunerative tasks or in school.
• Every year, indoor air pollution kills 4.3 million people, most of them women and children, because three billion people rely on inefficient cooking technology, such as wood, charcoal or animal waste.

The struggles of women and girls are only part of the picture, as gender equality concerns both men and women. In Mandelena’s community in South Sudan, cattle raiding is common and intimately linked with men’s needs to pay a good dowry for a young bride. This practice is upheld even as resources are becoming scarcer.

The result is a culture of violence, including sexual violence, to the backdrop of climate change and environmental degradation, which intensifies hunger, reduces water availability and kills cattle.

Holistic approach to a sustainable world

More than ever, the world is realizing that the sustainable development goals we set for ourselves aren’t standalone targets but rather a holistic approach to a more inclusive world. We need to recognize the key role women play in taking care of our communities, as they bear the brunt of environmental changes.

When we empower women – by supporting equal access to land, agricultural extension services, financial inclusion and education – we give them the tools to become true custodians of our biodiversity.

Some of the world’s most passionate environmentalists have shown the world that women could be powerful guardians of our planet and agents of change. We can capitalize on their knowledge and experiences.

As we increasingly become aware of the existential climate risks and repercussions of environmental degradation, governments and the private sector are pledging to take action in order to ensure a livable future for all, it is time to consider the role that women are already playing in the sustainable future of our world.

Who will lead our green revolution? Who will take the green jobs? And where will the science and innovations that facilitate our sustainable future come from?

If we want to make a real difference in our future, we have to empower every woman and man to be custodians of our earth. Because the legacy of our environment is the legacy of Mandelena’s daughters as much as her sons.

• The World Food Programme said in a statement after the crash: “We also mourn the loss of our colleagues at other United Nations agencies and all of those who died in the crash. Among them was Victor Tsang, a former employee of WFP who moved to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). We ask that everyone keep those who lost loved ones in their thoughts and prayers.”

Excerpt:

Women from the Mishing community in Dhemaji district are shocked by the siltation caused by the floods. Credit: Priyanka Borpujari/IPS

By Victor Tsang and Shari Nijman
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 5 2018 (IPS)

When Mandelena became a mother, she was only 16. During the prolonged dry season in Gwor County, South Sudan, her community saw crops failing and cattle dying. Children stopped going to school because of hunger and women and girls had to walk up to five hours every day to collect water.

When resources for families further dwindled as the drought prolonged, young girls were married off for a dowry as soon as they reached puberty. Mandelena’s situation was no different. Indirectly, the course of her life had been forever changed by the environmental crisis that crippled her country.

All hands on deck

While environmental changes affect everyone, due to existing gender inequalities, women often bear the bulk of the burden. In patriarchal societies, cultural, legal and political restrictions often undermine women’s adaptability and resilience to climate change.

When cyclones and floods, droughts and extreme heat rip through the social fabric, communities need all hands on deck to deal with the repercussions. Lack of access to land and financial credit make it especially hard for women to bounce back from the onslaught.

When the effects of climate change don’t present themselves as emergencies that grab our attention on the evening news, but rather as slow-onset changes in landscapes and livelihoods, the most severe social consequences are for women and girls first.
• Being in charge of domestic fuel and water provision, women and girls have to walk farther to find these threatened resources. More and more unpaid hours are spent, which could otherwise have been spent on remunerative tasks or in school.
• Every year, indoor air pollution kills 4.3 million people, most of them women and children, because three billion people rely on inefficient cooking technology, such as wood, charcoal or animal waste.

The struggles of women and girls are only part of the picture, as gender equality concerns both men and women. In Mandelena’s community in South Sudan, cattle raiding is common and intimately linked with men’s needs to pay a good dowry for a young bride. This practice is upheld even as resources are becoming scarcer.

The result is a culture of violence, including sexual violence, to the backdrop of climate change and environmental degradation, which intensifies hunger, reduces water availability and kills cattle.

Holistic approach to a sustainable world

More than ever, the world is realizing that the sustainable development goals we set for ourselves aren’t standalone targets but rather a holistic approach to a more inclusive world. We need to recognize the key role women play in taking care of our communities, as they bear the brunt of environmental changes.

