By Aline Jenckel
UNITED NATIONS, May 9 2012 (IPS)

For centuries, indigenous peoples and their rights, resources and lands have been exploited. Yet long overdue acknowledgment of past exploitation and dedicated efforts by indigenous peoples have done little to end or prevent violations of the present, stated indigenous leaders in the Manaus Declaration of 2011.

The declaration, part of preparations for the upcoming U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, frequently referred to as Rio+20, in June, recounted the “active participation” of indigenous groups in the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and similar efforts in 2002 that led to the adoption of the term “indigenous peoples” for the United Nations (U.N.) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Despite this work, “the continuing gross violations of our rights…by governments and corporations” remain major obstacles to sustainable development, the declaration continued. “Indigenous activists and leaders defending their territories still continue to be harassed, tortured, vilified as ‘terrorists’ and assassinated by powerful vested interests.”

As Rio+20 approaches, IPS interviewed Tom B.K. Goldtooth, who has been an activist for social change in Native American communities for more than three decades and is the executive director of Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), an alliance of indigenous peoples that combats the exploitation and contamination of the earth and will participate in the Rio+20 conference.

Goldtooth called for a “new paradigm of laws that redefine humanity and its governance relationship to the sacredness of Mother Earth and the natural world”.

The activist explained that the most effective measures for reducing deforestation, protecting the environment from unsustainable mineral extraction and preserving a better world for future generations are to strengthen international, national and sub-national frameworks for collectively demarcating and titling indigenous peoples’ territories.

U.N. Correspondent Aline Jenckel spoke with Tom Goldtooth about the main threats faced by indigenous peoples and how the Rio+ 20 conference could be a success.

Q: At the Rio+20 conference in June, you will speak on behalf of indigenous peoples and their human rights, in terms of protecting their natural environment and creating sustainable development. What is the key message you hope to convey? A: The thematic discussion of green economy and sustainability creates differences in views between the money-centred Western views and our indigenous life-centred worldview of our relationship to the sacredness of Mother Earth.

Many of our indigenous peoples globally are deeply concerned with the current economic globalisation model that looks at Mother Earth and nature as a resource to be owned, privatised and exploited for maximised financial return through the marketplace.

With this development model, indigenous peoples continue to be displaced from their lands, cultures and spiritual relationship to Mother Earth, and destruction to the life-sustaining capacity of nature and the ecosystem that sustains us and all life continues as well.

For the sake of humanity and the world as we know her, to survive, there must be a new paradigm of laws that redefine humanity and its governance relationship to the sacredness of Mother Earth and the natural world.

This includes the integration of the human-rights based approach, ecosystem approach and culturally- sensitive and knowledge-based approaches. The world must forge a new economic system that restores harmony with nature and among human beings.

We can only achieve balance with nature if there is equity among human beings.

At Rio+20, global governments must look cautiously at any green economy agenda that supports the commodification and financialisation of nature and take concerted action to initiate the development of a new framework that begins with a recognition that nature is sacred and not for sale and that the ecosystems of our Mother Earth have jurisprudence for conservation and protection.

Full recognition of land tenure of our place-based indigenous communities are the most effective measures for protecting the rich biological and cultural diversity of the world.

Q: What are the biggest threats to Indigenous people’s livelihoods today, and how can they be addressed? A: Indigenous peoples from every region of the world continue to inhabit and maintain the last remaining sustainable ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots in the world.

Destructive mineral extractive industries continue to encroach on indigenous peoples’ traditional territories. Unconventional oil and extreme energy development, with the real-life effects of climate chaos, are directly affecting the wellbeing of indigenous peoples from the North to the Global South.

Indigenous peoples can contribute substantially to sustainable development, but they believe that a holistic framework for sustainable development should be promoted.

With the knowledge that development that violates human rights is by definition unsustainable, Rio+20 must affirm a human rights-based approach to sustainable development.

Particularly, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must serve as a key framework which underpins all international, national and sub-national policies and programs on sustainable development with regard to indigenous peoples.

Q: Recently, some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) expressed deep concern about the reversals on agreements made by governments in 1992 and say there’s no country taking leadership of or acting as a visionary role in the conference. Do you believe there is still hope for new, binding commitments? A: Because of the climate chaos, financial instabilities and ecological devastation, the world doesn’t have an option to reverse the agreements made in 1992.

World leaders must remember the active participation of indigenous peoples in the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED 1992) and the parallel processes indigenous peoples organised, which resulted into the Kari- oca Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration.

Agenda 21 embraced the language of Kari-Oca that recognised the vital role of indigenous peoples in sustainable development and identified Indigenous Peoples as a Major Group. Rio+20 must reaffirm the commitments made by UNCED to indigenous peoples in 1992.

Excerpt:

By Walter García and Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 9 2012 (IPS)

The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), whose mandate includes the preservation and protection of the world’s fast-degrading oceans, will play a pivotal role in Expo 2012, an international exhibition to be formally opened later this week in the coastal town of Yeosu in South Korea.

“From the U.N.’s perspective, the seas form part of what is commonly referred to as the ‘global commons’, and as such, any threat to this global resource ought to be addressed,” Amina Mohamed, a U.N. assistant secretary-general and UNEP‘s deputy executive director, told IPS.

She pointed out that the largest creatures in the world live in the oceans (blue whales) as well as the smallest (bacteria).

“Protecting our oceans is tantamount to protecting our planet and is critical for long-term sustainable development,” said Mohamed, who is also co-commissioner-general of Expo 2012 and a former Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva.

The primary theme of Expo 2012, which runs May 12 May through Aug. 12 – is “the living ocean” and the protection of the world’s marine ecosystems.

The U.N. Pavilion located in the exhibition site will bring together more than 20 U.N. agencies and international organisations, primarily to showcase their collective efforts at the sustainable use of oceans and coasts.

The participating agencies include the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Seabed Authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Ocean Institute and the World Food Programme (WFP).

In an interview with IPS, Mohamed said that UNEP, as the lead U.N. agency, will coordinate the preparatory work of the agencies, as well as their participation.

She pointed out that coasts and ocean resources are key to economic development and growth, and therefore offer the potential for transitioning to a green economy and a sustainable future, as envisaged by the upcoming Rio+20 summit of world leaders in Brazil in June.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How important is the protection of marine resources in the context of the global environment? A: Protection of marine resources, and specifically oceans, is extremely important for a number of reasons. Oceans comprise more than 70 percent of our planet, are crucial to sustaining the Earth’s life- supporting systems, especially in regulating our climate, and provide food and income to the billions of people who depend on marine ecosystems for their livelihoods.

Indeed oceans, coasts, and islands are vital suppliers of diverse resources and ecosystem services that are essential for the survival of human civilisation. We must remain deeply aware of the importance of the oceans, coasts and islands so that they continue to serve as a source of prosperity for humankind.

Oceans, coasts and islands have also functioned as foundations for cultural development throughout human history. Consequently we must increase our efforts to protect and develop maritime cultures in order to help them conserve marine resources sustainably and ensure the equitable sharing for present and future generations.

In addition, oceans constitute a conduit for trade and exchange that connect the economies of the entire world. In light of the oceans interconnectedness, all nations of the world should strive to make it a place of safe navigation and welfare for all mankind. People depend on all of these for their wellbeing. And every second breath we take comes from oceans’ oxygen.

Q: Will Expo deal with related issues such as the rise in piracy and also the Law of the Sea (which was essentially the creation of the United Nations)? A: Visitors to the U.N. Pavilion will have the opportunity to learn about the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.

However, the theme of the expo may not address the issue of piracy directly but we are keen to deliver the following key messages, namely that oceans are the heart and lungs of the planet and determine every form of life that inhabit them.

Q: What specific messages do you plan to convey regarding the world’s oceans at Expo 2012? A: Coasts and oceans are resilient but have their limits, and so if millions of tourists enjoy them every year and if limited fish stocks are over-fished, we need to give them time to recover. Care and sustainable use can make a difference.

Additionally, land-based activities such as agriculture and industries have a significant impact on the overall quality of our oceans. Poor use of resources leads to the generation of pollution loads through wastewater discharges and air pollution emissions. To this end, we must remember that removing pollutants is more expensive than avoiding them in the first place.

Oceans and inland water resources also provide important sources of food, nutrition and income for billions of people.

Q: Will protection of marine resources be on the agenda of Rio+20, billed as one of the biggest summit meetings on the global environment? A: Protection of marine resources will be on the agenda of the Rio+20 conference. Under this item, discussions will focus on various matters, including the role of oceans in sustaining Earth’s life support system; sustainable exploitation of the oceans and their resources; conservation, sustainable management and equitable sharing of marine and ocean resources; economic, social and environmental contribution of coral reefs to island and coastal states; significance of the Global Marine Assessment process; impact and prevention of ocean acidification, restoration of global fish stocks, conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity.

In addition to this prominent feature of oceans in the Rio+20 text, there will be an ‘Oceans Dialogue event’ in Rio on Jun. 16 at the Rio Conventions pavilion. And arrangements have been put in place to celebrate ‘Oceans Day’ (during the summit).

Q: Regarding the impact of oceans on humans, how threatening is sea level rise on the world’s smaller island nations such as Maldives, Tuvalu and Solomon islands? Does UNEP have a role here? And can the Expo provide any guidance to these countries? A: The rise in sea level poses serious challenges to the whole world. It is estimated that sea levels have been rising at an average rate of 2.5mm per year between 1992 and 2011. This scenario clearly supports the view that small island nations remain a special case for sustainable development in view of their unique and particular vulnerabilities.

The vulnerability of small island nations has worsened over the last two decades if the rate of rising sea level is anything to go by. There exists therefore a strong basis for increased efforts to assist small island nations to deal with this global challenge including the need to convene a third international conference for the sustainable development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the very near future.

UNEP is uniquely placed to provide information that would assist the Small Island Nations deal with their vulnerabilities. We have for instance published a report titled “Green Economy in a Blue World” which sets out several options that address challenges faced by these countries. These options range from transition to green growth in fisheries to developing a sustainable tourism sector.

Excerpt:

By Fabíola Ortiz
RIO DE JANEIRO, May 9 2012 (IPS)

Clean, renewable energies contribute to economic growth and job creation while decreasing dependency on imports. This is why governments should be increasing incentives for the development of renewable energy during a crisis like the one facing Europe today, German engineer Björn Pieprzyk told Tierramérica.

Even skeptics believe renewable energies could cover half of Germany’s energy demand by 2050, says Björn Pieprzyk. Credit: Courtesy of Björn Pieprzyk

Clean energy sources play a key role in combating climate change and developing a greener economy, said Pieprzyk, a consultant with the Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energie (BEE), or German Renewable Energy Federation.

In an interview in Rio de Janeiro at one of the numerous events being held prior to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), which will take place in June in this Brazilian city, Pieprzyk told Tierramérica that Germany should be able to meet all of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2050.

This is one of the goals of BEE, founded in 1991 as the political umbrella organisation of the renewable energy sector in Germany. It now comprises 22 associations from the hydropower, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal energy sectors, representing a total of over 30,000 individual members and companies.

But a transition is needed from the existing energy system, based on hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, gas and oil, to these cleaner, renewable sources. This will require cutting subsidies for fossil and atomic energies, stressed Pieprzyk, who is also a co-founder of the Energy Research Architecture consulting firm.

Q: How do you see the discussion of renewable energies in the context of the Rio+20 conference? A: Developments in the last 20 years have shown that renewable energies are the most important contributor for climate protection worldwide. We can continue with this growth, but for the future we need to make a transition from the existing energy system, and we need a level playing field to cut subsidies for fossil and atomic energies. Renewable energies need new incentives.

We need standards to monitor the real costs of fossil energy in the future. I expect clear and strong standards in the field of sustainability and social development. That means clear conditions for development where renewable energies shall play an important part.

Q: What is the potential for renewable energies in Germany? A: Renewable energies account for 12 percent of the energy system. We are using about 20 percent renewable energy in the electricity sector, nine percent in the heating sector and six percent in fuels. It is still a small percentage in comparison to fossil energies.

But the potentials are very high, especially in the solar energy sector, but also biofuel and hydropower. Germany will be able to cover 100 percent of its energy needs with renewable energies before 2050; in 30 to 40 years it will be possible to achieve these goals.

This is the aim of our federation, although the majority of the German population and the government are less optimistic and expect that half of the energy demand in 2050 will be covered by renewable energies.

Q: Are renewable energies economically viable today? A: In the last 10 years in Germany, the cost of renewable energy – wind and solar – decreased very fast. Nowadays the costs of renewable energy are close to fossil fuel prices to produce electricity. Atomic energy plants are much more expensive than renewable energies.

By next year, the cost to produce solar power in private households will be less than the price that they are paying now. A private household now has to pay about 25 euro cents (roughly 32 cents of a dollar) per kilowatt/hour. The price of solar power now is already less than this amount of money. This energy will be competitive.

Q: Are the other countries of the European Union (EU) following this path of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energies? A: Germany is ahead, but some other countries are following this path and have much better conditions to use renewable energies. The UK and Ireland have a lot of sun in the south.

It is possible for the whole of Europe to follow this path and achieve goals in the next decades. But there is a need for more political and legal incentives in some sectors, especially the electricity sector.

Q: What has been the impact of the economic crisis on renewable energies in the EU? A: In Germany investments in renewable energies are still stable, but there are some plans to cut support for solar energy. There are a lot of decentralised jobs in the whole country. In Germany it is a priority, and big companies like Siemens are earning a lot.

Private sector investment is about 25 billion euros (33 billion dollars) per year. The government has support programmes for heating systems that come to less than half a billion euros (660 million dollars). Nearly all of the money is coming from companies. Germany and Europe can become less dependent on energy imports, and renewable energies are already an important factor for economic growth and increasing rates of employment.

The problem is if governments react like Spain and Italy, cutting state support and legal incentives which are important at this point when renewable energies are so close to being competitive.

Q: How do you see the situation of renewable energies in emerging countries like Brazil? A: Traditionally Brazil has a lot of experience in the use of hydropower and biomass to produce biofuels (such as ethanol). It is a leading country in this sector and is now starting to use wind energy and solar power. It has an advantage for those two energies, since at the moment the price is much lower than ten years ago.

There is a great possibility for Brazil to increase the percentage of renewable energy rapidly – for private households, companies and the whole economy. They also have possibilities to use modern technologies that are environmentally friendly and competitive.

However, Latin American countries still pay double the price in comparison to Europe for renewable energy. There are several reasons for that, for example, because it is a new market. There are now negotiations for new wind farms in Brazil that can produce energy for around six cents per kilowatt/hour.

But for companies to invest you need clear conditions for renewable energy. You need stable conditions for investors.

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

Excerpt:

By Fabíola Ortiz
RIO DE JANEIRO, May 8 2012 (IPS)

The vital role of women in creating a green economy will be highlighted at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, to be held in Brazil in June.

Rebecca Tavares: "Women's leadership should help the transition towards a green economy." Credit: Courtesy of U.N. Women

Women’s contributions are essential for environmental management, food production and social reproduction, as well as the transition to a green economy, Rebecca Tavares, regional director of U.N. Women for Brazil and the Southern Cone region, told IPS.

This is especially true in rural areas, where women take the lead in climate change adaptation and mitigation activities in farming work. But their rights and their contribution to development continue to be negated, she said.

Q: What will happen at the Women Leaders’ Forum to be held at Rio+20? A: The Forum will bring together women, governments, civil society organisations, academics and the private sector to discuss and reaffirm the centrality of gender equality and women’s empowerment for the achievement of sustainable development in its three dimensions.

There will be a Call to Action supported by U.N. Women and female heads of state to incorporate new ideas, best practices, innovative proposals and visions for the future.

Q: How can women make a difference at Rio+20? A: Sustainable development implies a global compact of laws, policies and standards on gender equity, while at the same time responding to new problems, challenges and opportunities.

Action plans must include mechanisms for implementing a green economy, and must recognise the leadership role of women, and their voice and participation, as key factors to ensure sustainable development.

Q: What is your view of women’s role in relation to climate change? A: One-quarter of the world’s female population lives in rural areas. These women are leaders, decision-makers, workers, businesswomen and service providers. That is why their contribution is vital for the welfare of their families and communities, as well as for the local and national economies.

Gender equality and the empowerment of women are crucial for achieving the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Where women’s rights and access to resources are ensured, women are powerful agents of change in this direction.

Women play a pre-eminent role in environmental management, food production and social reproduction.

Many also have traditional knowledge that contributes to conscientious use of resources like soil, water and energy. Therefore it is essential to develop training programmes for women in sustainable development techniques, to perfect their knowledge.

Q: How can women contribute to the eradication of poverty and hunger? A: Women’s leadership should help the transition towards growth in a green economy. However, the rights of women who are small farmers, for instance, and their contributions and priorities are still looked down on.

Women can be agents of change through access to the labour market and educational opportunities.

Q: What actions is U.N. Women carrying out in Brazil? A: We have assistance and empowerment programmes for indigenous women, black women living in “quilombos” (communities originally established by escaped slaves) and women working in the extractive industries.

A programme has been developed by the Brazilian government in partnership with U.N. Women, to promote South-South technical cooperation with African, Latin American and Caribbean countries, with the support of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The goal of the plan is to consolidate best practices and experiences in Brazil, in order to promote gender equality and spread these actions in the social and economic spheres.

Q: What kind of initiatives is U.N. Women involved in to help empower Brazilian women? A: Since 2008, U.N. Women has supported work with rural women who are small farmers.

One of these programmes, “Chapéu de Palha” (Straw Hat), has been carried out in the northeastern state of Pernambuco, in conjunction with the state’s Secretariat for Women’s Policies. The aim is to improve nutrition and the general quality of life in the communities, and to carry out educational and reforestation activities.

Over 28,000 Pernambucan women have benefited since the inception of this plan nearly four years ago, and the programme has received 50,000 dollars from U.N. Women in 2011-2012.

Moreover, in 2010 the Pernambuco state Plan for Public Policies for Rural Women was created, the first of its kind in Brazil.

Excerpt:

By Aline Jenckel
UNITED NATIONS, May 2 2012 (IPS)

In the weeks and months leading up to the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, groups spanning a wide spectrum of interests are doing everything in their power to ensure that the outcomes of the summit are actually carried out.

Ivana Savic, left, and Kiara Worth, co-ordinators of the Conference on Sustainable Development Major Group for Children and Youth. Credit: Aline Jenckel/IPS

One such group is the Conference on Sustainable Development Major Group of Children and Youth, which believes that strengthening youth involvement and activism is urgent and critical to the success of the United Nations (U.N.) Conference on Sustainable Development, commonly known as Rio+20, to be held this year in Rio de Janeiro from June 20 to 22.

Ivana Savic and Kiara Worth, co-ordinators of the CSD Major Group of Children and Youth, have high hopes for the summit and the results it could bring.

“We will see a renewal of the political will, and we would like to see youth being recognised more concretely in official documentation,” Worth told IPS, although she acknowledged that while she had “huge expectations, whether or not they will be achieved is a different thing”.

“It is not only about the policy, the dialogue or the official statements,” Worth added. “It is about creating the energy and the sense of urgency and the sense of ability to move forward.”

Worth and Savic also hope to see different forums established that will inspire, enable and motivate youth to participate in negotiations.

The period from April 30 to May 4 is the third informal week of negotiations on the zero draft of the outcome document for Rio+20. The negotiations are being held at the U.N.’s New York headquarters.

U.N. Correspondent Aline Jenckel talked with the women about the work of the youth organisation and their hopes for the Rio+20 summit as well as preceding negotiations.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What are the main concerns of the CSD Major Group for Children and Youth? A: (Savic) What needs to be done during these negotiations (held at the U.N. this week), and I believe also for the Rio + 20 Summit, are adopting a human rights based approach to sustainable development and strengthening human rights in the outcome document.

(Worth) Within the themes of Rio+20, there are different policy points for which we are strongly advocating. Within the green economy, for example, we are promoting sustainable agriculture. The main line in the green economy is also youth employment, in terms of shifting from job seeking to job creation.

In addition, we advocate for more reflection on creating a blue economy and protecting our water.

Within the institutional framework for sustainable development, we campaign for the establishment of an ombudsperson for future generations to ensure that there is a high level of engagement of youth in global processes.

Q: What contributions will the Major Group bring to the Rio+20 conference in June 2012? A: (Worth) The two main things our group will bring to the summit are first, our policy contributions and second, the inspiration and motivation for youth activism.

At the moment, we are focused on a whole series of different groups that people can get involved in. We try to cater to a variety of youth around the world who have different interests, skills and abilities. We try to create a space where they can gather and share their ideas.

We build momentum and a social movement that is inspiring and reviving the spirit of Rio.

Q: The first step to build momentum for progress on current global challenges is to draw attention to the topic. How does your organisation inspire others to learn more about sustainable development, and how do you convince them to act? A: (Worth) Recently, we launched a social media strategy, for as youth we have a unique opportunity through access to new social media platforms and different tools to increase the scope of our message.

We are currently working on a strategy to use those different platforms to first create awareness – to inform people about the discussion, about sustainable development, about our focus. Second is to build capacity, once people gain knowledge about the topic, and give them tools to take action.

This builds a movement in two complementary ways: Local action takes into account global perspectives, while you ensure that the global process reflects local perspectives, thus taking into account the differing abilities of people and their diverse interests. You become much more effective.

(Savic) We also make sure it’s accessible to people who have fewer opportunities to participate.

Even if they are physically not there, at the U.N. or in Rio for example, they still have an influence because we have the technology and the ability to bring their perspectives to the table and to address those issues.

Q: What are your expectations regarding the outcomes of the conference and the commitments made by governments? A: (Worth) Touching on the inspiration of Rio, the main expectation especially from my perspective would be that we build that movement and the energy. It is not only about the policy, the dialogue or the official statements, it is about creating the energy and the sense of urgency and the sense of ability to move forward.

By achieving that, then at least we have a young, social, strong and empowered movement that can act on anything we decide to to.

(Savic) I expect us to move away from that materialistic development to a more human and well-being oriented development that actually respects the human rights, economic growth and also the respect owed to our environment.

For me, another important outcome of Rio +20 is forming partnerships between civil societies and governments in implementation. In previous times, due to the lack of that partnership, we were not able to meet agreements and commitments.

It goes the same for governments as for civil societies who were not participating in or held accountable for those agreements.

Excerpt:

By Charundi Panagoda
WASHINGTON, May 1 2012 (IPS)

Thirty percent of food is wasted globally, while one billion people go hungry and another billion are obese.

The current food system is broken and is failing to meet the world’s nutritional needs, says Danielle Nierenberg, “Nourishing the Planet” project director at Worldwatch Institute.

Worldwatch and the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition recently released “Eating Planet 2012” to highlight the challenges faced by today’s food and agricultural system and the benefits of making the system more sustainable, accessible and fair.

“While we talk a lot about the bad news (in the report), the focus is on how agriculture can be the solution for some of the world’s most pressing problems, whether it’s hunger and obesity or youth unemployment. We really think that food and how we produce it and how we eat it is a significant solution,” Nierenberg said.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Farmers don’t make much. Can they afford to be sustainable? Will they be able to mass-produce without the usual fertiliser? A: I think what we are seeing as fuel prices continue to rise, it’s becoming harder and harder for farmers all over the world to afford agriculture inputs that are highly fossil fuel intensive like fertiliser, pesticide and other chemicals. And there really are no signs of fuel prices going down soon.

So I think the whole issue of whether organic or sustainable agriculture can feed the world is not really the question, it’s whether we can continue the food system based on fossil fuel intensive resources. I don’t think it can.

We have one billion hungry people in the world and we have an industrialised agricultural system that’s supposed to be feeding these people, but it’s not. (Various studies) comparing the two show that the industrial system is not making that much more in yield and, in some cases, yields are lower.

We are not feeding with the current system, anyway. So we have to figure out less fossil fuel intensive methods to make sure everyone is fed.

Q: What are some of the solutions you propose? A: In “Eating Planet”, the focus is on nutrition. There is a lot of talk in agricultural development on how to improve yields and what kind of agricultural system is best but there are only a few people who bridge the gap between agriculture and nutrition.

It’s not just about how much food we are producing, but what kind of food we are producing. Are we trying to introduce more varieties of highly nutritious beans, vegetables and fruit? There’s so much focus on the amount of calories we are producing, but no focus on nutrients that are present in those calories. This is why we are seeing things like obesity and diabetes as a global epidemic, not just happening in rich countries but also in poor countries. How can we make the agricultural system more nutritious?

At the World Bank, the nutrition people are not talking to the agricultural people. That sort of thing needs to change. We need to make sure that public health professionals and nutritionists are talking to farmers, food processors and food businesses to make sure the food is as nutritious as it can be.

Q: Let’s consider the U.S. for example. Here nutritious organic food can be expensive and people might not want to pay that much or are able to. How can that be changed? A: A lot of subsidies that have existed in American agriculture in the last 50 years have been focused on industrial agriculture and producing commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Organic food is expensive because farmers are growing it on a smaller scale.

One reason for this is because it’s still not receiving the subsidies the big farmers have. To help small- and medium-scale farmers, we can funnel more of the agricultural funding for farmers who are more sustainable, using less fertiliser and more organic compounds. It’ll help struggling farmers and make it more affordable for consumers.

Q: Fast-food restaurants like McDonalds are now exporting to other countries, changing the eating habits of those people. How would you address that? A: Factory farming or concentrated operations, this agricultural system really started here in the U.S. and in Europe, (and) is now spreading to the Philippines, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia. The environmental, public health and animal welfare impact of this is really extreme. You have huge amounts of waste that can’t be utilised by farmlands, surface fertiliser is becoming toxic waste, there’s tropical water pollution, surface water pollution.

The impact of this fast-food diet in developing countries they weren’t exposed to 30 or 40 years ago is leading to the same types of problems – diabetes, obesity, heart disease and sometimes types of cancer.

The thing about this system is, whether it’s industry farming or the fast-food culture, is that it’s very dependent on cheap sources of grain…Agriculture can’t be seen as sort of an industry, it’s part of the landscape. More than any other industry it relies on clean energy and water.

What we are calling for is a restructuring of the entire food system. One that is more regional and local and relies on resources already available.

Q: How realistic is that? What would you suggest as the basic foundation for a system like that? A: This transition isn’t going to happen overnight. It requires actions from all levels – businesses so that they make their production systems more sustainable, and action from consumers, knowing where food comes from and demanding safe, fairly produced food. We want food that is more animal-welfare friendly.

Finally, policymakers need to push a lot of these changes, without that we won’t see huge investments in agriculture. Really, for the last 30 years agriculture has been ignored by the international donor communities. Now, because of the food crisis, we are seeing a shift to ‘oh gosh, we need to invest in agriculture or we are going to be in a lot of trouble.’

We can’t ignore agriculture any longer whether we are policymakers or soccer moms. We really need to make sure that agriculture is something that sustains and not just some extractive industry.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 30 2012 (IPS)

The U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) rightly believes the road to Rio goes via Cairo – and that sustainable development and population are inextricably linked.

Michael Herrmann Credit: Courtesy of UNFPA

So when the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (also known as the Rio+20 summit) takes place in Brazil in June, a strong underlying theme will be the human factor, as spelled out in the Programme of Action adopted at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in the Egyptian capital.

“Development has to serve people, and a sustainable development agenda must consider people,” says Michael Herrmann, economics adviser with UNFPA, and member of the U.N. Lead Economist Network.

An agenda that does not take account of people – their numbers, locations and age structures, as well as their living conditions, ambitions and opportunities – “misses the raison d’etre of sustainable development.”

In an interview with IPS, he pointed out that “for sustainable development, it quite simply matters how many people we are, where we live, how we live and what we want from life.”

“Sustainable development demands greener and more inclusive economic growth, which encourages sustainable production and consumption, and rights-based policies which address population dynamics,” said Herrmann, who once co-authored some of the flagship reports of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and is currently responsible for economic and demographic analysis at UNFPA.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the impact of rising population on the environment? A: Last year the world population surpassed the seven billion mark and by mid-century it will have grown to over nine billion. By 2050, we will add about as many people to the planet as inhabited the planet as recently as 1950.

More people will need more water, food and energy, more clothing, housing and infrastructure, and more health and education, amongst others. Meeting these needs will require not only a more balanced distribution of economic resources, but also higher levels of economic output, and this will lead to mounting pressures on all natural resources.

Q: How best can these challenges be met? A: The dual challenge of improving the well-being of a large and growing population, while promoting the sustainable use of essential natural resources, calls for a two-pronged approach. In accordance, the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the 1994 ICPD in Cairo have emphasised the need to shift towards sustainable production and consumption – which is the hallmark of the green economy – and appropriate policies to address demographic changes.

Contrary to common perceptions, we can address population dynamics, and we can address population dynamics through human-centred and rights-based policies. Whether the world population will grow to over nine billion by mid-century and stabilise at around 10 billion by the end of the century, or whether it will grow to well over 10 billion by mid-century and to about 16 billion by the end of the century, depends on today’s policies.

Demography is not destiny. The difference between these two population projections of the United Nations is half a child per woman, on average. Individual choices and opportunities culminate in population dynamics, and population dynamics can be addressed by enlarging, not restricting, individual choices and opportunities.

Q: What does this entail? A: This requires universal access to sexual and reproductive health, investment in education beyond the primary level, the empowerment of women, and a more active involvement of youth.

Together, these measures will not only help improve the quality of life of people – by reducing infant, child and maternal mortality, arresting the spread of communicable diseases and reducing unintended pregnancies of young women – but will also contribute to lower fertility and slow population growth.

Q: How much of the focus should be on population growth? A: It would be wrong to focus on population growth and neglect other demographic trends, including migration and urbanisation, which can be strong positive drivers for most sustainable development. However, to seize the benefits and address the challenges that come with demographic change, countries must systematically plan for demographic change using population data and projections.

Q: Will population be one of the key elements in the plan of action – formally called the outcome document – to be adopted by world leaders in Rio in June? A: For sustainable development it quite simply matters how many people we are, where we live, how we live and what we want from life.

Not to recognise the challenges that come with demographic change in the new outcome document would be a missed opportunity, and a step back from pervious political declarations. Not to outline rights-based policies to address population dynamics would leave undesirable room for misinterpretations.

To highlight demographic challenges is not the same as calling for population controls. Countries can address population dynamics through rights-based policies by encouraging sexual and reproductive health and rights, education, empowerment and participation; and they can address demographic challenges by systematically using population data and projections to inform rural, urban and national development strategies and policies.

Excerpt:

By Aline Jenckel
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 28 2012 (IPS)

With a whopping 40 percent of Ghana’s population under the age of 24, the government’s ability to foster their development and include them in the country’s development are critical to the country’s future.

Samuel Kissi, executive coordinator of Curious Minds, a youth advocacy organisation in Ghana that works to promote a development agenda for youth. Credit: Courtesy of UNFPA

But although governments are verbally committed to the idea that the youth are the country’s future, they need “to actually make commitments to invest in young people”, says Samuel Kissi, executive director of Curious Minds, a Ghanaian media-based youth advocacy organisation.

“We want to push decision makers and politicians to move beyond only saying that young people are the future of the nation,” Kissi elaborates. He and other youth leaders spoke about poverty reduction and youth rights at a side event of the Commission on Population and Development at the United Nations last week.

“We try to explore opportunities for young people to get engaged,” explains Kissi. But all too often, certain policies, such as those regarding sexual and reproductive rights, are not implemented due to a lack of funding because they’re not included in the country’s development plans, he adds.

Kissi spoke with IPS correspondent Aline Jenckel about Curious Minds and how the organisation is trying to help young people not only understand the country’s development process and strategies but also engage in them.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Which youth issues does your advocacy organisation Curious Minds cover and how do you carry out your work? A: On our radio program, which is broadcast across the country, we talk about development issues, sexual and reproductive health and rights, poverty reduction and education, including sexual education.

We look at it from a youth perspective. Once the national budget is released every year, we look at it from an apolitical point of view, evaluate which commitments concerning young people have been put in from last year and how much has been implemented.

We also do community outreach and talk about everything related directly or indirectly to young people’s comprehensive development, including HIV and AIDS.

Q: With the global population growing so rapidly, the development of sexual and reproductive health and rights is more relevant than ever. What are the main problems regarding this issue in Ghana, and what factors, such as bad policies, might contribute to these problems? A: The problems in Ghana are not due to bad policies. There is a comprehensive adolescent sexual and reproductive policy, but it may not have been translated directly into implementation.

Therefore there are gaps in the reach of services, so not all young people are fully educated in sexual and reproductive health. If they are, it is still not enough to reduce their vulnerability because they are hungry or unsheltered, and someone takes advantage of that.

The high unemployment rate in Ghana also puts young people into vulnerable positions.

Q: Which other partners help educate the younger generation on sexual and reproductive health? A: There’s a strong coalition between the government and the civil society. There is also help from religious institutions, although previously they were not allowing the distribution of condoms.

Nevertheless, the major media outlets of the country took on these issues and gained expertise, so now when they report about it in newspapers or on the radio, they do so from a more informed perspective. They are actually able to educate the population.

Q: There has been some controversy due to statements by Pope Benedict XVI concerning sexual issues, such as a prohibition on birth control. As many Ghanaians are Christian, how did these statements affect your country? A: The Catholic church is big in Ghana, but I would not go as far as saying that these statements had a significant impact on occurrences in the country and definitely not on policies. If you take the help facilities owned by the Catholic Church in Ghana, they now provide youth friendly services.

I am not quite sure if the Pope would be excited to hear this, but we made some progress in making the religious institutions understand that this is going beyond their understanding of how it should be, because there’s a real need in the communities, as young people are sexually active.

Q: What do young people in Ghana think about Kofi Anna’s run for the presidency? A: It was unexpected that he would run for president, especially in the previous election, which he didn’t win. I don’t think that it’s going to happen, but if he did I’m sure many young people would be excited about it.

However, I think it is important that he play the role he’s playing now, bringing peace to problematic parts of the world as best as he can. I hope he can inspire more politicians back home, so that they aspire to the high standards he sets.

Excerpt:

By Mathilde Bagneres and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 28 2012 (IPS)

Young people aged 15-24 make up a quarter of sexually active individuals, yet they comprise half of new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) infections each year.

Oriana Lopez Uribe, Mexican youth activist for sexual and reproductive health services and information. Credit: Mathilde Bagneres/IPS

At the same time, 75,000 children under the age of 18 lack health insurance and nearly 30,000 people aged 18-24 are uninsured, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Compared to the rest of the industrialised world, American teens are less likely to use contraception and have less access to reproductive health services and sex education. These factors help explain why the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate of the industrialised world.

Oriana Lopez Uribe of Mexico began her activism as a volunteer with Mexfam, the Mexican Planned Parenthood Association, where she developed strategies for sexual and reproductive health services and information for youth.

She is currently a program officer at Balance, which promotes sexual and reproductive health services for young people and women at the national, regional and international levels.

IPS correspondent Mathilde Bagneres spoke with Oriana Lopez Uribe about her commitment to sexual and reproductive rights for young people.

Q: Can you tell me more about your work and about the presentation you gave during the commission on population and development at the United Nations (U.N.)? A: I have been an advocate for sexual and reproductive rights for 13 years.

I came to the U.N. to advocate for sexual and reproductive rights. Later, in two panels related to access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, I spoke about the national experience and some of the barriers that young people have to tackle to access health services.

We still have not a very enabling environment for communicating about sexuality issues with our parents. The obligation for parental consent is a barrier for young people because if your family is not very open to sexuality, then it will be very difficult to tell them that you need to go to sexual and reproductive health services.

Lack of confidentiality is also a big issue. There is a lot of discrimination and especially with young and adolescent girls. If they are not married, everyone expects them not to have sexuality.

Due to all this discrimination, health providers have bad attitudes when young women come to their services. They don’t give them the service, or they lecture them about how they should behave. After such treatment, girls are not coming back.

In Mexico, we have specific laws and norms about giving adolescents access to sexual and reproductive health services. But the health providers don’t know the laws. They don’t know that it is their obligation to provide the service. There is a real need to train and inform those health care providers.

Q: What concrete measures and actions could be taken to promote sexual and reproductive rights for young people? Can you share a successful experience? A: One NGO had a successful experience. They built a program to help rural and indigenous adolescents and young women. Those clinics work in the community – they are not outsiders. People working in the clinics are coming from the community; they are really working within the community.

They also provide a space for young people to express themselves, to dance, to paint; so it is not just about diseases. It is a whole program for youth and not just healing services.

The clinics are also integrated clinics, so you can go there and you can get many services such as STI prevention, contraception. You have everything you need in one place. Even some other health related topics like nutrition, psychological help.

The government supported this program, and it was taken into more and more rural areas and marginalised parts of the country with the same components: lots of participation, community work.

Of course, it still needs to be improved, but I think it is a very good experience because it shows how much youth participation needs to be taken in account to develop policies and for the implementation of those policies, the evaluation, the monitoring and at all levels. Youth participation is crucial.

Q: What is the situation regarding sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico and, more particularly, norms regarding abortion? A: Mexico has different states so it is complicated. In general, in Mexico abortion is against the law, but there are some exceptions.

In every state, if the pregnancy is due to rape, you can have a legal abortion or at least that’s what the law says, or if the woman has gynaecological problems, some health issues, if there is a death risk, she can have an abortion.

In certain states you can also have a legal abortion for economic reasons. In Mexico City, without any reason, you can ask for an abortion during the first trimester.

The law says that if you’re a minor, you don’t have to come with your parents – it can be an adult that you trust. But the reality is that the health providers, to protect themselves, don’t think about the teenager in front of them. They ask for parental consent or a legal guardian’s consent, which makes it really hard for young girls because there is still a lot of stigma and discrimination around abortions. It’s very hard to change that.

The ideal would be to say, “She is the one that knows better.” If that pregnancy is not wanted, we need to start trusting women. They know what’s best for them.

Q: What are the greatest sexual health challenges that young people face nowadays? A: Everyone has to start believing, seeing and acknowledging that adolescents and young people have rights. We need to start giving them the ability to make their own choices. We, young people, are able to make decisions.

There is a lot of negativity surrounding and associated with youth – immaturity, drug use, bad sexuality, promiscuity.

I think it is very disempowering to think that an adolescent is a child. We need to stop protecting young people and start empowering them. We need to make them believe in themselves and boost their self- esteem and their capacity to make choices.

Excerpt:

By Beverly Bell
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Apr 24 2012 (IPS)

In honour of Earth Day, we run an interview with Yves-André Wainright, who discusses ways that poor governance and the role of foreign donors have contributed to the country’s environmental catastrophe.

He also lays out a blueprint for what could turn the situation around, effectively mobilising both government and the population to begin restoring the environment.

Yves-André Wainright served twice as Haiti’s minister of environment. Trained as an agronomist, Yves-André’s work has focused on environmental management, especially management of natural resources and waste.

His comments follow:

My approach towards management of the environment is to have Haitians who face (the same environmental) challenges come together. We might not all share the same economic interests, but if we work together, we can reach a compromise where one’s interest won’t trump another’s.

A second issue is that (central) government ministries act as competitors rather than allies. As a result, information is not shared and institutions are not organised to provide assistance and directives to local government or NGOs (non-governmental organisations, and international agencies).

Since management of the physical environment is a crosscutting and long-term challenge, it’s very difficult to maintain continuity from one government to the next, which hinders the implementation of required programmes.

For example, in the 1990s, I led the preparation of an innovative programme to fund peasant-managed micro-enterprises for families who depended on cutting down trees in national parks. All state institutions including local governments, the judicial system, the national police, and key ministries would be able to give input and would receive training in the sustainable management of biodiversity.

The project facilitated coordination among the various stakeholders, public and private, through various management committees. The first disbursements were made two weeks before I left the government.

(When I returned,) the project was considered overall as having failed. The governance structure of the project was considered too complex, and (since) normally in the government, people from different ministers don’t talk to each other, the project’s implementation lacked leadership.

There were even 70 or so agronomists trained, and about 10 who went abroad for professional specialisation, but none of them were never put to use. And, the peasants never benefited from the comprehensive technical and financial assistance I had dreamed of.

The third issue I wish to highlight is the role of donors from the international community. They put too much emphasis on ‘transparency’ toward their foreign constituency and lack sensitivity to the process of building democracy within communities receiving aid.

I admire the abundance of documentation donors have accumulated on Haiti but feel that not enough effort is put into making this information available to local stakeholders. This has facilitated the creation of an oligarchy of consultants and specialists who monopolize the field of international assistance. Donors don’t seem to trust the initiatives from people outside of this circle.

For instance, during my first term as minister of environment, USAID and the World Bank were the main donors providing assistance to the process of clarifying the role of the newly created ministry and prioritising actions for environmental management and rehabilitation.

I started to organise multi-stakeholder platforms towards preparation of a National Action Plan for the Environment, but the donors decided to replicate the preparation process from various African countries – a plan written by specialists and validated afterwards by the civil society. They succeeded in having beautiful documents prepared, which are currently embellishing shelves of libraries in foreign universities.

What is needed is to help Haitians develop partnerships around common environmental concerns.

(In 2010), the office of the prime minister organised a forum on lessons learned from watershed management over the past 30 to 40 years. That forum had a large participation of funders, with data- rich presentations by the experts.

These presentations confirmed that, during the period considered, more and more short-term NGO-led projects promoted market-linked incentives for environmental protection instead of building of decentralised state capacity so that the government ensures respect of environmental norms.

(Participants of the forum) acted as though the state were outsiders of the process and that the government should be replaced by the market as the driving force for livelihood improvement.

But the problem is that the market promotes individualism and a spirit of competition. It can’t instill the feeling of community and citizenship needed to stimulate Haitians to take part in the rehabilitation of the environment.

We must have regulations that guarantee the socioeconomic and environmental rights of all citizens: the right to be informed of initiatives affecting their environment; the right to have input into (environmental) mitigation measures to be implemented; the right to an unbiased judicial system to (ensure) the application of norms.

We must also have an appropriate democratic governance structure able to implement this at the regional and local level. Otherwise, even if the billions of dollars pledged would be effectively disbursed, we won’t resolve anything.

One of the principles in the Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development (endorsed by 165 countries in June 1992) states, “Peace, economic development and protection of the environment are interdependent and indivisible.” There is no peace without social justice. I’m not preaching anything new.

Fortunately, there is progress being made. In October 2005, the government adopted an important environmental decree. It integrates most of the international principles for managing the environment promoted by the Rio Declaration. It identifies nine priorities (to be implemented by government authorities and) the private sector. By the private sector, I don’t just mean the bourgeoisie in town, but also peasants and small merchants.

There are ways to improve governance of the environment around these themes, provided they are integrated into a comprehensive and progressive land-use zoning process.

For example, alleviation of the pressure of agriculture production on mountainous lands should be a common objective for all groups working on any of these nine issues. With more than 500,000 families depending on subsistence agriculture on eroded lands, there’s no potential for improving living conditions.

Policies must be proactive in providing alternative means to make a living, and we have to invest more in building governance capacity at the municipal level.

We have to start working collaboratively. We can be successful in the nine priorities listed, but only if we admit that whatever our capabilities and our excuses, we’re condemned to fail without cooperation. By we, I mean the government, the ministries, the parliament, the NGOs and their networks, grassroots organisations and social movements, enterprises and trade unions, donors and others.

*Read the full, unedited interview with Yves-André Wainright here.

Interview translated by Larousse Charlot and David Schmidt.

Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women’s Stories of Survival and Resistance and is working on the forthcoming book, Fault Lines: Views across Haiti’s New Divide. She coordinates Other Worlds, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Alexis Erkert is the Another Haiti is Possible Coordinator for Other Worlds. She has worked in advocacy and with Haitian social movements since 2008. You can access all of Other Worlds’ past articles regarding post-earthquake Haiti here.

Excerpt:

By Charundi Panagoda
WASHINGTON, Apr 24 2012 (IPS)

About 140 million Africans are now on the internet. With half of the population under age 15 and 70 percent of the population under 30, social media is becoming an important feature in the continent’s development path.

Teddy Ruge Credit: Courtesy of Teddy Ruge

Teddy Ruge, lead social media strategist for the World Bank’s Connect4Climate campaign and co-founder of Project Diaspora, an online platform for mobilising members of the African diaspora, calls this Africa’s “renaissance of access to information”.

“In 2012, there are about 600 million connected mobile devices in Africa,” he said. “Demographically, we have 300 million on the continent now moving to the middle class who can afford smart phones, laptops, connectivity.

“I look at that in terms of local voices beginning to have a conversation in development. I see this as an opportunity to look at issues of climate change, self- government, economic development and youth employment.”

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What does it mean that Africans are using social media and that they are connected more than ever before? A: There are frank discussions in development. What I like about social media is that Africans are connected, that they are able to read information about good governance and issues from a global perspective. They are also able to see how their country fares and compare themselves to other groups.

There is still a huge divide between participatory government – we have this connected youth, then we have these older people in governing ranks, some of them are remnants of colonial rule who’ve stayed in their positions for decades who really don’t have a connection to these youth voters yet. Hopefully, we can use social media to bridge that divide and say these are the voices of the youth of your country, this is what they need to move forward.

Q: You have called this the “legitimacy of social media for global engagement”. With the Rio+20 sustainable development conference coming up, what are African youth most concerned about? A: The conversation is still the same – are policymakers going to make policies to help us Africans who didn’t contribute a lot to climate change but are going to pay the most? Green energy is expensive, solar isn’t that cheap yet. Those coming out of university and high school are wondering where the jobs are going to be.

You see African youth beginning to ask the tough questions. If you want green job creation, who is going to pay for that? If you want us to stop cutting down trees, how are the villagers going to have energy access? Those are the critical questions. We anticipate a lot of commentary over social media from those who are not able to attend Rio. We expect the same questions for COP 18 Qatar as well.

Q: What could these social media savvy youth show that the policymakers can’t? A: We saw the actual people behind the numbers. We wanted to make it real for those sceptical about climate change. We wanted to provide this information to see if they can drive the local changes, that it simply isn’t about policy.

(For contributions for Connect4Climate) we asked to share with us what climate change means in your community. People sent us pictures of dead cows because of droughts. It wasn’t just the picture, it was the story that came with the picture. We saw energy, water and forestry were the biggest concerns.

We saw stories about women. In Africa, women do most of the domestic work, when there’s no water or firewood they have to walk miles to get some. We got pictures of women lining up to dig for water, walking into the woods.

Q: Do you see a disconnect between people who funnel money into Africa and the real Africans concerned? A: If we are looking at it from a policy and finance perspective, it’s very different. The World Bank is not necessarily communicating with the villager in Africa, they are connecting with the government and asking ‘what is it that you are working on and how can we connect you to funders?’ That’s the type of high-level conversation.

I think Connect4Climate falls somewhere between low- level and high- level conversation. Connect4Climate is able to say this is what the conversation is about in relation to climate change, how this goes through to the decision making depends on the veracity of these voices and how sustainable they are in calling for better solutions.

We do have people who pay attention to these voices and say perhaps we can aggregate these voices and craft a policy. I can say the voices are rising up and saying ‘we need solutions from an economic development perspective.’

For example, in Kenya youth are going into junkyards and retrofitting little engines and mechanical contraptions and building faster and more efficient windmills to recharge their electronics rather than rely on the grid. They were able to actually build working prototypes to generate electricity.

Solutions are already happening on the ground with youth. Can we find a way to fund these kids and their ingenuity and replicate that kind of spirit across the board?

Q: In the past you have spoken about the “White man’s burden”, about paternalistic attitudes toward Africa. Is this something the online Africans also talk about? A: I think they talk about it from a corruption standpoint. Aid isn’t really going to create jobs. Aid should be about creating infrastructure to help job creation. That’s what the entrepreneurs I talked to think, how to get financing so they can expand their operation and hire more people and move to the middle class.

We are becoming a lot more vocal because of the connectivity; we are a lot louder and so is our role in our solutions. We have issues but it’s not necessarily your job to fix them. It is our job to say ‘this is what we are working on, we can work together to solve this problem.’ The full-scale hijacking of African agency is going to be a thing of the past.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 16 2012 (IPS)

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, unanimously adopted by 178 governments at the June 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil, specifically recognised that “women have a vital role in environmental management and development.”

Sascha Gabizon Credit: Courtesy of Sascha Gabizon

And Principle 20 of the Declaration was emphatic that sustainable development can be achieved only with the “full participation” of women.

At the same time, chapter 24 of Agenda 21, the action plan for a sustainable future, contained 11 different commitments with specific recommendations to strengthen the role of women in sustainable development and the elimination of all obstacles to their equal and beneficial participation, particularly in decision-making.

But 20 years later, there is an attempt to renege on these commitments at the upcoming Rio+20 summit in Brazil in June, says a coalition of women’s groups.

Taking a strong stand on the gender issue are two women’s organisations: Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) and Women International for a Common Future (WICF), described as a network of over 100 grassroots women and environmental organisations worldwide.

Asked what gender equality principles have been deleted so far from the Rio+20 draft outcome document, Sascha Gabizon, executive director of WECF/WICF, said the Vatican, represented by the Holy See, proposes to delete gender equality and also all references to sexual and reproductive rights.

In an interview with IPS, Gabizon said, “It is of course very strange the Holy See can make these types of proposals, because they are not a country.

“And women, as 50 percent of the world’s population, should have at least as much a right to propose text proposals (which they are not permitted to do).”

She pointed out the United States has also proposed deletion of references to equity.

And specific references to human rights, such as the right to water and sanitation, which the U.N. General Assembly has already adopted in a 2010 resolution, are proposed for deletion by several countries and groups including the European Union (EU) and Canada.

She said the United States also supports deletion of human rights language, while the 132-member Group of 77 (G77) developing countries has proposed deletion of a reference to women’s right to land tenure.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Since negotiations on the outcome document are to be resumed next week, will these deletions survive? A: The governments have so far taken positions indicating which gender equality language they want to delete or want to see strengthened. So thus far, proposals for deletions are made, but what will be deleted in the end depends on the coming weeks of negotiations.

In this process, there is no voting, and it is not the majority which gets its way, because the declaration has to be a consensus document. This means that sometimes, one issue is sacrificed for another.

Often, women’s rights and gender equality language, have been kicked around like a football in previous negotiations, and ended up being sacrificed. We do not know yet if the final outcome document for Rio+20 will have sacrificed gender equality principles.

Meanwhile, references to existing commitments from the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action are also not yet firmly agreed on, and have been proposed to be deleted by several countries, including the G77.

After the first reading of the draft, the women’s major group remains very concerned as numerous references to human rights and women’s rights have been deleted or bracketed (meaning an absence of agreement among member states).

For the women’s major group it is evident that gender equality and human rights are a basic requirement for sustainable development.

If we cannot assure these, then any green economic development will continue to cause human rights abuses and increase poverty and inequalities. Women, who continue to be the poorest of the poor, will be most negatively affected.

Q: Which countries are responsible for the deletions? Is it the north or is it a north-south conspiracy? A: We cannot speak of a conspiracy. The proposed deletions came from many different countries, and the Vatican of course. And the real negotiations have not yet started, only then we will see which countries will support each other’s deletions, and which countries might want to take back a proposed deletion.

A general trend seems to be that human rights are under attack. And specific rights, such as sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), are also being proposed for deletion, which is unacceptable. We know that each year more than 250,000 women die because they do not have access to SRHR. These deaths are entirely avoidable.

At the same time, the EU and numerous countries including Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland have proposed good language on gender equality and women’s empowerment and rights, including the right to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The United States also has proposed language on gender equality and women’s empowerment. Also the G77 has not deleted the existing language on gender equality.

The women’s major group sees the need to go beyond the reaffirmation of previously agreed language on gender equality, to concrete targets for action.

One proposal is to set a target of 40 percent women in decision- making positions, with the ultimate aim of reaching parity. This is one of the few quantitative proposals in the entire draft declaration.

We find it very important that such targets are retained. It is a pity that the United States is the only country opposing this proposal, whereas on the other hand they say they want to strongly support gender equality.

The women’s major group is bringing this to the attention of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking the U.S. to drop its plans for deletion.

Q: Would this be a regression of some of the existing gender rights which have been achieved after long drawn out battles? GABIZON: If the proposed deletions on gender equality and women’s right to land tenure, and parity in decision-making, would indeed be deleted in the final Rio+20 declaration, then yes, we are witnessing a regression.

At Rio+20, civil society has to tell governments that we should not accept any going back on previous commitments to human rights, women’s rights and gender equality.

But also, we should not go back on the Rio Principles of 1992, which remain entirely valid as a precondition for sustainable development, including principle 20 on full participation of women in sustainable development.

If we go back on agreed rights for women, we are not only being immoral, but we will also contributing to increased mortality and morbidity of women and children, and finally, we will negatively impact the development, including the economic development, of countries.

World Bank reports and other studies show that the more equal a country, the better for its economic development.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 3 2012 (IPS)

When the 194-member General Conference of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was on the verge of admitting Palestine as a full-fledged member of the Paris-based U.N. agency last year, the United States warned against it – and threateningly.

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka Credit: Courtesy of UNESCO

The cutoff was triggered by a 1990 law that bars funding “for the United Nations and any specialized agency thereof, which accords the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) the same standing as a (U.N.) member state.”

In an interview with IPS, Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to France and permanent delegate to UNESCO, said “the U.S. Congress had voted the funds, which were in the U.S. State Department budgetary allocation, I believe, but now frozen them.”

“So, yes, in effect the U.S. has enforced the cuts. There is an audible impact more than a visible one, in that the fiscal situation of UNESCO is always on the minds of decision-makers and administrators, and there has been downsizing of staff etc,” he added.

Currently the United States pays about 22 percent of UNESCO’s regular budget of just over 300 million dollars annually.

These “assessed contributions” by member states are mandatory and based on each country’s capacity to pay.

Additionally, UNESCO also has an annual 200-million-dollar budget funded by voluntary contributions from member states, including the United States, which provides less than one million dollars.

Speaking immediately after Palestine’s membership, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova said she was concerned by the potential challenges that may arise to the universality and financial stability of the organisation.

“I am worried we may confront a situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue. I am worried about the stability of its budget,” she added.

“I believe it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that UNESCO does not suffer unduly as a result,” she said, appealing to all member states.

Days before the vote, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asked UNESCO to rethink its decision.

“Unfortunately, there are those who, in their enthusiasm to recognise the aspirations of the Palestinian people, are skipping over the most important step, which is determining what the (Palestinian) state will look like, what its borders are, how it will deal with the myriad issues that States must address.”

And now six months after Palestine’s admission, the 66-year-old UNESCO continues to survive, but may be forced to cut down on some of its programmes relating to education, the sciences, culture and communication.

The countries that voted against Palestine included the United States, Israel, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.

Last week, Israel walked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva because of an anti-Israeli resolution over the monitoring of illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

Asked if Israel has given any indication it may follow suit and also withdraw from UNESCO, Jayatilleka told IPS: “No, in fact what is interesting is that while the U.S. has frozen its funds to UNESCO, Israel has not.” Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Do you think the cut in funds would eventually undermine the stability of the Organisation?

A: UNESCO’s director general is maintaining the dignity and activism of the organisation, despite the strain and stress of the cutbacks. I wouldn’t say there is instability, but there is some dimming of the lights, as it were.

Q: Has there been any attempts by other member states to bolster UNESCO by making up for the cuts imposed by the United States?

A: Some member states have attempted to help by contributing their funds earlier rather than at the usual time, and others like Indonesia have made generous contributions to programmes, post- Palestine vote and U.S. cutbacks.

But if you mean has any other state or states come forward to pick up the slack left by the U.S., the answer is no.

I cannot speak for others but my guess is that for such a thing to be possible, there will have to be more re-thinking and re-orientation on the part of UNESCO.

Q: How does the voting in the Human Rights Council compare with the voting in UNESCO?

A: It would seem from last month’s vote at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Palestine, which passed by a massive 46-1, the vote at UNESCO (107 to 14) was something of a pathbreaker, certainly within the U.N. system.

Excerpt:

By Rousbeh Legatis
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 3 2012 (IPS)

After Latin America and the Caribbean’s “lost decade” of the 1980s, the region has experienced a period of “light and shadow”, says Alicia Bárcena, executive secretary of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Alicia Bárcena. Credit: Rousbeh Legatis/IPS

“The real progress in the social arena was in the first decade of this century because we went from 44 percent people living in poverty to 31 percent last year,” she says.

But that percentage still represents 177 million people of region’s 600 million inhabitants.

In the lead-up to the major international summit in June known as Rio+20, 19 U.N. agencies collaborated to take stock of progress and challenges in the region over the last two decades.

Bárcena spoke with U.N. correspondent Rousbeh Legatis about ways forward on the path of sustainable development in the region, the historic chance of the upcoming world summit to revisit global governance structures, and the role of the South in tackling problems of a common future.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What are some of the main threats facing the Latin America and Caribbean region? A: One of the important alerts for our people in the region is that the fertility rates are going down in general. However, the place where more children are being born are with youth pregnancies. Poor young women are the ones who are having children.

This is very crucial, because if our region does not invest in the first ages from zero to five years, the future of this region is going to be in the hands of poverty.

Furthermore, we have also analysed where in Latin America and the Caribbean are the areas most vulnerable to climate change according to its expected impact by 2050.

Take extreme events or natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc. as an example. Most affected are going to be Central America on the Atlantic side, Mexico on the Caribbean basin, some areas of Ecuador, Peru and Colombia on the side of the Pacific Ocean, and Montevideo (Uruguay) and the port there (on the Atlantic).

It is true that socially we have improved poverty rates, but unemployment is a very important issue in Latin America and the Caribbean. [The rate is] relatively low compared with Europe or the U.S. – 6.6 percent. The problem is the quality of employment: often it is informal and does not provide social security. As important as reducing poverty is reducing inequality.

Q: If we look at the main foundations of the regional economies, we see exploitation and exportation of commodities and natural resources: mining, oil and gas, coal, agribusiness products. Those are the items moving the Latin American economies forward, due to Asian demand. How could the green economy make any impact in this scenario? A: Abundance of natural resources has to be seen as a blessing; the curse is not to have policies to handle it. What we need to do is invest the rents of the extraction of those natural resources in other areas, to build other forms of capital and to replace it with other forms of productivity for the future generations.

It has to be done with the lowest impact possible on the environment. And the rents have to be adequately distributed, we need a better mechanism to guarantee that.

So we are discussing the governance of natural resources. What did countries like Norway, Finland, Australia, New Zealand do, since all those countries have an abundance of natural resources and made the transition to a more technology-oriented society and they did it thanks to the rents of their natural resources.

Q: Green economy experiences until now are just case studies, nice examples. In the dominant economic scenario, how can governments find space to take measures like fiscal reforms or subsidies reforms? A: First of all, in our region the term “green economy” is very polemic, because it is seen as a trend imposed by Northern developed countries without proposing also the mechanisms and the costs of this transition and answering the question of who is going to pay for this transition towards this type of economy. And it is seen with fear in terms of protectionism.

What can the governments do? I believe very much in fiscal reform, which is a very powerful sign. Governments with fiscal reforms give signs to the productive agents but also redistribute resources. To make it successful it has to be a consensus-based fiscal reform.

This is what we need, it cannot be imposed. There has to be internal discussions to see where and what is the society ready to pay for this transition, this is essential.

Q: What can be done in terms of solutions? A: So what we are trying to tell the governments is “you do not have to invest in everything but in certain things that are essential for people” – electricity being one, potable water being the other, broadband internet access, public transportation and intelligent construction.

Why not build houses which have solar energy, air conditioning facilities or light already included, to have some engineering or design behind (them) that is already available? In Latin America and the Caribbean, we have space to do things better as to urban planning.

The cash transfer programmes were (also) very successful, like “Bolsa Familia”. This is a programme that took 20 million Brazilians out of poverty in the last 10 years.

If one expands these programmes and conditional cash transfers so that they are not only for education and health, taking the children to school and to the doctor, but also incorporate sustainability measures there, by saying to the community “we are going to give you money but you have to protect the soil”, “you are going to use the water this way”, etc. then you also include some of those sustainability measures.

Q: In the report you say that “developed countries have not honored their commitments to provide finance and leadership”. Please explain that a bit more. A: The developed countries commit themselves to provide 0.75 percent of their GDP for the Official Development Assistance (ODA) to transfer money from north to south in terms of financing for development. We are now at 0.33 percent, which is half of the commitment that developed countries made.

Okay: in the moment of financial crisis, it is very difficult to achieve this goal now or soon. However, historically developed countries developed themselves with high consumption of energy and resources of the planet. Now it is very unfair to impose this on developing countries, which is more costly.

The other way of achieving this transfer from north to south is through knowledge sharing and technology transfer. That is why we believe patents, training and free exchange of knowledge could be useful mechanisms.

Investment in science, technology and innovation is essential; that is going to be the key for the transition to sustainable development.

Q: What would be a useful outcome from Rio+20? A: To have the sustainable development goals agreed upon, because that puts a lot of pressure on everybody and all the institutions to achieve those goals.

Another thing that we are suggesting is a “Tobin Tax” that should go to sustainable development that is on financial transactions. With a tax of 0.0005 percent, we could get a good amount of money for the world to go for this transition.

Secondly, to have clear financing tools. Third, to have clear technology transfer mechanisms and fourth to have institutions that work.

From our perspective, multilaterally, the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) should be strengthened. To bring the economic actors to ECOSOC to discuss economics, because what is wrong is economics, the environment is on the receiving end, but we need to change the economics.

Excerpt:

By Danilo Valladares and - -
GUATEMALA CITY, Mar 19 2012 (IPS)

“To achieve peace, it is necessary for the truth to come out, and for the victims to receive reparations. And part of this is that cases of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Maya people must come to trial,” says Guatemalan indigenous leader Rosalina Tuyuc.

Guatemalan indigenous leader Rosalina Tuyuc. Credit: Danilo Valladares/IPS

The prominent human rights activist has been fighting for justice and peace as head of the National Coordinating Committee of Guatemalan Widows (CONAVIGUA), which groups survivors of the civil war, since 1988.

On May 10 in Tokyo she will become the first indigenous woman to receive the prestigious Niwano Peace Prize, which recognises Tuyuc’s “extraordinary and dogged work for peace,” according to the Japan-based Niwano Peace Foundation.

The committee that selects the recipients of the prize created in 1983 also stated in its press release that Tuyuc “is an inspiring example of how victims of discrimination, drawing on their faith, are empowered by working together, to defeat human rights violations and reverse the causes that have hurt them so deeply.”

Excerpts of her interview with IPS follow:

Q: What do the legal proceedings against former dictator General Efraín Ríos Montt (1982-1983) on charges of genocide, which began on Jan. 26, mean for peace, reconciliation and justice in Guatemala? A: People have been waiting for these trials for over 20 years. This sets a historic legal precedent in the country. And it is a sign that he has something to testify and acknowledge, as head of state when the (1982) coup (that overthrew General Romeo Lucas García) took place.

What I hope for most is that, if all of the testimony provided (in the case) shows that he was politically and administratively responsible, in the name of the state, hope will be generated that in Guatemala it is possible to hold trials for the crime of genocide without having to turn to the international arena.

Q: Businesspersons, high-ranking military chiefs and prominent figures who it was once unthinkable that they would be tried are now being brought to trial. Do you think that Guatemala is on the road to overcoming impunity? A: Yes indeed, we’re heading in the direction of overcoming impunity. This moment should have occurred 15 or 18 years ago, because if minor crimes like theft come to trial, how can it be that there is no legal action for the lives of 200,000 people killed on the orders of agents of the state? This has to serve as a show of good will with respect to enforcing the law, to show the rest of the world that this is a civilised country.

Q: What major steps must the country take, along that path? A: The justice system has to demonstrate, at the national and international level, that the political will does exist here to achieve this. Then there is also the question of raising public awareness, so that people know what happened here and so that it will never happen again.

The armed forces should vindicate their image. I hope that General Otto Pérez Molina (president of Guatemala since Jan. 14), the highest authority in the country, will apologise for the abuses committed. But not only that – he should say where the 60,000 or 70,000 victims of forced disappearance are.

Providing information on their whereabouts is an act of moral and institutional reparations that the armed forces should make towards all victims.

Q: The peace accords marked a before and after in the history of the country, but they have also been criticised. In your view, what are the biggest accomplishments of the agreements? A: The approval of laws with a social focus, such as the creation of the land fund, the mixed private-public Rural Development Bank, and laws aimed at improving conditions for women and combating domestic violence and all forms of discrimination.

We now have institutions addressing indigenous issues, such as the Presidential Commission against Discrimination, the office of the Defender of Indigenous Women, and a Maya media outlet. If it hadn’t been for the peace accords, this probably would not have happened.

Q: The issue of agriculture is still an Achilles’ heel for the full development of indigenous people in Guatemala. Do you see changes on the horizon? A: The agricultural question was always the cause and origin of the armed conflict, and still gives rise to a great deal of social conflict. I think the day the state understands that indigenous people depend on Mother Earth and her resources, there will be changes.

Q: What do you feel about the president, after the first two months of his four-year term: fear or hope? A: The biggest fear is the racist attitude of the new government. The second message is that all investment in fighting hunger will be based on megaprojects, and that is a very big concern among social organisations, because once again we’re not seeing changes, just a continuation of what past governments have done.

The market aspect is always given priority, without seeing the damages that this causes to Mother Earth, the water and forests, which are the most essential things.

Q: What does it mean to receive the Niwano Peace Prize? A: It is the biggest gift that I have received for the grain of rice I have contributed to the social struggles for all of the changes that we are hoping for in our Guatemala.

I also see it as homage to those who were my inspiration, the community leaders who fought for the land and natural resources before the 1980s and whose hopes were sadly cut short along the way.

It is difficult to achieve peace in a society like ours, but making the attempt to bring harmony between human society and nature is worth it.

Excerpt:

By Walter García and Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 16 2012 (IPS)

The United Nations, which is hosting a major international summit on the global environment in Brazil in late June, points out that while the world’s oceans account for 70 percent of the earth’s surface, only one percent of this area is protected.

Sam Koo Credit: Courtesy of Sam Koo

“Sixty percent of major marine ecosystems (are) either damaged or over-exploited…having negative effects on mangroves and coral reefs,” the world body warns.

The growing degradation of the oceans, including overfishing, pollution and loss of biodiversity, will be high on the agenda of the Rio+20 summit of world leaders Jun. 20-22, a follow-up to the historic 1992 Earth Summit in the Brazilian capital.

Touching on many related issues will be Expo 2012, scheduled to take place May 12 through Aug. 12 in South Korea’s coastal city of Yeosu, which will focus on the protection of the world’s oceans and coastlines.

Titled “The Living Ocean and Coast: Diversity of Resources and Sustainable Development”, Expo 2012 will also shed light on the advances in technology concerning the ocean and coastlines – and ways to resolve the challenges facing these great resources.

Ambassador Sam Koo, commissioner general of Expo 2012, told IPS, “Oceans indeed are the new frontier for international cooperation, and man’s harmonious coexistence with the marine environment is of utmost importance if countries are to work together internationally to preserve the planet.”

A former senior official of the United Nations and president of the Seoul Tourism Organisation, Koo is an ex-newspaperman with a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University in New York.

In an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen, Koo said a total of some 106 countries and 27 international organisations are expected to participate in the 2012 Yeosu Expo, as it is known in Korea.

South Korea is expecting more than 10 million people to visit the Expo, including half a million foreigners, mostly from China.

Koo described Expo “as by far the biggest event in Korea this year.”

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How important is Expo against the backdrop of the continued environmental degradation of the oceans and the coasts? A: The Expo will play a crucial role simply because so many visitors will carry away an indelible message that urgent policy changes are needed to care for our oceans. The Yeosu Declaration, which aims to strengthen developing countries’ capacities in dealing with the marine-related challenges, is expected to be signed by most countries present at the World Expo.

Key topics in the declaration will be understanding the value of the seas and coasts; restoration of the marine ecosystem and biological resources being damaged; sustainable use and preservation of the marine environment and resources; promotion of knowledge and fact- based understanding about climate change.

Other topics in the proposed declaration include achieving an increase in the use of marine resources based on the “green growth” principle; focusing on achieving sustainable development without harming or misusing natural resources; participation of citizens in pursuing marine cooperation; and international cooperation to use the seas as a space for co-existence of mankind.

Q: How can the Expo help resolve some of these issues? How can the oceans become new frontiers for international cooperation? A: The Expo is a platform for communicating an important message to people often difficult to reach. In educating visitors on what they can do to help preserve our planet, the Expo hopefully will contribute to new ways of thinking. Lectures and demonstrations at a variety of pavilions will address the Expo’s themes.

Q: Since the Law of the Sea is primarily the creation of the United Nations, what role will the U.N. play in the Yeosu Expo? A: The Law of the Sea defines the rights and responsibilities nations have in their use of the world’s oceans, thereby establishing guidelines for businesses, environment and the management of marine resources.

The United Nations will be at the World Expo with a 1.400-m2 pavilion. Through the combined efforts of 24 U.N. agencies, the pavilion will demonstrate the U.N.’s work and efforts related to oceans and coasts. The pavilion will show visitors in an entertaining way their choices to influence our planet’s most important recourses and how they can help ensure the sustainability of our oceans and coasts.

Q: What are the primary themes and main goals of the Yeosu Expo? A: The main theme has been split up into three sub-themes.

Development and preservation of the ocean and coast. This sub-theme aims to inspire a new level of cooperation in the international community to combat climate change and create an environment where development and preservation find a better balance.

New resources technology. Illustrated will be the progress and future prospects of marine technology, a new growth driver for the advancement of humankind.

Creative maritime activities. The relationship between the oceans and humankind through culture and art will be explored. Additionally it promotes the new ideals of people and societies living in harmony with the ocean.

In addition, the Yeosu Expo will be an important forum for public education on these diverse topics. This is an effort to create programmes that will change the way we look at responsible development of the oceans. We are sure visitors will return home impressed and better informed.

Q: In seeking international commitments on the oceans, what key outcomes from the Expo do you expect? What are the next steps after the Expo? A: As mentioned, most participating countries are thought to sign the Yeosu Declaration, which aims to strengthen developing countries’ capacity to deal with the changing marine environment. After the declaration has been signed, the Yeosu Project will come into force.

This project is the practical element that translates the spirit of the Yeosu Declaration and Expo theme into action. These actions include assistance to developing countries in the form of education and training programmes and sharing of knowledge between nations.

At the end of the Expo, part of the facilities will remain for ocean research and marine-related organisations. In this way, the Expo will continue to play a role in keeping our seas healthy for generations to come.

Excerpt:

By Constanza Vieira and - -
BOGOTÁ, Mar 14 2012 (IPS)

Colombian diplomat Clara Nieto says President Juan Manuel Santos managed to work out in his favour the boycott that was looming over the sixth Summit of the Americas, after several countries threatened to stay away if Cuba was not invited.

Clara Nieto at her home in Bogotá. Credit: Margarita Carrillo/IPS

The summit will be held Apr. 9-15 in Colombia’s Caribbean beach resort city of Cartagena de Indias.

These hemispheric meetings have been creating touchy situations for the host countries. The summits were established by the United States “to resolve problems in the region, although the OAS (Organisation of American States) has been doing the same thing for over 50 years,” Nieto says in her book “Obama y la nueva izquierda Latinoamericana” (Obama and the New Latin American Left), published by the Ediciones B publishing house in December.

Nieto was a Colombian delegate to the United Nations in New York and a representative at the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in Paris. She also served as ambassador to Cuba and as director of the UNESCO regional office in Havana.

In 1999, she published the book “Los amos de la guerra” (The Lords of War) – an in-depth look into how the Cuban revolution influenced U.S. policy towards Latin America.

Q: According to your analysis, what happened in Havana on Mar. 7, in Santos’s meeting with Presidents Raúl Castro and Hugo Chávez? A: Santos’s sudden trip to Havana, in the midst of the crisis that was looming over the sixth summit because of the Cuba question, was a master move. Santos went to discuss the issue directly with Raúl Castro and to see Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, his “new best friend,” who was playing the leading role in the controversy.

Chávez, who is in Cuba recovering from the removal of a cancerous tumour, can help. The friendship between Santos and Chávez, and Chávez’s friendship with Fidel and Raúl Castro, were a fundamental factor in working out the crisis in Santos’s favour.

Another – equally important – factor is the policy of continent-wide coexistence followed by (the rightwing) Santos since he took office (in August 2010), which was welcomed throughout the region. In his conversation with Castro, Cuba agreed not to attend the summit, for the sake of regional coexistence.

Actually, it had never sought an invitation.

Colombia stopped being a problem country when Colombian Foreign Minister María Ángela Holguín went to Havana and said the question should be resolved by consensus.

And the members of ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), meeting in Caracas (on Feb. 4), did not include in their official declaration the issue brought up by Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, who urged the members of the bloc to boycott the summit unless Cuba was included. Leaving that out of the declaration helped reduce the tension.

Obama was at the heart of the crisis. If Cuba were to attend, it would have created a serious internal problem for him, as he gears up for re-election.

But Cuba’s announcement put an end to the crisis. It was a victory for Santos.

Q: What is at stake regarding Cuba, in the sixth Summit of the Americas? A: At stake is the issue that Latin America, and especially the members of ALBA (Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela), wants to eliminate: Cuba’s exclusion from these events. The situation in Latin America has changed.

Most of them have now distanced themselves from Washington, and the members of ALBA proposed for the first time, ahead of the fifth summit in Trinidad and Tobago (Obama’s first meeting with the leaders of the region, in April 2009), boycotting the event if Cuba did not participate.

In the face of the imminent crisis, Obama (who took office in January 2009) asked then Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for help. Lula managed to get ALBA to tone things down, and to agree to Cuba’s non-participation.

Later, the OAS General Assembly, meeting in Honduras (on Jun. 3, 2009), decided to lift its (47-year) suspension of Cuba, without conditions. But Cuba is not interested in returning to the organisation, which was described by former (Cuban) foreign minister Raúl Roa (1959-1974) as the “ministry of the empire’s colonies.”

Q: How important are these summits of the Americas, in the broader scenario of summits in the hemisphere? A: They are important – for the United Status. To show Latinos that they care about the region, something they don’t demonstrate very often. These summits were invented by (then President) Bill Clinton in 1994, but with the exclusion of Cuba, to deal with hemispheric issues, which is what the OAS was also created to do.

Analysts in the U.S. saw the initiative as linked to the courting of Latino voters, and even more so, to the cultivation of the powerful anti-Castro vote, with a view to Clinton’s reelection. It was obvious that the summit would be held in Miami, ruling out less controversial host cities. In Florida, a key electoral state, the anti-Castro vote is very powerful.

As we have seen now and at the summit in Trinidad and Tobago, these meetings cause big problems for the host country, because of the discrepancies between Latin America and Washington’s policies.

Correa said in February that the summits are nothing more than “protocol”, and that the leaders meeting there sign “pretty-sounding declarations, full of clichés and commonplaces that solve nothing.” And that’s what they have been.

Important meetings for the region are the ones held by the new regional organisations, which exclude the United Status: UNASUR (Union of South American Nations); CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States); and the South American Defence Council. And perhaps meetings of the OAS, where the United States has lost clout.

Q: Your book Obama and the New Latin American Left clearly shows that the U.S. legislation surrounding the blockade of Cuba is a tremendous tangle, and that lifting it does not depend on the executive branch. Despite this, what has Obama done to address the suggestions that began to rain down on him as soon as he was elected in November 2008, to put relations with Cuba on a new footing? A: In Trinidad and Tobago, Obama in fact offered a dialogue on an equal basis with the region, and said he was prepared to have his administration engage with the Cuban government. None of that has happened. Lula, before completing (his second term, in January 2011), mentioned and lamented this, because the expectations for change had been so high.

Although one of the first measures taken by Obama was to lift restrictions against Cuba imposed by (George W.) Bush, that only benefited Cuban-Americans and their relatives on the island.

Q: In your book, you point out that in 2008, 55 percent of the Cuban community in Miami was in favour of an end to the blockade and 65 percent wanted Washington to re-establish relations with Havana. What is the real reason that Obama has not overhauled relations with Cuba? A: During Obama’s campaign and at the start of his government, important percentages of anti-Castro voters were calling for a change in policy towards Cuba, as was a broad movement of organisations and personalities from both (the Democratic and Republican) parties.

That activism soon waned. Nevertheless, the votes (of the anti-Castro community) are important, and both parties cultivate them. Another reality is that Latin America, as a whole, has not been a priority for Obama. Nor has it been for most previous administrations. And Cuba even less so.

And there is too much domestic opposition to restore relations, lift the embargo, hand over Guantánamo (back to Cuba), and for Obama to embark on that battle with the Republicans, who have been dedicated, since the beginning of his government, to making him fail.

Obama has much more important challenges than throwing himself into that struggle, which would not bring him – or his country, or his government – a thing.

Excerpt:

By Dalia Acosta and - -
HAVANA, Mar 13 2012 (IPS)

Thirteen hurricanes, three of which had a major impact on housing; increased access to goods and services; and the start of the so-called “updating” of the country’s economic and social policies are a few of the aspects that make Cuba different from what it was a decade ago.

Juan Carlos Alfonso, director of ONEI’s Centre for the Study of Population and Development. Credit: Dalia Acosta/IPS

The expert, who has more than 35 years of professional experience, comes up every day against opinions and anecdotes that attempt to describe things in the country by generalising on the basis of local or personal experiences.

“What occurs in my home, or my apartment building, is not what occurs all over the country. The reality is very diverse; you can’t extrapolate,” he said.

Q: What new information can the 2012 census reveal? A: All information provided by the census is new. In addition to examining the evolution of a number of general indicators – sex, age, educational level, marital status and others – it will supply more in-depth information on issues such as internal migration, access to postgraduate education, water – availability and consumption – and housing, including the physical structure and inhabitants.

In some cases, it will have nothing to contribute, but it will nonetheless provide valuable information about the impact of social and economic policies on the population; the characteristics of the population, housing and other information.

Q: Will it be useful for assessing the real state of housing, following the impact of the 2008 hurricanes? A: Cuba received a truly severe impact. Since the previous census, in September 2002, 13 hurricanes have hit the island, including three devastating ones in 2008. At the same time, much has been built over these years, not just by the government but also by the population.

However, everybody extrapolates from their own experience: in one part of Havana, 20 people might be living together in one home, but that is not the situation in other parts of the country.

In the case of housing, especially in cities and rural areas that are close to cities, an expansion has been noted. In fact, between 2002 and 2012, housing growth may have outstripped population growth; Cuba has had very low fertility rates since 1978. I am not talking about distribution or urban planning quality, such as access to water and sewage services or paved streets.

Q: Civil society actors criticised the findings of the last census, saying that the real proportion of black and mixed-race people is larger than what was registered. Could there be a big difference between the reality and the census results? A: In Cuba we do not count ethnicity or race, but skin colour. The first known population register dates back to 1774. Since then, until the last one in 2002, all 18 censuses have counted skin colour.

At some point, this issue was addressed as race or racial structures – in 19th century censuses, and during the republican period – but it has always been done based on skin colour, because the concept of race is very complex from the perspective of its anthropological and genetic measurement.

The census takers receive training in marking the box to show whether the person in front of them is white, mixed-race or black. Obviously, this can be biased, just like the answers that people give; there are also those who say they are younger, and those who say they are older. In a census, all information is obtained from people’s personal statements.

However, the reality is that in the last 40 years, skin colour has been counted more than 35 times in different surveys and studies. All of the findings coincide: 64-65 percent of the population has white skin; 24, 25 or 26 percent are mixed; and 10 percent have black skin. The tendency indicates an increase in the mixed-race population, and a decrease in the black and white populations.

Now, their distribution throughout the country varies, as does the idea that people have about their surroundings.

Suffice it to observe the public that fills the baseball stadium in Santa Clara (a central city with a mostly-white population) and in Santiago de Cuba (an eastern province with a large black population). Municipalities on the outskirts of the capital also have large concentrations of black and mixed-race populations.

All of this is counted with transparency and rigour, because skin colour is an important indicator linked with social, economic and labour differences.

Q: Some have raised the possibility of collecting data on sexual diversity, in the census. Is it possible that aspect may be included? A: This is a request we received from the National Centre for Sex Education (CENESEX), after a trial run of the census had already been carried out. It is a very socially important issue, but we are talking about a question that has not been prepared or tested.

We should not forget that the census is conducted by volunteers, most of them young students, who have not been trained to handle such a sensitive issue. Furthermore, many non-heterosexual individuals have not revealed their sexual orientation to their families.

In short, we believe that this data should be obtained in a different type of study, using individual interviews, which will guarantee privacy, ethics and respect. The census is not for that; it is for describing broader issues. If there is a desire to study one of these issues in depth, it can be done using surveys and studies, and that was our response to CENESEX.

Q: Every time there is a study of this type, questions come up about how information that could go beyond certain legal boundaries will be used. Does Cuba guarantee the anonymous character of the information? A: The information obtained by the census is for counting and producing statistical summaries and information; that is established by decree. The census does not give or take away legality, nor does it have any negative influence on people. It is based on personal statements and is totally anonymous. Once the questionnaires are processed, the individuals surveyed become numbers.

Excerpt:

By Rousbeh Legatis and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 13 2012 (IPS)

Empowering rural women in the Iraqi marshlands, who mostly remain off the radar of international support, must involve local languages and dialects as well as local women trainers, says Mishkat Al Moumin, founder of the Iraqi group Women and the Environment Network (WATEO).

Mishkat Al Moumin, founder of the Iraqi group Women and the Environment Network (WATEO). Credit: Rousbeh Legatis/IPS

Through training in resources management and environmental design at the village level, WATEO empowers rural women as primary users of environmental resources, particularly water.

Hailing recent efforts by U.N. Women, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), and the U.N. Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) to address issues facing rural women, she said, “Hopefully, more discussion and actions will take place.”

IPS correspondent Rousbeh Legatis talked to Al Moumin about the daily challenges faced by rural Arab women in the marshes and the importance of culturally appropriate interventions.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Could you describe rural women’s environmental livelihood in Iraq? A: Women and the Environment worked among rural women living in the Iraqi marshlands, an area of 20,000 square kilometres, and according to UNEP having the most unique ecosystem in the Middle East that goes back to 5,000 years B.C.

Saddam (Hussein’s) regime destroyed the marshlands by draining them and launching systematic attacks against the Marsh Arabs, estimated at around half a million. Forty thousand fled to Iran and around 100,000 became internally displaced.

After the fall of Saddam’s regime in 2003, the Marsh Arabs returned and cooperated with the ministry of environment and International organisations to rehabilitate the ecosystem of the marshland. Around 45 percent of the marshland was rehabilitated.

However, the marshlands were not the same anymore. Lacking fresh water requires women to walk at least 10 miles back and forth more than once a day to collect water. As to food, the Marsh Arabs depend upon fishing and hunting for their livelihood.

More than 66 species of birds are considered at risk. Due to food shortage, the Marsh Arabs, who were once proud to fish by a trident, now they are fishing using the net or electricity.

This harsh and difficult environment means more work and more responsibilities for women. Before the destruction, fresh water was everywhere, now it is scarce. Women harvest water regardless of its smell and colour; sometimes families drink from the container even if their animals (that live with them) drank from it, one cup is used for the entire family. That caused water-borne diseases.

Q: You try to empower rural women through resource management in Basra, Maysan and Thi Qar. Could you please explain the underlying issues here you try to tackle? A: The main issues the organisation works to address is to train women to provide water, sanitation, and hygiene to meet the basic needs of their family.

Furthermore, we want to include women’s perspective in water policy. Oftentimes, policies forget to include the perspective of those who use water most of the time – which happens to be women. To that end, in August of 2010 Women and the Environment organised community meetings in the three provinces attended by government officials, private sector, NGOs, and rural women reviewing water policies, which led to the recommendation that women should be recognised as the primary users of water.

In the case of the Marsh Arabs, as additional example, we have trained women in more than 53 villages in the marshlands, building their capacity to provide water, sanitation and hygiene.

That included knowledge about how to preserve water, sanitation and hygiene, including boiling water, covering containers to keep the water clean, cleaning the cups that are used to drink water rather than having one cup for all family members to use and so forth.

Q: Did you make progress in supporting rural Iraqi women? A: When communities come together to address an issue, progress will be made. I feel that a great progress was made (in the case of the Mash Arab women) because it was a group effort including Iraqi professors who contributed their knowledge, time and effort, tribal leaders who supported these programmes and believe that training the women makes their communities safer – which it did – as well as international organisations, especially UNEP, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Victoria University, and the Waterloo University.

The survey conducted before the training shows that 90 percent of the surveyed women collected water regardless of its colour and smell. After the training, 80 percent of women cared about the colour and the smell of water, 80 percent identified areas where water is less polluted, 85 percent boiled water, 85 percent cleaned the container before using.

The only challenge we have to face is financial funding. Due to the lack of financial resources, we cannot expand training to other villages and cover more areas to provide a higher level of training.

Q: Empowering rural women needs cultural aspects to be understood and incorporated in gender mainstreaming, could you explain that? A: Empowering rural women needs to be done from within according to the norms and culture accepted by communities. The tribal community is an Islamic conservative community, thus, the language used in the training reflected that nature.

All the training materials were designed to coincide with the nature of the community. For example, well-known Muslim women who managed water resources were introduced as models. Local dialect was utilised, experts from the local areas were trained to train others.

Throughout the training, all experts utilised the local language, well known practices and traditions to introduce the idea that women are the primary users and managers of water resources.

Rather than referring to Western terminology or focusing on terms, the entire focus was on the culture itself and concepts. We utilised the Iraqi and Islamic culture to present case studies about women who managed water resources.

Excerpt:

By Marwaan Macan-Markar and - -
CHIANG MAI, Thailand, Mar 10 2012 (IPS)

When he returned home after over two decades as a political exile, Aung Zaw, a prominent figure among Burma’s exiled media community, was served a slice of truth by the country’s notorious censorship board.

Aung Zaw, editor, 'The Irrawaddy' Credit: 'The Irrawaddy'

It was just one of the many encouraging experiences of Aung Zaw during his five-day visit in February. Another was freedom to travel and meet contacts and dissidents, including pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, without being tailed by government spies.

The openness and sense of hope he felt in the Burma under its quasi-civilian government was in stark contrast to the climate of oppression that had gripped the country in 1988, the year he fled, hiding in remote villages, till he reached the Thai border.

In 1993, this trenchant critics of the military junta launched ‘The Irrawaddy’ on a shoestring budget to cover political events in Burma. The publication’s two-decade presence, first as a monthly and then as a website with daily updates, set the tone for the growth of the exiled media – a new phenomenon in Burmese journalism. It now has close to 20 media outlets in Norway, India, Bangladesh and Thailand.

“I don’t see ourselves as exiled media now, after the government lifted the restrictions to access our website inside Burma,” he said during an interview in his editorial office in Thailand’s northern city of Chiang Mai.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Q: You returned to Burma after 24 years in exile, during which time you set up ‘The Irrawaddy’ to expose the oppression by military regimes back home. Are the days of military dictatorships since the 1962 coup drawing to an end? A: Burma is changing, it is going through a transition period; it is at a crossroad, definitely. But if this change is not managed well, not done intelligently, in a more creative way, I am afraid we are going to lose this period of transition. That would be a shame. This is a golden opportunity for Burma.

Q: Among the places you visited was Naypidaw, the new administrative capital, to meet officials of President Thein Sein’s government. What did that visit feel like, since your publication was scathing in its coverage of the former junta’s plans to build this new seat of power? A: I got a call on my first morning in Rangoon from the government asking me to come to Naypidaw as soon as possible. I was expecting to make this journey at the end. So, I went immediately.

It was a funny journey (laughs) as I talked with the others in the vehicle about the number of stories we had written about this secret, jungle hideout, how much money was spent and the kinds of clandestine operations and deals struck by the military regime in the past. And then finally to see it – looked like a place in China; I felt it in the style of the buildings.

But I had a very warm, incredible reception with the officials from the president’s office. We had extensive talks, didn’t beat around the bush.

Q: Like what? A: Media laws in Burma, press freedom and the censorship board – when are they going to abolish it. How much freedom the media inside the country has and the changing media landscape since last year and will there be more openness.

Q: Does it mean you are planning to relocate The Irrawaddy to Burma? A: I did talk about our intentions to go back, at some point, and launch our publication at home. But is that possible? How much freedom will we have? These are questions of concern about the media space for us, because inside the country the cronies, the tycoons and family members of the military dominate and control the media, the many layers of publishing, even contents and editorial policies.

But I think there is potential for journalism to grow, for more professional journalism to take root. There are groups of people who are committed and very dedicated, very determined; they are relatively small. They need support and I see them as partners to reeducate journalists about what is good journalism, independent journalism, press freedom, and the role journalists have to achieve this.

Q: And will the government permit this possible flowering of a vibrant, independent media inside Burma? A: Actually, since last year, the government has relaxed media controls a lot. There is more space to publish and report. I also think the government wants to see a more professional media. They are very disappointed with the state of the media. They even asked at one point what we can do to help them with training.

Q: That would be something, given how you have been seen as an enemy by the military regimes all these years. Would the ministry of information and information minister Kyaw Hsan, your nemesis, be able to stomach it? A: (Laughs)… I only had a brief handshake with Kyaw Hsan, but I did meet the deputy minister (Soe Win) and he was very expressive as if he was meeting a long lost friend. He admitted being a big reader of the Irrawaddy. I was surprised (laughs).

Q: One of the problems exiles around the world face when they return to their country at peace after years of conflict or, in your case, decades of military oppression, are feelings of resentment by those who stayed back and felt the full force of domestic turmoil. You will face this, won’t you? A: Definitely, definitely. I think my first visit was a honeymoon. Even movie stars who had followed my work, seen me on our TV programmes, came and said hello to me in restaurants, as did other people I met in the markets, on the streets of Rangoon and even in the shops in Naypidaw. But the more exiles start making inroads in the professional fields, they will encounter resentment. It is natural.

Q: So is it time for exiles in professions such as journalism, health, education, finance to go back and deal with this reality check? A: I think it is time for a visit; get a feel for the change. But time will come for them to do more, to go back and help. And I think the government – there is a problem – also has to do something to welcome exiles back. They have to create incentives for people who left the country since 1960s to return and not be seen as people coming back to disrupt the society.

Excerpt:

By - - and Rousbeh Legatis
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 10 2012 (IPS)

In Haitian refugee camps, women are still crammed under plastic or cloth tarps that provide no security and quickly become overheated by the sun. Sexual abuse, harassment, assault and rape run rampant, even as political responses to these dangers have stalled. But KOFAVIV, a women’s organisation founded by and for rape survivors, offers a glimmer of hope.

Eramithe Delva, founder of KOFAVIV, a Haitian women's organisation founded by and for rape survivors. Credit: Courtsey of KOFAVIV

The lack of sanitation infrastructure forces women to walk long ways to reach bathrooms and showers, even when it’s “pitch dark after sunset”, she explained, since some camps have no lighting at night.

“Women are scared to walk by themselves at night because of that; they are scared that people will walk into their tent and rob or hurt them,” she added.

Other problems relate to children, education and income. Mothers “have the choice of staying in or around their tents to stay with their children, or leave them behind with a friend or a neighbour to be able to try and make a little bit of money”.

IPS spoke with Delva about how a women’s organisation founded “by and for rape survivors” is trying to make a difference while political decision makers remain, for the most part, idle.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: In a recent report, you shed light on survival sex, a problem for displaced women and girls that has gone neglected. What has changed since that report? A: “Survival sex” occurs when women and teenage girls have no other options but to sell their bodies to make a little bit of money to provide for themselves and their families. Although they are similar, we consider “survival sex” to be different than prostitution or sex work, because the person engaging in the sexual exchange did not choose to do it willingly.

Most, if not all, of the women and girls engaged in survival sex have told our outreach workers that they don’t like doing it, and that they would stop if they found another way to provide for themselves and family members.

Since the report, nothing has really changed. Reports aren’t going to change anything by themselves; it is through direct work and activities within the affected communities that we can start seeing changes.

Our network of outreach workers lives in the camps and in the poor communities, so this is part of their daily lives, and they will tell you that not much has changed. KOFAVIV has provided shelter for young women and young mothers who are (or have been) engaged in survival sex, but a lot more needs to be done to change that.

Q: What are main causes of this problem and what must be done to tackle them? A: There are many different causes. We consider poverty, the lack of access to economic opportunities and all the accompanying complexities to be the main ones.

It will be very difficult to solve this problem because it exists on so many levels, but we think that there needs to be an infrastructure created to support and provide relief for the young women engaged in survival sex.

First of all, they need to be able to finish their studies. A lot of the young women and girls who come to the KOFAVIV Centre have told us that they are engaging in these activities to be able to pay for their school fees.

They need to be taken out of the camps and placed in secure housing. There need to be programs and activities where they can receive counselling and medical services, where they can participate in trainings and classes to learn skills that they could apply to income generating activities.

Q: Fighting sexual violence is high on the political agenda in Haiti, at least rhetorically. What kind of governmental support have you observed reaching out to women in camps, including survival sex? A: There have been talks of combating sexual violence but I have not seen any concrete plans or activities being implemented by the government. As a grassroots organisation working directly in the affected areas, we have not seen much change. Most people displaced by the earthquake are still living in horrible conditions.

Q: Where you have seen major progress being made? A: In terms of our organisation, KOFAVIV has been able to make a lot of progress and to make a difference for survivors of sexual violence.

We provide legal services and accompaniment to victims of gender-based-violence (GBV), with the support of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI). Through this partnership, our legal unit of outreach workers accompany the survivors to report her attack, to file a complaint and to go to trial to pursue her aggressor.

From 2004 (KOFAVIV’s inception) to 2010, we barely had ten cases make it to the justice system. Since the earthquake, from 2010 to 2012, we have had about 200 cases that have made it through the justice system, five of which are awaiting a ruling.

It might not seem like a lot compared to the number of women and girls that have come forward, but to us that is a great accomplishment.

Because of our presence in the camps and throughout the communities, rape survivors know about us and the type of work that we do; they are coming forward and talking about their attacks.

Survivors of sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, conjugal violence, etc.) are sometimes humiliated and shamed by their communities so they often kept their abuse a secret. But now, to see women and girls come to our centre or call in to our call centre to report abuse and to seek help and justice is great progress.

Furthermore, our emergency shelter in the centre is open to survivors of sexual violence if they feel it is too dangerous for them to go back to their home or tent. They can stay safely at and participate in all the services and activities offered by KOFAVIV.

Excerpt:

By Mathilde Bagneres and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 2012 (IPS)

As many as seven in 10 women in the world report experiencing physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lifetime, leaving a devastating aftermath for individuals, communities and nations.

Marai Larasi Credit: Courtesy of Marai Larasi

Access can be especially problematic for women in rural and remote areas, or women belonging to excluded groups or ethnic minorities, indigenous and migrant women, adolescent girls, and those with disabilities or living with HIV/AIDS, among others.

But a growing number of countries are intensifying their efforts to prevent and address violence against women. It is now clearly recognised that a systematic, comprehensive, multi-sectoral and sustained approach is necessary to address both the symptoms and roots of the problem.

Marai Larasi is the director of Imkaan, a UK-based organisation dedicated to challenging violence against black, minorities and refugee women and girls. She is also the co-chair of the countrywide End Violence against Women Coalition.

She took part in the 56th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), which concluded here Friday. Larasi’s work focuses on strategic advocacy and policy development, and her organisation also works on the challenges associated with the prevention of violence against women and girls.

IPS Correspondent Mathilde Bagneres spoke with Larasi about what has been accomplished, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Can you tell me what concrete measures have been taken to help primary prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls? A: To date there have been very few consistent concrete measures taken to help primary prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). For example, in the UK, prevention has been identified as a key element of the Westminster government’s VAWG narrative.

However, this has not been matched with a systematic approach to prevention. Whilst the government has run awareness-raising campaigns that have been targeted at teenagers, and these have been largely welcomed, there is not a centralised approach to primary prevention in schools.

This, despite a growing consensus that schools are important sites, which support the development of constructive and positive attitudes and behaviours.

In many states, primary prevention has been led by grassroots organisations. Projects have tended to emerge in an ad hoc way and are often restricted by lack of resources and a lack of a supportive policy landscape. This is often creative, innovative and valuable work, which has made a real difference but which is limited in reach.

Q: What are the key areas where new and concrete policy measures and interventions are necessary to strengthen support services for women victims/survivors of violence and primary prevention? A: It is essential that a comprehensive, integrated approach to gender equality, the prevention of VAWG and the provision of support to victims is developed across states.

Such an approach would ensure for example that VAWG is addressed strategically and operationally across all areas of government, including areas such as health, criminal justice, housing and education

It would also ensure that work to address VAWG includes both prevention and support. It is essential that resources for survivors are not diverted into prevention work. What is needed instead is investment in both areas of work.

The expertise – with respect to prevention, support and protection – which has been developed largely in the specialist women’s-led NGO sector is supported, also has to be sustained and replicated.

Such an approach could also ensure that specialist, and women-led independent services for survivors are supported. Schools would also be able to adopt a ‘whole school approach’ to the promotion of gender equality and the prevention of VAWG.

A comprehensive approach would ensure that there is investment in, and facilitation of community mobilisation and also that marginalised groups are supported to provide leadership and to participate equally across all programme areas. Also the sexualisation of girls and women in media, advertising and popular culture would have to be addressed systematically.

Q: What are the main gaps and challenges in primary prevention and how can those be scaled up? A: First of all, the lack of systematic approach to primary prevention, as previously highlighted.

Then there is still a lack of funding for prevention work – this includes all areas of prevention. The focus of VAWG work, particularly given limited resources, has necessarily focussed on support for survivors. New investment is needed which supports primary prevention.

There is also a lack of investment in research and monitoring – resulting in a lack of robust body of evidence which demonstrates the effectiveness of the various approaches to prevention.

Another major challenge is the issue of shifting landscapes – with the emergence of phenomena such as new technology, shifting cultural attitudes and social media, practitioners face different challenges.

For example, work to prevent and address sexual exploitation now often has to take into account how mobile phones, chat sites and social networking spaces are utilised as part of the grooming / exploitation process.

Q: What initiatives are emerging as promising and effective in primary prevention and how can those be scaled up? A: There are a range of initiatives which are emerging as promising and effective. Work in schools can be used to change attitudes and assist early intervention and prevention.

For example, one school programme led by the Ashiana Project in London, which worked to prevent forced marriage, cost only 31,000 pounds and resulted in 95 percent of girls feeling more confident about forming healthy relationships.

The programme also prevented a number of forced marriages from taking place, while delivering a range of other positive outcomes for students and staff.

Work in communities helps to facilitate change, leadership and community ownership of programmes. Uganda-based Raising Voices has been widely recognised as a leader in primary prevention work, using a multi-layered approach which includes raising awareness and action integration to ensure effective community mobilisation.

Work which engages men and boys in challenging attitudes, and preventing VAWG, provides men with the opportunity to take responsibility for addressing VAWG. The award-winning Bell Bajao project provides an excellent example of such engagement.

Excerpt:

By Rousbeh Legatis and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 8 2012 (IPS)

Tools such as “gender markers”, which screen budgets and resources dedicated to promoting gender equality, are proving critical to improving the effectiveness of monetary support that seeks to empower women and girls.

Saraswathi Menon Credit: Courtesy of UN Women

Four years ago, the United Nations (U.N.) called for enhanced gender responsive planning and budgeting processes in order to follow money invested in gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Since then, various U.N. bodies have made an effort to improve internal accountability standards and the quality of programming in order to respond best to different realities of women and girls across countries and regions.

U.N. Women supports over 40 countries to introduce a gender perspective in planning and budgeting processes and budget-tracking methodologies. IPS spoke with Saraswathi Menon of U.N. Women about the agency’s work in this field and about the use of gender markers.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What can budgets tell us about efforts to improve women’s livelihoods? A: There is no direct correlation. However, when budgets allocate funds you can see what the priorities of the government or the organisation are. So, if gender equality is a priority, clearly the budget has to be structured in a certain way.

You do not set aside funds for women but for funds to address the issues that are undermining gender equality. That is how you will analyse a budget – not only in terms of the funds but also in terms of what is being funded.

So in a country where women have limited access to, let’s say, economic opportunities in the countryside and rural areas, you will look at the budgets of the agriculture ministry, commerce ministry, legal ministry and others in terms of how women are now getting access to land, investments, technologies, etc. The pattern of the budget is actually also important as well as the allocation itself.

Now, a gender marker measures only institutional support to women, whether it is a government or civil society or private sector organisation. In that sense, it is not directly empowering but it measures to what extent the investment is empowering.

Q: The U.N. and U.N. Women have worked to improve and expand the use of gender markers. Could you update us on their development at this point? A: Many agencies and organisations have developed markers in order to measure how they are performing. I think this comes from the real push towards work on gender equality.

But the measurements are very different; some are measuring only inputs in terms of funding, some are measuring inputs plus activities and others are measuring outputs.

The methodology itself varies; basically what is often done is a scale. So, if the programme or project has no gender contribution it is given “0”, if it has some it is given “1”, if it mainstreams it is given “2” and if it is directed at gender results then “3”.

There are variations in the way scales are used and variations in the way what is measured. Therefore, one of the things we want to be able to do across the U.N. system is to make this approach a little bit more systematic .

You will always find different agencies requiring different things to be measured, because their mandates are different. But yet at the same time there should be some common principals that we apply across the boards.

Q: What will be required in order for the U.N. to see progress across the board in its use of gender markers? A: Some institutional changes will be required. One of the problems we face is that your financial systems have to be structured so that this measurement becomes possible.

So there are methodological issues that will have to be addressed, but fortunately because so many have been working in the area, I think by comparing experiences we can take the best principles and methodologies and apply them across the board.

Then you have, of course, this commitment to do things in a common and balanced way so that you can be comparable and you can actually aggregate the contribution at the U.N.

So there are methodological and institutional challenges and always there is the issue of commitment. But I think on the side of commitment we see at the highest level in the U.N., starting with the Secretary General and the heads of agencies, there is real commitment to making a change.

Q: What are the risks of assessing gender equality and (rural) women’s empowerment only through the lens of a gender marker? A: This is only one prism. It is a prism of us looking at ourselves in terms of how we are prioritising and what contribution we are making. But the real measure of success are the changes in women’s lives, their own aspirations being voiced, their taking part in decision-making and the outcomes that are related to that.

Conditions of life, work, health and so forth, these have to change. The real measures are the outcome measures.

But this is one piece of a larger picture. And I think that it is very important that all of us who work in rural areas and on gender issues are held accountable for what we are doing.

Excerpt:

By Gustavo Capdevila and - -
GENEVA, Mar 7 2012 (IPS)

Social unrest and demands for change are not a negative thing during times of crisis like today, says Rubens Ricupero, a prominent Brazilian diplomat and intellectual.

Full recovery of the global economy will take at least four or five years, says former head of UNCTAD Rubens Ricupero. Credit: UNCTAD

Ricupero, who has a long and distinguished diplomatic career in Brazil, where he has held several ministerial posts as well, also says numerous multilateral negotiations, like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha Round of talks, will remain stalled.

The deadlock, he says, is related to an ongoing phenomenon: a shift in global power from the North Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to reach a consensus on deeper issues in multilateral talks, Ricupero told IPS in this exclusive interview.

Q: What is your assessment of the global situation? A: In the industrialised countries, I don’t think there can be much hope of short-term recovery. The Europeans do not even have a strategy to cope with the problems of the highly indebted countries. It will take quite a lot of suffering before any solution is reached.

Growth has practically disappeared in Germany, the country that matters. In others, like Italy and the Netherlands, there is recession. It looks like this will be another lost year for Europe.

Q: And in the United States? A: A lot will depend on the presidential elections in November. It’s not possible to predict the outcome, but I would venture to say President Barack Obama will be reelected.

The U.S. economy is starting to show signs of recovery, albeit slow and insufficient in terms of job creation, but the pace should pick up somewhat over the next few years.

Q: So the outlook is discouraging. A: This year and the next we won’t see major differences with respect to the dichotomy we have experienced in recent times. The economies of the developing South continue to grow, particularly China, India and other Asian countries, and as a result countries of Latin America and the Middle East are growing as well. I don’t see on the horizon either a major threat of a catastrophe like the collapse of the Lehman Brothers in 2008 or a promising recovery.

Q: Will it be a long wait? A: Like in the 1930s, recovery will take a while. Full recovery of the global economy as a whole won’t be seen for at least four or five years.

Q: Does that go for Latin America as well? A: No. That doesn’t mean other regions won’t be able to recover earlier. You have to keep in mind that in the 1930s, with a few exceptions, like Argentina, which suffered more because of its dependence on exports to Great Britain and its decision to try to pay off its debt, the rest of the countries of Latin America were in a good position, like Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Peru and Mexico.

Q: Is the outlook similar today? A: I see two differences in our favour. First, in 1930 we didn’t have the current phenomenon of the economic growth in China, India and other Asian countries. The world basically depended on the industrialised countries.

The second difference is that in the 1930s, the countries of Latin America were already crushed by heavy foreign debt, and the great majority of countries in the region were unable to meet their payments.

This time we are starting out the decade in an incomparably better situation, with strong reserves, a low level of debt, and a more favourable internal situation in terms of growth, employment and improved social indices.

I’m talking about the situation in countries like Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Peru, not so much about those that depend more directly on the U.S. market – the countries in the northern part of the region.

Q: International negotiations are running up against serious difficulties in questions like disarmament, trade and the environment. What is your impression of the multilateral system? A: Things are not going well because there is a deadlock on nearly all of the major issues.

Q: What would you say are the reasons for that? A: There are two overlapping phenomena. One is circumstantial: the economic crisis that sooner or later will have to come to an end. Another runs deeper: for years we have been seeing a shift in the world’s centre of economic and demographic gravity from the North Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region.

This is a phenomenon that the great French historian Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) would have called a very long-term secular tendency, such as in the case of the shift in the centre of world trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic in the 16th century, at the time of the big discoveries.

Q: Is that shift in power irreversible? A: It won’t stop happening. On the contrary, the short-term crises are fuelling it, reinforcing it. As the United States gets weaker economically, this obviously greatly favours the accumulation of reserves and financial power in countries like China.

It is at those rare times in history, which occur once every two or three centuries, that there is a change in global distribution. And at those times a consensus on how to cope with the deeper underlying issues is less likely to be reached in the multilateral bodies.

Q: Give me more details about this phenomenon. A: Until recently, the United States was an arbiter making the decisions in the world. It was the hegemonic power that guaranteed the liberal economic order.

It played that role since the end of World War II, with the reorganisation of the economic and financial system – the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the predecessor of the WTO, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – and of the political system by means of the United Nations charter.

Throughout the long Cold War, the United States continued to be the country that guaranteed the production of results in the major conferences that gave rise to the so-called international regimes. That was so much the case that when the United States abstained, as in the case of law of the sea, things did not move forward.

Q: What is the new reality? A: Today the United States is starting to reassess its positions, to feel a stronger need to focus on its domestic problems, to change its military strategy. It is shifting the focus away from the Middle East and Islamic issues to Asia. And it is starting to realise that the big strategic adversary, in the long run, is China, not Al Qaeda or the Islamists.

So in this process no one is appearing to play the role of arbiter. That’s what is being seen in the incidents involving Syria in the U.N. Security Council, and also in the other major international negotiations.

Q: Are we looking at an imminent shift in power? A: No, I don’t see the possibility of a change in the short term. If Obama is reelected, he will pay more attention to big domestic problems, like he has been doing. And China and India are still facing huge challenges. They are not ready, nor do they want, to assume the weight of that responsibility.

It is a very difficult moment, which fits the great Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci’s (1891-1937) definition of crisis. Gramsci said crisis is the moment when the old world is dying away, and the new world is struggling to come forth, and in that interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

That is what we are experiencing now. Also the fact that even the industrialised countries have started to discuss the crisis of capitalism. But they can’t come up with a solution because the same people who created the crisis are still dealing the cards.

Q: Do you think there will be some kind of reaction? A: Things are going to be very agitated over the next few years. Not in the sense of a global conflict, but in this kind of thing we are seeing: dissatisfaction, indignation, unrest, a desire for change. Which isn’t negative, because we must not ever lose sight of the fact that history is driven by times of difficulty.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say, like the Marxists, that violence drives history. But dissatisfaction does. It is at the root of the big global changes, like the French Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, the Rennaissance. During those times people were dissatisfied with how they were living.

Q: And today? A: That social unrest can be a highly creative force. It is upsetting for those who live during those periods, because it questions all values, all habits, but it is creative.

I don’t think it’s bad for people not to feel satisfied with a system that is based to such an extent on injustice and the lack of equality. People have to rebel against what the bankers have done, and are still doing.

That is why I have said: more power to the men and women who fight for an economy with greater equity, justice and balance. People must not resign themselves to this.

Q: Could the crisis affect the survival of the multilateral bodies? A: The U.N. in particular has demonstrated great flexibility. I’ll mention two episodes: In 1971, when communist China was admitted to and became a permanent member of the Security Council, it was said at the time, in the period following the Cultural Revolution, that it would cause great instability in the world. And that did not happen.

And the second: the end of communism brought about a total change in the map of the world. The Soviet Union fell apart into I don’t know how many pieces. The Yugoslav federation did too. And all of that happened with a relatively contained degree of violence, except in the case of the Yugoslavians, for other reasons.

At both times, what happened was that the organisations, particularly those of the U.N., managed to adapt to the changes. What is bad is when an organisation is so rigid that it cannot adapt, and it perishes.

The U.N. has that flexibility, which at times causes a great deal of perplexity and dissatisfaction.

Q: Do you believe the financial organisations, like the IMF, World Bank and WTO, will survive intact? A: No. I hope this movement demanding change will modify not only the internal economies of countries, in the sense of moving away from that market fundamentalism, but that it will also change the institutions that have represented that fundamentalist spirit.

And in order for that to happen, the central role has to be played by people around the world – not only in the (developing) South – who are aware of the problem, that it is not possible to continue with an organisation that foments the growth of inequality.

Excerpt:

By Patricia Grogg and - -
HAVANA, Mar 2 2012 (IPS)

Subject to the double impact of the global economic crisis and climate change, the Caribbean island nations are in need of adaptation strategies in which international cooperation and citizen participation play key roles, says Cuban expert Ramón Pichs.

Ramón Pichs, deputy director Centre for the Study of the World Economy. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

Q: What are the main environmental challenges faced by Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean region? A: There are a number of common challenges, including a propensity for extreme events such as hurricanes, drought, water stress, pollution, loss of biodiversity and rising sea levels, which seriously endanger the lowest-lying coastal areas.

We also should take into account that Caribbean island states especially are extraordinarily dependent on the large markets of industrialised countries. Generally, they are food and oil importers, and they have been very much affected by the sharp increase in prices for these strategic products.

Most of these islands make a living from tourism, with facilities that are preferably near the shore and that endure the impact of hurricanes and flooding, especially if they are in low-lying areas.

We should also mention the bleaching of coral reefs, an important Caribbean resource that is being harmed by the impact of high temperatures.

Q: In that context, what joint adaptation strategies are the most advisable? A: A number of actions are underway. For example, capacities are being created for responding to many of these climate phenomena that tend to be increasingly intense and devastating. Cuba has given important support to national response teams, not just in the Caribbean, but also in Central and South America.

We need to keep working in those areas. We should also include initiatives that are being carried out as part of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America bloc, which seek to bolster sectors like education and health, both of them strategic for sustainable social development and adaptation to climate change.

Moreover, there is a need for adaptation actions in other key areas, such as agriculture, tourism, water supply and the protection of coastlines and human settlements.

Early warning systems are very important, and Cuba’s experience in this realm can be very useful; that is, a strategy for responding to extreme events such as hurricanes, where the integration of a country’s main institutions is essential.

Q: What should be taken into account when designing these adaptation programmes? A: There are three levels of analysis: national efforts, regional integration and international cooperation. In the first case, a lot of work and progress are needed to integrate the economic, social and environmental aspects as part of strategies for sustainable development.

In this sense, for decision makers, it would be fundamental to chart socioeconomic and environmental scenarios in different circumstances, with the goal of using that as a basis for designing the policy options that would be most convenient according to the priorities and interests of those countries.

When I refer to scenarios, I am not talking about making predictions, but about thinking about the possible trajectories of what could happen, and depending on that, deciding to act in one direction or another.

These national efforts would necessarily have to be complemented with processes of sub-regional integration, such as the Caribbean Community, CARICOM, and regional processes, via the recently-created Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Q: You mentioned international cooperation as a third element. What is its role? A: It is a key element of strategies for responding to global environmental challenges, especially when taking into account the large gaps in equality that exist in today’s world. However, that collaboration must, in the first place, take into account the priorities and interests of sustainable development in recipient countries.

Secondly, it should be directed at creating endogenous capacities in countries that receive this cooperation; that is, when the cooperation is withdrawn, the conditions should be created for those projects to be sustainable. Lastly, the aid provided should contribute to integrating national efforts, instead of fragmenting them.

Q: What are the responsibilities of civil society and its organisations, especially in concrete projects for adapting to climate change? A: Any project for adapting to climate change or other environmental challenges will be more successful when the communities where they are carried out have an adequate level of awareness about the problems they face. Citizen participation is fundamental in this process.

A number of elements interact in this capacity for response, including financial, technological and human resources; institutional networks; government and political will, and the presence of social organisations as active subjects in these processes.

Excerpt:

By - - and Stephen Leahy
VANCOUVER, Canada, Mar 1 2012 (IPS)

The Earth’s life support system, which generates the planet’s air, water and food, is powered by 8.7 million living species, according to the latest best estimate. We know little about 99 percent of those unique species, except that far too many are rapidly going extinct.

Rio+20 is not a major conference on biodiversity, but everything discussed there will relate to biodiversity, said Braulio Ferreira de Souza. Credit: Courtesy of CDB

“The challenge is to find the middle ground between economic interests, livelihoods and conservation,” says Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, the newly appointed head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the international agency charged with helping countries slow and reverse the loss of plants, animals and other species.

A native of Brazil, Dias holds a doctorate in zoology from the University of Edinburgh, and worked for many years at the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, where his last position prior to joining the CBD was as Secretary of Biodiversity and Forests.

In this interview with Tierramérica*, Dias called for biodiversity to be mainstreamed into all government policies and sectors.

Q: Why are species going extinct and why does it matter? A: I’ll give you an example. Agriculture has a lot of impact on biodiversity. Conversion of natural lands results in losses of services that natural ecosystems provide, like reducing flooding and cleaning and retaining water. We also lose genetic diversity, which means the loss of options for the future to combat diseases, and many other potentially useful things for humanity. Once a species goes extinct, it’s gone forever.

Q: How do you hope to slow the accelerating loss of species as the new executive secretary of CBD? A: One major goal is to mainstream biodiversity, which means involving all government departments at all national governments. We want them to understand and consider the impacts on biodiversity when they create rules and policies. Studies such as TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) provide the data about the importance of biodiversity to all countries’ economies.

It’s not easy to do and there are no magic solutions.

Q: Does the controversy over Brazil’s Forest Code illustrate the challenge of mainstreaming biodiversity? (Changes to the Forest Code may allow increased logging and clearance of the Amazon rainforest.) A: It is a concrete example of the challenge. Governments have to deal with competing interests. In this case, farmers and environmentalists, agricultural interests and the general public. The challenge is to find the middle ground between economic interests, livelihoods and conservation.

In 2011 Brazil’s lower house adopted a version of the Code that seemed to favor the interests of agriculture. In December, the Brazilian senate made changes that offer a more balanced approach. That version will now go before the lower house in March.

Brazil has been successful in reducing deforestation over the last decade due to better education about the real value of conservation and natural ecosystems. The public has definitely increased pressure on the governments.

Q: How important is education? A: Information is key, but so are financial instruments. For example, I would like to see an agreement at our next Convention of the Parties meeting (COP 11 in Hyderabad, India) for governments to use sustainability criteria for any of their purchases.

Q: COP 10 in 2010 resulted in the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation. What are countries now obligated to do as a result of the agreement? A: Nations made a strong commitment to reduce biodiversity losses at COP 10 in Nagoya. It was a major achievement. Each country now has a national strategy and an action plan to protect biodiversity in their countries. That commitment needs to be brought to sub-national levels and across all sectors so that there will be results on the ground. This is not easy for most countries to do and will require funding and technical assistance.

Q: The experts and diplomats who negotiated the Nagoya Protocol need to get their national governments to agree. When do you hope to have the Protocol ratified (and thus legally binding)? A: More than 90 countries have submitted a letter of agreement saying they intend to ratify the Protocol. However, it takes time to go through the various legislatures of every country. We do have some ratifications, but we will not get to the 50 required for the Protocol to be in force by COP 11 in October.

Q: What else will be on the agenda at COP 11 in Hyderabad? A: We will work on establishing a new funding mechanism and setting up a work program – that’s the “how to” part of meeting global biodiversity targets.

Conservation in the open oceans will be a special topic. No country has jurisdiction over these areas and so they are not part of any national plans. The open oceans are extremely important areas of biodiversity and ecological processes. (Ocean plankton provide much of the oxygen we breathe.)

Q: What about the Rio+20 conference this June? It is the 20th anniversary of the historic Earth Summit that gave birth to the CBD. A: There is a broad agenda about how to move to a green economy. This is not a major conference on biodiversity, but all of that will relate to biodiversity. If Rio+20 moves the agenda forward it will help with biodiversity.

*The writer is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

Excerpt:

By Mathilde Bagneres and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 29 2012 (IPS)

Violence, torture and other forms of cruel treatment are on the rise for women in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.

Lilly Be'Soer, founder of Voice for Change, a non-governmental organisation for women's rights in Papua New Guinea. Credit: Mathilde Bagneres/ IPS

In 2010, Be’Soer was awarded a Pacific Human Rights Defenders Award. Most recently, she has helped negotiate a peace agreement to resettle 500 internally displaced families.

IPS correspondent Mathilde Bagneres spoke with Be’Soer about her experiences, the situation of women in Papua New Guinea and the role of Voice for Change. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the main purpose of Voice for Change? What is it achieving on the ground for Papua New Guinea’s women? My own experience made me understand that there are many women who are facing the problems that I faced. Many of them are displaced, resettled or survivors of violence in PNG. We set up this organisation, this network, to support women who are facing those problems.

Over the past four years, Voice for Change leaders have responded by forming an organisation that runs two main programs: Promoting and Protecting Women’s Human Rights and Economic Empowerment of Women.

Because of tribal conflicts, thousands of people are internally displaced in PNG. One of our main works is to try to mediate and intervene during confrontations, tribal conflicts and wars to come to a peaceful resolution.

We also work on women’s economic recovery. Women who have been internally displaced, the widows, survivors or victims of violence, need support, and need to be economically empowered.

Voice for Change is providing opportunity for those women to access cash from the organisation’s loans and credit project so that they can engage in income generating activities to support their family, send their children to school, pay for school fees or improve their house.

One of the most promising new ideas to is to unite women market vendors in a mass association, to give them voice in visioning, planning, budgeting and managing the markets, which are their mains site of income earning.

Q: How did you and Voice for Change facilitate mediation in tribal conflicts and wars in your country? Being a woman and a woman right defender is really challenging in the society I come from. I had to make a lot of sacrifices, in terms of money, for example. I have to be present in every social obligation; I have to be part of what the community is doing.

I have to do certain things to earn that recognition, so they can allow me and give me the space to be able to fill roles that are traditionally endorsed by men.

Women in conflict-affected highlands societies are in dire need of financial support to engage in economic activity to generate income to meet their family’s basic needs and to seek justice.

Since 2009, Voice for Change has been involved in assisting about 500 families who were displaced as a result of a tribal war. For years, women were internally displaced and they had no place to grow food and no way of supporting themselves and their families.

We have successfully, in the last six months, led the pre-mediation consultations and now we have come to peace reconciliation by both tribes.

Now we are working on resettling those women and their families back to their land, so they can start a normal life again.

Q: You are taking part in the CSW’s 56th session as a member of the panel about “Governance and institutions for the empowerment of rural women”. What concrete measures do you think Papua New Guinea’s government should take to empower women? Since independence in 1975, state legislative, administrative and judicial systems in the largely unexplored highlands region were still very weak, inadequate, neglected and under-resourced.

The government of Papua New Guinea hasn’t been really supporting the rural women. And in terms of gender-based violence, the fact that women are abused is an accepted norm.

A husband can hit his wife in the public place and nobody will support the woman. Women, as a result of polygamist relationships, are fighting against each other and are sometimes killing each other.

One of the bigger problems we also have is women who are tortured, killed, burned alive, because they are blamed for sorcery. And there’s nothing the government has done about it.

The government of Papua New Guinea has signed many international conventions, and treaties to promote the safety of women in the country but it’s not doing the job. It is not honouring its commitment to protect women. The government has neglected rural women.

The CSW has been on every year. This is my first time here, and it would be really interesting for me to know if the United Nations can make a government honour its commitment to support women on the ground.

In PNG, the government signed the declaration to end violence against women and all forms of discrimination against women. It also signed the Security Council’s resolution 1325 for women in armed conflicts.

Everything is signed, but the government is not making its commitment. The U.N. should ensure that governments honour their commitments. And meanwhile, 60 to 90 percent of women are currently victims of sexual or gender based violence in PNG.

Excerpt:

State and local Commissions on the Status of Women (CSW) are facing shrinking budgets and even total elimination at a time when women are some of the hardest hit by the financial crisis, says Susan Rose, vice chair of Human Rights Watch’s Santa Barbara Committee.

Susan Rose Credit: Courtesy of Susan Rose

First advocated by the John F. Kennedy administration in 1963, there are now more than 200 commissions throughout the United States, according to the National Association of Commissions for Women (NACW). Most of them are run by volunteers with little paid staff.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown is trying to defund the California Commission on the Status of Women, eliminating its 265,000 dollars in funding in the proposed 2012-2013 budget – meaning that the 47 year-old commission will likely close its doors in April.

A former executive director of the Los Angeles City Commission on the Status of Women, Rose discussed with U.N. Correspondent Rousbeh Legatis the importance of the commissions in promoting issues of political and economic equality, reproductive health, and to combat domestic violence.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Could you clarify what kind of entities we are talking about? A: Commissions on the Status of Women are the voices for women within government. They are advocates for the needs of women, as well as sponsors of legislation. They monitor the activities of government to ensure that the issues affecting women – and their families – are considered and acted upon. Certainly, this model is and can be used internationally with the same purpose and effect. The singular mission of these commissions is advocacy for women.

Q: What are the most pressing concerns for women in the U.S.? A: From my perspective, there are four pressing concerns for women in the U.S.

The economy and jobs are the most significant issue affecting all Americans and especially women. This is followed by the need for social services.

Per my article for the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Budget Project reports that “the recession has had a greater impact on women than men. The governor’s budget will cut deeply into services women rely on, including education, childcare, welfare and health care.”

In addition to jobs and social support systems, health care – including reproductive choice – and violence against women are the other most important issues facing American women.

Q: Could you give some examples of how these commissions make a difference in women’s lives at the state and community level? A: For example, on the state level this past year, the governor signed legislation supported by the California Commission that affected “health insurance coverage for maternity leave, protection for victims of domestic violence and child custody proceedings”.

On a local level, when I was director of the LA City Commission, we held public hearings to assess the needs of women, sponsored educational conferences, issued publications on available services, as well as carried out legislative advocacy. We focused on issues affecting working women and their families and during those years crafted policies on childcare – one of the first in the U.S. – and sexual harassment.

Q: Do CSWs get enough political support for their work across the nation? A: Commissions do not have enough political support, perhaps due to the lack of awareness of their activities. In the 1980s and 90s, state and local commissions were much more robust with funding for staff and programmes.

In today’s political world, with governments across the U.S. struggling to provide basic services, there is little political support for such agencies. It is unfortunate that they are not a priority of political representatives for they have a significant impact with very little cost.

Q: How are budget cuts around the country affecting these entities at a time when women are some of the hardest hit by the financial crisis? A: I can speak to the impact on women and their families in California. California Governor Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating the California’s Commission on the Status of Women (CCSW). A statewide effort has begun to save it. At this time, it is unclear whether the governor will change his mind.

Now more than ever, women need the California Commission.

The California Budget Project released a report this week called “Falling Behind: The Impact of the Great Recession and the Budget Crisis on Women and their Families”, which specifically describes how low-income women and their families have been hit the hardest by the cuts in California. The poor job market has affected single mothers more than others. Social services such as childcare, Medi-Cal and welfare programmes have been slashed, affecting those who need it most.

Q: Could you name the biggest step forward, as well as the major shortcoming in commissions’ work, that you have observed in recent years in the U.S.? A: Unfortunately, I have not seen much advancement in the work of commissions, primarily because they have not been supported by government jurisdictions. U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier attempted to pass a national commission for women in Washington but could not get enough support.

This would have continued in concept the one originally established by President John Kennedy. I believe such a federal commission could have reenergised state and local commissions and created a new national movement for commissions.

Q: What is needed to further strengthen women’s political voice in the US – both at state as well as community level? A: The most important step forward would occur if political representatives would make women’s issues and commissions for women a priority on their own political agendas. A commitment from legislators could result in new funding and support for these efforts and certainly a better community-based (and media) understanding of their ability to affect the lives of women and their families.

It is time Commissions on the Status of Women were recognised for what they have achieved in the past and valued for what they can accomplish in the future.

Excerpt:

To meet the challenges of the 21st century, including climate change, feeding the world and eliminating poverty, we need to free ourselves from the “thought traps” that prevent us from seeing the world as it truly is and narrow our vision of how to respond.

Frances Moore Lappé Credit: Courtesy of Frances Moore Lappé

At same time, we need to eliminate “privately-held government”, says Frances Moore Lappé, author of “EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want” published by Nation Books. Lappé has written 18 books, including the very influential “Diet for a Small Planet”.

“There is no way to deal with climate change or poverty without real democracy,” she says.

IPS climate and environment correspondent Stephen Leahy spoke with Lappé about her new book.

Q: What do you mean by the term “thought traps”? A: We don’t see the world as it really is but through a filter or mental map. Research in neuroscience shows that we interpret the world based on our previous experiences and understanding of the world. In other words we see what we expect to see.

One of the dominant ideas in our society is about scarcity or lack. There isn’t enough resources or food or whatever for all of us. We then “see” or interpret everything from that filter or frame of reference.

Q: How does this widely-held idea of “scarcity” affect us? A: Believing there isn’t enough makes us defensive and competitive with each other. We think we’d better get ours before someone else does. The majority of people I talk to insist with seven billion people on the planet scarcity is our reality now and into the future. They are blinkered by this scarcity mentality.

Q: But isn’t it true that we are running out of resources like water, energy, food and so on? A: I discovered as a young student that the U.S. food production was extraordinarily wasteful and inefficient. Sixteen pounds of corn and soy fed to cattle to get one pound of meat. That pound of meat also requires as much as 12,000 gallons of water. Nearly half of all food harvested is never consumed.

This staggering waste is the rule, not the exception, and not just in food production. The U.S. energy sector wastes 55-87 percent of the energy generated – most of it in the form of waste heat at power plants. It’s not just the U.S. U.N. studies showed that 3,000 of the world’s biggest corporations caused two trillion dollars in damage to the global environment in 2008 alone.

Q: Why are we so destructive and wasteful? A: It’s a result of the current market economy with its single focus on generating the quickest and highest return to a small minority of wealth-holders. Our economy creates scarcity by being extraordinarily wasteful and destructive. The term “free market economy” is completely wrong. What we have is a corporate-monopoly market economy of waste and destruction. We need to be more careful and more precise in our language.

Q: There is a growing call by environmentalists and some economists of the need to shift from a growth economy to a no-growth economy, but you say this is a thought trap? A: Yes, it leads to a distracting debate about merits of growth versus no-growth. Growth sounds like a good thing so most people will resist the idea of no growth. Better to focus on creating a system that enhances health, happiness, ecological vitality and social power.

Q: In your book you also say everyone needs to focus on “living democracy”. A: America has become what’s called a “plutonomy”, where the top one percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Inequality is now greater in the U.S. than in Pakistan or Egypt, according to the World Bank. The result is corporations and the very wealthy sway public decision making via political contributions and lobbying. There are now two dozen lobbyists for every member of Congress.

To counter this privately-held government we need to re-create a culture of mutual responsibility, transparency, citizen participation and public financing of elections. Democracy is not just voting once a year, it is a culture, a way of living.

The “mother of all issues” in most countries is removing the power of concentrated wealth from public-decision making and infusing citizens’ voices instead. The environmental crisis is in fact a crisis in democracy.

Q: There is a feeling amongst many environmentally-aware people that it is already too late and there is too much to be overcome. A: Thinking it’s too late is another thought trap. It may be too late to avoid significant impacts that could have been avoided if action had been taken two decades ago. It is not too late for life. My book is filled with examples of people taking charge and turning things around.

What makes people think it’s too late is that they feel alone and powerless. People feel that way because of the thought traps, the false beliefs about scarcity and of human nature as greedy and selfish. Those beliefs and a privately-held government have led to feelings of powerlessness.

Q: This year is the 20th anniversary of the historic Earth Summit and major conference called Rio+20 will be held in June. What are your thoughts? A: I participated in the Rio+10 conference and we’ve gone backwards in those 10 years. Rio+20 could be the opportunity to reverse course and align ourselves with nature to create the world we really want.

Excerpt:

The Russian opposition movement which has risen to prominence since the Dec. 4 parliamentary elections has not said its last word, says 35-year-old Sergey Udaltsov, one of its most visible figures.

Sergey Udalstov addressing a public gathering. Credit: Courtesy of Sergey Udalstov

Accusing authorities of rigging the Dec. 4 parliamentary election to keep the governing United Russia in control of the legislative, Russians from big cities, particularly from capital Moscow, took to the streets in the tens of thousands during December 2011.

After the largest march bringing an estimated 80,000 people to the streets of Moscow on Dec. 24, such big actions have halted. Smaller protests took place after that, attended by hundreds in Moscow. Many at these have expressed outrage over the manner in which Udaltsov was being harassed by authorities.

“I have no doubts that none of my arrests had any legal grounds,” Udaltsov told IPS on phone from Moscow after his latest release from jail. “The cases against me were fabricated: I was accused of ridiculous things such as trying to cross the street in the wrong place even though I was in a different location in the city at the time. I was also falsely accused of opposing arrest.”

Videos circulating over the Internet show Udaltsov getting arrested while posing no obstacles to the police.

“The authorities saw a danger in me because they understood I can mobilise people,” he added. “The aim of my arrests has been to isolate me as a political figure, especially during the election period.”

Excerpts from the interview:

Q: What does the Left Front stand for? A: The Left Front is an ideological movement that stands for social justice and the fair distribution of resources among the entire population. Today Russia is run by a clan around the President (Dmitry Medvedev) and the Prime Minister (Vladimir Putin), and we have a situation in which elites representing 10 percent of the population control 90 percent of the resources, while the vast majority lives in poverty. This is the critical problem of contemporary Russia.

What we want to see is broader public participation in the management of natural resources, transport, industry and all other strategic fields. We want a direct democracy, where the people would have their say through fair and transparent referendums, where they could interact with authorities using the Internet, where they could have a say in social reforms.

We are not nostalgic about the Soviet Union, we do not argue for a return to a centrally planned economy where social iniative was stifled, but we do want to preserve what was good in the Soviet system while adopting new paths to development; we want to see the social-democratic development of Russia.

Q: What you say sounds like a pretty moderate vision; why then is the Left Front described as “extreme” or “radical” left in the media? A: Propaganda is one of the main means of mass communication in Russia today. Many TV channels, radio stations and online news sites are controlled by the authorities. Through these means, our image (of the Left Front) is tarnished so as to discredit the entire opposition. Citizens with low political education are not able to distinguish the truth, so they end up believing that we want a civil war or the rebirth of a Stalinist regime.

But you can read the materials on our website to see our true position: we have always called for peaceful protest and we just want to empower people and enable them to solve their own problems. We are hugely misrepresented in the media but I think this will change soon because Internet brings more transparency and makes it so that fewer and fewer people are susceptible to propaganda.

Q: In your statements, you have been using the 99 percent vs. 1 percent rhetoric of the Occupy movement. Are there many similarities between them and the Russian opposition movement? A: There are parallels. The struggle for social equality, not only within one country but also globally, is in the air. Imperialist globalisation is being criticised worldwide, in the first world as well as in the third world, which is making us here also think more about how we want to develop further.

But Russia is a closed country and hence it is difficult to cooperate with movements from abroad. The specifics of the Russian movement are demands for actual political competition, fair elections, for a dialogue between power and the people.

Q: How do you see the Russian opposition movement evolving in the next months? A: Russian people are demanding reforms and unless politicians can make them happen, they must abandon their positions of power. If repression continues, a revolt may break out eventually.

I think a lot will depend on whether the regime will begin a dialogue with the opposition and with civil society. The opposition has become difficult to ignore, protests of this amplitude are the largest we have seen in the last years. The December parliamentary elections must be declared void and new elections organised by the end of this year; we need free elections; the new parliament should better reflect the power relations between the political parties, there should be a stronger representation of the opposition parties in the parliament.

But if the regime will insist on making Putin president, refuses dialogue, rejects our claims, if there will be more falsified elections, then protests will intensify, and they may turn into a revolution. A velvet one.

Q: Can a compromise between the regime and the opposition allow for Putin to continue in power after March (the date of presidential elections)? A: If the regime insists that Putin becomes president, that would be a trap, not a compromise.

Q: Do you think your arrests are a sign that Russian authorities are afraid of you? Is such fear of the opposition a sign of weakening of the regime? A: Repression has always been used in Russia, especially against radical activists, that is, against activists criticising the regime – radical in this sense. This kind of pressure was always applied; the regime in power hasn’t changed much in the last 10-15 years in this respect. But now this repression is more visible, it is harder to hide it from the public view because people pay more attention to politics nowadays. So at the moment it has become riskier for the regime to make visible mistakes.

Q: How do you imagine a post-Putin Russia, how will it relate to the other post-Soviet states? A: As a country with free elections, ruled by the left, which is a realistic expectation assuming elections are free. A global leftist turn could alleviate social tensions, the ecological crisis, hunger. As regards the post- USSR space, we would like to see closer economic and cultural relations, perhaps a federation modelled after the EU, but only if formed through peaceful means and with the consent of all parties.

This could be a new, gradual integration, involving eventually common currency, common defence, free travel. There are still close ties between these countries, all is not lost, it is much better to cooperate, this would even solve the problem of illegal immigration in the ex-USSR space.

Excerpt:

Most of the cases brought before the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) include gender-based crimes, but advocates say the court is still falling short in ensuring that women play an active role in decision-making and outreach at the highest levels.

Brigid Inder Credit: Tressia Boukhours/IPS

The ICC has made progress on some issues. With her election on Dec. 1, Fatou Bensouda became the first woman and the first African to be appointed chief prosecutor of the court, which focuses on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“It is hugely symbolic that a woman has been elected,” said Brigid Inder, executive director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, an international rights organisation that advocates for gender justice through the ICC and domestic mechanisms in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Kenya, Libya and Kyrgyzstan.

“It is a wonderful and historic moment,” Inder told IPS.

However, she said access and outreach to victims remains a challenge, and noted that there is currently a huge backlog of 6,000 victims’ applications which have not been processed by the court.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the link between the number of women in the ICC staff and the treatment of gender issues at the court? A: There are two issues: one is gender equality and another is gender competence. From our review and analysis of the court, we can see that the gender equality issue is good overall but we still found differences when we looked at the positions to which women are appointed. They tend to be clustered in the lower to mid-level positions, with few women appointed at (higher) level decision-making or leadership positions.

Gender equality is also about structural power within the hierarchy and not only the number of women appointed to positions. It is also about the capacity and opportunity for women to contribute to key decision making moments: the identification of cases, the construction of case hypotheses, the decision regarding the construction of charges. We need more improvement in those areas to increase the court’s gender capacity.

The second area touched upon is gender competence and this involves both men and women. Specifically, gender competence refers to the ability to identify and understand the gender implications and dimensions of all of the work of the ICC, and the different ways in which women and men, boys and girls, are affected by the kinds of violence that have been committed in conflicts.

And we see this as a responsibility for both men and women. When we talk about the gender competence of the court, we are referring to its ability as an institution to deliver gender-inclusive justice.

Q: Would a quota policy and affirmative action be an effective solution? A: One of the key advantages of the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC) is that it explicitly identifies the need for gender legal advisers and for people to be hired with expertise in addressing sexual violence, including sexual violence committed against women and children.

The statute itself requires this expertise to be a part of the development of the institution. We think that this can certainly help in terms of women being appointed, but there is also a general article in the Rome Statute requiring fair representation, that is to say geographical representation so that States Parties are fairly represented in the staff of the ICC, and also a fair representation of men and women.

So there is a structural requirement for the court to address these issues and, I think, in a very positive and helpful way. It doesn’t mean a forced and false construction of creating special conditions, it is instead a recognition of the right of men and women to be appointed to those positions and also the need for the necessary capacity around sexual violence against women and the capacity to provide legal advice on gender issues that is a requirement of the statute itself.

Q: Is there a gap in terms of outreach and access for women victims? A: We have seen in our review of the ICC that 29 percent of the participants in the ICC outreach activities are women. That is a very low number: less than a third of the participants are women. And when you look at the cases before the ICC, almost all of them include charges of gender-based crimes.

There is a mismatch between the people who are victims of the crimes, the charges in the ICC cases, and those who are being reached by the court’s outreach activities. We can also see that there is a lower number of women who are applying to the court to be recognised as victims and who have been formally recognised to participate in the ICC cases.

There is a direct link between information, outreach and access. The court needs to develop more women-specific meetings and strategies, and to be more creative in the fora they are providing in order to reach women who may have less access to mainstream forms of media and formal communication systems within villages and communities. It appears women are requiring strategies that will allow them to access this information directly.

Q: Does the situation most often concern less developed countries? A: All of the conflict situations right now that are situations under investigation by the court would be described as developing countries. The court is also working in countries that have experienced long periods of armed conflict, which has usually caused disintegration of public institutions and infrastructure.

Often the security sector, including the police force, is no longer functioning. In many instances, the judicial system is also not operating or is functioning with high levels of corruption. The structure of communities has disintegrated from decades of conflict and suffering.

Q: How open has the ICC been to recommendations of your Gender Report Card since 2005, and have you seen any progress? A: We have seen progress over the seven years we have been reporting. The court has been in existence for almost 10 years. Certainly, they are learning lessons. Some lessons they are learning slowly, and in some areas these lessons are absorbed, while in other areas it appears the lessons are bound for unfortunate repetition.

It is an institution that is continuing to grow and develop and learn. We can see that they are being increasingly responsive to our advocacy around investigating and prosecuting sexual gender-based crimes, which have now been charged in six of seven situations and in eight of 14 cases.

The ICC has the best record in relation to charging the gender-based crimes of any of the international tribunals. The challenge for the court now is the quality of the charges and the efficacy of the prosecution strategies. This is where they have been slow to learn some of the lessons.

Excerpt: