ReportWire

Tag: Global

  • UN Needs a Sea Change in its Handling of Sexual Exploitation & Abuse (SEA)

    UN Needs a Sea Change in its Handling of Sexual Exploitation & Abuse (SEA)

    [ad_1]

    An art exhibition in Juba, supported by the UN mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), seeks to educate people about gender and sexual based violence. Credit: UNMISS/Nektarios Markogiannis
    • Opinion by Anwarul K. Chowdhury (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Nov 08 (IPS) – Calling it “so disappointing and disheartening” in social media on 17 October, Dr. Rosie James, a British medical expert, announced that “I was sexually assaulted by a World Health Organization (WHO) staff tonight at the World Health Summit.”

    WHO, as we all know, is a part of the UN system of entities. She went to emphasize that “This was not the first time in the global health sphere that this has occurred (for MANY of us).”

    Dr. James further elaborated to our disdainful shame that “I want to make something clear. This is not just a WHO or UN issue. I and many others have experienced sexual abuse in medicine and field NGOs, for example. Workplaces need to be safe and supportive environments for all. And it will take each one of us to make that a reality.”

    It is an embarrassment to the international community that she warned that “We must do better #Zero Tolerance; # MeToo; #Gender Equality.”

    In 2021, an independent commission reported on cases concerning WHO personnel responding to the tenth Ebola virus epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That was not enough of a warning bell for the WHO staff and its leadership. Now this.

    To make the matter worse, CNN reported another shocking news about a UN employee getting a 15-year prison sentence by a US court for multiple sexual assaults, perpetrating “monstrous acts against multiple women over nearly two decades.”

    During some years of that period. the staff worked for UNICEF, known for its longstanding, unblemished record of care and dedication for the world’s children.

    These and many other such cases, particularly UN peacekeepers and other staff of UN peace operations encouraged the US government to announce on 26 October that it has established its engagement principles for use by all federal agencies engaging with the United Nations and other International Organizations on the prevention and response to incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment.

    These principles reflect the US government’s “commitment to increase U.S. engagement in a clear and consistent manner” and to “promote accountability and transparency “in response to such issues.

    This is the first time a Member State has publicly declared a set of “engagement principles” to work with the UN in an area of utmost importance which puts the UN’s credibility at stake.

    More so, as it is announced by the largest contributor to the UN budget and a veto-wielding Member of the UN.

    Substantively, there are many positive aspects of these principles in putting the UN on guard. But at the same time, if various Member States start announcing such “engagement principles” in various areas and issues and insist on pursuing those in the context of UN’s work, a chaotic situation is bound to emerge.

    The UN has yet to make its position known on the US announcement which in effect is an expression of the latter’s frustration about the way the UN has been handling the sexual exploitation abuse cases in a rather lackadaisical manner over the years.

    Its much-touted zero-tolerance and no-impunity policies have not improved the situation to the satisfaction of many well-wishers of the UN.

    Zero-tolerance policy is applied by the UN system entities as if they are using a zebra-crossing on a street which does not have any traffic lights.

    The non-governmental entity the Code Blue Campaign is the most articulate and persistent actor with regard to the sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) issues and incidents in the UN system as a whole.

    The Campaign, steered by Stephen Lewis and Paula Donovan as the co-founders, surely deserves the global community’s whole-hearted appreciation and highest commendation for its laudable work.

    It has correctly emphasized that “… unjust UN policies and practices have, over decades, resulted in a culture of impunity for sexual “misconduct” ranging from breaches of UN rules to grave crimes. This represents a contravention of the UN Charter.”

    The labyrinthine rules, regulations, procedures, channels of communication of the UN make the mockery of the due-process and timely justice. These have been taken advantage of by the perpetrators time and again.

    As most of the SEA incidents happen at the field levels, nationalities and personal equations play a big role in delaying or denying justice.

    The victim-centred approach of the UN in handling SEA cases has been manipulated by the perpetrators and their organizational colleagues to detract attention from their seriousness.

    Not only the victims should get the utmost attention, so should be the abusers because upholding of the justice is also UN’s responsibility.

    Also, UN watchers become curious whenever media publish such SEA related reports, the UN authorities invariably mentions the concerned staff is on leave or administrative leave. When these cases are in the public domain, the abusers are merrily enjoying the leave with full pay.

    It is also known that during the leave the abusers have tried to settle the matter with the victims or their families with lucrative temptations. The leave has also been used to wipe off the evidence of the crime. These have happened in several cases with the full knowledge of the supervisors.

    What a travesty of the victim-centred approach!

    The head of the UN peace operations where the SEA cases take place should be asked by the Secretary-General to explain the occurrence as a part of his or her direct responsibility. Unless such drastic measures are taken the SEA would continue in the UN system.

    Another unexpectable dimension of the victim-centred approach is that the abuser-peacekeepers are sent back home for dispensation of justice as per the agreement between the troops contributing countries (TCC) and the UN. Sending them home is one of the biggest reasons for the continuation of SEA in the peace operations.

    The victim is not present in that kind varied national military justice situation and no evidence are available except UN-cleared reports to show or suppress the extent of abuse.

    Again, a travesty of justice supported by the upholder of the global rule of law!

    The UN Secretary-General would be well-advised to propose to the Security Council a change in the clause of the agreement that UN signs with the TCCs which incorporates for repatriation of abuser-peacekeepers to their home countries. If a TCC refuse to do so, the agreement would not be signed. Period.

    A functional, quick-justice global tribunal should be set up with the mandate to try the peacekeepers as decided by the UN. If the International Criminal Court (ICC) can try heads state or government for crimes against humanity, why the UN peacekeepers cannot be tried for SEA?

    That would be a true victim-centred approach!

    Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is a former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations; former Ambassador of Bangladesh to the UN and President of the Security Council

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Lessons from Rome. Weaving Peace Is a Polyphonic Dialogue

    Lessons from Rome. Weaving Peace Is a Polyphonic Dialogue

    [ad_1]

    Colosseum at the Prayer with the Pope and the representatives of the workd’s religions. Credit: Elena L. Pasquini
    • by Elena Pasquini (rome)
    • Inter Press Service

    ROME, Nov 07 (IPS) – Arms are raised, stretched out towards the sky, holding white cards with the word “peace” written in different languages. A girl, a refugee from Syria, reads the Rome’s “Appeal for peace”: “With firm conviction, we say: no more war! Let’s stop all conflicts […] Let dialogue be resumed to nullify the threat of nuclear weapons.” Pope Francis singed it in front of the people gathered at the Colosseum, holding the word “peace” in their hands, as representatives of the world’s religions did as well. Shortly before, members of those different religions gathered for prayer to invoke peace in their different traditions—a prayer that is “a cry” inside the ancient amphitheater.

    “This year our prayer has become a heartfelt plea, because today peace has been gravely violated, assaulted and trampled upon, and this in Europe, on the very continent that in the last century endured the horrors of the two world wars – and we are experiencing a third. Sadly, since then, wars have continued to cause bloodshed and to impoverish the earth. Yet the situation that we are presently experiencing is particularly dramatic…”, the Pontiff warned. “We are not neutral, but allied for peace, and for that reason we invoke the ius pacis as the right of all to settle conflicts without violence,” he added.

    The same “raised hands” marched for peace on Saturday in Rome when around 100.000 people from different organizations called for a ceasefire in Ukraine and in all the other armed conflicts.

    The prayer with the Pope was the last act of a three-day interreligious dialogue, held at the end of October in the Italian capital and introduced by the presidents of the French and Italian republics, Emmanuel Macron and Sergio Mattarella. The first convocation was in Assisi, in 1986, willed by John Paul II. Since then, it has been promoted by the Community of Sant’Egidio, a Christian community whose fundamentals are prayer, serving the poor and marginalized, and peace. For the role it has played in mediating conflicts, it has been named the “UN of Trastevere” after the city center neighborhood where it is headquartered and where the peace agreement in Mozambique was signed thirty years ago.

    Flags at the rally for peace in Rome on Saturday. Credit: Elena L. Pasquini

    Leaders and believers of various religions and secular humanists have woven relationships, prayed, and confronted each other. They hand over a map drawn by many voices, too many to account for in the space of an article. “The cry for peace” meeting is also an invitation to “do”. It offers a map of concrete steps, things done and to do, best practices, imagination, with a key word: dialogue. “And dialogue does not make all reasons equal at all, it does not avoid the question of responsibility and never mistakes the aggressor with the attacked. Indeed, precisely because it knows them well, it can look for ways to stop the geometric and implacable logic of war, which is if other solution are not found”, explained Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi, president of the Italian Episcopal Conference.

    World scenarios are made even more worrying by the risk of nuclear escalation in the Ukrainian war—a war on the doorstep of that part of Europe that has cultivated peace inside, but that has let armed conflict flourish elsewhere. “The lack of this commitment let the war reach its borders, indeed—in some ways—penetrate within it, even in its deepest fibers,” said Agostino Giovagnoli, historian of the Community of Sant’Egidio. “Today war threatens Europe also because it threatens the alternative imagination which is at the basis of the European architecture. War, in fact, is banal: it does not consist only of a fight on the ground but it is also a form of ‘single thought,’” he added.

    This “single thought” has changed the European attitude, according to Nico Piro, special correspondent and war journalist of the RAI, the Italian national public broadcasting company. “After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in Europe as in Italy, a political monobloc in favor of has emerged from right to left. It is standing out what I named ‘PUB’ , a Bellicist-Single-Thought … projects a stigma on anyone who asks for peace, on anyone who has a doubt or raises a criticism of the idea that fueling the war serves to end it ,” he said. “What has peace become then? No longer a tool to stop and prevent armed conflicts but a by-product of war.”

    Yet, among the many voices that met in Rome, one word resounds, whispered and then said: kairos. The “critical moment” is now. The war in Ukraine is the “wake-up call” that must be grasped, that cannot be missed, widening our view from Europe to those never-ending conflicts all over the world. Among the many lessons from Sant’Egidio’s dialogue, two should be learned to grasp that kairos: working together daily to build peace in every single life and returning to working together as a community of states, relaunching the multilateral message.

    Sant’Egidio’s interreligious dialogue “The cry for peace”. Credit: Elena L. Pasquini

    “Whoever saves a single life saves the whole world,” the Talmud says. Or “an entire world” as Riccardo di Segni, chief rabbi of Rome, suggested, since every human being has the potential to create “a new, unique world.” Thus, peace means recognizing the value of each single life, in sharp contrast to the logic of war, in which “the life of the enemy is no longer life. It’s not the same. war, dehumanizes everyone a priori in the name of life,” according to Mario Marazziti, member of the Sant’Egidio community. This also happens here, in Europe, where those fleeing wars, hunger, and persecution are allowed to die at sea, “dehumanized,” reduced to numbers.

    Unique are the lives to be saved, but also unique are the lives of those who save and of those who build peace by “taking care.”

    Gégoire Ahongbonon has a chain in his hand. He puts it around his neck and shows the heavy metal rings to the audience. There was a man chained with that same metal, naked, tied to a tree, like many others. His only fault was a psychiatric disorder. Ahongbonon saved over 70,000 people, “sentenced to death” because they were ill. He is the founder of the Association Saint Camille de Lellis that works in five countries of sub-Saharan Africa. He asked a tough question: “Are we different from them? Are we different from this person, we? What did they do wrong? They were born like all of us.”

    Saving those lives is already making peace, eradicating the roots of violence and discrimination and planting those of peace, as Mjid Noorjehan Adbul is doing in Mozambique. She is the clinical head of the network of centers for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, opened by Sant’Egidio’s DREAM program, a program of excellence operating in 10 countries. She, a Muslim, is surprised when people ask her why she works with Catholics: “We all have the same goal,” she replies. For twenty years, she has been working to ensure health care for those who cannot afford it. In fact, she was the first one to use antiretroviral therapy in her country. “There is no peace without care,” she said, quoting Pope Francis – “care” for eradicating “the culture of waste, of indifference, of confrontation.” Ex-patients, like those “women who have experienced the stigma firsthand and put themselves at the service of other ill people,” are now helping to build a new health culture – she explained.

    Saving lives, restoring hope, choosing the paths of dialogue, and designing an architecture of peaceful coexistence should also be the aim of politics. The multilateral message, legacy of the twentieth century’s “unitary tensions,” however, needs new impetus.

    “Those who work for peace are realistic, not naive!” Cardinal Zuppi said. Realistic as it was Pope Bendetto XV that called for an end to the “useless slaughter” that was the First World War. He had a very clear vision of the need for a multilateral architecture, a league among nations that could guarantee lasting peace. A realistic way to design the future still seems to be the one built on a permanent, global agorà that creates space for dialogue. “No multilateralism, no survival,” argued Jeffery Sachs, a speaker at one of the fourteen forums that shaped the meeting agenda. However, the United Nations – the organization founded on the ruins of the Second World War to make the “no more war” reality – risks to be “delegitimized”. That’s something to be avoided, according to Zuppi. “… We are aware that the United Nations is a community of nations. Its every failure represents a weakening of international determination and makes us all losers,” warned Shayk Muhammad bin Abdul Karim al Issa, general secretary of the Muslim World League.

    Today, however, multilateralism needs to adapt: “We need a multilateralism that is just and inclusive, with equitable representation and voice for developing countries”, said Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, Undersecretary for Africa in the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affaris and Peace operations. “At heart of is the need to engage earlier and proactively, and not to wait react to a crisis after it has escalated”, she added. A multilateralism that does not act only after a conflict breaks out, but that is able to prevent it and to build peace also by supporting “the resilience of local communities”.

    The Kairos, the right moment, is now even if there is war in Ukraine and elsewhere because peace must be built even when war is raging. “How to live now?” wonder those who have seen the destruction and the ferocity of an armed conflict, like Olga Makar, who took care of Sant’Egidio school of peace in Ukraine. “This is the question every Ukrainian asks him or herself. In those first days of war, when I felt my life was broken, I found an answer: our houses are destroyed, our cities are in ruins, but our love, our solidarity, our ability to help others, our dreams cannot be destroyed”.

    Words that echo in those of Pope Francis: “Let us not be infected by the perverse rationale of war; let us not fall into the trap of hatred for the enemy. Let us once more put peace at the heart of our vision for the future, as the primary goal of our personal, social and political activity at every level. Let us defuse conflicts by the weapon of dialogue”.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP27: Why Global Action is Needed to Decarbonise Industries Everywhere

    COP27: Why Global Action is Needed to Decarbonise Industries Everywhere

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Rana Ghoneim (vienna)
    • Inter Press Service

    VIENNA, Nov 07 (IPS) – Ahead of this year’s COP27 in Egypt, industry and government representatives from 15 developing countries across Asia, Latin America and Africa met in a series of consultations about the challenges and opportunities they face in decarbonizing some of their most energy intensive industries like steel, cement and concrete.

    A report from these consultations – which were organized by the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), where I work – will be released during COP27’s Decarbonisation Day (Friday 11 November) and should be widely-read by decision-makers across energy, environment and industrial sectors.

    During these meetings, it was evident that the pace of progress so far is too slow and that puts us at real risk of not meeting global climate commitments. It simply won’t be sufficient for industrialized countries to lower emissions within their boundaries and enforce restrictions for products entering their markets. This must happen everywhere.

    Global action and new forms of inter-sectoral cooperation are urgently needed to address critical questions including: what are the opportunities for emissions reductions, and what is needed to deliver these reductions in the fastest and most economical way?

    How do we speed up the development and implementation of new carbon-cutting technologies – and ensure that they are widely accessible and affordable, including to small and medium sized enterprises?

    Currently, many developing country governments do not have reliable and up-to-date data on the emissions of their different industries and how they compare internationally. Relatively little has been established so far in the way of infrastructure to facilitate the widespread introduction of new and emerging technologies for industrial decarbonization.

    Access to and know-how about low-carbon technologies is largely concentrated within industrialized countries and large multinational companies.

    This must change. For industrial decarbonization efforts to succeed, we need to see significantly increased investments in research and development into new technologies – but we also need to scale up the deployment of technologies that exist but are not yet widely available, including those for carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS).

    We also need to much more widely implement strategies and technologies that are already available and affordable – including on energy efficiency, which lowers the demand for energy including from renewable sources.

    This likely requires new funding for technical assistance to help make markets in developing countries ready and able to implement low-carbon technologies. It’s not just about funding individual projects, but about really coming up with more meaningful ways to partner around spreading technology our planet urgently needs. Industrialized countries cannot leave developing ones to ‘do this on their own’.

    Some of the steel and cement (which is also used to make concrete) businesses working in developing countries are multinational companies which are bringing decarbonizing technologies into their operations from abroad. This is a good thing.

    But there are also local companies – including within the supply chains of these multinationals – which need to be involved in order to make decarbonization succeed.

    In India, for example, more than half of the steel manufacturing industry is small and medium sized enterprises without the same access to these technologies. Does this local market currently have the technical capacity to adopt and service new hydrogen fuel installations, for example?

    Unfortunately, the answer is: Not really.

    In many cases, these local companies will likely be unaware of the need to actually change their practices to move towards something that’s low-carbon – let alone how to do this and what technology options exist to help them. The speed of change needed means that the world cannot wait for them to do this alone.

    Governments everywhere have a role to play here, in ensuring that their policy frameworks drive decarbonization, promote the right technologies and prevent the proliferation of production processes that aren’t low-carbon.

    Imagine: If construction products are in demand in a developing country and they’re not already or sufficiently available on the market, a company or investor may see an opportunity to set up a new business – and if stringent regulations aren’t in place, they might do this using outdated technology with higher emissions.

    Decarbonization is not the mandate of small steel and cement manufacturers, as participants noted in the pre-COP27 Asia consultation, or their area of expertise.

    It is an area that requires collaboration across different sectors – including to get better and more detailed data, and measurement, reporting and verification frameworks on emissions that can help guide government, and industry, decision-making.

    Steel and cement companies might often be seen by some of the public as ‘bad guys’. Globally, these sectors do currently contribute about 50% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

    But they produce essential materials to build our houses, schools and cities and are needed for our growing communities. The demand should not be to stop production today, but to make it low-carbon today.

    Without more meaningful global partnerships on industrial decarbonization, there’s a big risk that we won’t be able to deliver on our climate commitments. We cannot afford this.

    Countries and industries globally need to move all together towards the same climate goals at the same time. Cooperation – including on policy, infrastructure development, and technology – will be key to doing this.

    Rana Ghoneim is the Chief of the Energy Systems and Infrastructure Division, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna.

    Country consultations mentioned in this op-ed, which will be released during COP27’s Decarbonization Day (Friday 11 November), will be available on the website of UNIDO’s Industrial Decarbonization Accelerator.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Revealed: Rich Countries ‘Miserably’ Fall Below Their Climate Promises, Further Indebt the Poor

    Revealed: Rich Countries ‘Miserably’ Fall Below Their Climate Promises, Further Indebt the Poor

    [ad_1]

    “To force poor countries to repay a loan to cope with a climate crisis they hardly caused is profoundly unfair. Instead of supporting countries that are facing worsening droughts, cyclones and flooding, rich countries are crippling their ability to cope with the next shock and deepening their poverty.” Credit: Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS.
    • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
    • Inter Press Service

    MADRID, Nov 04 (IPS) – Just a few days ahead of the UN Climate Conference (COP27) in Egypt (6-18 November), new revelations show how far rich, industrialised countries –those who contribute most to the growing catastrophes- have been lying over their real contributions to climate finance.

    The True Value of Climate Finance Is a Third of What Developed Countries Report unveils that many rich countries are using “dishonest and misleading” accounting “to inflate” their climate finance contributions to developing countries – in 2020 by as much as 225%, according to investigations by Oxfam International.

    Inflating the figures

    The report estimates between just 21-24.5 billion US dollars as the “true value” of climate finance provided in 2020, against a reported figure of 68.3 billion US dollars in public finance that rich countries said was provided (alongside mobilised private finance bringing the total to 83.3 billion US dollars).

    The global climate finance target is supposed to be 100 billion US dollars a year, an amount which is slightly more than the 83 billion US dollars the world’s biggest nuclear powers spent in one single year– 2021, on such weapons of mass destruction.

    Furthermore, “the combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of this year are close to 100 billion US dollars,” said already last august the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, adding that it was “immoral” that major oil and gas companies are reporting “record profits”, while prices soar.

    “Very misleading”

    Moreover, “rich countries’ contributions not only continue to fall miserably below their promised goal but are also very misleading in often counting the wrong things in the wrong way. They’re overstating their own generosity by painting a rosy picture that obscures how much is really going to poor countries,” said Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam International Climate Policy Lead.

    Mostly loans

    “Our global climate finance is a broken train: drastically flawed and putting us at risk of reaching a catastrophic destination. There are too many loans indebting poor countries that are already struggling to cope with climatic shocks.”

    There is too much “dishonest” and “shady” reporting. The result is the most vulnerable countries remain ill-prepared to face the wrath of the climate crisis, warned Dabi.

    Rich countries’ “manipulation”

    Oxfam research found that instruments such as loans are being reported at face value, ignoring repayments and other factors. Too often funded projects have less climate focus than reported, making the net value of support specifically aiming at climate action significantly lower than actual reported climate finance figures.

    Currently, loans are dominating over 70% provision (48.6 billion US dollars) of public climate finance, adding to the debt crisis across developing countries.

    “To force poor countries to repay a loan to cope with a climate crisis they hardly caused is profoundly unfair. Instead of supporting countries that are facing worsening droughts, cyclones and flooding, rich countries are crippling their ability to cope with the next shock and deepening their poverty.”

    Least Developed Countries’ external debt repayments reached 31 billion US dollars in 2020.

    Such ‘funding’ is primarily based on loans

    “A climate finance system that is primarily based on loans is only worsening the problem. Rich nations, especially the heaviest-polluting ones,” said Dabi.

    A key way to prevent a full-scale climate catastrophe is for developed nations to fulfil their 100 billion US dollars commitments and genuinely address the current climate financing accounting holes. “Manipulating the system will only mean poor nations, least responsible for the climate crisis, footing the climate bill,” said Dabi.

    Stalling all efforts

    Other findings by this global confederation which includes 21 member organisations and affiliates reveal that an average of 189 million people per year have been affected by extreme weather-related events in developing countries since 1991 – the year that a mechanism was first proposed to address the costs of climate impacts on low-income countries.

    The report, The Cost of Delay, by the Loss and Damage Collaboration – a group of more than 100 researchers, activists, and policymakers from around the globe – highlights how rich countries have repeatedly stalled efforts to provide dedicated finance to developing countries bearing the costs of a climate crisis they did little to cause.

    Six fossil fuel companies

    “Analysis shows that in the first half of 2022 six fossil fuel companies combined made enough money to cover the cost of major extreme weather and climate-related events in developing countries and still have nearly $70 billion profit remaining.”

    The report reveals that 55 of the most climate-vulnerable countries have suffered climate-induced economic losses totalling over half a trillion dollars during the first two decades of this century as fossil fuel profits rocket, leaving people in some of the poorest places on earth to foot the bill.

    Super profits. And massive deaths

    It also reveals that the fossil fuel industry made enough super-profit between 2000 and 2019 to cover the costs of climate-induced economic losses in 55 of the most climate-vulnerable countries, almost sixty times over.

    The report estimates that since 1991, developing countries have experienced 79% of recorded deaths and 97% of the total recorded number of people affected by the impacts of weather extremes.

    The analysis also shows that the number of extreme weather and climate-related events that developing countries experience has more than doubled over that period with over 676,000 people killed.

    The entire continent of Africa produces less than 4% of global emissions and the African Development Bank reported recently the continent was losing between five and 15% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita growth because of climate change.

    Enormous gains

    Lyndsay Walsh, Oxfam’s Climate policy adviser and co-author of the report said: “It is an injustice that polluters who are disproportionately responsible for the escalating greenhouse gas emissions continue to reap these enormous profits while climate-vulnerable countries are left to foot the bill for the climate impacts destroying people’s lives, homes and jobs.”

    Meanwhile, in addition to manipulating the figures and further indebting the poor, business continues as usual. The largest polluters–the fossil fuels private companies make more and more profits, and rich countries’ politicians are set to increase their subsidies to these fuels to nearly seven trillion by 2025.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP 15: Its Time to Decide on a Future

    COP 15: Its Time to Decide on a Future

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Elizabeth Mrema (montreal, canada)
    • Inter Press Service

    MONTREAL, Canada, Nov 04 (IPS) – It is no secret that humankind’s past actions have accelerated the deterioration of ecosystems, negatively impacting our economies, societies, health, and cultures. It is estimated that humans have altered over 97% of ecosystems worldwide, to date. One million species are currently threatened with extinction (IPBES).

    The writing on the wall is clear. Our planet is in crisis.

    Elizabeth Mrema

    The sobering reality is that if we continue on our current trajectory, biodiversity and the services it provides will continue to decline, jeopardizing the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and our lives as we know them. The decline in biodiversity is expected to further accelerate unless effective action is taken to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. These causes are often justified by societal values, norms and behaviors. Some examples include unsustainable production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics and trends, and technological innovation patterns.

    With biodiversity declining faster than any other time in human history, our quality of life, our well-being, and our economies are under threat. Over 44 trillion US dollars of assets globally, or over half of the world’s GDP, is at risk from biodiversity loss (WEF). Our economies are embedded in natural systems and depend considerably on the flow of ecosystem goods and services, such as food, other raw materials, pollination, water filtration, and climate regulation. But we still have a chance. We still have a narrow window in which to transform our relationship with biodiversity and create a healthy, profitable, sustainable future. We can still bend the curve of biodiversity loss and leave future generations with prosperity and hope. We can still move to support ecosystem resilience, human well-being, and global prosperity.

    This has deemed this the decisive decade. This is because after this decade, once we move past 2030, the damage done to our planet will be beyond repair. That doesn’t give us much time but it does still give us a chance. This December in Montreal, Canada we will get that chance. It is likely our only chance. I can’t emphasize that enough. This December, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will bring world leaders together to address the biodiversity crisis at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15). Truth be told, the outcome of COP 15 will determine the trajectory of humankind on planet Earth.

    The ultimate goal of COP 15 is to emerge with a plan, a roadmap to a sustainable future. We call it the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). The framework is currently being negotiated by Parties under the Convention on Biological Diversity and represents a historic opportunity to accelerate action on biodiversity at all levels. It aims to build on the outcomes of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets and achieve the 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature. The draft framework, if adopted and implemented, will put biodiversity on a path to recovery before the end of this decade.

    Why is it critical that the GBF is adopted and implemented? Because 90% of seabirds have plastic in their stomachs (WWF UK). Because we have lost half of the world’s corals and lose forest areas the size of 27 football fields every minute (WWF LPR). Because an estimated 4 billion people rely primarily on natural medicines for their health care and some 70 per cent of drugs used for cancer are natural or are synthetic products inspired by nature (IPBES). Because Ecosystem-based approaches (biodiversity) can provide up to 30% of the climate mitigation needed by 2030. Because monitored wildlife populations, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish, have seen a devastating 69% drop on average since 1970 (WWF LPR). I could go on and on.

    Some key targets within the draft framework include:

    • Ensuring that at least 30 per cent globally of land areas and of sea areas are protected.
    • Preventing or reducing the rate of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species by 50%.
    • Reducing nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, pesticides by at least two thirds, and eliminate discharge of plastic waste.
    • Using ecosystem-based approaches to contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change and ensuring that all climate efforts avoid negative impacts on biodiversity.
    • Redirecting, repurposing, reforming or eliminating incentives harmful for biodiversity in a just and equitable way, reducing them by at least $500 billion per year.
    • Increasing financial resources from all sources to at least US$ 200 billion per year, including new, additional and effective financial resources, increasing by at least US$ 10 billion per year international financial flows to developing countries.

    The post-2020 global biodiversity framework is not just important, it is critical. It will take a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach and it will take hard work and commitment; but we can do it. We need to act now to bend the curve to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. COP 15 will be a the most crucial and decisive step towards a better and more sustainable future for generations to come. This is our chance. It’s time to decide on a future.

    Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, a national of the United Republic of Tanzania, is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP27: A Climate Summit Following Empty Promises & Funding Failures

    COP27: A Climate Summit Following Empty Promises & Funding Failures

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Nov 04 (IPS) – The COP 27 climate summit is taking place amid a rash of political, economic and environmental upheavals, including missed funding and emission targets, increased pollution and climate devastation, rising global inflation, cuts in Western development assistance and the negative after-effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    The summit—the 27th Conference of State Parties (COP27), scheduled for November 6 through 18– is billed as one of the largest annual gatherings on climate action, this time in the Egyptian coastal town of Sharm el-Sheikh.

    The Brussels-based Centre for UN Constitutional Research (CUNCR) predicts COP27 “will likely face the same empty promises and no actions by most big countries responsible for climate change.”

    In a message during the launch of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Adaptation Gap report released on the eve of COP27, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns “the world is failing to protect people from the here-and-now impacts of the climate crisis”.

    “Those on the front lines of the climate crisis are at the back of the line for support. The world is falling far short, both in stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and starting desperately needed efforts, to plan, finance and implement adaptation in light of growing risks”.

    He also pointed out that adaptation needs in the developing world are set to skyrocket to as much as $340 billion a year by 2030.

    “Yet adaptation support today stands at less than one-tenth of that amount. The most vulnerable people and communities are paying the price. This is unacceptable,” Guterres said.

    Gadir Lavadenz, Global Coordinator, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ), told IPS COP 27 cannot be another example of how power is usurped.

    “It is outrageous to still see big corporations manipulating and dominating this process. Big polluters have a role to play, stop polluting and not use the climate COPs to greenwash their actions. COP 27 must deliver a strong message to the world that the multilateral system can still play a role in the climate crisis”.

    Lavadenz also pointed out that the annual $100 billion target was not only evaded systematically by developed nations, but it has demonstrated to be insufficient to deal with the magnitude of our climate crisis and there is growing evidence of this.

    “COP 27, unlike its predecessor, should move away from false solutions like geo-engineering, carbon offsets, nature-based solutions and others and instead focus on the matters that have the potential to impact the most vulnerable countries and groups”.

    Finance is not about cold numbers, but about the lives at risk in this very moment and that have no means to deal with a problem caused by the consumerist culture of a small privileged portion of this world.

    “COP 27 cannot be remembered as just another meeting, but as a moment to show progress and hope through real solutions”, declared Lavadenz, who is the Coordinator of a global network of over 200 grassroot, regional, and global networks and organizations advocating climate justice.

    Flagging a new report from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters October 26 that countries are bending the curve of global greenhouse gas emissions downward, but the report underscores that these efforts remain insufficient to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

    The report shows that current commitments will increase emissions by 10.6 per cent by 2030, compared to 2010 levels.

    This is considered an improvement over last year’s assessment, which found that countries were on a path to increase emissions by 13.7 per cent by 2030, compared to 2010 levels, “but it is still not good news”.

    Just 26 of 193 countries that agreed last year to intensify their climate actions have followed through, pointing Earth toward a future marked by climate catastrophes, according to the U.N. report

    Meena Raman, a Senior Researcher at the Third World Network, a member organization of Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ), told IPS the $100 billion target is supposed to be $100 billion per year.

    “This target is not expected to be realised and is complicated by how climate finance is counted.”

    She pointed out that the definition of what climate finance is in itself an issue being addressed at the COP.

    “Given that many developing countries are in debt distress, the provision of more loans which need to be paid back presents a very major problem for those countries who need the finance”.

    What is needed, she argued, is more grants for especially tackling adaptation needs and funds to address loss and damage.

    Meeting the climate finance needs of developing countries through non-debt creating instruments is critical, including through the reform and re-channeling of Special Drawing Rights as outright grants for climate finance.

    COP 27 must not be a lost cause. It is the time for implementing in real terms the commitments made by developed countries, Raman declared.

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters last week: “When we were together at COP26, (in Scotland in October-November 2021), we brought forward a declaration, a statement, for the elimination or the reduction of methane gas by 30 percent by 2030.”

    “We are now looking at most countries committing to this. If everyone did this, this would be the equivalent of removing all vehicles and all the ships and all the planes that are currently out in the world in terms of emissions. So, we can have a real impact. We can do what is needed to maintain the 1.5 degree Celsius rise of temperature”, he declared.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Why Greta Thunberg Is Wrong to Boycott COP27

    Why Greta Thunberg Is Wrong to Boycott COP27

    [ad_1]

    With time running out, the meeting in Egypt will mark the moment when we start to see if the pledges made at COP26 in Glasgow, are being met. Credit: Shutterstock
    • Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Nov 03 (IPS) – Her recent announcement that she will not attend COP27 is understandable, but we still hope she’ll reconsider. By Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence.So, Greta Thunberg won’t be coming to COP27. She’s condemned it as “greenwashing” and cast doubts on the host’s human rights record and lack of access for activists.

    To be clear, we have nothing but admiration for what Greta Thunberg has accomplished as far as increasing the pressure on our political leaders to do more. We agree with her completely that a lot more is needed, and fast.

    But when it comes to COP27, we hope she’ll change her mind. We have three reasons for this: the impact of diplomacy, the urgency of the situation, and COP27’s role convening people with power and influence.

    Diplomacy works

    While Greta Thunberg is right that many international events are mostly “blah, blah, blah,” the United Nations negotiations on climate change have achieved a lot more than many people realize. Prior to the Paris Climate agreement in 2015, for instance, we were on a trajectory of 4-6 degrees Celsius rise in temperature by the end of the century. Now, estimates suggest we’re on track for somewhere around 2.4-2.8 C, if current pledges are met. While this would be a terrible scenario to have to face, it would be less apocalyptic than those higher numbers.

    As we have pointed out in a previous article, international negotiations on climate change have had a profound impact already, kickstarting the shift away from two centuries of fossil fuel dependence and giving us at least a chance of achieving sustainability in the longer term. Just days ago, the International Energy Agency forecast that global emissions will peak in 2025 before beginning to fall. Furthermore, they see all types of fossil fuels “peaking or hitting a plateau” then, too.

    Do we wish this had happened sooner? Absolutely. But it shows progress is being made. Besides, there is no alternative to an international process when it comes to dealing with a global problem of this magnitude. No country, company, or coalition, can solve this problem alone. We all need to work together.

    Urgency means everyone joining the fight

    We agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Thunberg’s exhortation for everyone to “mobilize” and be involved in solving this challenge. Many folks may choose to be activists or advocates for change, pressuring their home governments to be more ambitious, taking action locally, or changing their habits as consumers or investors. Thunberg is also quite right that time is running out; the science tells us the window of opportunity to restrict warming to 1.5C or less is closing rapidly.

    Yet this is exactly why COP27 is so important. With time running out, the meeting in Egypt will mark the moment where we start to see if the pledges made at COP26 in Glasgow, are being met. Is the global community sticking to its promises or falling short? COP27 will give us an opportunity to review, press for greater urgency, and draw global attention to those who are keeping their promises and those who are not.

    The decision at COP26 to not wait for 5 years until governments submit improved National Determined Contributions, but to ask all countries to update their NDCs by COP27, is also important.

    A total of 39 Parties have communicated new or updated NDCs since COP26, including critical countries such as Australia and India. This is clearly not enough, but it is a start. The same request should be made at COP27, pressuring countries to review their NDCs in time for COP28.

    Influencing the powerful

    Finally, UN climate summits present a once-a-year opportunity to engage with powerful politicians and urge decisions on the climate threat. With time so short, no one who can influence the process should stay away.

    Greta Thunberg has already had an outsized influence inspiring people to action and persuading politicians to take the issue more seriously. Her presence at COP27 would undoubtedly make a difference.

    One reason she has given for not attending is her concern that civil society representation may be less this time around, and she doesn’t want to take someone else’s place. This is thoughtful. However, Greta Thunberg has access to leaders’ others may not. Her presence could have a significant impact.

    For these reasons, we hope Ms. Thunberg will reconsider and use her influence to its fullest at COP27. As we write this, it appears that another powerful figure who had earlier ruled out attending may be changing their mind.

    New British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, had initially also said he wouldn’t attend, citing the country’s financial and energy challenges and urgent budget planning as the reason for staying home.

    However, he has now had a change of heart. The public response to his initial decision, as well as concerns from industry and civil society, made the Prime Minister reconsiders his position. This is welcome news and, we believe, the right decision.

    If Rishi Sunak wishes to build on the UK’s solid performance at COP26 and burnish his country’s reputation for taking climate change seriously, we hope he attends with not just positive rhetoric, but new commitments and financing. It would be a positive signal if King Charles also attended.

    After all, the UK is still the President of the COP until the start of COP27. Missing the next COP would not have sent the right message to the UK’s partners and the global community in general.

    With no other realistic way to solve climate change than the multilateral system, we urge Greta Thunberg to follow Rishi Sunak’s lead and join the gathering. In fact, all of those in positions of power or influence should come to Sharm ready to work for the best agreement possible. As John F. Kennedy said. “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate”.

    Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring environmental change.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Solidarity and Negotiations to End the Ukraine War

    Solidarity and Negotiations to End the Ukraine War

    [ad_1]

    • by Joseph Gerson (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Nov 03 (IPS) – On November 1, a statement of solidarity with Russians opposed to the Ukraine War was published. It was signed by more than 1,000 U.S. men and women who had opposed the U.S. invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

    At a time when the Ukraine War increasingly resembles the trench warfare of the First World War and the spiraling escalation of the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading U.S. peace organizations co-sponsored the statement, which also called for negotiations to end the catastrophic Ukraine War.

    The announcement was first sent to a friend in St. Petersburg Russia who must remain unnamed. He is a humble and dedicated scientist who lost his job years ago after revealing independent radiation measurements that he took following the Chernobyl meltdown.

    On the day following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this man had signed and was publicizing a petition signed by more in a million Russians condemning the imperial invasion of Ukraine and calling for those who had ordered it to be tried as war criminals. In public and discrete ways, he and others continue to oppose the war despite the risk of serious imprisonment.

    The second person to receive our statement was a Russian psychologist who fled Russia shortly before the war. She uses social media to connect with and organize people left behind and others in the Russian diaspora. And, before the statement went to the press and out via social media, it went to Yurii Sheliazhenko, a courageous Ukrainian professor and pacifist who has been speaking inconvenient truths about the futility of war and who had earlier translated our statement into Russian and Ukrainian.

    Despite the risks involved, each committed to share the statement, especially among the estimated 500,000 men who have risked fleeing Putin’s increasingly militarized Russia.

    What is the value of an expression of solidarity, even one as modest as a computer click?

    For many across the world, there was immediate identification with the images of the hundreds of thousands of Russian young men fleeing to impoverished and remote countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as to Kazakhstan and Germany to avoid the war.

    They left families and careers behind, possibly never to return. They face the challenges of finding places to sleep and to finding work to feed themselves in unknown nations and cultures. And we have learned to our sorrow and outrage across the West, desperate refugees are not always welcomed or long tolerated.

    Yet, as one Russian woman wrote from exile, she suffers under the weight of people thinking that all Russians support Russia’s aggression. It helps, she wrote, to know that she and other Russians are being recognized as different. That makes it easier for her to face the demands of each uncertain day. To this, I would add, it illustrates the potential for peaceful and mutually beneficial relations between our peoples.

    Of course, more than solidarity is needed. Our statement also called for a ceasefire and “negotiations leading to a just peace, including respect for Ukrainian sovereignty as a neutral state”. As we did in the early years of our opposition to the nationally self-destructive invasions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the statement was designed to add weight to growing calls for a national policy change.

    The Biden and Zelensky commitments to fight this war to the last Ukrainian in order to weaken Russia (which will remain a nuclear power) and to retake all of historic Ukraine including Crimea are worse than futile. The savaging of Ukraine begins to resemble Beirut and Grozny at the end of those civil wars.

    And Russian nuclear doctrine informs us that it can resort to nuclear attacks when the survival of the state – read Putin’s political career – is in jeopardy. Pressing for diplomacy to stop the killing and to prevent the war’s spiraling escalation, as well as expressing solidarity, has become imperative.

    Our solidarity initiative has roots in experiences and lessons that some of us took from the Vietnam War as from Margaret Mead’s dictum that a small group of people can change the world. The initiative grew from a collaboration of veterans of the Vietnam era peace movement, Terry Provance, now of the United Church of Christ and Doug Hostetter, a Mennonite pastor and Pax Christi International’s Associate UN Representative, and me.

    It was during the Vietnam War that I first experientially learned the value of solidarity. After considering a Canadian exile, I became a draft resister facing possible imprisonment and served as a leading organizer against the war in the intellectual and moral wasteland of what was then the Phoenix Valley.

    Talk about isolation and alienation. I was an aspiring East Coast intellectual disoriented and making his way in Barry Goldwater’s Arizona. That was before fax machines, before the Internet, and when Phoenix was dominated by a John Birch Society extreme right-wing monopoly newspaper that limited and distorted what people could know, and which used its pages to instruct its readers where to find our small community of war opponents and how to beat us.

    Back then, despite constitutional guarantees, it was possible to be arrested and to suffer what more recently has become known as the Eric Garner chokehold at the hands of the police and be sentenced to six months in jail for the “crime” of distributing anti-war flyers on the public sidewalk – an action ostensibly protected by the Constitution.

    We and other war resisters experienced the salve and inspiration of solidarity in many forms, from local religious leaders who demonstrated that they cared, from activists back East who sent bail money, and from the distant moral courage of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme whose courageous denunciation of the war made its way around the world – even to the Arizona desert.

    Since then, I have learned the sustaining value of even small expressions of human solidarity: from Palestinians whose homes were demolished in illegal Israeli collective punishments; from the suffering and courageous of Japanese, Marshall Islanders, and U.S. downwinder A-bomb survivors, and from Okinawans who have endured and resisted eight decades of Japanese and U.S. military colonialism. In each case, international support and solidarity have played critical roles in their continuing struggles for justice.

    Is solidarity enough? Of course not! Thus, our call urges U.S. policy change. It is possible to support Ukrainians without urging and funding another war without end. In recent weeks, we have been reminded of Gandhi’s truth that “When the people lead, the leaders will follow.” The withdrawal of the letter signed by thirty members of Congress urging President Biden to make negotiations a priority will long stand as a profile in cowardice.

    Except for several members of Congress including Ro Khanna and Jamaal Bowman who stood their ground, others who support Ukraine but also diplomacy, lacked confidence that they had public backing and withered in the face of threats from Speaker Pelosi.

    Our solidarity statement is but one of ways that people are beginning to break the silence, opening the way for rational and humane discourse, and providing off ramps for bellicose U.S., Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders.

    A Cuban Missile Crisis redux or a replay of World War I redux must be avoided. Negotiations may not bring an immediate end to the war, but we should have learned from the diplomacy that avoided nuclear annihilation over Russian missiles in Cuba fifty years ago, which brought us the armistice the ended the First World War, and that led to arms control agreements during the last Cold War that war is not the answer.

    Pope Francis, U.N. Secretary General Guterres and a growing number of people have it right: human solidarity and diplomacy!

    Dr. Joseph Gerson is President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security and author of With Hiroshima Eyes and Empire and the Bomb.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Early Coal Retirement: How about a Global Auction

    Early Coal Retirement: How about a Global Auction

    [ad_1]

    There are over 8,500 coal power plants in the world, with over 2,100 GWs of capacity.  These plants generate about 10 gigatons of CO2 emissions  per year, nearly 30% of the global total. Credit: Bigstock
    • Opinion by Philippe Benoit, Chandra Shekhar Sinha (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    WASHINGTON DC, Nov 02 (IPS) – Report after report highlights that we can only achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions required by the climate goals of the Paris Agreement if much of the existing coal power generation capacity is retired early.  To this end, one concept that deserves greater consideration is conducting an auction for early retirement of coal power plants worldwide: a global coal retirement auction. This article sets out the broad outlines of how this global auction might operate.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that there are over 8,500 coal power plants in the world, with over 2,100 GWs of capacity.  Although these plants are concentrated in a limited number of countries (notably China, followed by India and the U.S.), there are coal plants running in over 100 countries with over 2,000 owners.

    These plants generate about 10 gigatons of CO2 emissions  per year, nearly 30% of the global total.  This  level of emissions from coal is incompatible with either the “well below 2oC” or the more ambitious ”1.5oC” temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

    Accordingly, climate/development organizations, like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, the IEA and RMI, are exploring programs to effect the early retirement of these coal plants.

    But closing these plants presents two important challenges.  First, retiring these plants removes electricity production that many countries rely upon for their economic development … production that would need to be replaced with preferably low-carbon sources.  Second, owners are generally unwilling to shutter revenue-generating plants and want financial compensation for the returns they would forego from the premature retirement of their asset.  This article addresses this second constraint.

    There are various regulatory mechanisms that can be used to push early retirement, such as mandating closure of plants or imposing a carbon tax or other cost that makes operating the plant uneconomic.

    A completely different tack is to entice closures by paying the owners to do so.  This is the premise of, for example, the ADB’s innovative Energy Transition Mechanism.

    But what’s a fair price? Perhaps, however, that’s not the right question. Rather, at what price are the owners willing to shutter their plants? Given that there are more than 8,500 coal power plants operating with different technical and revenue characteristics, and over 2,000 plant owners in diverse financial situations following distinctive corporate strategies (including numerous state-owned enterprises), the answer will vary.

    A technique that has been used in this type of context of multiple actors is an “auction”. While in the traditional context, a seller looks to get the highest price from multiple possible buyers through an auction, in this case, we have a buyer that is interested in paying the lowest price to different plant owners (i.e., the sellers) for the retirement of their coal plants.

    This is referred to as a “reverse auction”.  This tool has been used to acquire new power production, including renewables, at low prices, and specifically in the climate context to attract cost-effective investments that reduce methane emissions.

    The reverse auction mechanism could be used to solicit proposals from coal power plant owners as to the price at which they would be willing to close their plant.  Conceptually, this could be done on the basis of MWs of installed power generation capacity. Under the auction, an interested coal plant owner would offer to sell — more specifically, to shutter — their MWs of plant capacity by a fixed time at a proposed price.

    Importantly, the climate benefit sought by the auction is not from the decommissioning of MWs of capacity itself, but rather from the GHG emissions that would be avoided by retiring that capacity. Accordingly, for any coal retirement tender, it will be necessary to estimate the level of emissions that would be avoided.

    This determination will be based on several factors, including the particular plant’s efficiency, remaining operational life and other technical characteristics, the type of coal used, and the amount of electricity production projected to be foregone through early retirement given the power system’s expected demand for electricity from that plant.

    Tenders should include sufficient information to evaluate these items and, by extension, the level of avoided emissions and related climate benefit to be produced from the proposed retirement. This, in turn, will drive how much the auction buyer should be willing to pay for the tender.

    Moreover, because it would be largely counter-productive from a climate perspective to pay to retire existing coal plants to see that money used directly (or indirectly) to build new fossil fuel generation, the tender by the plant owner would need to be accompanied by an undertaking not to reinvest in new fossil fuel generation.

    As has been repeatedly explained, CO2 emissions have a global impact that is essentially unaffected by the geographic location of the emitting plant. Given this global nature of emissions, the auction would likewise be conducted at a worldwide level as a global auction.  From India to Indonesia, from South Africa to South Korea, from Poland to Australia, any plant anywhere would be eligible to participate in the global auction.

    Given this scope, an international organization like the United Nations or a multilateral development bank would be well positioned to provide the platform for this auction.  One could imagine a system where the auction bidding process sets out eligibility criteria for projects, the methodology for estimating GHG emission reductions, and other key bid-submission parameters.

    Significantly, while the bidding process would be managed on an integrated basis, the funding and selection of winners need not be. Rather, a system that allows for the matching of interested coal retirement buyers with individual plant owners could be used.

    For example, buyers and their funding could be mobilized on a plant-by-plant basis based on information submitted by the plant owner through the auction process.  Indeed, many potential funders have areas of focus that could lead them to be attracted to retiring coal assets only in certain countries (e.g., funders interested in a targeted set of developing countries).  The proposed auction structure could accommodate these preferences. Moreover, the global auction could also operate in association with country-specific approaches.

    One potential source of funding for coal retirements tendered under the auction is the potentially large amounts of capital to be mobilized through expanded carbon credit mechanisms under development. Tapping into these mechanisms might require establishing defined project eligibility criteria, frameworks for calculating GHG emissions reductions, and associated monitoring and verification systems to enable payments for emission reductions at the time of decommissioning based on a price for emission reduction (“carbon”) credits.

    It is also important to recall the first constraint noted earlier, namely that countries, and particularly developing countries, will need more electricity to power further economic and social development.  Accordingly, any global auction to retire coal plants needs to be coupled with a program to fund new renewables electricity generation.

    Climate change is a global challenge affected by GHG emissions from anywhere.  We need to reduce emissions from coal power generation and that requires some program to encourage and entice owners to shutter their plants.  A global auction, conducted by the United Nations or a similar international organization, would help to identify opportunities where willing plant owners and interested funders can make a deal.

    Philippe Benoit has over 20 years working on international energy, finance and development issues, including management positions at the World Bank and the International Energy Agency. He is currently research director at Global Infrastructure Analytics and Sustainability 2050.

    Chandra Shekhar Sinha is an Adviser in the Climate Change Group at the World Bank and works on climate and carbon finance. He previously worked at JPMorgan, TERI-India, UNDP, and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • A Beacon of Light in Dark Times: the Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders

    A Beacon of Light in Dark Times: the Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders

    [ad_1]

    Andrew Anderson, Executive Director of Front Line Defenders opens the Dublin Platform at Dublin Castle on 26 October 2022. Credit: Kamil Krawczak for Front Line Defenders
    • Opinion by Andrew Anderson (dublin, ireland)
    • Inter Press Service

    DUBLIN, Ireland, Nov 02 (IPS) – Before she was murdered in Honduras in 2016, the Lenca Indigenous woman and human rights defender Berta Cáceres poignantly said: “They are afraid of us because we are not afraid of them.”

    It is a measure of the continued effectiveness of human rights defenders around the world that autocrats, bigots and powerful economic interests continue to invest significant resources to try and silence them or disrupt their work.

    Sophisticated surveillance, brutal violence, expensive smear campaigns, significant time and energy from security services and police forces, endless judicial proceedings, new restrictive laws – the efforts of the oppressors pay a kind of tribute to the courage, tenacity and impact of human rights defenders.

    Whilst human rights academics debate the relevance of a weakened UN system, the reality on the ground, in countless countries across all regions, is that communities continue to mobilize around a struggle framed in rights.

    Sudan’s revolution united under the banner of “freedom, peace and justice,” while “women, life, freedom,” has become the slogan of the protests in Iran. And as Sonia Guajajara, head of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (ABIP), said at the UN Climate Conference, “if there is no protection of indigenous territories and rights, there will also be no solution to the climate crisis, because we are part of that solution.”

    The human rights defenders we work with every day at Front Line Defenders are an inspiration to all of us.

    Liah Ghazanfar Jawad continues to work to support women and women’s rights in Afghanistan under brutal Taliban rule even though she has the option to be with her family outside the country.

    Andrew Anderson, Executive Director of Front Line Defenders opens the Dublin Platform at Dublin Castle on 26 October 2022. Credit: Kamil Krawczak for Front Line DefendersObert Masaraure and Robson Chere of the Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe choose to continue their struggle even as they are detained, ill-treated and released. And many human rights defenders continue, in spite of the bombings and missile strikes, to document war crimes and provide support to victims in Ukraine.

    As Diana Berg, artist and human rights defender from Donetsk, told a packed conference room in Dublin, Ireland last week, “until I get killed by a Russian Iranian drone I will help survivors deported teenagers and evacuate museums.”

    The first Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders took place just over 20 years ago in January 2002. Our visionary founder, Mary Lawlor – now the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders – was determined that the organization would be driven by the needs expressed by defenders themselves. With a tiny team she worked wonders to bring over 100 human rights defenders to that launch of Front Line Defenders.

    Two decades later, providing rapid and practical support for the protection of human rights defenders at a global level remains the core focus of the organization’s work. In 2021, for the first time we provided more than 1,000 grants to human rights defenders in 105 countries.

    We are committed to the struggle. Our work is built on our profound respect for human rights defenders; for their work, their courage and their knowledge. We stand with them, and will provide support in every way that we can.

    At the recently finished 11th Dublin Platform, we convened more than 100 at-risk human rights defenders from scores of countries for three days in iconic Dublin Castle. Among many other issues, we discussed how authoritarian regimes use counter-terrorism and security laws to target human rights defenders, the backlash against feminists and LGBTIQ+ human rights defenders, and the role of human rights defenders in the context of protests and social movements.

    As we gathered in Dublin, we were acutely aware of those human rights defenders who were not with us. In 2016 we helped to set up a HRD Memorial Project to gather information on the cases of defenders who are targeted and killed because of their human rights work; to illustrate the scale of the phenomenon, to emphasize the systematic nature of these attacks, and to provide a space to pay tribute.

    Following on from this, we worked with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs to create a HRD Memorial monument in Dublin – a unique space where we recently held a poignant candlelight vigil to commemorate the hundreds of human rights defenders who have been killed while carrying out their peaceful work.

    There are also many human rights defenders we would like to have welcomed to Dublin but whose governments prevented them from being there. These include long-term imprisoned human rights defenders such as Narges Mohhamadi in Iran, Dawit Isaac in Eritrea, Maria Rabkova in Belarus, Tr?n Hu?nh Duy Th?c in Vietnam, Pablo López Alavez in Mexico and Ilham Tohti in China.

    In particular I want to highlight my friend and former colleague Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, who was abducted, tortured and sentenced to life in prison after a sham trial over 11 years ago. We continue to work for Abdulhadi’s release and for the release of all human rights defenders who are in prison.

    The Iranian woman human rights defender Atena Daemi – also unable to be with us in Dublin because of the ongoing protests in Iran – nonetheless shared a powerful message about her motivation in dark times: “Humanity is our common love and fight. Human rights is the goal of all of us. It is the ultimate human joy and freedom and happiness.”

    Such strength of conviction is what motivates us at Front Line Defenders to continue to protect and support human rights defenders worldwide and stand with them in their struggle against oppression.

    Andrew Anderson is Executive Director of Front Line Defenders

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Oil Exporters Make Markets, Not War

    Oil Exporters Make Markets, Not War

    [ad_1]

    View of the bulk fuel plant in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Because the kingdom needs oil prices to remain high to balance its budget, it pushed OPEC and its allies to decide on a production cut as of Nov. 1. CREDIT: Aramco
    • by Humberto Marquez (caracas)
    • Inter Press Service

    CARACAS, Nov 01 (IPS) – The decision to cut oil production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies as of Nov. 1 comes in response to the need to face a shrinking market, although it also forms part of the current clash between Russia and the West.

    The OPEC+ alliance (the 13 members of the organization and 10 allied exporters) decided to remove two million barrels per day from the market, in a world that consumes 100 million barrels per day. The decision was driven by the two largest producers, Saudi Arabia – OPEC’s de facto leader – and Russia.

    The cutback “is due to economic reasons, because Saudi Arabia depends on relatively high oil prices to keep its budget balanced, so it is important for Riyadh that the price of the barrel does not fall below 80 dollars,” Daniela Stevens, director of energy at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, told IPS.

    The benchmark prices at the end of October were 94.14 dollars per barrel for Brent North Sea crude in the London market and 88.38 dollars for West Texas Intermediate in New York.

    “At the time of the cutback decision (Oct. 5) oil prices had fallen 40 percent since March, and the OPEC+ countries feared that the projected slowdown in the global economy – and with it demand for oil – would drastically reduce their revenues,” Stevens said.

    With the cut, “OPEC+ hopes to keep Brent prices above 90 dollars per barrel,” which remains to be seen “since due to the lack of investment the real cuts will be between 0.6 and 1.1 million barrels per day and not the more striking two million,” added Stevens from her institution’s headquarters in Washington.

    A month ago, the alliance set a joint production ceiling of 43.85 million barrels per day, not including Venezuela, Iran and Libya (OPEC partners exempted due to their respective crises), which would allow them to deliver 48.23 million barrels per day to the market.

    But market operators estimate that they are currently producing between 3.5 and five million barrels per day below the maximum level considered.

    The alliance is made up of the 13 OPEC partners: Algeria, Angola, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela, plus Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Russia, Sudan and South Sudan.

    The giants of the alliance are Saudi Arabia and Russia, which produce 11 million barrels per day each, followed at a distance by Iraq (4.65 million), United Arab Emirates (3.18), Kuwait (2.80) and Iran (2.56 million).

    In July, U.S. President Joe Biden met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom he discussed human rights and abundant oil supplies for the global market. A few months later Riyadh led the decision for an oil cut that has been seen as a betrayal by Washington. CREDIT: Bandar Algaloud/SRP
    In July, U.S. President Joe Biden met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom he discussed human rights and abundant oil supplies for the global market. A few months later Riyadh led the decision for an oil cut that has been seen as a betrayal by Washington. CREDIT: Bandar Algaloud/SRP

    United States takes the hit

    U.S. President Joe Biden was “disappointed by the shortsighted decision by OPEC+ to cut production quotas while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s invasion of Ukraine,” a White House statement said.

    The price of gasoline in the United States has soared from 2.40 dollars a gallon in early 2021 to the current average of 3.83 dollars – after peaking at five dollars in June – a heavy burden for Biden and his Democratic Party in the face of the Nov. 8 mid-term elections for Congress.

    Biden visited Saudi Arabia in July, while the press reminded the public that during his 2020 election campaign he talked about making the Arab country “a pariah” because of its leaders’ responsibility for the October 2018 murder in Istanbul of prominent opposition journalist in exile Jamal Khashoggi.

    The U.S. president said he made clear to the powerful Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman his conviction that he was responsible for the crime. But the thrust of his visit was to urge the kingdom to keep the taps wide open to contain crude oil and gasoline prices.

    Hence the U.S. disappointment with the production cut promoted by Riyadh – double the million barrels per day predicted by market analysts – which, by propping up prices, favors Russia’s revenues, which has had to place in Asia, at a discount, the oil that Europe is no longer buying from it.

    Biden then announced the release of 15 million barrels of oil from the U.S. strategic reserve – which totaled more than 600 million barrels in 2021 and just 405 million this October – completing the release of 180 million barrels authorized by Biden in March, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that was initially supposed to occur over six months.

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Vladimir Putin chat cordially during a visit by the Russian leader to Riyadh in October 2019. The two major oil exporters lead the 23-state alliance that upholds production cuts to prop up prices. CREDIT: SPA
    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Vladimir Putin chat cordially during a visit by the Russian leader to Riyadh in October 2019. The two major oil exporters lead the 23-state alliance that upholds production cuts to prop up prices. CREDIT: SPA

    Shift in Washington-Riyadh relations

    Karen Young, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University in New York, wrote that “oil politics are entering a new phase as the U.S.-Saudi relationship descends.”

    “Both countries are now directly involved in each other’s domestic politics, which has not been the case in most of the 80-year bilateral relationship,” she wrote.

    “….(M)arkets had anticipated a cut of about half that much. Whether the decision to announce a larger cut was hasty or politically motivated by Saudi political leadership (rather than technical advice) is not clear,” she added.

    Saudi leaders could apparently see Biden as pandering to Iran, its archenemy in the Gulf area, with positions adverse to Riyadh’s in the conflict in neighboring Yemen, and would resent the accusation against the crown prince for the murder of Khashoggi.

    Young argued that “the accusation that Saudi Arabia has weaponized oil to aid Russian President Vladimir Putin is extreme,” and said “The Saudi leadership may assume that keeping Putin in the OPEC+ tent is more valuable than trying to influence oil markets without him.”

    Gasoline prices in the United States, while down from their June level of five dollars per gallon, are still at a high level for many consumers ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. CREDIT: Humberto Márquez/IPS
    Gasoline prices in the United States, while down from their June level of five dollars per gallon, are still at a high level for many consumers ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. CREDIT: Humberto Márquez/IPS

    More market, less war

    OPEC’s secretary general since August, Haitham Al Ghais of Kuwait, said on Oct. 7 that “Russia’s membership in OPEC+ is vital for the success of the agreement…Russia is a big, main and highly influential player in the world energy map.”

    Writing for the specialized financial magazine Barron’s, Young stated that “What is certainly true is that energy markets are now highly politicized.”

    “The United States is now an advocate of market manipulation, asking for favors from the world’s essential swing producer, advocating price caps on Russian crude exports and embargoes in Europe,” Young wrote.

    For its part, the Saudi Foreign Ministry rejected as “not based on facts” the criticism of the OPEC+ decision, and said that Washington’s request to delay the cut by one month (until after the November elections, as the Biden administration supposedly requested) “would have had negative economic consequences.”

    In its most recent monthly market analysis, OPEC noted that “The world economy has entered into a time of heightened uncertainty and rising challenges, amid ongoing high inflation levels, monetary tightening by major central banks, high sovereign debt levels in many regions as well as ongoing supply issues.”

    It also mentioned geopolitical risks and the resurgence of China’s COVID-19 containment measures.

    The two million barrel cut was decided “In light of the uncertainty that surrounds the global economic and oil market outlooks, and the need to enhance the long-term guidance for the oil market,” said the OPEC+ alliance’s statement following its Oct. 5 meeting.

    Oil analyst Elie Habalian, who was Venezuela’s governor to OPEC, also opined that “notwithstanding Mohammed bin Salman’s sympathy for Putin, the cut was due to his concern about the balance of the world oil market, and not to support Russia.”

    Latin America, pros and cons

    Stevens said the oil outlook that opens up this November will mean, for importers in the region, that their fuels will be more expensive but probably not by a significant amount, and net importers in Central America and the Caribbean will be the hardest hit.

    Exporters will benefit from higher prices. Brazil and Mexico have already increased their exports of fuel oil, and Argentina and Colombia have hiked their exports of crude oil. And higher prices would particularly benefit Brazil and Guyana, which are boosting their production capacity.

    Argentina could have benefited if it had begun to invest in production years ago, but its financial instability left it with little capacity to take advantage of this moment. And Venezuela not only faces sanctions, but upgrading its worn-out oil infrastructure would require investments and time that it does not have.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP27 Climate Summit is an Opportunity to Promote Peace

    COP27 Climate Summit is an Opportunity to Promote Peace

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Stefan Lofven, Christoph Heusgen (stockholm / munich)
    • Inter Press Service

    To prevent this from becoming the new normal, world leaders need to take radical, courageous action, together. The upcoming climate summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, COP27, is one of the places where this needs to happen.

    Climate change threatens peace and security

    Scratch beneath the surface of the disparate set of crises that confront us in 2022, and the links to climate change, and to climate action, are plain to see.

    Europe’s continued reliance on fossil energy has complicated its response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and pushed the continent into an unprecedented energy crisis, threatening to spiral into an economic recession. It has also left Europe’s political leaders struggling to mitigate the impacts on their populations.

    European countries’ race to secure new sources of fossil energy poses new geopolitical risks and can lock countries into new supply contracts and commitments that will make net zero targets even harder to achieve.

    Climate change and conflict are the chief reasons why global hunger is rising. This year some 345 million people today face acute food insecurity, almost three times as many as in 2019—a shocking increase exacerbated by extreme weather events, the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

    Put simply, the state of security and the state of the environment are today intimately linked. Harm one, harm the other; heal one, heal the other.

    This is a truth world leaders should take with them to the COP27 climate summit.

    Keep peace and security in focus at COP27

    All of the possible paths back to peace and environmental sustainability depend on cooperation. Negotiations at Sharm El-Sheikh must therefore focus on seeking common ground, removing roadblocks and enabling progress in international climate cooperation; ramping up ambition rather than watering it down.

    In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, ‘We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide.’

    Peace and security should be in every discussion at COP27. This should motivate faster and deeper cuts in carbon emissions. States should recognize that phasing out fossil fuels can increase both energy security and human security overall.

    At the same time, they must discuss how to avoid creating new security risks in the process: how to ease the transition for developing countries highly dependent on fossil fuel revenues.

    How to make sure that the surging demand for renewable energy as well as for metals and minerals needed for green technologies does not lead to new conflicts, or increase inequality and corruption.

    How to manage new critical dependencies emerging around minerals that are needed for the green energy transition.

    At COP27, there will also be a focus on climate change adaptation: measures taken to adjust to new climatic conditions. Well-adapted communities and economies are more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

    They are less likely to be destabilized by shortages, displacement and destitution. When communities are involved in adaptation planning and resource management, it can even help to resolve long-standing conflicts and increase trust in government authorities.

    Boost climate finance

    Climate finance—the funds richer countries provide to help vulnerable countries to respond to climate change—will also be a priority topic at COP27. This will be setting out how to ensure that rich countries’ governments deliver on their 2009 commitment of US$100 billion in climate finance per year, a goal which they should have already reached by 2020.

    There will also be talks on a new climate finance target for post-2025. Seeing climate finance as an investment in peace and security should help persuade them to offer more, far beyond the original pledge, even during these hard economic times.

    In particular, finance for adaptation projects needs to rise sharply. The amounts available fall far behind what the most vulnerable countries need, creating wholly avoidable risks to peace and security. But any increase should not come at the expense of mitigation or development assistance.

    There is also the difficult question of loss and damage compensation—finance to help countries deal with the impacts of climate change that cannot be adapted to. States must try to resolve the strong differences that have blocked progress to date, so that funds can start flowing.

    The damage countries and communities are suffering is real, and every delay increases the chance that it will erode peace, security and trust.

    Finally, ways need to be found to get climate finance to countries that are fragile because of an active or recent armed conflict. These countries today receive only a fraction of what others do, even though these are precisely the countries where climate change has the greatest potential to undermine peace.

    Exceed expectations

    There are limits to how much of this can be achieved in Sharm El-Sheikh. States will need to carry on the work after the summit, individually and collaboratively, drawing in the private sector, civil society and communities.

    Significant progress can be made at COP27, if governments show commitment. Besides the action it enables, a COP that exceeds expectations would send important signals to states, publics and markets that world leaders are serious about safeguarding the future.

    Stefan Löfven was Prime Minister of Sweden from 2014 to 2019. Since June 2022 he has been Chair of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). He also co-leads the United Nations High-level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.Ambassador Christoph Heusgen has been Chairman of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) since 2022 and was Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations between 2017 and 2021. Prior to this appointment and since 2005, Heusgen was the Foreign Policy and Security Adviser to Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    Footnote: The 27th Conference (COP27) of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will take place from 6 to 18 November 2022. Heads of State, ministers and negotiators, along with climate activists, mayors, civil society representatives and CEOs will meet in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh for the largest annual gathering on climate action.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Developing Countries Need Monetary Financing

    Developing Countries Need Monetary Financing

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (sydney and dakar)
    • Inter Press Service

    SYDNEY and DAKAR, Nov 01 (IPS) – Developing countries have long been told to avoid borrowing from central banks (CBs) to finance government spending. Many have even legislated against CB financing of fiscal expenditure.

    Central bank fiscal financing
    Such laws are supposedly needed to curb inflation – below 5%, if not 2% – to accelerate growth. These arrangements have also constrained a potential CB developmental role and government ability to respond better to crises.

    Anis ChowdhuryImproved monetary-fiscal policy coordination is also needed to achieve desired structural transformation, especially in decarbonizing economies. But too many developing countries have tied their own hands with restrictive legislation.

    A few have pragmatically suspended or otherwise circumvented such self-imposed prohibitions. This allowed them to borrow from CBs to finance pandemic relief and recovery packages.

    Such recent changes have re-opened debates over the urgent need for counter-cyclical and developmental fiscal-monetary policy coordination.

    Monetary financing rubbished
    But financial interests claim this enables national CBs to finance government deficits, i.e., monetary financing (MF). MF is often blamed for enabling public debt, balance of payments deficits, and runaway inflation.

    As William Easterly noted, “Fiscal deficits received much of the blame for the assorted economic ills that beset developing countries in the 1980s: over indebtedness and the debt crisis, high inflation, and poor investment performance and growth”.

    Hence, calls for MF are typically met with scepticism, if not outright opposition. MF undermines central bank independence (CBI) – hence, the strict segregation of monetary from fiscal authorities – supposedly needed to prevent runaway inflation.

    Jomo Kwame SundaramRecent International Monetary Fund (IMF) research insists MF “involves considerable risks”. But it acknowledges MF to cope with the pandemic did not jeopardize price stability. A Bank of International Settlements paper also found MF enabled developing countries to respond countercyclically to the pandemic.

    Cases of MF leading to runaway inflation have been very exceptional, e.g., Bolivia in the 1980s or Zimbabwe in 2007-08. These were often associated with the breakdown of political and economic systems, as when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    Bolivia suffered major external shocks. These included Volcker’s interest rate spikes in the early 1980s, much reduced access to international capital markets, and commodity price collapses. Political and economic conflicts in Bolivian society hardly helped.

    Similarly, Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation was partly due to conflicts over land rights, worsened by government mismanagement of the economy and British-led Western efforts to undermine the Mugabe government.

    Indian lessons
    Former Reserve Bank of India Governor Y.V. Reddy noted fiscal-monetary coordination had “provided funds for development of industry, agriculture, housing, etc. through development financial institutions” besides enabling borrowing by state owned enterprises (SOEs) in the early decades.

    For him, less satisfactory outcomes – e.g., continued “macro imbalances” and “automatic monetization of deficits” – were not due to “fiscal activism per se but the soft-budget constraint” of SOEs, and “persistent inadequate returns” on public investments.

    Monetary policy is constrained by large and persistent fiscal deficits. For Reddy, “undoubtedly the nature of interaction between depends on country-specific situation”.

    Reddy urged addressing monetary-fiscal policy coordination issues within a broad common macroeconomic framework. Several lessons can be drawn from Indian experience.

    First, “there is no ideal level of fiscal deficit, and critical factors are: How is it financed and what is it used for?” There is no alternative to SOE efficiency and public investment project financial viability.

    Second, “the management of public debt, in countries like India, plays a critical role in development of domestic financial markets and thus on conduct of monetary policy, especially for effective transmission”.

    Third, “harmonious implementation of policies may require that one policy is not unduly burdening the other for too long”.

    Lessons from China?Zhou Xiaochuan, then People’s Bank of China (PBoC) Governor, emphasized CBs’ multiple responsibilities – including financial sector development and stability – in transition and developing economies.

    China’s CB head noted, “monetary policy will undoubtedly be affected by balance of international payments and capital flows”. Hence, “macro-prudential and financial regulation are sensitive mandates” for CBs.

    PBoC objectives – long mandated by the Chinese government – include maintaining price stability, boosting economic growth, promoting employment, and addressing balance of payments problems.

    Multiple objectives have required more coordination and joint efforts with other government agencies and regulators. Therefore, “the PBoC … works closely with other government agencies”.

    Zhou acknowledged, “striking the right balance between multiple objectives and the effectiveness of monetary policy is tricky”. By maintaining close ties with the government, the PBoC has facilitated needed reforms.

    He also emphasized the need for policy flexibility as appropriate. “If the central bank only emphasized keeping inflation low and did not tolerate price changes during price reforms, it could have blocked the overall reform and transition”.

    During the pandemic, the PBoC developed “structural monetary” policy tools, targeted to help Covid-hit sectors. Structural tools helped keep inter-bank liquidity ample, and supportive of credit growth.

    More importantly, its targeted monetary policy tools were increasingly aligned with the government’s long-term strategic goals. These include supporting desired investments, e.g., in renewable energy, while preventing asset price bubbles and ‘overheating’.

    In other words, the PBoC coordinates monetary policy with fiscal and industrial policies to achieve desired stable growth, thus boosting market confidence. As a result, inflation in China has remained subdued.

    Consumer price inflation has averaged only 2.3% over the past 20 years, according to The Economist. Unlike global trends, China’s consumer price inflation fell to 2.5% in August, and rose to only 2.8% in September, despite its ‘zero-Covid’ policy and measures such as lockdowns.

    Needed reforms
    Effective fiscal-monetary policy coordination needs appropriate arrangements. An IMF working paper showed, “neither legal independence of central bank nor a balanced budget clause or a rule-based monetary policy framework … are enough to ensure effective monetary and fiscal policy coordination”.

    Appropriate institutional and operational arrangements will depend on country-specific circumstances, e.g., level of development and depth of the financial sector, as noted by both Reddy and Zhou.

    When the financial sector is shallow and countries need dynamic structural transformation, setting up independent fiscal and monetary authorities is likely to hinder, not improve stability and sustainable development.

    Understanding each other’s objectives and operational procedures is crucial for setting up effective coordination mechanisms – at both policy formulation and implementation levels. Such an approach should better achieve the coordination and complementarity needed to mutually reinforce fiscal and monetary policies.

    Coherent macroeconomic policies must support needed structural transformation. Without effective coordination between macroeconomic policies and sectoral strategies, MF may worsen payments imbalances and inflation. Macro-prudential regulations should also avoid adverse MF impacts on exchange rates and capital flows.

    Poorly accountable governments often take advantage of real, exaggerated and imagined crises to pursue macroeconomic policies for regime survival, and to benefit cronies and financial supporters.

    Undoubtedly, much better governance, transparency and accountability are needed to minimize both immediate and longer-term harm due to ‘leakages’ and abuses associated with increased government borrowing and spending.

    Citizens and their political representatives must develop more effective means for ‘disciplining’ policy making and implementation. This is needed to ensure public support to create fiscal space for responsible counter-cyclical and development spending.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Farm-Kids-Turned-Scientists Give Back on the Climate-Crisis Front Line

    Farm-Kids-Turned-Scientists Give Back on the Climate-Crisis Front Line

    [ad_1]

    Dr Alice Karanja is a post-doctoral research fellow at the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) in Nairobi, Kenya, where her research focuses on restoration of agricultural landscapes based on regenerative agriculture for biodiverse, inclusive, safe, and resilient food systems. Credit: Paul Virgo/IPS
    • by Paul Virgo (rome)
    • Inter Press Service

    ROME, Oct 31 (IPS) – Dr Alice Karanja knows from personal experience the tough choices the climate crisis is putting people before in the Global South. Choices such as whether to have a healthy diet or give your children an education. Choices such as whether to go hungry or allow your children to have any schooling at all.

    Having grown up on a small farm in Kenya, Karanja’s family made those tough calls and the huge sacrifices necessary to enable her to go all the way in education, obtaining a PhD in Sustainability Science from the University of Tokyo, Japan.

    “I grew up on the slopes of Mount Kenya to a smallholder farming family,” Karanja told IPS at the recent World Food Forum at the Rome headquarters of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

    “Both my parents are small-scale farmers. My motivation for my work is inspired by what I saw when I was growing up.

    “I observed my parents and how they were affected, and still are affected, by climate change in terms of extreme weather patterns, prolonged droughts, inconsistent rainfall patterns.

    “The income that they got from their farms sometimes was mostly used to support us with education or health, while the expectation was that we could diversify our diets at home.

    “In Africa one of the issues that is affecting us regards the limited set of crops that are grown, mostly maize, wheat and rice. So when people grow maize, they expect then to get some income to get some vegetables or fruit to include in their diets. But often, because of climate change, that money can only be channeled to other needs of the household.”

    Karanja is now using her skills to help people just like her parents.

    She is a post-doctoral research fellow at the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) in Nairobi, Kenya, where her research focuses on restoration of agricultural landscapes based on regenerative agriculture for biodiverse, inclusive, safe, and resilient food systems.

    She also plans to pilot food-tree portfolios in Zambia to help smallholder families obtain year-round access to nutritious foods, diversify their incomes, and boost their resilience to increased food prices and climate change.

    “Most of my work is at the intersection of resilience to climate change in terms of livelihoods, food security and conservation and the use of agro-biodiversity for improved diets,” Karanja said.

    “For the past two years in my work at ICRAF, I have been looking at the role of agricultural biodiversity and the interplay it has with dietary diversification, also looking at how this interplay affects nutritional status, especially for women and children”.

    Many other experts selected to take part in the Young Scientists Cohort (YSG) at the World Food Forum had similar stories.

    Ram Neupane decided to study agriculture after being born on a small family farm in Gorkha, Nepal, and seeing the economic and psychological implications of devastating plant diseases.

    Ram Neupane. Credit: Paul Virgo/IPS

    “Climate change is a tentacular threat to all aspects (of life) and plant health is affected too,” Neupane, who is pursuing a dual-title doctorate in plant pathology at Penn State University in the United States thanks to a scholarship, told IPS.

    “Novel pathogens and viruses are emerging right now because of climate change. I am from one of the more rural parts of Nepal. I was raised in a farming family, so I have first-hand experience of the impact on the farming community there. For example, in my village, the main crop is rice and most of the rice is rain fed.”

    “When there is rainfall, farmers plant their rice. Due to climate change there has been irregularities in the timing and frequency of rainfall and this is affecting planting times.

    “This, in turn, affects the whole cropping system.

    “This has led to flows of people going from more rural areas to urban areas because farming is no longer profitable”.

    Dr. Peter Asare-Nuamah, a lecturer at the University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Ghana, employs his quantitative and qualitative research skills and experience to offer solution-oriented contributions to issues of climate change, food security, adaptation and environmental management, particularly in smallholder agriculture systems in developing economies.

    “I chose this (career path) because of what I saw about climate change,” Asare-Nuamah told IPS.

    “I work within the context of climate change and smallholder agriculture systems.

    “I was born in a rural farming community where we engage in cocoa, cassava and other food crops, and you could see the impact of climate change.

    “At the time the conversation about the impact of climate change was not so high, it had to do with high political level discussions, and I thought there was a need to engage individuals in the conversation on how to address climate change.

    “People from my community are suffering. They plant (crops) and because of the absence of rainfall, the plants do not ripen. Even if they ripen, they give very low yields.

    “There are pests and disease all over the world and in Ghana we are currently suffering with fall armyworm, which has arrived because of climate change and is having devastating consequences.

    “Smallerholder farmers feed a lot of the population of the African continent but they have not been able to push themselves out of poverty and they continue to struggle.

    Dr. Peter Asare-Nuamah, lecturer at the University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Ghana. Credit: Paul Virgo/IPS
    Dr. Peter Asare-Nuamah, lecturer at the University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Ghana. Credit: Paul Virgo/IPS

    Education is an issue. Basic necessities are also an issue.

    “So all this combines to put them in a position where they are highly vulnerable.

    “Even though African economies contribute less than 3% to global carbon emissions, the impact is so high in this part of the continent.

    “This calls for the need to address climate change, how developed economies, which have contributed so much to climate change, can come together and help smallholder farmers and developing economies to mitigate some of the challenges caused by the actions and inactions of some of the developed economies.

    “So these are the issues that drove me personally to go into the climate change arena, so I can contribute to making sure that we have solutions for smallholder farmers, we have conversations, we have financing, and we are able to build the capacities of smallholder farmers”.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • A Tale of Cities

    A Tale of Cities

    [ad_1]

    Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Haoliang Xu (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Oct 31 (IPS) – For decades, urban practitioners have failed to consider the needs of women in city decision-making and planning. Imagine being a young girl in a bustling metropolis.

    Every day she hesitates to go to school, tries different routes on the public bus, walks miles in the hot sun, to avoid the sexual harassment that has become a daily occurrence in public spaces.

    Or if you are a restaurant worker or coffee shop server you worry after a late-night shift about the dark alleys and the steps down to the subway station not knowing if you will face an attacker tonight.

    Or delay repeatedly going to the free Covid-19 vaccine clinic because it is far away from home, because of long lines, but most importantly because there are no public toilets there. For women and girls across the world, that is often their reality.

    Barriers and vulnerabilities have worsened due to the global drivers of change such as climate change, rapid urbanisation, and conflict.

    Approximately 4.5 billion people, or 55% of the world population, live in urban areas, and 50% of the world’s population is made up of women and girls.

    The design and layout of cities and infrastructure have a significant impact on women’s life experiences and opportunities they can access.

    In a world filled with multiple challenges it is easy to push this issue aside and say this is a problem only of a handful of cities, it doesn’t impact me. But data says otherwise. For instance, in New York City, women spend an average $26 to $50 extra on transport per month for safety reasons.

    A study of 28 global cities found that women were 10% more likely than men to feel unsafe in metros, and 6% more likely to feel unsafe on buses. In Ireland, 55% of women feel unsafe in public transport after dark and in the UK, 97% of young women have reported sexual harassment in public spaces.

    In Jordan, 47% of women surveyed had turned down a job opportunity citing affordability and availability of public transport, and public sexual harassment as key reasons. And evidence shows that during the pandemic, urban spaces became even more hostile for women and girls.

    However, this is not inevitable; cities can become a welcoming, safe and equal playing field for all. That is why the new report Cities Alive: Designing Cities that Work for Women’ released last week is such a timely intervention.

    Co-authored by UNDP, along with our partners Arup and the University of Liverpool it outlines a strong blueprint on how to remove the gender bias built into cities and improve women’s safety, their health, education and employment.

    Drawing on the voices and experiences of women globally, as well as prevalent data and research, the new report focuses on four critical themes:

    Safety and security
    Creating safer streets, providing safer mobility, and incorporating violence prevention laws and raising awareness.
    Justice and equity
    Ensuring gender-responsive planning in national laws, supporting the collection of gender disaggregated data, supporting women participating in urban governance at all levels.
    Health and wellbeing
    Creating inclusive public and green areas, enhancing access to water, hygiene and sanitation facilities, increasing access to physical and mental healthcare and nutrition facilities and providing adequate accommodation and housing models.
    Enrichment and fulfilment
    Providing accessible and inclusive workplaces and schools, providing safe and inclusive leisure and cultural spaces, designing for diverse and flexible use of public spaces and using the built environment to uplift women and recognize their history.

    Focused on solutions, the report outlines to decision makers and urban practitioners the tools they need to move beyond dialogue to actively involving women at every stage of city design and planning – from inception to delivery.

    Importantly, the report shows how increasing the participation of women in urban governance at all levels is a prerequisite for better functioning cities, with case studies of what is working from Bogota to Nairobi to San Francisco.

    We know that achieving gender equity is pivotal to all the Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by world leaders in 2015. With a rapidly approaching deadline of 2030 for the Global Goals, ensuring our cities work for women and girls is a giant step forward in that direction.

    Haoliang Xu is UN Assistant-Secretary-General and Director of UNDP’s Bureau for Policy and Programme Support

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • A New Digitalisation Effort in Bangladesh Could Change Community Health Globally

    A New Digitalisation Effort in Bangladesh Could Change Community Health Globally

    [ad_1]

    Data Entry by Specially Trained Community Health Worker in Bangladesh. Credit: Abdullah Al Kafi
    • Opinion by Morseda Chowdhury (dhaka, bangladesh)
    • Inter Press Service

    DHAKA, Bangladesh, Oct 31 (IPS) – The digital transformation of thousands of community health workers in Bangladesh has dramatically enhanced their work, while enabling the creation and tracking of a healthcare database covering 64 million people. The resulting model holds remarkable promise for the health of the world, especially in the context of evolving pandemics.

    Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, BRAC digitalised the work of our 4,100 shasthya kormi, specially trained community health workers, in Bangladesh. Shasthya kormi are women experienced in health education, antenatal and postnatal checkups, non-communicable disease prevention, reproductive health and nutrition. The digital transformation of their work created benefits on a remarkable number of levels, underscored the vast potential for further scaling, and yielded insights directly relevant to increasing the quality of healthcare globally.

    Each shasthya kormi was given an Android tablet and trained in its use. That enabled immediate time saving in myriad ways: faster and more accurate record-keeping; reports conveyed online rather than in person; training conducted online and at convenient times rather than only at designated times in person; and related administrative travel and costs avoided. The time saved can exceed a full day every two weeks. The digital devices also enabled us to save approximately USD3.8 million per year in monitoring costs.

    But that is just the beginning of the benefits. The digital tablets enhance the prestige of shasthya kormi, as they now have access to vital information at their fingertips. They can screen for diseases and conditions, confirm diagnoses, have complete confidence in describing required treatment and management, and arrange video chats with doctors and specialists. Their decision-making is quicker and more accurate, improving their quality of care and giving them more time to spend with patients.

    Electronic reporting enabled the creation of a database that we expect will grow to cover 76 million people. That database can now be tracked and analysed for trends – in the incidence of disease or other conditions, in the delivery of services, and in outcomes. Those trends can be analysed and addressed in real time – locally and nationally, as BRAC’s shasthya kormi cover 61 of Bangladesh’s 64 districts.

    For COVID-19, for instance, reports of symptoms and test results can be tracked, as can vaccinations and outcomes. Recognizing the incidence of positive test results in Bangladesh’s border regions is especially valuable to understanding how trends evolve across regions.

    For tuberculosis, 1.4 million samples have been collected and tracked. Similarly, non-communicable diseases like hypertension and diabetes, for both of which the incidences are rising in Bangladesh, can be tracked and addressed. If anyone has high blood pressure, a shasthya kormi can precisely record it. A blood glucose test administered by a shasthya kormi can detect abnormal blood sugar levels indicating possible diabetes. The database can track the percentage of pregnant women who are at high risk.

    The overall database – with its 150 data points so far – also enables cross-tabulation of facility-specific and community-specific data. It makes it possible to merge BRAC’s trend analyses with data from government and other institutions. It responds to internal migration, with each individual’s medical records linked to their government-issued national identification card – so each person’s health record moves with them.

    When these benefits are combined with the cost-effective nature of this digital approach, the potential for scaling increases dramatically. Each digital tablet costs about $100, so 4,100 shasthya kormi can be equipped for less than half a million dollars. In addition, they save money through the efficiencies described above. Patients also save – out-of-pocket expenditure makes up 63% of medical expenses in Bangladesh, and tests conducted by shasthya kormi often cost one tenth what they would in a private clinic. This in turn also takes pressure off health facilities.

    The initiative has enormous potential to scale further – within Bangladesh and around the world. Shasthya kormi can be recruited locally and trained in a matter of weeks. They can be equipped digitally without great expense. The quality of their work can be monitored digitally, and everyone benefits from the enhanced access to health care that results.

    Key to scaling are several insights that emerged as we orchestrated this digital transformation.

    First, it was critical to track data input closely from the start, to identify anyone struggling with the transformation. One of the first clues was a lot of data being entered after 5:00 pm. It was not because people did not know how to enter it, but because they were nervous about using the devices in public, and did not want to make errors in front of the people who trust them.

    Once we saw this in the data and figured out the reason behind it, we could easily work with each person to overcome it. Early on, we created a team of 40 technical officers who provided additional training and support for anyone struggling. The help was provided in some cases over the phone, but otherwise in person. Initially most people needed it, but now only about 10% of people need assistance.

    Second, the digital tablets enabled constant, on-demand professional development. Needs, equipment and trends change regularly in the health sector, and these changes can occur rapidly. Shasthya kormi could assess their skills at any time convenient to them using tests available on the tablet, and the module would identify weaknesses and suggest further training to address it. Managers could also track their supervisee’s progress. This enhanced the expertise of the network broadly.

    Third, we observed a tendency to skip entering critical but more difficult to obtain inputs, like National Identity numbers and birth registration numbers. Fortunately, we can often fill gaps by cross-tabulating with our mobile-based cash transfer system. We also noticed that counselling information was not recorded as seriously as service data. Iterative training has gradually solved these challenges.

    Fourth, the digital transformation addressed a decades-old challenge – prestige. Shasthya kormi are often taken for granted, and they are sometimes welcomed, sometimes not. In order to establish the rapport they need to do their work, however, which is often of a sensitive nature, particularly in conservative communities, it is crucial that they are accepted into every household. Digitalisation has elevated the level of respect they receive in the community, particularly among men.

    The success of this digital transformation, if scaled, could change community health globally. The result would be superior primary health care service delivery, operational efficiency and establishment of an infrastructure for real time health trend analysis, in a time when we have never struggled more with quality and accessibility of health care around the world.

    Morseda Chowdhury is Director of the Health, Nutrition, and Population Programme at BRAC in Bangladesh.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • What Does it take to Build a Culture of Equality & Inclusion at the UN? Reflections from Inside a Change Process

    What Does it take to Build a Culture of Equality & Inclusion at the UN? Reflections from Inside a Change Process

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Mumtaz Mia, Juliane Drews (geneva)
    • Inter Press Service

    GENEVA, Oct 28 (IPS) – The organisational is personal. Every day since the two of us were asked back in 2020 to co-lead the process of culture transformation at UNAIDS, the United Nations organisation which drives global efforts to end AIDS, we have both felt at our very core how crucial it has been to get it right.

    The mission of UNAIDS is vital to ensuring the health and human rights of every person. Staff and partners need to be confident of a supportive and empowering culture that will enable their work.

    A 2018 Report by an Independent Expert Panel had shone a light on what were important organisational shortcomings, leading to a comprehensive set of changes in leadership, systems and crucially, culture.

    As the Culture Transformation process has got underway, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented shifts in work, and a resurgence of global protests, including from the Black Lives Matter movement and for women’s rights, have a generated an inspirational momentum for action to tackle intersectional injustice.

    Reflecting almost three years of UNAIDS culture transformation work, what stands out in particular for the two of us is how the “outer work” has required so much “inner work”. We have needed to be, and to help others be, our full selves, and to acknowledge what we don’t yet know of each other’s experiences.

    The process has deepened our appreciation of how our differences, both personally and professionally, are a key strength, enabling each situation, each process, to be seen from a combination of unique angles, and how equality is crucial in enabling all these to be brought forth.

    Creating safe spaces for our colleagues to speak about their lived experiences was transformative. We asked ourselves and those around us tough and tender questions. We had colleagues tell us they felt heard for the first time. Brave conversations helped colleagues to connect and to advance the tangible changes that matter most to them.

    We understood the need for a common reference framework for all of us at UNAIDS. This has led to a first set of feminist principles that guide our way forward.

    Through the process, it became ever more clear to both of us that culture transformation begins at the personal level. As a Malawian woman of African-Asian heritage, living and working in Latin America at this time, intersecting identities and multiple cultural heritage became for Mumtaz the centre of personal reflections.

    In leading conversations on decolonizing the HIV Response, Mumtaz’s own colonization was calling for attention. For Juliane, too, this has been powerful journey: as someone who has experienced sexual assault in the workplace, this work is deeply personal, driven by a determination to build safe workplaces for everyone, including by addressing inequalities and unhealthy power balances. Our intersectional feminist approach has brought our experiences to our work.

    But this work has also highlighted that whilst the organisational is personal, so too the personal is often dependent on the organisational. Engaging with intersectional feminist principles at the personal level was not enough.

    That is why we were proud to help UNAIDS become the UN entity to put intersectional feminist principles at the core of its being. It is why vital work continues to integrate those principles into policies and practices to advance a workplace culture in which every individual can flourish.

    As we have helped build a movement for change across six regions, engaged in conversation with more than 500 colleagues, and supported some 25 diverse teams in their own journey, we have recognised the centrality of the institutional level.

    Cultural transformation is a long and challenging process that requires the tenacity and creativity of many. To weave the stories and aspirations of so many of the champions for change together while preserving their uniqueness, we have borrowed the quilt symbol that is iconic in the AIDS response.

    As the change process evolves, new tiles will be added, others might fade or need repairing. But the work is not done. It is a ‘quilt in the making’ – individual and collective work, one tile at a time.

    Mumtaz Mia and Juliane Drews have led UNAIDS Culture Transformation since May 2020.

    Mumtaz is a Public Health expert with two decades of experience working to end AIDS. Juliane is a change management expert with 15 years of experience in developing inclusive and just organizations in which staff in all their diversity thrive.

    The link to UNAIDS Culture Transformation here.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • ‘We have a deal’: EU bans new gas-fueled cars starting in 2035

    ‘We have a deal’: EU bans new gas-fueled cars starting in 2035

    [ad_1]

    The European Union reached a deal Thursday to effectively ban new gas-powered cars beginning in 2035.

    It’s a move seen as a key part of a broader plan to reduce carbon emissions across economic sectors — and a major policy achievement to carry into high-profile United Nations climate-change talks in Egypt early next month.

    Speculation about a deal, which had been heavily debated, was reported earlier this week and confirmed Thursday via a tweet from the spokesperson for the rotating presidency of the bloc, currently held by the Czech Republic.

    Broadly, the agreement is part of a plan that requires a 55% cut in emissions across transportation, buildings, power generation and other sources this decade. That halfway mark is seen as a major milestone as the EU aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

    The announcement comes as the U.N. climate arm has released a series of updated reports this week. One chastised the “highly inadequate” steps to date by rich nations to cut emissions of Earth-warming greenhouse gases, such as those from burning fossil fuels. The window to act is closing but is not quite shut yet, according to the Emissions Gap report from the U.N. Environment Programme. “Global and national climate commitments are falling pitifully short,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Thursday. “We are headed for a global catastrophe.”

    The EU is the world’s largest trade bloc, and its moves could push other major economies to also set firm cutoff dates for gasoline
    RB00,
    -0.52%
    and diesel engines. Volkswagen AG
    VOW,
    +0.88%
    and Daimler Truck Holding AG
    DTG,
    +2.67%
    are already moving deeper into electric vehicles. Volkswagen this week said it would stop selling internal-combustion-engine cars in Europe between 2033 and 2035.

    Other major economies, including the U.S., have set similar goals, but the U.S. has not set any federal-level restrictions on vehicle manufacturing. Some individual automakers, including General Motors
    GM,
    +0.79%    ,
    have set their own timelines. And California approved plans in August to mandate a gradual phasing out of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, with only zero-emission cars and a small portion of plug-in gas/electric hybrids to be allowed by 2035.

    As the world’s fifth-largest economy, California can create ripple effects with its moves. At least 15 other states have signed on to California’s existing zero-emission vehicle program or have shown interest in and are working toward codifying the change. Among them, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Vermont are expected to adopt California’s ban on new gasoline-fueled vehicles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Will The Lettuce Outlast All This?

    Will The Lettuce Outlast All This?

    [ad_1]

    One third of all plastic waste ends up in soils or freshwater. Most of this plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, and these break down further into nanoparticles. Credit: UN Environment
    • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
    • Inter Press Service

    MADRID, Oct 27 (IPS) – No. No lettuce, no matter how British it may be, could outlast such a steady depletion of the very foundation of life.

    Now, new facts about such depletion come to add to the already reported ones regarding the unstopped, man-made dangers threatening the present and future of indispensable natural resources.

    These are some of the biggest reasons explaining how the web of life is unrelentlessly agonising:

    1.- Poison

    A recent scientific study by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reveals the following:

    – The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world’s oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals – including humans – who are based on land.

    — Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to decompose, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.

    – Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution – estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.

    – Fragments of plastic are present practically all over the world and can trigger many kinds of adverse effects.

    – One third of all plastic waste ends up in soils or freshwater. Most of this plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, and these break down further into nanoparticles (less than 0.1 micrometre in size). The problem is that these particles are entering the food chain.

    2. Sewage is an important factor in the distribution of microplastics. In fact, between 80% and 90% of the plastic particles contained in sewage, such as from garment fibres, persist in the sludge, says the study.

    – Sewage sludge is often applied to fields as fertiliser, meaning that several thousand tons of microplastics end up in our soils each year. Microplastics can even be found in tap water.

    – Moreover, the surfaces of tiny fragments of plastic may carry disease-causing organisms and act as a vector for diseases in the environment.

    — Microplastics can also interact with soil fauna, affecting their health and soil functions. “Earthworms, for example, make their burrows differently when microplastics are present in the soil, affecting the earthworm’s fitness and the soil condition,” says an article in Science Daily about the research.

    3.- Toxic

    In 2020, the first-ever field study to explore how the presence of microplastics can affect soil fauna was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The paper notes that terrestrial microplastic pollution has led to the decrease of species that live below the surface, such as mites, larvae and other tiny creatures that maintain the fertility of the land.

    – Chlorinated plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can then seep into groundwater or other surrounding water sources, and also the ecosystem. This can cause a range of potentially harmful effects on the species that drink the water.

    – When plastic particles break down, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk that they will have a toxic effect on organisms. And the larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.

    – Chemical effects are especially problematic at the decomposition stage. Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol leach out of plastic particles. These additives are known for their hormonal effects and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike.

    – In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta. Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene expression and biochemical reactions, among other things.

    4.- Pests

    Should all this not be enough, please be reminded that:

    – Up to 40% of food crops are lost due to plant pests and diseases every single year, according to the world’s top food and agriculture organisation.

    This is affecting both food security and agriculture, the main source of income for vulnerable rural communities, FAO warned on the occasion of the International Day of Plant Health on 12 May 2022.

    – Two main factors, among several others, appear behind the increasing expansion of plant pests and diseases. One is that climate change and human activities are altering ecosystems and damaging biodiversity while creating new niches for pests to thrive.

    – The other one is that international travel and trade, which has tripled in volume in the last decade, is also spreading pests and diseases.

    – Such pests and diseases cause massive crop losses and leave millions without enough food.

    – Desert locust, fall armyworm, fruit flies, banana disease TR4, cassava diseases and wheat rusts are among the most destructive transboundary plant pests and diseases.

    5.- The Market lords

    All the above shocking facts should pose several tough questions.

    For instance: if food production –and food health– are so endangered, why discard as much as 20% of all of it just because they are not “nice” enough for selling them in the supermarket?

    Why are all these special deals offering two or even three products while paying the price of just one? Aren’t such marketing techniques the major cause why up to one third of all food is lost and wasted?

    By the way: all grown-in-soil food should by nature be taken as biological and ecological. In addition to sunshine, all food needs soil, water, and air to grow, right?

    But being the soil, the water, and the air so highly contaminated, why sell them at double price just because the market lords brand them as biological and ecological?

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • War, Greed and Mass Manipulation

    War, Greed and Mass Manipulation

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
    • Inter Press Service

    STOCKHOLM, Oct 26 (IPS) – In his treatise On War, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) stated that war is “merely a continuation of policy with other means”. With his experience from the Napoleonic Wars von Clausewitz knew that totalitarian regimes could end up conducting huge and ruthless military campaigns. Furthermore, he assumed that to win a war it is necessary to mobilize and indoctrinate the inhabitants of an entire nation. Such an endeavour is called total war, a term that actually can be applied to Putin’s war in Ukraine.

    Putin came to power during the turbulent times following the collapse of the Soviet Empire. His image as a forceful personality convinced many that Putin could make Russia “safe for democracy and business”. In June 2000, Bill Clinton proclaimed that Putin was “fully capable of building a prosperous, strong Russia, while preserving freedom and pluralism and the rule of law.”

    Soon business flourished, satisfying foreign investors eager to enjoy Russia’s vast deposits of natural riches. At the same time, fear of terrorism was boosted by explosions in heavily populated residential areas. Putin’s answer to these assumed terrorist threats was in accordance with von Clausewitz´s advice to use “force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed.” The pursuing escalation of the war in Chechnya, pinpointed as the origin of terrorism in Russia, made Putin a nationalist hero, while his characteristics as teetotaler, capable administrator, quick learner and talented actor made him assume the role of a Hollywood-inspired saviour/hero. He single-highhandedly flew planes and rode bare-chested through the wilderness surrounding Siberian rivers. Media lionised him as a rough and strong judo/black-belt champion capable of leading an entire, long suffering nation onto a straight path to prosperity.

    Some worrisome signs were nevertheless written on the wall. In 2004, Putin declared the collapse of the Soviet Union as” the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.” Meanwhile, his acolytes were amassing the spoils from the collapsed Soviet Empire. Putin supported and protected those oligarchs who backed him, while bankrolling his inner circle.

    In Munich 2007, Putin bared his teeth and claws in a speech given at an international Security Conference. He declared that the US was a predatory nation prone to apply an ”almost unconstrained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations plunging the world into an abyss of conflicts.” This revelation was in 2008 followed by Russia´s military assault on neighbouring Georgia.

    General elections were rigged, while some political opponents ended up dead, like Boris Nemtsov, who in 2015 was killed on a bridge close to the Kremlin. Alex Navalny, Putin’s most prominent and fearless opponent, was arrested and imprisoned for thirteen years. Out of jail, he was in 2020 poisoned on a flight to Siberia. Close to dying, he was brought to Germany for expert treatment. After recovering, Navalny went back to Russia, where he was immediately put on trial and imprisoned.

    Non-compliant oligarchs were and are routinely harassed. First to be rounded up were those who controlled independent media, like Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky. Both fled the country. In 2013, Berezovsky died ”in suspicious circumstances”. Another oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had funded independent media, was already in October 2003 arrested on board his private jet and imprisoned for ten years.

    Putin can now unopposed claim that the belligerent attack on Ukraine was necessary for protecting the Motherland. Subdued Russian media affirm that ruthless Ukrainian leaders have transformed their nation into a pawn in the cynical game of a Superpower intending to subjugate, or even annihilate, the Russian Federation.

    It appears as if Putin is not only dedicated to make “Russia great again”. Another goal of his seems to be to enrich himself and his cronies. As a means to cover up his greed, Putin poses as upholder of “strict” morals, based on “pro-life” and traditional “family” values, as well as heroic patriotism and religious fundamentalism. Twenty years after coming to power Putin could declare: “The liberal idea has become obsolete. Liberals cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over recent decades.”

    In spite of the Ukrainian war and his disrespect for human rights, Putin remains an icon for right-wing nationalists. A symbol of defiance to Western Liberal Establishment’s alleged encouragement of mass immigration and affinity to ”multiculturalism”, conceived as attempts to undermine morals and national identities.

    As a counterweight to such assumed measures, backward looking politicians around the world pay homage to nostalgic notions, like a lost Great Chinese Tradition, a Russian Empire, Hindu pride before the arrival of Islam, a Global Britain, the Ottoman Empire, etc. This trend is occasionally joined with a global system where ruling elites consider themselves to be unrestrained by international norms, traditional modes of state governance, and democratic decision processes. Some world leaders try to pull the wool over the eyes of their followers by packaging their intents within populist opinions, like despise for political correctness, globalism, investigative journalism, LBTQ rights, feminism and environmental NGOs. A dangerous trend that, if unchecked, might as in the case of Putin´s Russia lead to socioeconomic conflicts degenerating into total war.

    In the US, a strengthened adherence to illiberalism was fostered by Donald Trump. Under his watch US politics began to shift from rule-based order to one where might and wealth make right, a message boosted by media like Fox – and Breitbart News. Trump behaved like a wannabe despot, trying to apply authoritarian tactics at home, while paying homage to thugs and dictators abroad. Before him, US presidents had pledged their adherence to human rights, democracy, and freedom of speech. Nevertheless, their governments occasionally supported despots and dictators, not linking concerns for human rights to security, economy and financial affairs. A Realpolitik, which to “friendly” despots indicated that the US did not care so much about repression and corruption within the fiefdoms of their friends. Such behaviour was based on strategic reasons, while Donald Trump appeared to embrace authoritarians because he actually admired them – Dutete, Xi Jinping, Orbán, Erdo?an, Kim Jung-un, and not the least, Putin.

    The former US president´s homage to ideas similar to those of Putin and his pose as a nationalistic superman might be connected with his obvious narcissism and appeal to nationalistic extremists. However, his senseless bragging is also combined with greed. A wealth of investigating reporting has demonstrated links between organized crime and corrupt rulers/oligarchs with the Trump Organization’s overseas business connections.

    Money is also part of Russian foreign relations. Populist, chauvinistic parties like Italian Lega Nord (currently known as the Lega) and the French Front National (currently Rassemblement National) have received intellectual and economic support from Russia. This support to European political parties may be considered as a Russian effort to secure support for Putin’s policies abroad, as well as locally.

    Germany’s former chancellor, Angela Merkel, a fluent Russian speaker far from being a friend of Putin, dismissed him as a leader using nineteenth-century means to solve twenty-first century problems. For sure, Putin’s attack on Ukraine mirrors age-old use of devastating warfare as a radical solution to complicated sociopolitical problems. It seems to be a stalwart application of the two-hundred-years-old advice provided by von Clausewitz:

      Philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed, must obtain a superiority if his adversary does not act likewise. By such means the former dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side.

    Putin´s Ukrainian war neglects human suffering and has now disintegrated into a bloody power struggle, where Russia “to the utmost extent” makes use of its military strength, while being supported by “the co-operation” of a propaganda striving to engage the entire Russian population in the war effort.

    The Ukrainian war not only concerns the protection of Mother Russia from a “predatory West”, its ultimate goal is to control a hitherto sovereign nation’s politics and natural resources. Putin’s declared support to an allegedly discriminated Russian minority in Luhansk and Donetsk seems to be a subterfuge for grabbing an essential part of Ukraine’s economic resources.

    During early 2000s, privatization of state industries yielded a so called Donbas Clan control of the economic and political power in the Donbas region. These oligarchs were supported by Kremlin and a rampant corruption soon took hold of an area dominated by heavy industry, such as coal mining (60 billion tonnes of coal are waiting to be extracted) and metallurgy.

    Before Russia in 2014 backed separatist forces in a ferocious civil war, this particular area produced about 30 percent of Ukraine’s exports and a huge amount of gas reserves in the Dnieper-Donets basin was beginning to be extracted. In those days, the most prominent oligarchs in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions were Putin proteges – Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Yanukovych, the latter had become Ukraine’s President, though his attachment to Russia and conspicuous corruption led to his fall through the Maidan Uprising in 2013, starting point for Ukraine’s transformation into a prosperous nation.

    The Maidan Revolution caused a wave of insecurity sweeping through the former Soviet Empire, shaking up corrupt “counterfeit” democracies/dictatorships like Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Small wonder that the authoritarian leaders of these nations are stout supporters of Putin’s war in Ukraine.

    While reading von Clausewitz’s On War it is quite easy to relate it to Putin’s politics that undeniably have resulted in war as a “continuation of policy with other means.” It is not the first time in history that authoritarian regimes have plunged entire nations into a blood-drained pit of war. All of us have to be be aware that support of authoritarian regimes might lead us all down into Hell.

    Main Sources: Klaas, Brian (2018) The Despot´s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the Decline of Democracy. London. Hurst & Company. von Clausewitz, Carl (1982) On War. London: Penguin Classics.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link