When we empower women – by supporting equal access to land, agricultural extension services, financial inclusion and education – we give them the tools to become true custodians of our biodiversity.

Some of the world’s most passionate environmentalists have shown the world that women could be powerful guardians of our planet and agents of change. We can capitalize on their knowledge and experiences.

As we increasingly become aware of the existential climate risks and repercussions of environmental degradation, governments and the private sector are pledging to take action in order to ensure a livable future for all, it is time to consider the role that women are already playing in the sustainable future of our world.

Who will lead our green revolution? Who will take the green jobs? And where will the science and innovations that facilitate our sustainable future come from?

If we want to make a real difference in our future, we have to empower every woman and man to be custodians of our earth. Because the legacy of our environment is the legacy of Mandelena’s daughters as much as her sons.

Excerpt:

By Shari Nijman
Jul 6 2012 (IPS)

Two weeks after the United Nations conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro has left many lukewarm, activists, government representatives and U.N. officials are looking forward to setting new goals for the future.

“I think the world needs much more than what we achieved,” Heikki Holmas, Norwegian minister of international development, admitted at a press conference at U.N. headquarters in New York on Thursday.

Still, the focus of the discussion was less on casting blame than on how to move on and set new sustainable development goals for the future.

“There have been many creative solutions put forward,” said Joanna Kerr, CEO of the anti-poverty group Action Aid.

According to Kerr, addressing the issues of how to best use tax revenues and limiting investment in “false solutions” are key to establishing a sustainable future.

“For many years, many governments have been trying to put forward a financial tax that could levy a very small amount on financial transactions, but it could actually leverage billions and billions of euros and dollars for climate change and development. And that is key, to make sure that if we raise new taxes, that we spend them progressively,” she said.

Lakshmi Puri, deputy director of UN Women, said she hoped that Rio+20 will prove to have “unlocked the potential of women as drivers of sustainable development.”

According to Puri, gender equality should be treated as an economic, social and environmental issue, rather than just a “side alley”.

All three panellists pointed out that there are lessons to be learned from Rio, and that future conferences can build upon its outcomes.

“Now we have the high-level forum… and we need to look at how to make sure the high-level development forum is strong and able to push the development goals,” Holmas said.

“Talk is cheap,” Kerr added. “But failure to address sustainable development is even more expensive.”

By Shari Nijman
NEW YORK, May 16 2012 (IPS)

In the coming decades, the world’s population is expected to grow by at least another two billion people, 80 percent of whom will live in cities by the year 2050.

Courtesy of Dickson Despommier

Feeding those people will stretch our current agricultural system to the limit, and take a substantial toll upon the world’s ecosystems.

IPS correspondent Shari Nijman interviews Dickson Despommier, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University and director of the Vertical Farm Project.

By combining agriculture with architecture, Despommier hopes to see multi-story high-tech greenhouses become integrated into urban skylines in the near future.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is a vertical farm?

A: The concept of vertical farming is really quite simple. You simply take a greenhouse that’s high-tech, and stack (another) on top. So you have multiple greenhouses on top of each other.

Q: Where does the idea come from?

A: The modern concept had its origins in the late 1960s with Dr. (R. Buckminster) Fuller, John Todd and a few other futurists who actually suggested we should be growing food in tall buildings. But the idea never caught on because the timing wasn’t right.

The current concept of vertical farming started in a classroom that I taught – at least I think that’s where it started for me – back in 1999. And then we put our projects on the Internet in 2004 and next thing you know, we have some vertical farms to talk about.

Q: Where are those vertical farms located?

A: Three years ago there were none. But today, there are seven vertical farms. We can begin in Korea, which is a government-run project. It’s only three stories, but it’s modern, high-tech. Move to Japan… it takes place in a 747-sized hangar building. It looks like there’s an airplane inside but actually there are crops in there.

(The Japanese) are building another one near Fukushima, just to prove to the world that they can grow food anywhere, even in a damaged area. Because it’s all self-contained.

They’re building a 17-story vertical farm in Sweden. I can’t wait to see what that building is going to look like. They want this to be the gold standard for vertical farming. There also is one planned for Holland called Plant Lab. They want to build it underground, so it’s basically an up-side-down three story vertical farm, with no visible light. They are going to provide all the light via grow lights.

There are two vertical farms in the United States. There is one in Chicago, which is a retrofitted meat packing plant. And then there’s one in Seattle, it’s a brand new company with only two stories. But I understand they’re going to scale this up in the near future.

Finally, I understand there is one vertical farm in Singapore also. It’s sort of similar to the one in Korea, it’s about a three-story vertical farm as well.

Q: Those farms seem to be in very diverse geographical locations. Does climate or pollution has any effect on vertical farming?

A: My opinion about the feasibility of vertical farming is that there’s no place on earth where you could not do it. And I can name some places on earth – if they would vertically farm – that would be much better off than they are today.

Let’s take the country of Iceland, as an example. They have six months of winter and six months of summer. But they have all the geothermal energy they could possibly use, and more.

A vertical farm would be a great example of how to integrate this to an energy-rich country with a great need for fresh vegetables. I look at all the Scandinavian countries in the same way.

Q: How much does a vertical farm produce? Is it financially attractive?

A: If you take a one-acre greenhouse and grow leafy green vegetables only, per square foot you can grow 64 heads of lettuce per year. If you compare that to the outdoor farmers that can get maybe seven or eight heads of lettuce per square foot per year, that’s 10 times more.

Q: What are the economic benefits of vertical farming?

A: One is no food miles (transportation from farm to plate). Two, no agricultural runoff. A flood takes all the agricultural pesticides and herbicides and moves them from the lands to the river to the ocean. When you get it into the ocean it spoils everything. Vertical farming doesn’t do that.

Three: new jobs, lots of new jobs. Four: the use of abandoned city properties. A warehouse, for instance, just sits there, with nothing to do. You can fill that with agricultural initiatives that use grow lights.

Because agriculture indoors uses 70 percent less fresh water than outdoor agriculture, you save a lot of water too.

Other advantages: you can make a profit doing this of course, because you are growing year-round you can exclude insect pests if you build your buildings correctly. You can even take an old building and make it insect-proof. You can keep out rodents, for instance, you can recycle your energy through recovery by green high-tech incineration.

Plus, you can grow anything indoors you want.

Q: And the quality of the crops? How does that compare?

A: The history of indoor farming is fraught with improper nutrients for the plants, which makes them nutritionally less desirable than outdoor plans. This is in the past now. The biggest improvements have been nutritional because we now know all of the elements that plants need in order to grow. And we need seven more (nutrients).

So if you make a solution in water of those 18 (nutrients) plus the seven that we need and then you expose the root system to that solution, the plants would not only contain their nutrients for them, but also what we need.

I think today’s hydroponically grown tomatoes and lettuce and cucumbers and zucchini and green beans have the same or better nutritional value as the outdoor crops. The outdoor crops can’t control the uptake of heavy metals which come from things like leaded gasoline.

We stopped using leaded gasoline in the 1970s, but the lead from it is still around and still in the soil. They also take up pesticides; they will also take up herbicides. Those are things we don’t want in our diet, and we can exclude them by growing under controlled conditions where we don’t use them at all.

Q: What are the places that really need this the most?

A: The concept of vertical farming will emerge in most people’s perception as an elitist activity. Because only people with the most money and a high desire for local produced vegetables and fruits will support this concept. As with all other ideas that have application to the general population, the idea will be manipulated by technology, so that it becomes economic, efficient, mobile and modular.

Imagine vertical farming as a LEGO-like structure, in which all the (components) that fit together are already growing food. If you walk into this warehouse, it’s enormous, and the order is for a vertical farm eight stories tall that manufactures lettuce and some really exotic crops. And you click them all together and ship them out. You can situate these on a base anywhere in the world.

It is not an elitist activity at this point. Suddenly it becomes a way of intervening in natural disaster, to prevent unnecessary deaths. To prevent high rates of infant mortality, to supply food on a continuous basis for places that have no soil, like Sub-Saharan Africa, most of South Asia, and a lot of places in Southeast Asia. Places that are people-rich and food-poor.

Vertical farming will eventually morph into a strategy to supply clean drinking water and abundant safe to eat food to whoever needs it. Not (just) whoever wants it.

(END)

Excerpt:

By Shari Nijman
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 10 2009 (IPS)

Since its establishment in late 2006, the Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG) has been doing groundbreaking work fighting corruption, impunity and human rights violations in Guatemala.

Carlos Castresana Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

The commission against impunity, an initiative by the United Nations and the Guatemalan government, is currently investigating several high-profile cases in the Central American country with international ramifications.

In an event organised by Human Rights First and the International Peace Institute, Carlos Castresana, who was appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2007 to head CICIG, spoke about the commission and its successes so far.

IPS: Can you briefly tell me something about the start of CICIG? Why was it established and how did the process work? CARLOS CASTRESANA: The commission was created because, 10 years after the signature of the peace agreement in Guatemala, which put an end to 36 years of civil war, the situation relating to human rights and the situation of human rights defenders in Guatemala was more or less the same.

They [human rights defenders] continuously experienced attacks from the so-called illegal bodies and clandestine security apparatuses. So they asked for the support of the government, and the government of Guatemala asked for the support of the international community and more specifically the United Nations. They said, “We are willing but unable to protect our citizens, so please help us.”

IPS: So why did it take five years to create the CICIG? CC: As in any legal negotiation, it was difficult. There was the political will from the very beginning but there were a lot of legal problems. CICIG is an innovative institution, basically an international prosecution office which has to work before national tribunals.

And there was a lot of resistance, in some cases political but in other cases legal. It was far from clear if we could be prosecutor and if we could bring cases in front of Guatemalan courts, or if we should be in one way or another coordinating or linked to the work of the attorney general’s office.

So finally after long negotiations and a decision of the constitutional court, it was decided that we could have prosecutorial powers but only as complementary prosecutors to the attorneys.

IPS: What is it that CICIG contributes to the justice system in Guatemala that the system itself can’t provide? CC: The system is not functional. The justice system in Guatemala is able to solve two percent of cases by itself, and we are speaking of serious criminality. Ninety-eight percent of cases go unpunished.

This was the situation in which CICIG arrived, supposedly to support and enforce institutions of law enforcement, making the division of police and the prosecution office functional. Helping them to bring charges in serious cases changed the situation.

Our task now goes far beyond that. The reality is that we have not only provided technical assistance in many cases, but we needed to clean the institutions who work with us, the division of police and the attorney office. And we have done that to the limit of our possibilities.

Additionally, we have requested the tools, material and personnel necessary to make it work from the parliament, legal institutions and the government.

IPS: Why Guatemala? There are many other countries in the region and in other regions that need a similar approach to impunity. CC: Because Guatemala asked for it. Guatemala went before the United Nations and said, please help me, create a commission to help my prosecution office to function.

It’s true, there are other countries in the region in a very similar situation, Honduras, El Salvador and others. But in those cases there has not been an initiative.

The United Nations can’t come to a country if the country does not agree. An exception on this issue is the Security Council. In this case the U.N. could only give help because Guatemala asked for it.

IPS: Is there a possibility to extend CICIG to Honduras, El Salvador or Colombia? CC: It will depend on the situation, on the government, the political forces and the civil society in those countries. There has not been any other request. But a similar commission has just been created for Pakistan and Lebanon.

But in other cases it’s the initiative of the member states that ask the organisation for one kind of support or another.

IPS: Do you think that CICIG’s tasks can someday be done by the Guatemalan government itself? Will CICIG someday be unnecessary? CC: The changes that the country needs must be done by themselves. The Guatemalans must change their country. We are an international body with limited resources and limited time to act in the region. So we can be the promoters of the changes in the country, but the main characters of this story must be the Guatemalan institutions, the Guatemalan citizens and the Guatemalan authorities.

IPS: Several right-wing political parties voted against the creation of CICIG. What were their motives? CC: In some cases it was mainly patriotic reasons, and in other cases I think it was just political objections. This situation is changing. I think we have now more support than when we just arrived in the country.

At that moment there were a lot of critics saying, they will do nothing, it is impossible to change the situation. Well, I think the situation is changing and that is changing the mind of the people, and the mind of political parties. But we are changing the situation of impunity and there are always people and groups who are interested in perpetrating this situation. But that is part of our task, it is not a problem.

IPS: How would you measure the CICIG’s success? CC: In my view, the most important success is the reaction of the civil society. The society of the Guatemalan people, the NGO’s, the civil rights groups, are beginning to believe that the changes can come. That is the first and the most important thing that we need.

Excerpt:

By Shari Nijman
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 4 2009 (IPS)

The Canadian province of British Columbia is home to more than 200 native communities, or First Nations, ranging from about 20 people to over 3,000. As their size and level of remoteness varies, so does their economic development.

Christa Williams Credit: Courtesy of Christa Williams

Christa Williams is executive director of First Nations Public Service (FNPS), a group that aims to empower native Canadians through education and job creation.

A member of the Nlaka’pamux Nation and an expert in aboriginal education issues, Williams played a key role in negotiating an agreement among First Nations, provincial and federal representatives that recognised the right of First Nations peoples to make decisions about the education of their learners.

Williams recently spoke with IPS about gender equality in Canada and the barriers faced by native peoples around the world.

IPS: What are the main obstacles for indigenous women? Do you think the fact that they’re female plays a bigger role, or the fact that they are indigenous? CHRISTA WILLIAMS: I would think the fact that they are indigenous is the main obstacle. Because within our communities, women are well-respected. They face tonnes of social challenges, but generally women are very much respected. I think that in the world beyond our communities, as an indigenous woman you are judged first as an indigenous person and secondly as women. And all of the stereotypes around indigenous people are primarily our barrier.

There are many stereotypes about indigenous people, like our limited education. I think there is also a stereotype around not appreciating or valuing education, and that’s definitely not the case in our community. And of course, substance abuse is always a stereotype that people are having in mind when they meet indigenous people.

So people’s perceptions matter. People are making judgments based on your appearance and the colour of your skin, as opposed to judging you about the words that you speak. We found that there is incredible knowledge in our elders and in our community that other people might not listen to.

Traditionally, in our community you talk for a long time about an issue before deciding anything. And no, they don’t always get to the point. They would cut people off and I think it that it’s the clash of cultures, the idea that people like to meet more quickly and not listen to the end of the story. The barriers that exist for indigenous women are more those of race then of sex.

IPS: Is there a big difference in the position of indigenous women among countries? CW: My understanding is, how stereotypical that may be, is that there are lots of challenges, due to other histories. In Canada, we have the privilege of having women who fought really hard to make a place for us in society and so we have those opportunities created. There are women all over the world right now who are trying to create these opportunities for women in other countries. But those women have so much larger barriers.

IPS: Do you think that the position of indigenous women is likely to change in the near future? CW: I am biased, right. So I think that of course, the position of indigenous people is getting much larger. Firstly, because we are getting much more educated, and having role models that created a trail for us. This makes it a lot easier for us who come behind.

And I think that as we grow in numbers, our influence will also grow. So I don’t see it [the influence of indigenous women] diminishing at all, I see it instead almost forging a type of leadership that is different than traditional leadership to men. I think there is a place for that, and I think that it is becoming more valued.

IPS: What national initiatives are being taken to improve the position of indigenous women in politics or in business? CW: I must admit that I am very much focused on British Columbia. So, in BC there are many things being done to promote women and leadership, but I am not familiar with the national scene. But there are a lot of things that we are trying to do here in British Columbia, like capacity building strategy and providing mentorship opportunities for young women to identify them as future leaders.

IPS: What do you think that indigenous women can contribute to organisations that non-indigenous women can’t? What can we learn from female indigenous leaders? CW: I think everybody brings different values, facts and world views. And we are certainly bringing the world view of indigenous people. But it I focus on education, I get the idea that education is not just in the classroom with one teacher as a central point, but instead it’s more of an experiential process with lots of teachers.

So you are going to have elders and you are going to have peers, parents and aunties and others. And this is the sort of community our children are going to have access to on a regular basis, so that becomes just the norm.

I think that the different approach to education isn’t teacher centred but instead is almost student centred. It allows the students to develop in their own pace and in those areas in which they are most proficient or most interested. And I think bringing that different world view into any sort of education system would be helpful to students. And I think it would not benefit First Nations learners but all learners.

Excerpt:

By Shari Nijman
UNITED NATIONS, May 22 2009 (IPS)

In 2007, a group of aboriginal women from Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia decided that the only thing that could save their community from going under was to impose a complete ban on the sales of takeaway alcohol.

June Oscar Credit: Shari Nijman/IPS

In the previous year, the community had witnessed 13 suicides and many alcohol-related deaths, resulting into a funeral every week. By pushing for a drinking ban, the women of Fitzroy Crossing hoped that the crisis would be resolved and the aboriginal community would regain its strength.

This week, activist June Oscar and others screened ‘Yajilarra’, a documentary about the women of Fitzroy Crossing’s quest to fight the drinking culture, at United Nations headquarters in New York.

Oscar and some 2,000 indigenous leaders from around the world are attending the eighth session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues here from May 18-29.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: The women of Fitzroy Crossing have successfully pushed for a ban on the sale of hard takeaway liquor in your area. Do you think the drinking problem among aboriginals much larger than it is within non-aboriginal communities? JUNE OSCAR: I think the problem is actually a lot larger in non-aboriginal communities. But we are a minority in our country and we are more visible. Just because we don’t see the non-aboriginal people out in public drinking, I don’t think non-aboriginal people are not drinking at high levels. Alcohol is not just an aboriginal problem; it’s a problem in all societies.

We see a lot of non-aboriginal children drinking directly after they graduate from year 12. Also, we see a lot of drinking by people who aren’t aboriginal, at sporting events and other events in the country.

The type of drinking that happens among many of our people is binge drinking. When the money comes in, large purchases [of alcohol] can be made and there is a lot of activity concerning alcohol.

There are, however, many people in our community that are very responsible when drinking, or who don’t drink at all. But unfortunately, the ones that get highlighted are a small minority doing a lot of damage to their communities, their families and to themselves.

IPS: What kinds of changes have you witnessed in Fitzroy Crossing since the restrictions? JO: We have seen many improvements and changes. But we’ve witnessed new challenges as well. There has been a decrease in [alcohol-related] patients at the emergency department of our hospital from about 85 percent to around 35 percent.

For the very first time in years, the professional staff at the hospitals consists of people with permanent positions, rather than emergency personal. Before, we couldn’t get any hospital staff to stay and live in Fitzroy Crossing for longer than three months. Now, we have all our doctors positions filled and all our nurses positions filled.

We have seen an increase in school attendance. Furthermore, a lot more people have entered into employment, and people are generally looking a lot healthier. We witnessed people making better life choices and being a lot more responsible when they are using alcohol.

IPS Do you think a drinking ban should be implemented in the whole of Australia?

JO: I think there is a real opportunity here for some honest discussion about how alcohol is seen as part of the Australian culture. There is a need for a real discussion with the breweries, which profit from the production and the sale of alcohol. They have to be aware of the levels of damage that the governments of some communities have to pick up on.

You see it [alcohol] marketed to young people in a colourful and tasty manner. It’s something that really concerns me. People who make alcohol and sell it are making it accepted to our young people. We see an industry that’s growing and creating more profit, but at the other end of the spout that means more problems, more health issues and more family relationship issues.

Alcohol is a big issue for non-aboriginal people as well, especially around young people, in public places in the city. So we really need to have an honest discussion in Australia and I think the time is right.

IPS: Could the progress that has been made by the alcohol restrictions have been achieved in any other way, maybe without a complete ban? JO: This is the way that we have chosen to deal with it, because the situation on the ground needed this level of intervention. The community needed drastic and decisive action. We had to justify and build a case to convince the director general of liquor licensing to impose this decision. I don’t believe we could have achieved the same results in any other way. This is what we have done, and this is what we learned. This is just the beginning.

Because there is much suffering, and much loss and pain in these communities, the inconvenience for someone returning home at the end of the day and not be able to have his alcoholic beverage isn’t that important. In the scheme of things, this is bigger than individuals. This is about a society of people surviving into the future. We are a minority people in our country and we need all of us to go forward.

IPS: Do you think the effects achieved in Fitzroy Crossing will inspire more communities in Australia to impose a drinking ban? JO: I think so, because it is clearly demonstrated to the government that all these public funds are being spend mopping up after just one industry that is creating so many problems in many communities. The situation in Fitzroy Crossing has really shown that both costs and lives can be saved here.

Excerpt: