By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Mar 10 2011 (IPS)

As the world discusses the protests and battles sweeping North Africa -most recently in Libya- where is the African Union (AU)? Numerous multilateral bodies have called for respect for human rights and an end to state-sponsored violence, including the European Union (EU), the Arab League, and the United Nations.

In discussing the situation in Libya, US president Barack Obama did include the African Union in a list of partners for finding a solution. But, by and large, the voice of the AU has been faint and largely ignored by the international media.

Surely the AU should have been among the first international organisations consulted as internal conflict engulfed AU member states in North Africa. Why wasn’t it? If such conflicts were taking place in Europe, surely the EU would be central to a resolution.

One problem the AU faces, along with many African nations, is that it is not financially independent. It must seek funds from the EU, the United States, and others, including some of the wealthier member states despite their records on undemocratic governance and human rights violations. Libya, for example, is said to provide at least 15 percent of the AU’s overall budget. In 2009, Libya’s now-embattled leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was elected to a one-year term as chairperson of the AU.

This dependency hampers the organisation’s effectiveness in many ways. It constrains its ability to have an independent voice and could account for the AU’s relative silence on the situation in Libya, despite the threat of another protracted civil war in Africa.

Even when the AU has offered support to member states -as during the violence that followed the 2007 elections in Kenya- it couldn’t provide the financial resources that might help bring about peace; that had to be left to other countries.

Another problem is that the AU has neither an army nor a peacekeeping force, so it cannot intervene militarily to protect citizens. It also has relatively little influence on national armies. The US could apply pressure on former president Hosni Mubarak and Egypt’s army by threatening to cut off the USD 2 billion in aid it provided. The AU has no such leverage over recalcitrant leaders. It can only use persuasion, which can easily be disregarded, as demonstrated by the stalemate and increasing violence in Ivory Coast following disputed presidential elections in 2010.

On February 23, Jean Ping of Gabon, the chairperson of the AU commission, did express “great concern” about Libya, condemning the “disproportionate use of force against civilians” and the number of lives lost. He reinforced the AU peace and security council’s call for an immediate end to repression and violence.

In the eyes of many observers, however, the AU statements came too late and were largely overlooked. No doubt the AU is still working behind the scenes, and the chairman, president, and relevant committees are in communication with leaders in North Africa, as well as the international community. But, unfortunately, the AU’s voice is largely ignored in the world at large and within affected countries.

At the same time, many Africans, both in the north and south, hope that the AU will serve as a beacon against which every African state measures itself. But such hopes have foundered: many AU members remain below the standards that most of their citizens expect, and the AU cannot demand greater democracy than a critical mass of its members are willing to practice.

The AU has set benchmarks that would require the expulsion of members that don’t meet them, such as expanding democratic space and respecting human rights; pursuing equitable and sustainable human development; and combating poverty. Members of the AU are also required to practice good, transparent governance and root out corruption. But many of these principles have been ignored by member states.

Moreover, while the AU should be at the forefront of encouraging good governance and discouraging impunity, it has on occasion taken the side of states demonstrating great impunity, most recently Kenya and Sudan. In both countries, the AU has supported derailment of interventions by the International Criminal Court. Through such actions, the AU loses its potential moral authority.

It is clear that the changes the peoples of North Africa are demanding won’t be realised overnight, and they will have to accept that real change is slow. It will take time to build the institutions that provide checks and balances on executive power, including independent parliaments, judiciaries, armies, and police. these are often the first casualties of poor governance.

Many Africans, in both north and south, have for years moved in darkness, fear, and desperation. The AU could be the lighthouse that vanquishes this darkness -and a leading, credible international voice and presence, too. But enough of its members have to want to be this beacon, in action and not only words.

There is going to be change throughout Africa. Whether the AU and its member states can lead it, or will simply follow their citizenry, is the challenge. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel peace laureate, is founder of the Green Belt Movement and co-founder of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. She served as the initial chairperson of the African Union’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC).

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NEW YORK, Jan 13 2011 (IPS)

Southern Sudanese are at the polls to decide whether they want to remain part of a united Sudan or to break away and become Africa’s newest country. The referendum is taking place from 9 to 15 January, but official turnout figures are not expected until the beginning of February. The outcome, which is largely expected to result in an independent South, will have an enormous impact in both the South and the North.

Sadly, though, the focus of international attention goes no farther than the implications for Sudan’s oil resources and the potential for further conflict. Hardly anyone is concerned with what this moment will mean for Sudan’s citizens -especially women.

There are real reasons to be concerned about the future of Sudan’s women, in both the North and the South. A highly-publicised YouTube video released last month ominously foreshadowed what the future may look like for women post-referendum. The video shows laughing Sudanese policemen in the North brutally flogging a woman, who is begging for mercy. The laws that allow such human rights abuses are on the books and raise serious questions about the rights of Sudanese women. This follows on the other highly-publicised case of Lubna Hussein, who was convicted of violating the Public Order laws for wearing trousers in public, as well as less-publicised cases of police mistreatment of women in Southern Sudan over similar ‘clothing abuses’.

In response to the YouTube video release last month, hundreds of courageous Sudanese women and some men took to the streets of Khartoum to protest such repressive laws, which allow for public flogging. Some of those who participated in the demonstration were arrested outside the Ministry of Justice on December 14. Zaynab Elsawi, a prominent women’s rights activist who was among those arrested, attests that the public flogging incident is “indicative of increased repression of women: repression we fear will only increase in a fragmented Sudan”.

Furthermore, in a speech given in the Al-Gadarif region of eastern Sudan on December 19, President Omar Bashir affirmed his support for the YouTube woman’s sentence, as well as his intention to drive Sudan toward Islamic fundamentalism, should the South secede. Ignoring the diversity of Northern Sudan, including Darfur, Southern Kordofan, and other areas, President Bashir made clear his intentions for a Sudan that is only Muslim, Arabic-speaking, and under a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law.

These are fear-inspiring remarks for Sudan’s women, who have fought decades for the new spaces they have been able to occupy thanks to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South Sudan. Among the gains made are quotas for 25 percent representation for women in Southern Sudan for all legislative and executive branches of government from the national to the local level, and a minimum 25 percent for all seats in the National Assembly and state legislative assemblies in Northern Sudan. The women of Sudan want to continue their movement toward equal opportunities.

So far women have been largely excluded from post-referendum negotiation processes. The African Union has entrusted former South African President Thabo Mbeki to play a leading role in facilitating these processes, and while I have been supportive of Mbeki and his Sudan initiative, his initiative has yet to seriously include women.

We support Sudanese women who are calling for post-referendum structures that are democratic, inclusive, participatory, and promote respect for women’s and children’s rights. I am encouraged by the untiring efforts of those Sudanese women who are committed to continued cooperation between the North and South as they work for peace, regardless of borders. Women will need to continue to work together to ensure that their human rights are protected and that they are empowered to be effective and responsible citizens of Sudan.

The Sudanese government’s development partners, including the African Union, should ensure that the governments of Sudan respect the rights of women. Following the launch of the African Union Decade of Women in 2010, it is imperative that our leaders in the African Union demonstrate solidarity with Sudan’s women. We look to Africa’s leaders to ensure that Sudan’s women can continue their quest for equality and justice. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Wangari Maathai of Kenya is the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate and founding board member of the Nobel Women’s Initiative, created along with five other sister Nobel Peace Laureates.

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Dec 2 2010 (IPS)

A year after much-touted climate change summit in Copenhagen, country negotiators from around the world are together again to work out an international response to climate change. While many believe we should lower our expectations for this year’s climate change summit underway in Cancun, this would be a mistake. As global temperatures rise, so do the challenge’s for the world’s poorest citizens- women, especially those living in developing countries.

Women are living on the frontlines of climate change, and are ready to be active partners in dealing with climate change. The negotiations in Cancun should be an opportunity to empower women and make concrete commitments that will turn some promises of earlier negotiations into a fair, binding, and legal document.

From food shortages to forest degradation and new and more complex health risks, as well as an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, the impacts of climate change threaten to further jeopardize the lives of women and girls. But just as many women are bearing the greatest burden of climate change because of their role as providers for their families, it is women who are developing the solutions that will save our world from the impacts of global warming.

Take, for example, the challenge of ensuring that our world shifts to a ‘low carbon’ future. The success of investment in developing states to circumvent development reliant on fossil fuels depends on local co-operation, and capacity on the ground. This is where women are key.

Through its green technology initiative in India, the Self-Employed Women’s Association has helped provide over 150 000 women with microcredit and training required to take advantage of new green technology. While the developed world talks about action, women from the poorest sectors of India’s economy are cutting carbon emissions by ending their reliance on coal, re-using forms of solid waste and promoting the merits of alternative energy.

Similarly, in regions where women are able to be decision-makers over land use and resources, they are proving to be a positive force for sustainable change. With women at the forefront, the Green Belt Movement in Kenya has planted ten of millions of trees to restore local habitats and reduce fuel wood reliance on precious finite forest resources. In Malawi, women farmers have joined together in ‘farmers’ clubs’ where they share information on seeds and cultivation techniques that are able to adapt to the degradation of soil and changes in rainfall patterns caused by global warming. This reduces their vulnerability to climate change- induced drought and prolonged crop failure.

But it is not just women in the developing word who are taking on the challenge of climate change. As the research from North America, Europe, and India demonstrates, women around the world demonstrate greater scientific knowledge of climate change, show more concern, and are more willing to adopt policies that are designed to address global warming. Internationally, women leaders are at the forefront of a global civil society network working to hold government, international institutions, and the private sector to account for their promises on climate action.

Yet despite their willingness to take political and individual action, entrenched inequality between men and women continues to pose a critical obstacle to global efforts to address climate change.

The most fuel-efficient stove ever produced will do little to bring an end to deforestation or reduce carbon emissions if women do not have access to the training required to use it, the micro-credit needed to buy it, or the financial freedom to control household expenditure. For example, it was shown that in Zimbabwe in the 1990s solar cooking stoves failed to be adopted largely because men objected to women purchasing or learning how to use the new devices.

In many parts of the world women do not own collective or individual title to the land from which they live. This lack of control means they are less able to implement sustainable agriculture or adapt forest management strategies that contribute to climate change mitigation as their voices are not heard when decisions are made. It also impedes their ability to participate effectively in programmes such as REDD+, which offers financial incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.

REDD+ will only work if policy makers are willing to learn from grassroots women. One of the key lessons is that focusing on carbon as the sole measure of the success of a climate change project has the potential to derail international efforts to combat climate change. Moving forward, we need to also take into consideration community rights to land and carbon, the livelihoods of people in communities, and issues related to governance.

Women need to be part of the decision-making process. At present women are vastly underrepresented in decision-making roles. In March this year, when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced a climate finance panel expected to mobilize USD100 billion dollars a year to help those most affected by climate change, the 19-person panel did not include a single woman.

This is unacceptable. Not only should women be represented on a climate change finance panel. Every effort possible must also be made to ensure that women have access to the education, training, and finances needed to adopt sustainable technologies and participate in the green economy. Women and girls also need the land and resource rights to implement progressive forestry or agricultural practices. Last and certainly not least, women need the basic democratic rights that will enable them to vote for and promote green policies at the local, national, and international level.

Citizens everywhere are waiting for real action on climate change. If the international community is serious about addressing climate change, it must recognize that women are a fundamental part of the climate solution. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for her work on the environment and democratic participation in Kenya. She and her five sister Nobel Peace Laureates created the Nobel Women’s Initiative in 2006 to work on human rights and climate justice.

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Jul 19 2010 (IPS)

The African Union has declared 2010 the Year of Peace and Security in Africa, and will soon launch the African Decade of Women. What better opportunity to act on these pledges than at the 15^th African Union Summit, being held later this month in Kampala, Uganda? The upcoming referendum in Sudan gives African leadership an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to improving the lives of women on this continent by ensuring that they actively and freely participate in the referendum. Southern Sudanese will go to the polls to decide whether to remain a part of a unified Sudan or secede and become Africa’s newest country. Given that Sudan is Africa’s largest country ­bordered by nine countries, also plagued by conflict, rampant corruption and stunted development­ it behooves our leaders to prioritize Sudan. News coming out of Sudan in the last few months paints a bleak picture: the security situation in Darfur is deteriorating, the Darfur peace negotiations in Doha, Qatar are barely limping along, and the recent national elections were well below international standard. There are just six months remaining to the referendum that will impact the future of millions of Africans. Recently the Sudanese government appointed the African Union High Level Panel for Implementation in Sudan led by former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki to facilitate negotiations on Sudan’s referendum. Mbeki and the Panel are charged with leading negotiations between the ruling National Congress Party and the Southern Sudanese Liberation Movement in the South on all outstanding issues in the lead up to the referendum. Mbeki and the Panel have a big responsibility. They must support the Sudanese government and the Sudanese people to ensure an inclusive, transparent, and comprehensive process. The referendum will be dealing with issues that are of vital consequence to the people of Sudan, including the division of national economic resources, the redefining of citizenship, and border demarcation. The process must be, above all, inclusive. And an integral part of the responsibility to be inclusive is ensuring that those most affected by the referendum have a voice ­namely, Sudanese women. Achieving lasting peace and security in Sudan is not possible without women’s full inclusion and especially within decision-making processes. Yet, up to now, women are almost invisible.

Following April’s elections in Sudan, only two of 35 cabinet ministers and six of 42 ministers for state are women. There are no women at the decision-making level in the Darfur negotiations at Doha ­a process that is plagued by problems and proving to be ineffectual. And now there is a conspicuous lack of women in formal leadership positions for the referendum. Indeed, of the nine people appointed by the Sudanese government to the Referendum Commission, there is only one woman. This is far from the 30% advocated for by Mbeki and his Panel, the 25% demanded by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and well below international standards. 2010 not only marks the start of the African Union Decade of Women but also the 10-year anniversary of United Nations Security Council’s resolution 1325, which mandates women’s full participation in peace processes. In short, there is simply no excuse for women’s exclusion from current peace negotiations on Darfur ­nor from the upcoming referendum or other decision-making processes within Sudan. Thus far, the work of Mbeki and his Panel has demonstrated an understanding of why Sudanese women need to be at the forefront of all conflict-resolution processes, in Darfur and across Sudan. This commitment to women’s leadership must be renewed and acted upon as the Panel’s work on the referendum moves forward. The Panel ­and the African leaders supporting Mbeki and his colleagues­ have a historic opportunity to demonstrate their support to Sudanese women. In declaring 2010 the Year of Peace and Security in Africa, the African Union set the gauntlet to take extraordinary measures to engage in activities to promote and consolidate peace processes across the continent. What better time is there for the AU to demonstrate its commitment to Sudan’s peace process by demanding greater space for Sudanese women to play a vital role? (END/COPYRIGHT IPS) (*) Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, founding board member of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and member of the Advisory Council for the African Union Year of Peace and Security.

Excerpt:

By Evelyn Kiapi and Wangari Maathai
KAMPALA, Jun 10 2010 (IPS)

As the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court takes stock of the ICC’s achievements and considers amendments to strengthen the pursuit of justice around the world, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize is one of its strongest defenders.

Wangari Maathai: 'Africa needs to learn to deal with issues honestly and fairly.' Credit: Martin Rowe/Wikicommons

The founder of The Green Belt Movement, which works to curtail the devastating effects of deforestation and desertification, spoke to IPS in Kampala, Uganda, calling the ICC the only hope for many who have been denied justice in Africa and around the world.

Q: Why are you participating in this ICC landmark conference? A: I came to express my support for the ICC, especially in light of the statements that have been made that the ICC is not good for Africa and should not be supported by Africans because it is targeting this continent.

I know that the majority of ordinary Africans support the ICC because they are victims of conflict. Those who may not support the ICC are the leaders who are the perpetrators of violence against humanity.

Secondly, in these conflicts, women have been used and punished. They are the ones displaced to refugee camps and who lose their husbands and children.

But by far, the greatest crime against them is that rape is used as a weapon of war. We want rape to be punishable and those who commit this kind of crime held accountable.

Q: Why is the ICC being accused of focusing and targeting only Africa? A: That’s an excuse for Africa. The mandate of the ICC is to target people who commit crimes against humanity and to come in where national mechanisms fail to punish perpetrators.

In Kenya, we failed to handle the situation; Sudan was referred by the Security Council for crimes in Darfur. Uganda, DR Congo and Sierra Leone invited the ICC because they could not do anything at the national level.

It is not that Africa is being targeted. Perhaps, this is a reflection that there are a lot of conflicts and gross violations of human rights in Africa and African countries are not able to deal with them at the national level.

What Africa needs to do is learn to deal with these issues honestly and fairly. True African leaders have nothing to fear from the ICC.

Q: What are your views on the ICC’s involvement in Kenya? A: The ICC came to Kenya because Kenyans failed to create a tribunal that can punish the perpetrators. It is true that the ICC will only be able to punish the few; the most responsible.

But there will be thousands who were involved in killing, robbing and displacement of people that will have to be tried by some form of tribunal in Kenya. So in some ways we are complementing and in others, cooperating with the ICC.

Q: The ICC has often been criticized as being a ‘toothless dog’ and some victims say it has let them down? A: It’s very important to educate our people in Africa that the ICC is not a panacea and it will not solve all our problems. The ICC is a great idea and it has succeeded in creating a bridge that was non-existent; a bridge that allows it to enter into a country and arrest citizens without interference from national governments. That’s a bridge that should give hope to victims of war.

Let us not imagine that it is an easy thing. But let us nurture the hope that the ICC brings because it is the only hope we have at the moment. When we arrest a few, those potential ones who would have wanted a war tomorrow will think twice.

Q: You hold the view that the ICC is strengthening national justice systems. What evidence is there to show that this is true? A: Kenya is a very good example. We will now have to domesticate some aspects of the ICC in order to punish the many thousands of people who committed crimes during the post election violence. That in many ways is helping us to improve our own system of justice.

By domesticating the Rome Statute, you raise the bar on what is tolerable even at the national level.

Q: Women want more visibility and representation in peace processes. Is there evidence to show that a greater voice for women in negotiating peace agreements can yield better results? A: From the women who were in the government – who were in the front line, either ministers or potential ministers, who should have come together to protect and save us from the [Kenya post election violence] catastrophe that we were facing – I did not see that. And therefore, I continue saying that given the power, women must demonstrate that they can manage it better than men.

Q: What is the link between conflict, women and the environment? A: When men fight for power, they are usually fighting to control resources. It’s very important for us to manage our resources in a responsible and accountable way.

If we don’t, there will be fewer resources and this will increase the possibility of conflict, especially as the population grows.

And whenever there is conflict, women will always be the major victims.

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Mar 22 2010 (IPS)

While the normalization of diplomatic relations between Chad and Sudan and the signing of a cease fire and framework for peace negotiations between the Sudan government and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) are being heralded as critical steps towards peace in Darfur, there is still a long way to travel to resolving the ongoing crisis in Darfur.

Indeed, there is reason to be skeptical of achieving a comprehensive peace agreement for Darfur. Conflict in Darfur persists seven years on, with several failed attempts at peace. Many analysts noted that the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), signed by just the government and a single rebel faction, was dead before it was even concluded.

Under the leadership of Djibril Bassolé, the former foreign minister of Burkina Faso, the on-going peace talks in Doha must remedy the mistakes of the DPA to avoid another failure -namely ensuring the process is inclusive and consultative, rather than focusing on signatures in a quick time frame. The most notable and critical missing link are Sudanese women.

Paramount among the many voiceless in Sudan, are the voices of women, who are all too often excluded from the formal peace negotiations. Alarmingly, a 2009 UNIFEM study found that less than 3% of peace agreement signatories since 1992 are women. The positive and powerful role that women can play in peace processes has been well documented across the African continent –from Rwanda to Liberia to Uganda. In Somalia, and other conflict-affected countries, women were the only party able to shuttle messages between warring factions or to build bridges between perceived enemies. In Uganda, women’s participation in the peace process led to broader inclusion of education and health issues in negotiations around Disarmament, Demobilization, and Rehabilitation (DDR) –an area traditionally seen as of concern to males only.

It may not have made it to international headlines, but women are working hard on the sidelines of the Doha peace process. This is through women’s participation in the civil society forum, women’s on-going advocacy efforts in Sudan and abroad, as well as in the diaspora. A group of Sudanese women in the diaspora, representing different regions of Sudan, organized to engage in the peace negotiations process in order to support their Sudanese sisters. While these women do not have any official opportunity within the negotiations, they met with the Bassolé and the rebel factions –drawing attention to the lack of women represented, as well as working to bridge alliances between the disparate groups.

Still the problem remains that women are notably lacking from the formal negotiations. Even the mediation team, international envoys, and other Sudan peace partners are conspicuously lacking prominent women who are able to ensure that the peace process is indeed engendered and taking an inclusive approach to ensuring that all citizens are represented. In light of international commitments under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, this is a serious omission on the peace process and SudanÂ’s peace partners.

There should be a plan for ensuring that civil society will have a direct role during the negotiations. Peace will not be achieved simply by bringing together the combatant parties; the process must ensure that peopleÂ’s voices and concerns are integrated. To date, the Sudanese government and Darfur rebel groups have been blocking attempts to bring civil society into the process. As neither the Sudanese government, and increasingly so the rebel groups, are adequate representatives of the people of Darfur, civil societyÂ’s role in the negotiation process is that much more urgent for success.

International Sudan players, including the US, EU, and Russia, should be working to support the peace process through a coordinated, agreed upon approach. And importantly, this common approach should include a shared vision for womenÂ’s meaningful participation in the process. Indeed, it was an approach that was endorsed by the African Union and the Report of the High Level Panel on Darfur, headed by former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki.

There is pressure to solidify an agreement in time for the April elections, and indeed this is critically important for Darfur. However making sure the process is inclusive and comprehensive is even more important. Now is the time to open up the negotiations and to ensure that SudanÂ’s majority population, the women, have a voice in their own future. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, is the founder of the Green Belt Movement (greenbeltmovement.org) and a co-founder of the Nobel WomenÂ’s Initiative (nobelwomensinitiative.org).

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Oct 26 2009 (IPS)

It’s clear that climate change poses severe environmental, economic, and social risks. But it also presents a challenge of leadership the likes of which the world has never seen. Can heads of state and governments meet it when they gather in Copenhagen in December to hammer out a new international climate agreement?

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to US president Barack Obama offers hope -and a challenge- in this regard. Since assuming the presidency, Obama has demonstrated a willingness to use the Unites States’ still enormous power to build a more peaceful world. He has emphasised the importance of inclusivity, diplomatic engagement, and mutual respect. He’s also offered a vision of what is possible when one is determined to overcome obstacles.

All these principles are essential to solving the climate challenge.

The realities of global warming will make unprecedented demands on every country, whether in the millions of economic and environmental refugees arriving on the shores of rich nations, the collapse of forests and agricultural systems, or in the risk of mass starvation among the poor.

We know that climate change won’t affect everyone equally. Those who are poorest, oldest, youngest, female, who live along coasts, in arid regions, or who depend directly on the land for livelihoods, will feel its effects most.

Evidence of the havoc climate change can cause arrives daily, especially in regions already vulnerable and ill prepared. In my own country, Kenya, a prolonged drought has meant that nearly ten million people, almost a third of the population, require food aid. Crops are failing and livestock, without water or food, are dying.

Wildlife -the backbone of Kenya’s tourist industry- is also dying as major rivers run dry and grasslands wither. And children and the elderly have begun to die of hunger and thirst.

In Guatemala, insufficient rainfall and poor soils have devastated crops of corn and beans. Thousands of people now face a food emergency. At the other extreme, in India and Bangladesh, and Niger in West Africa, too much rain has led to cataclysmic flooding, and the loss of thousands of lives.

At its core, the climate challenge is a challenge of leadership: to find leadership that’s honest and principled, visionary and practical; that communicates the urgency of the tasks and what’s required of its people; that prepares them for the hard choices and inevitable sacrifices that global warming will bring; that puts in place policies for the benefit of this and future generations, not simply those that are expedient or lead to short-term political gain.

This leadership would ask of the world’s people the same allegiance to transparency, equity, and justice it ought to demand of itself.

But industrialised and developing nations have widely divergent responsibilities for creating and solving the climate crisis. Africa, for instance, has contributed only a tiny proportion of the greenhouse gases now warming the planet, around five percent of the total.

Industrialised countries have an obligation to the rest of the world not only to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions markedly, but also to make concrete commitments to assist poorer nations in adapting to climate shocks and forging development paths that don’t cost the Earth. That’s the way to climate justice.

At the same time, leadership in developing countries must rise to the challenge. Many such nations have experienced decades of environmental mismanagement or outright neglect, and current government policies on adaptation to changing ecological conditions remain largely inadequate.

Some governments, including my own, have tolerated or even facilitated the plunder of forests, the degradation of land, and unsustainable agricultural practices. All of this has increased the likelihood that the seasonal rains will fail, soil will be washed away, and land that was fertile will turn to desert. Poverty grows, and desperate, deadly scrambles over scarce resources will ensue.

In such a world, peace is elusive, and resources that should be used to protect the environment are instead diverted to deal with conflicts and general insecurity.

Too much is at stake to tolerate political games, or political brinkmanship, any longer. Enough is enough. If we fail now, future summits will have to focus on the costs, in lives.

The Nobel Peace Prize gives president Obama a greater opportunity, and an expectation, to continue encouraging the world to walk towards healing old and new wounds, and to learn to co-exist in peace. When he accepts the prize on December 10, the Copenhagen climate talks will be underway.

The world’s leaders also have an opportunity to demonstrate that they understand the singular nature of the climate challenge and are prepared to lead. The time has come to be decisive. Climate change demands nothing less. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, is the founder of the Green Belt Movement (greenbeltmovement.org) and a co-founder of the Nobel Women’s Initiative (nobelwomensinitiative.org).

Excerpt:

By Desmond Tutu, Wangari Maathai, and - -
NAIROBI, Jun 4 2009 (IPS)

Representatives of African States will meet in Addis Ababa (June 8-9) to “exchange views” on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prompted by the war crimes indictment of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the meeting will provide a platform for the Court’s dissenters in Africa, and aim to sew discord among ICC supporters.

The meeting appears to be driven by African leaders who claim the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders and engaging in a new form of western colonialism. They claim that the ICC indictment against al-Bashir will impede peace in Sudan. Meanwhile, the real focus seems to be protecting the Sudanese president who has been accused of the worst kind of atrocities.

We are deeply concerned by the ongoing violence, displacement, and repression in Sudan ­and we support the role of the International Criminal Court in bringing justice and accountability for the peoples of Sudan. We are hopeful that the work of the Court will help break the cycles of violence and the culture of silence in the Darfur region of that country. We urge the international community ­all of Sudan’s neighbors and friends- to join in the support for the ICC’s role in Sudan.

We are deeply disheartened by the Sudanese government’s response to the March 4, 2009 issuance of an arrest warrant for President Omar Al-Bashir. By expelling and restricting humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and relief workers in the desperate Darfur region, the Government of Sudan has further endangered the estimated 4.7 million people in the region who rely on food, medical and water aid. The expelled organizations are responsible for at least 50 percent of this aid.

The international community must come together to find a way forward and to help Darfuris, and all Sudanese, find justice and peace. We call on leaders to dramatically step up efforts to negotiate an end to the violence in Darfur, actively involving the armed groups and the Sudanese government. The Sudanese women who have been building the path to peace through their dialogue and consultation efforts must be at the peace table. We believe that progress in the peace talks must happen in tandem with the ICC’s work for justice.

After more than five years of horrific violence and insecurity, displacement and brutal sexual violence, the people ­and particularly the women­ of Darfur deserve more than the negotiating warlords forgiving each other for the violence they have perpetrated primarily against women, children and other non-combatants. There can be no real peace without justice -and the people of Darfur deserve and have clearly vocalized a desire for justice and accountability.

We are convinced that the ICC is an effective vehicle towards achieving justice on a global level. The ICC has the potential to prevent and reduce the deaths and devastation caused by violent conflict and abuses of power. The victims of every nation deserve access to justice, and the ICC provides a forum for those who have nowhere else to turn. It would be a shame if this week’s meetings in Addis were to undermine the Court’s potential before it can get off the ground.

The true leaders of this continent have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court. We need strong institutions, good governance, and the protection of human rights to tackle the many challenges we face in Africa, and the ICC can play an important role -if we let it. So as African states meet this week, we hope they will do just that, and let the Court do its work. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Dr. Wangari Muta Maathai was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004. She is a co-founder of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and the Greenbelt Movement. Wole Soyinka was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986. He is the author of numerous novels, plays, essays, films and poetry collections. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1984. He chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is currently the chairman of The Elders.

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Jun 30 2008 (IPS)

Conserving the Congo forest, and indeed all of our forests in Africa, and accelerating forestation efforts is vital to our survival on a continent where the Sahara Desert is expanding to the North and the Kalahari Desert expands to the Southwest, writes Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, Goodwill Ambassador for the Congo Forest, and founder of the Green Belt Movement. In this article, Maathai writes that for this reason the Congo Basin Forest Fund was launched in London on June 17. The Congo Basin Forest is the world\’s second largest forest ecosystem and considered the planet\’s second lung, after the Amazon. It provides food, shelter, and livelihood for over 50 million people. Covering 200 million hectares and including approximately one-fifth of the world\’s remaining closed-canopy tropical forest, it is also a very significant carbon store with a vital role in regulating the regional climate.Today, in the Congo Basin rainforest increased logging, changing patterns of agriculture, population growth, and the oil and mining industries are all leading to ever greater deforestation.

For this reason the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) was launched in London on June 17. The initial financing of the CBFF comes from a pair of USD 200 million grants from the governments of the United Kingdom and Norway. Ten countries in the Central African region established the Congo Basin Forest Initiative to manage the forest more sustainably and conserve its rich biodiversity.

The Congo Basin Forest is the world’s second largest forest ecosystem and considered the planet’s second lung, after the Amazon. The forests of the Congo Basin provide food, shelter, and livelihood for over 50 million people.

Covering 200 million hectares and including approximately one-fifth of the world’s remaining closed-canopy tropical forest, they are also a very significant carbon store with a vital role in regulating the regional climate. The diversity they harbour is of global importance. Spanning an area twice the size of France, the Congo Basin rainforest is home to more than 10,000 species of plants, 1,000 species of birds, and 400 species of mammals.

Today, the Congo Basin rainforest is coming under pressure. Increased logging, changing patterns of agriculture, population growth, and the oil and mining industries are all leading to ever greater deforestation. This situation is not sustainable for the people who live there, for the countless species that may be driven to extinction, or for the climate. Reversing the rate of deforestation in the Congo Basin is therefore essential both to securing the livelihoods of the people in the region and to maintaining the carbon-storage capacity and biodiversity of the forest.

Forests are indispensable yet we take them for granted. Though they appear inexhaustible, they can perish. The two nations who share the island of Hispaniola

-Haiti and the Dominican Republic- provide a vivid example of what happens when we destroy our environment, and especially forests. The deforestation of Haiti and the subsequent loss of its soil made the country vulnerable to devastation by hurricanes and deepened its poverty and misery. Conditions in the Dominican Republic, which largely retains its forests, are significantly better that the other side of the island.

Perhaps Africa should introduce a tree-planting day or even a season for tree planting. Environmental education should be introduced in primary schools to ensure that our citizens grow up with a full appreciation of the African environment. Without such education, it is quite possible there will be government ministers who advocate destructive policies simply because they have no idea what is the right thing to do. Sadly, the generations that destroy the environment are often not the ones that feel the consequences. It is the following generations who suffer.

While it is important to protect forests in our individual countries, it is also important to recognize the special value of forests that lie elsewhere, like the Congo Basin forest ecosystem. The negative impact of destructive activities in the Congo forest will be felt in countries both within and outside Africa.

What Africa needs is not only to protect her indigenous forests, but also to engage in massive forestation efforts. It is possible for our people to grow the commercial plantations needed by the timber and building industries. But it is wrong to sacrifice forests to generate quick economic benefits from expansive commercial tree farms. When we do that, we undermine the capacity of our children and grandchildren to get water and reliable rainfall for agriculture. They may also not be able to generate hydropower and enjoy the many other uses of water because rivers may dry up. Africa is already considered a water-scarce continent. It cannot afford to sacrifice its watersheds.

In this context, the efforts of President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal deserve particular recognition. He is creating a Great Green Wall from Dakar to Djibouti in an effort to stop the advancing Sahara desert. As President Wade put it: “This project consists in planting trees over a distance of 7,000 kilometres from Dakar to Djibouti to constitute a five-kilometre-wide green strip across the desert to stop any further progress of the desertification process. With the regeneration of biodiversity, we plan to give our planet a new ‘green lung’ and contribute thus to the fight against climatic changes…. We have already identified the course of the Great Green Wall and selected the tree species to be planted according to climatic zones, each country crossed by the Great Wall being responsible for its edification within its borders.” (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Jul 30 2007 (IPS)

While in wealthy countries, the looming climate crisis is a matter of concern, in Africa, which has hardly contributed to climate change, it is a matter of life and death, writes Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate and a member of Kenya’s Parliament and the founder of the Green Belt Movement. In this analysis, the author writes that therefore, Africa must not remain silent in the face of the realities of climate change, and its causes. African leaders and civil society must be involved in global decision-making about how to address the climate crisis in ways that are both effective and equitable. Unfortunately, the generation that destroys the environment may not be the one that pays the price. Politically, it is more expedient to sacrifice the long-term common good and intergenerational responsibility for the convenience and opportunities of today. But, morally, we are required to act for the common good of all. The global challenge of climate change requires that we ask no less of our leaders, or ourselves

In wealthy countries, the looming climate crisis is a matter of concern, as it will affect both the well-being of economies and people’s lives. In Africa, however, a region that has hardly contributed to climate change — its greenhouse gas emissions are tiny when compared with the industrialised world’s — it will be a matter of life and death.

Therefore, Africa must not remain silent in the face of the realities of climate change, and its causes. African leaders and civil society must be involved in global decision-making about how to address the climate crisis in ways that are both effective and equitable.

For this reason, when the G-8 heads of state met in early June in Heiligendamm, Germany, I sent them an appeal urging the industrialised countries to lead by example, since it is they that are as largely responsible for climate change. Therefore, they must take the most decisive steps to combat it.

As major polluters, the industrialised countries also have a responsibility to assist Africa to reduce her vulnerability and increase her capacity to adapt to climate change. The industrialised countries need to put in place mechanisms that raise steady and reliable funds for the prime victims of the climate crisis, in Africa and other developing regions.

We know a strong linkage exists between the environment, governance, and peace. It is essential that we expand our definition of peace and security to include responsible and accountable management of the limited resources on Earth, as well as a more equitable distribution of those resources. Climate change makes the need for this redefinition even more urgent.

For humankind to manage and share resources in a just and equitable way, governance systems must be more responsive and inclusive. People have to feel that they belong, and the voice of the minority must be listened to, even if the majority has its way. We need systems of governance that respect human rights and the rule of law and that deliberately promote equity.

Many of the conflicts and wars in the world are fought over access to and control and distribution of resources like water, fuels, grazing ground, minerals, and land. We need only to look to Darfur. In recent decades, the desert in western Sudan expanded because of droughts and erratic rainfall that can be attributed in part to climate change. As a result, farmers and herders have clashed over scarce arable land and water, and unscrupulous leaders used these conflicts to stir up mass violence. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and even more displaced amid campaigns of intimidation, rape, and abduction.

By managing resources better, by recognising the links between sustainable management of limited resources and conflicts, we are more likely to pre-empt the root causes of civil strife and wars, and therefore create a more peaceful and secure world.

But the environment degrades slowly and may not be noticed by the majority of people. If they are poor, selfish, or greedy they will be more concerned about survival or satisfying their immediate needs and wishes than worrying about the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, the generation that destroys the environment may not be the one that pays the price. It is the future generations that will confront the consequences of the destructive activities of the current generation.

The responsibility to address the problems we face including the climate crisis — in good time for the common good calls for visionary political will on the part of governments, and social responsibility by the corporate world.

On climate change, we are all called to take action. Many countries in the world that have large forests and considerable vegetation covering their land conserve their biodiversity and enjoy a healthy and clean environment. However, some are engaged in destructive logging and harvesting of biodiversity in forests far from their borders. It’s critical that we see the world as one and that we endeavour to protect not only the local but also the global environment.

Constant pressure is felt to sacrifice forests to make way for human settlements, agriculture, or industry. These pressures will only increase in a warming world where climates will be more erratic. Politically, it is more expedient to sacrifice the long-term common good and intergenerational responsibility for the convenience and opportunities of today.

But, morally, we are required to act for the common good of all. We have a responsibility to protect the rights of generations, of all species, that cannot speak for themselves today. The global challenge of climate change requires that we ask no less of our leaders, or ourselves. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Apr 30 2005 (IPS)

While the new focus on Africa\’s development is welcome, the essential role of the environment is still marginal in discussions about poverty, writes Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate and Kenya\’s Assistant Minister for Environment and Member of Parliament. In this article, Maathai writes that while we continue to discuss these initiatives, environmental degradation, including the loss of biodiversity and topsoil, accelerates, causing development efforts to falter. Without better management of resources the achievement of the MDGs, especially the elimination of poverty, could easily remain a dream. Africa lags behind other regions in progress toward the MDGs. If we do not acknowledge that the environment is central to sustainable development and ending poverty, we run the risk degrading the resource base on which future development depends. To make poverty history, we have to put the environment at the centre of policy and decision-making.

The future of the African continent is again on the world’s agenda. The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the United Kingdom’s Africa Commission, and a multitude of citizen and civil society efforts are among initiatives that are addressing the problems of Africa’s poorest people.

This new focus on Africa’s development is welcome. However, the essential role of the environment is still marginal in discussions about poverty. While we continue to debate these initiatives, environmental degradation, including the loss of biodiversity and topsoil, accelerates, causing development efforts to falter. Without better management of resources, the achievement of the MDGs, especially the elimination of poverty, could easily remain a dream.

My own country, Kenya, offers a good example. The forests of Mount Kenya, on the Equator, and the Aberdare range, on the eastern edge of the Rift Valley, are the source for hundreds of tributaries that pour into the Tana River, Kenya’s largest. This river provides drinking water for millions of Kenyans in the major urban centres. The forests function as water collectors, receiving and storing rainwater in underground reservoirs. Many sectors, including industries, agriculture, tourism, livestock, and energy depend on them.

Some sixty years ago, the mountains were clear cut and replaced with monoculture plantations of pines and eucalyptus for commercial use. To manage these plantations cheaply, the administration introduced the shamba system, where farmers were allowed to cultivate food crops in between tree seedlings. It was assumed, that as the farmers tended their crops, they would also tend the seedlings, thereby reducing the costs to the government.

Unfortunately is not always well understood that this system can destroy the capacity of natural forests to provide critical forest services, such as the replenishment of underground water levels, sustaining the volume of water in rivers, providing habitats for extensive biodiversity, and controlling rainfall patterns. After many years of forest abuse, these services fail: biodiversity disappears, rivers dry up, floods become common and very destructive, soil erosion increases, land degrades, desertification intensifies, rainfall and crop production plummets.

Small-scale farmers working degraded lands are among the poorest people in Kenya. For them, hunger is a common phenomenon. These conditions undermine prospects for eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (MDG 1) and reducing child deaths (MDG 4), the roots of which are often found in hunger and poor nutrition. At this time, aid in the form of food, clothing, and shelter from the government or donor agencies become needed. Under such unsettled conditions, communities demonstrate the typical pictures of desperation and hopelessness. Yet all this could be avoided by managing the forested mountains more sustainably.

This year in Kenya, the long rains have been late and light, preventing most farmers from planting their fields. Three million people, nearly 10 per cent of the population, now depend on government food aid. About 60 per cent of Kenya’s population is rural, and most men and women still earn their living as farmers.

After the loss of forests, nothing remains to hold the soil back, and massive amounts of topsoil are lost. Combined with low water levels, large deposits of soil in dams across the Tana River have challenged the government’s ability to generate sufficient hydropower. As a result, Kenya has had to buy power from neighbouring countries to expand rural electrification and industrial development. In so doing, it sacrifices other development priorities like combating HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases (MDG 6) and improving maternal health (MDG 5). Shortages of electricity also mean that poor people in rural and urban areas use charcoal (from trees) for energy, furthering deforestation and limiting prospects that MDG 7, ensuring environmental sustainability, will be achieved.

Finally, destruction of Kenya’s forests also affects tourism, a major source of foreign exchange. As animals’ habitats are compromised, they search for food and water in other areas and are often killed by poachers or people defending themselves and their livelihoods.

The organisation I founded, the Green Belt Movement, has launched a pilot project in partnership with the Kenyan government to restore degraded forests and open lands with native trees and vegetation. Local women are growing indigenous tree seedlings and planting them in the Aberdares forest. For each seedling that survives, the women earn about USD 0.35. This money can be used for school uniforms, nutritious food, or health care for themselves and their children.

Africa lags behind other regions in progress toward the MDGs. If we do not acknowledge that the environment is central to sustainable development and ending poverty, we run the risk of missing all the MDGs and further degrading the resource base on which future development depends.

For Africa it is necessary not to forego the promise to future generations. To make poverty history, we have to put the environment at the centre of policy and decision-making. That is what will make the difference.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Wangari Maathai and - -
NAIROBI, Nov 1 2004 (IPS)

The devastation that HIV/AIDS is wreaking in Africa in the midst of abject poverty and abandonment is of a severity and scale found nowhere else. It silent, misunderstood, and overwhelming threat to peace and security on the continent, writes Wangari Maathai, recipient of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. We in Africa must encourage a freer and more enlightened debate on the HIV/AIDS threat, the author writes in this article. We must at the same time learn from our own successes in the fight against the disease. In Uganda 15 years ago the fear was that HIV/AIDS could destroy the whole society; today we see a dramatic improvement, largely because of the responsible political leadership of President Museveni. HIV/AIDS is a global challenge for both political and religious leaders. While we need the encouragement, support, and cooperation of the rest of world, we also need the respect and trust that some of the solutions will emerge from our own value systems.

The devastation that HIV/AIDS is wreaking in Africa in the midst of abject poverty and abandonment is of a severity and scale found nowhere else. It is a silent, misunderstood, and overwhelming threat to peace and security on the continent.

Walking around villages where I see people burying the dead beside the graves of their relatives, the reality of losing millions to AIDS-related illnesses leaves me and fellow Africans with tremendous pain and fear for the future.

Soon we will have nearly 15 million children orphaned by the disease. Homes stand empty because all the occupants have died. In others, older children abandon school to care for their siblings, making children extremely vulnerable as they face the future alone. It is an unprecedented challenge for Africa.

It is important that the right information reaches local communities not only to inform but also to empower them. Local communities need to take the disease seriously, get tested, and curb the spread of the disease. Married women, when they know that their husbands are infected, must have the right to say no to unprotected sex.

Women and girls are especially affected by HIV/AIDS because of their socialisation and economic position in society. Unable to access education and medical care and lacking property rights, girls are increasingly victims of violence, rape and prostitution. Yet they are expected to be caregivers when people fall sick. Of particular concern are the many poor girls for whom it seems selling sex is the only possible survival strategy, which puts them at high risk of being infected.

What became of moral values and the responsibility of the adults to protect children and the vulnerable in society? How about justice and equity? What other options are there? Is anyone listening? Anyone caring?

Like many others I wonder about the theories on the origin, nature, and behaviour of the virus. I understand that there is a consensus among scientists and researchers internationally that the evolutionary origin may be in Africa even though there is no definitive evidence. I am sure that the scientists will continue their research so that the view, which remains quite widespread, that the tragedy could have been caused by biological experiments that went terribly wrong in a laboratory somewhere, can be put to rest.

It is important for me to state that I neither say nor believe that the virus was developed by white people or white powers in order to destroy the African people. Such views are wrong and destructive.

To battle HIV/AIDS, it is essential that we uphold the positive societal values that held our traditional societies together, through abstinence amongst the youth and faithfulness by both partners in marriage. Today, condom-use is an option. What is important is that all available options are used properly and responsibly.

As I have said repeatedly, I am not an expert on HIV/AIDS and therefore, have never claimed to have the answers. But faced by its monumental impact in my society, I do inquire. When my advice is sought, I say that I really do not know and that I depend on what I hear or read, because I am privileged to be able to read and write. It is important to understand the questions presented to me and my responses to them in the context of the cultural and economic environment of my country.

I have warned people against false beliefs and misinformation, like the notion that the disease is a curse from God or that sleeping with a virgin cures the infection. These prevalent beliefs in my region have led to an upsurge in rape and violence against children.

We in Africa must encourage a freer and more enlightened debate on the HIV/AIDS threat. We must at the same time learn from our own successes in the fight against the disease. In Uganda 15 years ago the fear was that HIV/AIDS could destroy the whole society; today we see a dramatic improvement, largely because of the responsible political leadership under President Museveni. Male leaders in all parts of Africa should look for inspiration to former presidents Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, who are spending much of their time and effort fighting the pandemic.

The fact that HIV/AIDS presents a threat to peace and stability in the continent has been discussed in the Security Council of the United Nations and voiced as a particular serious concern by Secretary General Kofi Annan. I fully agree and believe that HIV/AIDS should be made the first priority on the political agenda of the Africa Union.

We in Africa cannot win the battle against HIV/AIDS alone. We need global understanding of the cultural context, solidarity and practical support, including allowing the production of generic drugs for greater access, poverty elimination and improvement of the nutritional status of the people. This is a global challenge for both political and religious leaders. While we need the encouragement, support, and cooperation of the rest of world, we also need the respect and trust that some of the solutions will emerge from our own value systems. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: